Jump to content

Nintendo Wii U


Cecilff2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Uncharted is not a fun game.

Fun movie.

Not a fun game.

Oh and I was referring to the Nintendo Franchises.

Console is innovative for about two minutes. Then you just look like an idiot playing it.

I look awesome. You look like an idiot playing it, but I guess that's not really the fault of the console itself, because you always look like an idiot in your face whenever you do anything ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when people said that poking around on the bottom screen of a DS would make you look like an idiot? Or how much of an idiot you would be for waggling a Wiimote around? Or for jumping around in front of your Kinect-enabled 360? Or jumping around and waggling on a PS3 Move? Now people are saying that stroking the back of a Vita is going to make you look stupid.

Brushfire, come on, you know you can do better than that. Remember that talk we had about not limiting yourself with lame excuses for trolling? Remember? huh? Do ya, champ?

Yeah, that's better. You go give it another try. If you do it right, we'll go for ice cream after! Deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you guys so concerned with how you look when you play video games? Who the fuck cares?

I think I've come to the conclusion that as long as Nintendo's systems carry their own AAA titles, I don't really care too much for third party support and I'll buy their system. I don't care about 90% of the fps "AAA" bro-ware titles that comes out on other systems either. Hell, I bought a PS3 only to buy their download games like Flower, Fat Princess, and PixelJunk games. I've tried a lot of the $60 ultra-budget games as well like Castlevania:LoD, God of War, and even Little Big Planet, and they all just bored me to death. I can see how technically they're good games, but they got boring real quick. It's not to say that I think all third party games are boring, but the recent "Epic Blockbuster Realistic" games have been boring to me. I think the only one that didn't get too boring was MGS4, and even then the cut-scenes got tiring after awhile.

tl:dr: I think my opinion is that if they get good third party support on the Wii-U, then that's fine but it probably won't affect my purchase decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That plus the tactical command elements of squad-based FPSs makes the potential of the Wii U interesting. And that's just the obvious ideas. Who know what some crazy motherfucker will come up with down the road.

But that name... If the U stands for something, then it's kind of cool. But just U is soooo boring and dull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In new Wii U news, IGN is reporting that some developers are indicating the Wii U is 50% more powerful than the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1176149p1.html

This is unconfirmed by Nintendo, and Reggie will probably never come out and say it anyway since Nintendo's big thing is gameplay over specs.

In all likelihood, this is probably true. My rationale is that if Nintendo's going to be the first to put out a new console while Sony and Microsoft continue to support their existing platforms, it needs to be capable of doing what their systems do (finally), but it also has to surpass them in strength to prepare for the Xbox 720 and PS4 whenever those consoles launch, probably 2013-2015.

This does lead to an interesting problem that has plagued Nintendo since waaay back on the NES. Nintendo's games are traditionally better than the third party stuff on their platforms. The Wii added a new twist. Not only were Nintendo's first party games largely superior in gameplay, but they were infinitely better in terms of graphics for some inexplicable reason. Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Metroid Prime 3, and Zelda: Skyward Sword (from what we've seen) are the major examples of 1st party games that look like they are just a few steps shy of HD quality. The same can't be said of most of the other games on the platform. For the Wii U, what happens to third party games when we see something coming out for the system from them that looks like the best the PS3 or 360 can offer, but then Nintendo releases Super Mario Universe and Zelda HD and completely blows that out of the water? People aren't going to buy the 3rd party games over the 1st party games.

Nintendo's biggest advantage over Sony and Microsoft is the incredible quality of its core 1st party titles. It's also been Nintendo's biggest drawback in terms of selling 3rd party games on its systems. If the Wii U is indeed as powerful as some of these developers are reportedly suggesting, Nintendo could easily widen the gap in terms of sales numbers between stuff it develops internally or Retro Studios makes and third party developers, which could definitely hurt the third parties and their long-term support for the system going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm by no means an expert, but I think that the reason Nintendo's first party games look a lot better than third party games is that, aside from the obvious familiarity with the hardware, most of the games you listed go for a very stylized, smooth look, as opposed to the attempted gritty realism from games like The Conduit. They basically play to the strengths of the system, as opposed to trying to make it compete with the PS360.

I also think that if the Wii U really is 50% more powerful than the PS360, it should be able to compete with the next gen to some degree. Sony and Microsoft seem to be shifting the focus to peripherals rather than straight-up hardware improvements, and I think we are seeing increasingly diminished returns in terms of investment in better hardware vs. visible improvement in graphics, so it's possible that the next generation won't be as much of a technological leap as PS2-> PS3 or Xbox->360 was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are seeing increasingly diminished returns in terms of investment in better hardware vs. visible improvement in graphics

Agreed. The progress in graphics since the first generation of consoles has peaked, and is pretty much plateaued. I highly doubt that there is anything that can be done to make games look any better than they do now.

At best, we might see a resolution increase (say, up to 2K or even WQXGA, but that would require TV manufacturers to also make new systems, as well as a new video storage format, possibly), but the overall fidelity will not increase enough to notice.

This would help explain a lot of games that instead went for highly stylized art, instead of highly detailed realism. Now we have the technology to do real-time visual effects effectively, so things like making a game look exactly like traditional anime-style cel-shading is easier. It also helps to standout against the rest of the games out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it's true that we've pretty much reached the level where in-engine cinematics trump most pre-rendered stuff, there still is some room for improvement, especially in terms of shading, foliage, etc.

I think certain parts in The Witcher 2 are a good example of what we might expect from the next console generation graphicswise.

So it's not so much the fact that games have reached their pinnacle in terms of graphics (because people have been claiming this for years), but more the fact that throwing money at faster processors, better GPUs, etc. just doesn't improve the graphics enough to warrant it.

I mean, if the Wii U really has 50% more power than a PS3, the gains from that will probably be minimal; it will run games more consistently at 1080p, it might have smoother anti-aliasing, room for better textures, but it won't be nearly as much of a leap in visuals as the difference between a gamecube and an n64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about the Wii that I was originally excited for yet never came to fruition was connectivity with DS. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed like the extent of that was later when we could download DS demos using the Nintendo Channel; this is compared to the hopes of games using the DS as a controller (anyone who enjoyed Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles or Legend of Zelda: Four Swords certainly hoped for the same) or some innovative way, having more interplay between certain DS and Wii games, etc. Here's hoping that there will be some unique aspect between the Wii-U and the DS/DSi/3DS. I also have to say how nice it'd be to transfer our Wii-bought VC games (I'm assuming these can transfer to Wii-U) to DSi/3DS to play on the handheld (I'm sure someone will respond "just use an emulator" but that's not what I want).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The progress in graphics since the first generation of consoles has peaked, and is pretty much plateaued. I highly doubt that there is anything that can be done to make games look any better than they do now.

I don't think games have reached the limit yet:

Of course this is on PC (which means it will take around 4 more years for consoles to catch up) in the far future because it took three GTX 580's to handle this (totalling over $1k in graphics cards) but I don't think it's reasonable to say graphics aren't gonna get any better than just a refined version of PS360 graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, then?

It may get more realistic, but will anyone care at that point?

You can cram all the real-time whatevers and get perfect photo-realism graphics, but will that matter?

Take FPSs for example. On PCs, people will spend hundreds of dollars on each component to get that extra bit of power. So they have a system that can handle full detail, shading, anti-aliasing and all that stuff at max, at a rock-solid 60 frames per second.

Then they drop the settings until they can get 100 frames a second or more. All of that realism is comprised for better overall performance. They fact that each blade of grass is an individual 3D model doesn't mean anything when you're running past it during a gun fight.

Games that require you to never stay still so you don't die shouldn't be investing so heavily in details that none of their players will ever have the time to look at. Nerf Now! had a good strip on this.

Take into account that the human brain only perceives a fraction of what the eyes take in, and it makes even less sense. I can't believe that companies haven't looked into how the brain works to see if there was any way to use it to their advantage. Surely,they would have looked at the studies and realized that there is a limit to how much they can cram in there before it doesn't register with the player.

Games where you can take the time to look around, his might be a nice detail. Certain RPGs where you can take the time to explore and examine, they might benefit from it more. But action games, the ones that drive the desire for better and better graphics, are the ones that end up wasting them the most.

So why are they the ones that constantly strive for more and more graphics power when most of it is ignored in favor of better framerates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see the anti-aliased cell-shading on Kirby from a system 150% as powerful as an Xbox. I bet it's the most vivid solid pink I'll ever see.

lololololol

anyway games will never be realistic, they don't simulate the human eye enough and everything is scaled down so it fits into a TV. real life is much bigger.

Edited by erineclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting news:

The Wii U is using Radeon HD 4xxx series (R770) based custom GPU, which in comparison, the 360 is using an HD X100 (R520) based custom chip and the PS3 is similar to nVidia GeForce 7800 (G70).

The chip is capable of streaming up to four SD video streams. Tablet = SD res.. hmm.

So the whole "only 1 Wii U tablet" is not a hardware limitation.

Also, Shigeru himself has been quoted to say they have not ruled out the possibility, they are just not focusing on that at this point in time.

The only thing I think holding them back is the fact that you probably couldn't do HD 1080p and have more than 1 tablet going. But knock down the main TV to SD, 3 tablets, or no TV, 4 tablets. In theory at least

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting news:

The Wii U is using Radeon HD 4xxx series (R770) based custom GPU, which in comparison, the 360 is using an HD X100 (R520) based custom chip and the PS3 is similar to nVidia GeForce 7800 (G70).

The chip is capable of streaming up to four SD video streams. Tablet = SD res.. hmm.

So the whole "only 1 Wii U tablet" is not a hardware limitation.

Also, Shigeru himself has been quoted to say they have not ruled out the possibility, they are just not focusing on that at this point in time.

The only thing I think holding them back is the fact that you probably couldn't do HD 1080p and have more than 1 tablet going. But knock down the main TV to SD, 3 tablets, or no TV, 4 tablets. In theory at least

the fact that the chip can stream sd video streams does not imply that the tablet is SD you are retarded

but on top of that obviously its not gonna be 1920X1280 or something like that for the tablet that would also be retarded

so double dumb for a) poor inferences and B) implied complaints for something that isn't anywhere close to a problem

Edited by The Derrit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...