Wii-U thoughts so far

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Which is unsuprising really. Things get rushed to launch and people with early devkits likely didn't have the tools or correct specs of the final console.

Think about how much graphics have improved on the current hardware between 2006 and now. It's absurd how much we were able to squeeze out of this current gen.

[Thierry Henry]

The PS2 wasn't boring if for the sole reason that it was the most superior thing anyone had seen graphically in the console industry.

Going from the N64 to the DC was a big jump in terms of a graphics capabilities. Going from the DC to the PS2, not much to write home about.

Who said other wise?

You did.

" the most superior thing anyone had seen graphically in the console industry"
are you saying you meant the above in a different way?

In what way "superior" ? Superior to what?

We saw what the DC had to offer. So when the PS2 launched and we saw those games, there was not what you would call graphically "superior" to what was already out there.

You must have bought heavily into the PS2 hype, no?

The PS2 got a lot of it early on, and empty promises of games with 10 or even 20 million polygons per second, but that never happened.
Resident Evil 4 is one of the most graphically impressive games of the generation and had to be brought down to 900k polygons per second for the PS2 version.
As far as I am concerned that fact alone is a strong indicator that the Dreamcast would have been competitive for the entire generation. Dreamcast texture mapping and shadow casting was never replicated on the newer consoles of that generation as it stands.

Again, what graphical "superiority" are you on about?

The only thing a system like the Dreamcast would have needed by 2004 was a RAM upgrade to at least 32MB. Even that would only have been needed for sandbox games if brief load times were to be avoided. The Dreamcast was the fastest system for loading from disk that generation as well, only the Gamecube can give it a run for its money. I personally think that Crazy Taxi 2, Omikron the Nomad Soul and Urban Chaos show that the Dreamcast was ready for sandbox games as well.

[Violent By Design]

[quote="Violent By Design"
Going from the N64 to the DC was a big jump in terms of a graphics capabilities. Going from the DC to the PS2, not much to write home about.
Who said other wise?

You did.

" the most superior thing anyone had seen graphically in the console industry"
are you saying you meant the above in a different way?

In what way "superior" ? Superior to what?

We saw what the DC had to offer. So when the PS2 launched and we saw those games, there was not what you would call graphically "superior" to what was already out there.

Well it certainly wasn't inferior. I mean if you're actually going to dissect what I said, then you should look up the definition of those words. Yes, the PS2 was the strongest thing graphically on the market at one point, I don't understand how that is a strange statement.


How is that the same thing as claiming that I said that the jump from Dreamcast to PS2 was greater than the jump from n64 to Dreamcast? It isn't.

To make things blunt. Was the PS2 ever the most graphically advance home console on the market? If you're going to claim no, then year by year, what was more capable (in till Xbox and GC hit the market).

You must have bought heavily into the PS2 hype, no?

I don't understand what this means. What "hype"? The PS2 was stronger than the Dreamcast, I had both consoles. I played fighters almost exclusively for about half of that generation and they ran the best on the DC, so I really don't get why you're assuming I am hired by Sony to degrade Sega.

The PS2 got a lot of it early on, and empty promises of games with 10 or even 20 million polygons per second, but that never happened.

This is relevant to PS2 being the strongest console on the market, how?

Resident Evil 4 is one of the most graphically impressive games of the generation and had to be brought down to 900k polygons per second for the PS2 version.

What does Resident Evil 4 have to do with anything? That game came out in 2005.

It really just seems like you're going on a random tangent to belittle the PS2. I never claimed the PS2 was the greatest thing graphically, I claimed that upon its release it was the strongest thing on the market. I'm not sure how a console fairs like 6 years into its life span is relevant in a Wii-U vs PS2 comparison, considering the Wii-U is only several months old.

As far as I am concerned that fact alone is a strong indicator that the Dreamcast would have been competitive for the entire generation. Dreamcast texture mapping and shadow casting was never replicated on the newer consoles of that generation as it stands.

Sure, it would be competitive visually, but I am pretty sure it would be the worst looking one amongst the four relevant consoles of that era.

Again, what graphical "superiority" are you on about?

I have no idea why you're getting so ridiculously hostile, I mean did you design the Dreamcast or something? The "superiority" I'm talking about, is that games on the PS2 look better than games on the Dreamcast. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

Could the Dreamcast have had better looking games if they stuck with it? Um...duh. Obviously they gave up on the DC very early in its life span. Would it has turned out to be the worst looking console of the big 4, probably. I don't understand what your problem is, I mean the PS2 came out after the DC, it had every right to be superior. I wouldn't cry if someone said that Xbox and Gamecube was a more powerful console than the PS2.

The only thing a system like the Dreamcast would have needed by 2004 was a RAM upgrade to at least 32MB. Even that would only have been needed for sandbox games if brief load times were to be avoided. The Dreamcast was the fastest system for loading from disk that generation as well, only the Gamecube can give it a run for its money. I personally think that Crazy Taxi 2, Omikron the Nomad Soul and Urban Chaos show that the Dreamcast was ready for sandbox games as well.

Don't see the relevance, aside from this being hyperbole it is discussing something I had no intention of discussing.


If you're going to turn this into some Konsole Kombat, then you might as well save your breath. Saying the PS2 was the strongest thing upon its release, and it having a lot more hype than the Wii-U did doesn't invite some type of hypothetical Dreamcast vs PS2 in 2005 scenario, nor do the claims I "bought into the PS2" hype (which I still have no idea what that means).

[SNKnicotine]

BOOM, that just happened!

[Thierry Henry]

BOOM, that just happened!

More like kaboom!

[Jamisonia]

I really don't think comparing ported multiplats is at all fair anyway. If the game was designed for a lesser console I don't think it will blow you out of water if its ported. I don't think Resident Evil 4 looks much better on Wii versus Gamecube. The Wii U is more powerful. I don't think the gap between the PS4 and Wii U will be that great.

The Wii U and PS4 use a new type of processor where the GPU can pick up most of the work. Games haven't been designed for consoles that make use of this type of processing. Games still heavily rely on CPU processing power. Yes the PS4's CPU will be more powerful, however; I don't think it will be used. When games are designed to put their primary load on the GPU Wii U games will start to outshine last generation games by an undeniable margin.

Also remember we have no idea on PS4 pricing yet. Sony seems to have yet again thrown unnecessary future technologies to help shore up its other divisions at the expense of PlayStation. In this case its 4K support. Also we don't even know if this thing will play games off of a physical disc.

[ZenErik]

Also we don't even know if this thing will play games off of a physical disc.

We don't? Specs list a 6x BD/8x DVD drive. OF COURSE it'll play retail games. Whether or not it'll play used games is still unknown. Sony reps have only provided cryptic responses.

[isiolia]

The Wii U and PS4 use a new type of processor where the GPU can pick up most of the work. Games haven't been designed for consoles that make use of this type of processing. Games still heavily rely on CPU processing power. Yes the PS4's CPU will be more powerful, however; I don't think it will be used. When games are designed to put their primary load on the GPU Wii U games will start to outshine last generation games by an undeniable margin.

This is already common enough in PC gaming with PhysX and now TressFX. However, I would say that the Cell processor was already effectively like that. Most of its cores were not general purpose cores - the high Folding@Home scores showed similar prowess to what GPUs do on that. Very very fast, but with a limited instruction set. Made-for-PS3 games had some neat effects they did that took advantage of it, like the mud in Motorstorm - effectively, similar to the kinds of things PC games offload to the GPU.

It's less a new thing, and more a new angle to market. AMD likes to market it on the PC side too, despite that Intel was doing the same thing before them (albeit with lower performance GPUs).
Like the PS3 saw, it's entirely a matter of whether the additional capability gets used. In theory, devs could have done the same kind of thing with multiplatform games this generation...but they generally didn't, with the PS3 often getting the inferior versions.

[Jamisonia]

Also we don't even know if this thing will play games off of a physical disc.

We don't? Specs list a 6x BD/8x DVD drive. OF COURSE it'll play retail games. Whether or not it'll play used games is still unknown. Sony reps have only provided cryptic responses.

You're assuming because it includes a BD drive means games will be sold on physical media. That only means it will play BD Movies. Sony and MS are both making their consoles more home entertainment devices than video game consoles, so its not inconceivable that a BD drive is include to continue to push Sony's format, not necessarily to play games with.

I, however; do doubt that it will be a download only console, but I have heard Sony was toying with the idea, and there was no confirmation either way. Right after their press conference that seemed to be one of the most talked about unanswered questions. Until this thing comes out we don't know for sure. Its certainly not fair to be saying the PS4 will kick the Wii U's ass when we don't even know what its final form and price point will be.

[Jamisonia]

This is already common enough in PC gaming with PhysX and now TressFX. However, I would say that the Cell processor was already effectively like that. Most of its cores were not general purpose cores - the high Folding@Home scores showed similar prowess to what GPUs do on that. Very very fast, but with a limited instruction set. Made-for-PS3 games had some neat effects they did that took advantage of it, like the mud in Motorstorm - effectively, similar to the kinds of things PC games offload to the GPU.

It's less a new thing, and more a new angle to market. AMD likes to market it on the PC side too, despite that Intel was doing the same thing before them (albeit with lower performance GPUs).
Like the PS3 saw, it's entirely a matter of whether the additional capability gets used. In theory, devs could have done the same kind of thing with multiplatform games this generation...but they generally didn't, with the PS3 often getting the inferior versions.

I have heard this is the case. Either way we don't know what Wii U games can really look like until developers start using it in this way. Of course I understand this is one of those "Saturn" style arguments. "Its better, developers just don't use its power" while in reality, potential doesn't matter.