Wii-U thoughts so far

[equalsign]

Those are specs. They don't show the excitement you're talking about. I really haven't seen the press/media excited about the graphics. I don't know where you're seeing that.

[BurningDoom]

Those are specs. They don't show the excitement you're talking about. I really haven't seen the press/media excited about the graphics. I don't know where you're seeing that.

Well, maybe not "excited" about it, no. But it is being talked about. The word I used was "enhanced ports" and pointed out PS1-to-Dreamcast ports as being as a past comparison.

[dsheinem]

Those are specs. They don't show the excitement you're talking about. I really haven't seen the press/media excited about the graphics. I don't know where you're seeing that.

Well, maybe not "excited" about it, no. But it is being talked about. The word I used was "enhanced ports" and pointed out PS1-to-Dreamcast ports as being as a past comparison.

http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 71#p663771

You clearly were arguing that "everyone in the media" has suggested that the ports of 360/PS3 games look better on the Wii U. I'm saying I haven't seen the press make that argument very much if at all, nor have I seen general fawning over the Wii U's graphics from any source other than Nintendo itself.

The point stands that you were suggesting there's a lot of press to suggest that the graphics on the Wii U surpass the PS3/360. I am fairly certain that this press doesn't exist and, based on what I've seen, the reason that this kind of press doesn't exist is becasue at this point the Wii U does not surpass the PS3/360 graphics in ports or otherwise...

Again, I don't give a shit if the Wii U has nice graphics or not. But please don't bandy about a claim about a characteristic of Wii U media coverage without without being able to support it.

[BurningDoom]

Those are specs. They don't show the excitement you're talking about. I really haven't seen the press/media excited about the graphics. I don't know where you're seeing that.

Well, maybe not "excited" about it, no. But it is being talked about. The word I used was "enhanced ports" and pointed out PS1-to-Dreamcast ports as being as a past comparison.

http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 71#p663771

You clearly were arguing that "everyone in the media" has suggested that the ports of 360/PS3 games look better on the Wii U. I'm saying I haven't seen the press make that argument very much if at all, nor have I seen general fawning over the Wii U's graphics from any source other than Nintendo itself.

The point stands that you were suggesting there's a lot of press to suggest that the graphics on the Wii U surpass the PS3/360. I am fairly certain that this press doesn't exist and, based on what I've seen, the reason that this kind of press doesn't exist is becasue at this point the Wii U does not surpass the PS3/360 graphics in ports or otherwise...

Again, I don't give a shit if the Wii U has nice graphics or not. But please don't bandy about a claim about a characteristic of Wii U media coverage without without being able to support it.

I did. I gave a you link to a site with this huge rundown on the graphics and specs. And it also said it has many sources to cite from. I don't know what you want for "proof", but here's another link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... at-a-time/

games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve.

And this is from Forbes. Is that substantial enough for you?

How about Sega?

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/08/developer- ... -graphics/

“The Wii U has way more memory, so we can take advantage of that with less compression on elements and textures, so it will look all lovely and shiny”

Technically, this means that Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed will look better on the Wii U, at least when it comes to texture resolution. The rumored Wii U specs indicate that the console has 1.5 GB of main system memory, which is about 3 times more than the PS3 and Xbox 360.

Do I have your permission to "bandy" now?

[dsheinem]

I don't know what you want for "proof", but here's another link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... at-a-time/

games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve.

And this is from Forbes. Is that substantial enough for you?

Um, the full quote is:

Some argue that the next-gen console is underpowered, and will stumble badly when the offerings from Sony and Microsoft show up.

Others say the graphics are in their early stages and will improve.

Still others point out that games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve.

In other words, Forbes doesn't know anything about Wii U graphics other than hearsay from undetermined "others". In fact, they use the idea of unknown graphical capabilities as a segue into a discussion of why graphics don't much matter with the Wii U anyway.

How about Sega?

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/08/developer- ... -graphics/

“The Wii U has way more memory, so we can take advantage of that with less compression on elements and textures, so it will look all lovely and shiny”

Technically, this means that Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed will look better on the Wii U, at least when it comes to texture resolution. The rumored Wii U specs indicate that the console has 1.5 GB of main system memory, which is about 3 times more than the PS3 and Xbox 360.

That's WiiUDaily.com making the inference about more memory = better graphics. BUT, memory and texture resolution alone don't define the ovearll quality of a system's graphics, they are just a part of it. Additionally, the article is based on speculation for a game we haven't yet seen in action, and Sega itself by saying it will be "lovely and shiny" is not comparing it any way to the PS3/360.

Do I have your permission to "bandy" now?

You don't need my "permission" per se - but if you want me to buy into your initial claims about the gaming media as a whole praising the graphics of the Wii U as stronger than the 360/PS3 you'll have to do much, much better.

[BurningDoom]

I don't know what you want for "proof", but here's another link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... at-a-time/

games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve.

And this is from Forbes. Is that substantial enough for you?

Um, the full quote is:

Some argue that the next-gen console is underpowered, and will stumble badly when the offerings from Sony and Microsoft show up.

Others say the graphics are in their early stages and will improve.

Still others point out that games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve.

In other words, Forbes doesn't know anything about Wii U graphics other than hearsay from undetermined "others". In fact, they use the idea of unknown graphical capabilities as a segue into a discussion of why graphics don't much matter with the Wii U anyway.

How about Sega?

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/08/developer- ... -graphics/

“The Wii U has way more memory, so we can take advantage of that with less compression on elements and textures, so it will look all lovely and shiny”

Technically, this means that Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed will look better on the Wii U, at least when it comes to texture resolution. The rumored Wii U specs indicate that the console has 1.5 GB of main system memory, which is about 3 times more than the PS3 and Xbox 360.

That's WiiUDaily.com making the inference about more memory = better graphics. BUT, memory and texture resolution alone don't define the ovearll quality of a system's graphics, they are just a part of it. Additionally, the article is based on speculation for a game we haven't yet seen in action, and Sega itself by saying it will be "lovely and shiny" is not comparing it any way to the PS3/360.

Do I have your permission to "bandy" now?

You don't need my "permission" per se - but if you want me to buy into your initial claims about the gaming media as a whole praising the graphics of the Wii U as stronger than the 360/PS3 you'll have to do much, much better.

The whole point of this is that someone said that Wii U ports will be crappy. According to everything I've read that's not gonna be the case. The ports will look great if not better than what they are on current systems. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm going with what I've heard from the media instead of what dsheinem, some random guy on a message board says until I see first-hand for myself. And I think I've posted enough links to show I didn't just spout that off. If you don't agree, fine, whatever. Like I said I'm not gonna argue about a system that's not even available to play yet. But I'm not gonna waste my time giving you a list of 50 different sources, either. I'm just going by what I've read and been told.

[MrPopo]

The whole point of this is that someone said that Wii U ports will be crappy. According to everything I've read that's not gonna be the case. The ports will look great if not better than what they are on current systems. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm going with what I've heard from the media instead of what dsheinem, some random guy on a message board says until I see first-hand for myself. And I think I've posted enough links to show I didn't just spout that off. If you don't agree, fine, whatever. Like I said I'm not gonna argue about a system that's not even available to play yet. But I'm not gonna waste my time giving you a list of 50 different sources, either. I'm just going by what I've read and been told.

Here's the thing your'e not getting. The sources you're citing aren't supporting your claims. Dsh even broke it out for you. The first one has conflicting reports. The second one mentions that the textures will use less compression, which doesn't make for better graphics in the sense you're talking about. And there is no standard of comparison in the article. You made a claim, it was refuted by someone with his personal anecdotal evidence, you claimed you had media evidence, but you cannot produce said evidence.

[BurningDoom]

The whole point of this is that someone said that Wii U ports will be crappy. According to everything I've read that's not gonna be the case. The ports will look great if not better than what they are on current systems. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm going with what I've heard from the media instead of what dsheinem, some random guy on a message board says until I see first-hand for myself. And I think I've posted enough links to show I didn't just spout that off. If you don't agree, fine, whatever. Like I said I'm not gonna argue about a system that's not even available to play yet. But I'm not gonna waste my time giving you a list of 50 different sources, either. I'm just going by what I've read and been told.

Here's the thing your'e not getting. The sources you're citing aren't supporting your claims. Dsh even broke it out for you. The first one has conflicting reports. The second one mentions that the textures will use less compression, which doesn't make for better graphics in the sense you're talking about. And there is no standard of comparison in the article. You made a claim, it was refuted by someone with his personal anecdotal evidence, you claimed you had media evidence, but you cannot produce said evidence.

If it looks better, than it has better graphics. How doesn't it count? I didn't specify any certain thing about them. And they said "games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve." Sounds like it's better to me. I'm not buying that it's gonna have crappy ports. Sounds like unsubstantiated Nintendo hating to me.

[MrPopo]

If it looks better, than it has better graphics. How doesn't it count?

Depending on your compression technology, it doesn't look better. It does render faster. And better than what? What's the standard of comparison that's completely lacking from the article?

And they said "games like Black Ops II will run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, something the current consoles couldn’t hope to achieve." Sounds like it's better to me.

Has the polygon density changed? Has the texture size changed? Are current consoles not able to render that, or is Forbes pulling stuff out of its ass? Also, since when is Forbes a reputable source for ANYTHING video game related?

[BurningDoom]

How about I turn this around, then. Do you guys have anything to show me to support that it's gonna have crappy ports?