66 replies to this topic

[Penguin101]

So long as draw distance gets sorted I don't care what the visuals look like. But for me draw distance is the worst offender for snapping me out of an immersive gameplay experience  AC3 was the worst offender at that on all consoles. But AC can get away from it as you're technically in the animus

 

Although I would like to see developers pushing games visually on Wii U, you know making an effort? It's just nice to see a Wii U games make Nintendo hater's shut up.

 

Of course gameplay comes first and I'd rather have a traditional game than the U pad become over gimmicky, nothing was more annoying than have the wii remote last year just become a waggle stick  

Edited by Penguin101, 10 April 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[Goodtwin]

I am not so sure about this. How could they develop a console strictly for their IPs when they are having to outsource development of HD content, or at least improve their internal development to be able to actually use the new GPU environment? I agree with everything your saying outside of this, but, we know Cryengine 3, Unreal 4, etc. can be cross ported. We know they worked with EA at some point during development, and I could imagine them being told how horrible the hardware would be then for those engines. 

 

I am not saying the Wii U is a mega power or anything, just that the platform is versatile, and once the install base is driven up, we will then see what it can, or cannot, do. 

 

I like the aspect of console exclusives, where the developer has decided, "This is how I want the player to experience this, exactly like this." You see that with Nintendo, and, to a lesser extent, Sony devs (they are always pushing the hardware more and more). 

 

With PC, it is like, you can click optimize the settings, but that never really works out correctly. So, you can tweak for a constant 60 fps, but who knows if that was the intended experience (with graphics turned down, physics tweaked, draw distance, etc., etc.). All of the options sort of have you thinking, "I can either max the game at my monitor's native refresh rate/resolution, or I can reduce the quality of the experience." Of course, now, that reduced experience is usually, theoretically, as good or better, than the console's a year after launch, but it does not keep up that way (try running Sleeping Dogs on PC with a 1900XTX or even a 2900XT of which the 360 is somewhere in the middle). So, it is a catch 22, since the environments are so different. 

 

Speaking of which, a constant 30 feels like 60 with a controller to me, but 30 feels horrible using a mouse. 

 

Thats kind of backs my theory.  The Wii U actually exceeds what Nintendo's developers have been setup to create.  Other than the jump to HD, Nintendo was already acheiving the desired visuals for many of thier IP's on Wii.  Iwata said Nintendo wouldnt be afraid to roll out the resources when needed, but most of thier IP's do not require this.  Maybe Zelda and Metroid.  My point was mainly that from Nintendo's perspective, the Wii U hardware doesnt limit them on the games that they create.  They actually have to improve their tools just to fully take advantage of the more powerful hardware, unlike a developer like Crytek or Dice who prioritize the best cutting edge graphics and is always looking for far more powerful hardware.  This is an easy approach to take, use the same exact concept for your game every year but push the boundaries on graphics and production values.  The Wii U was not created for those developers.  Not that they cant create games for Wii U, it does have some decent processing grunt behind it, but it certainly isnt tailored to games developers with the mentaility that the only way to improve games is through better and better graphics technology.   

[storabajskorven]

What people have to remember is that the way we are going with all of the next gen systems, they are still locked to a max resolution of 1080p,, making an extreme increase in detail worthless from a game development standpoint because there are only so many pixels to work with.  

Better graphics is not the same as greater resolution. If you look at a film recorded with a video camera in 360x240, it still looks more realistic than the latest games in 1080p.

[routerbad]

Better graphics is not the same as greater resolution. If you look at a film recorded with a video camera in 360x240, it still looks more realistic than the latest games in 1080p.

Image sensor, rendering techniques, not the same thing.  

 

Resolution has massive consequences on detail for rendered images.  camera angles change, DOF changes, textures change, etc.  On a camera you can adjust a lens to provide the image you want based on the light sources available, the speed of the shutter, lens focus, zoom, etc.  In the end the film just captures points of light in each of it's little light sensitive grains.

 

A picture looks more realistic, but even in a picture, we don't expect everything to be crisp all at the same time, sharpness is based on focus, and anything not in focus is blurred (bokeh) and isn't readily perceivable.  In a rendered frame, everything has to be perceivable unless the designer wants to guide your focus, but there are times when you could focus on any particular part of the image, in most cases unpredictable by a designer.

 

In a rendered image, there are no perfect circles, so we use polygons to approximate shapes, features, people, trees, grass, everything.  There comes a point where adding more polygons to a feature or model does not noticeably increase the realism of that particular item, so models are created that are dense enough for the art direction, and different techniques add finer detail to the textured model.  More to the point, adding more polygons to the same model on the same resolution with the same viewing angle does not make the model more noticeably realistic.  The amount of polygons necessary to create the fine details that are currently being added through different texture mapping techniques is still out of reach in an actual game environment.  It is completely possible in tech demos, because they typically show only the model being rendered, no environment, and no ancillary code to drive animation, physics, intelligence, what have you.  We've hit a plateau with graphics technology in that we can do the same things a little better but those small improvements require enormous increases in power to drive them.  I'm referring specifically to live rendering, not farm rendering.  Eventually we will move beyond this point and develop new techniques that offer more realism, but for now we have what we have.  I think the move to 4k will spur new graphical techniques for real time rendering, but until then we will get more of what we already have, done slightly better.

[Nintyfan86]

Thats kind of backs my theory.  The Wii U actually exceeds what Nintendo's developers have been setup to create.  Other than the jump to HD, Nintendo was already acheiving the desired visuals for many of thier IP's on Wii.  Iwata said Nintendo wouldnt be afraid to roll out the resources when needed, but most of thier IP's do not require this.  Maybe Zelda and Metroid.  My point was mainly that from Nintendo's perspective, the Wii U hardware doesnt limit them on the games that they create.  They actually have to improve their tools just to fully take advantage of the more powerful hardware, unlike a developer like Crytek or Dice who prioritize the best cutting edge graphics and is always looking for far more powerful hardware.  This is an easy approach to take, use the same exact concept for your game every year but push the boundaries on graphics and production values.  The Wii U was not created for those developers.  Not that they cant create games for Wii U, it does have some decent processing grunt behind it, but it certainly isnt tailored to games developers with the mentaility that the only way to improve games is through better and better graphics technology.   

Your right. I have a better understanding of your point now. I can honestly say that the PS4 will not satisfy their requirements, either. It will not be the monster people are thinking it will be (it would need to be huge for this to happen, multiple GPUs, etc). In essence, it will be a low to mid range PC from day one, but optimized (hence the 30 fps locks we are hearing of).

 

Crytek and Dice do follow the formula you propose-minimal updates in gameplay, rapid technology advancements, and more sequels. Makes sense when the cost of development is astronomical and only placed in sequels for a guaranteed ROI. Only problem is, it will eventually make the market contract, which is what we are seeing in the console business.

[Goodtwin]

Your right. I have a better understanding of your point now. I can honestly say that the PS4 will not satisfy their requirements, either. It will not be the monster people are thinking it will be (it would need to be huge for this to happen, multiple GPUs, etc). In essence, it will be a low to mid range PC from day one, but optimized (hence the 30 fps locks we are hearing of).

 

Crytek and Dice do follow the formula you propose-minimal updates in gameplay, rapid technology advancements, and more sequels. Makes sense when the cost of development is astronomical and only placed in sequels for a guaranteed ROI. Only problem is, it will eventually make the market contract, which is what we are seeing in the console business.

 

Exactly, being so straight forward and easy to develop for is great, but at the same time developers are going to max the system out in a couple of years, and then be waiting for better hardware again to progress their games.  What are those developers going to do in three or four years when they cant even show off fancy new graphics?  They have nothing else to lean on, they are all in with graphics, and its going to bite them sooner than later.  So many people praise Battlefield for being a fantastic looking game, but then at the same time bash it for being a mediocre shooter.  There wont be the traditional evolution of graphics on PS4, developers are very familiar with what they are looking at.  

[storabajskorven]

Image sensor, rendering techniques, not the same thing.  

 

Resolution has massive consequences on detail for rendered images.  camera angles change, DOF changes, textures change, etc.  On a camera you can adjust a lens to provide the image you want based on the light sources available, the speed of the shutter, lens focus, zoom, etc.  In the end the film just captures points of light in each of it's little light sensitive grains.

 

A picture looks more realistic, but even in a picture, we don't expect everything to be crisp all at the same time, sharpness is based on focus, and anything not in focus is blurred (bokeh) and isn't readily perceivable.  In a rendered frame, everything has to be perceivable unless the designer wants to guide your focus, but there are times when you could focus on any particular part of the image, in most cases unpredictable by a designer.

 

In a rendered image, there are no perfect circles, so we use polygons to approximate shapes, features, people, trees, grass, everything.  There comes a point where adding more polygons to a feature or model does not noticeably increase the realism of that particular item, so models are created that are dense enough for the art direction, and different techniques add finer detail to the textured model.  More to the point, adding more polygons to the same model on the same resolution with the same viewing angle does not make the model more noticeably realistic.  The amount of polygons necessary to create the fine details that are currently being added through different texture mapping techniques is still out of reach in an actual game environment.  It is completely possible in tech demos, because they typically show only the model being rendered, no environment, and no ancillary code to drive animation, physics, intelligence, what have you.  We've hit a plateau with graphics technology in that we can do the same things a little better but those small improvements require enormous increases in power to drive them.  I'm referring specifically to live rendering, not farm rendering.  Eventually we will move beyond this point and develop new techniques that offer more realism, but for now we have what we have.  I think the move to 4k will spur new graphical techniques for real time rendering, but until then we will get more of what we already have, done slightly better.

 

My point was that there is enormous room for improvement in gaming graphics, and it will take a lot of power, just as you say. But I disagree about the need for higher resolution. 

[routerbad]

My point was that there is enormous room for improvement in gaming graphics, and it will take a lot of power, just as you say. But I disagree about the need for higher resolution. 

There is enormous room for improvement, but the human eye can only pick up so much detail with a given number of pixels and given a standard distance from the viewpoint.  I agree with your point, though.

 

It will definitely take a massive jump in power, over and above what we're seeing on PC's currently, to be able to realistically provide a recognizable bump in detail through improved polygon counts, even higher resolution textures (which cost a lot of money to have an artist make) and better rendering schemes.  

[Nintyfan86]

Exactly, being so straight forward and easy to develop for is great, but at the same time developers are going to max the system out in a couple of years, and then be waiting for better hardware again to progress their games.  What are those developers going to do in three or four years when they cant even show off fancy new graphics?  They have nothing else to lean on, they are all in with graphics, and its going to bite them sooner than later.  So many people praise Battlefield for being a fantastic looking game, but then at the same time bash it for being a mediocre shooter.  There wont be the traditional evolution of graphics on PS4, developers are very familiar with what they are looking at.  

I remember seeing a quote from someone at EA, probably Moore, saying something to the effect of, "Imagine, your out of ammo in multiplayer, and we charge you $.99 for more ammo. Who is going to really think about it at that point?"

 

My thoughts are that, Western developers are embracing this idea, to a point, and they are whom Sony and Microsoft are building their devices around. Nintendo, thank God, appears to be looking out for the industry's best interests for the long term with respect to micro transactions.

 

Also, your point about graphics and reaching an ending point is dead on. Current gen consoles appear to satisfy people. Those I have shown maxed out games to in full 1080p to and their console cousins appear nonresponsive. Heck, Metroid Prime through Dolphin (I own two versions of it, so I deserved the right to see it rendered in 1080p native) looks incredible. I really believe we are at a real saturation point, just as we were when the Wii released, and you played an HD Twin on an SDTV. They appeared identical.

 

Expanding on that, I was partying for New Years a few years back and a friend had a 360 connected to a SDTV. As intoxicated as I was, I found myself saying, "Iwata was right, this looks like crap, just like the Wii". He was running New Vegas, but the advances were not apparent.

 

I went a long way to say that, again, I agree, next gen will not be graphic oriented. If you want that, wait for AMD's response to Nvidia's Titan card. Better yet, wait until the video cards, alone, have 8ghz of GDDR5 alone, and then wait and see how long it takes you to, with a controller, outlast the PS4/720.

 

Another point worth mentioning is that Valve is disgusted with Win8, and is encouraging full ports to Linux. If we get, "closer to the metal", who knows what the PC will do to the next gen?

 

Great discussion! I am very happy to have found a place where members respect each other without the 'usual' internet forum stuff. Looking forward to your input.

Edited by Nintyfan86, 11 April 2013 - 07:53 PM.

[Keviin]

I think devs are just too lazy to max the console out because the GPGPU structure is quite different and the install base isn't that big yet anyway.

[Mewbot]

I'm satisfied with current gen graphics, anything extra is a bonus, but I guess when 4k TVs come cheap enough it'll make 720p and 1080 look like crap

Yeah, but PS4 and 720 won't have 4k support anyway.

[Ashurii]

I could care less about graphics unless it is a remake and even therm I don't care as much as people. As long as the games are fun that is all I care about. 

[Penguin101]

Yeah, but PS4 and 720 won't have 4k support anyway.

 

Precisely, and that's Nintendo's plan, 7 years from now it'll be too early for Sony and Microsoft to make a new console, but just right for Nintendo to bring out a 4k console. Forcing the competition into a difficult situation. Mwhahahahahahaha

[Nintyfan86]

Precisely, and that's Nintendo's plan, 7 years from now it'll be too early for Sony and Microsoft to make a new console, but just right for Nintendo to bring out a 4k console. Forcing the competition into a difficult situation. Mwhahahahahahaha

One thing that is being left out of this is the long life cycle may, or my not, repeat itself. 

 

Considering the Fed doesn't see US unemployment dropping into the 6% range until 2015, and the low rates are placing upward pressure on riskier investment vehicles (part of why we have a record high stock market). Combine the two, an economy still not at full efficiency, and the possibility for a double dip recession (from a bubble in the stock market popping), and we could see a long life cycle. Double this with Microsoft's problem's with Win8 and Sony's financial difficulties, and we could see a long generation. 

 

Alternatively, things stay smooth economically, no contraction, and the generation refreshes in 5 years. In this case, Nintendo is in the perfect position for 4k hardware, as the other two will have undoubtedly just recently reached their break even's on the generation, and are seeing an ROI.

 

It is going to be interesting.   Of course, I am totally leaving out 4k adoption, and the possibility that we have a 1080p, ultra Wii U type thing, or Wii 2 situation like last gen, while Nintendo cites the same arguments for lacking HD with the Wii. 

[Penguin101]

It is going to be interesting.   Of course, I am totally leaving out 4k adoption, and the possibility that we have a 1080p, ultra Wii U type thing, or Wii 2 situation like last gen, while Nintendo cites the same arguments for lacking HD with the Wii. 

 

It'd have to be more mind-blowing like the Wii first seemed, like you'd be able to control games with thoughts alone or something for another 1080p console

 

I expect next gen Nintendo to be 4k (but most games use 2k (like most games on Wii U use 720p)

Edited by Penguin101, 12 April 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Nintyfan86]

It'd have to be more mind-blowing like the Wii first seemed, like you'd be able to control games with thoughts alone or something for another 1080p console

 

I expect next gen Nintendo to be 4k (but most games use 2k (like most games on Wii U use 720p)

I can see that. The point of it all, and Iwata is brilliant for seeing this, is that there will always be only 'so much' you can do with horsepower and traditional controls. Movies are the same way, look at what Hollywood is going through right now. No originality, remakes of previous films, recycled 'hits', and so on. Did it start, possibly, from the high cost of blockbuster film making? 

 

There is really a parallel here. Anyone can pretty much build a PC right now, at affordable prices, and make up for the costs over a console in game savings (Steam sales), that runs every thing at near max. It is awesome, but it will, at some point, begin to get boring. After all, your options are keyboard/mouse, controller, third party options, F2P (where the free part is just a new form of DLC vehicle), but each of these game are very similar, and they overlap. Unless you love multiplayer, you end up with game play that is very similar from release to release. 

 

So, if we have 100 people who play games, let us not look at traditional demos, and place them into the multiplayer, singleplayer, and spare time versions of both. Lets delete the word casual from this analysis. Multiplayer oriented people will require games that offer them the connectivity and/or competition. Single player oriented people may want leader boards and community, but, they do not necessarily buy a game for multiplayer, and vice versa. The spare time variants are not 'hardcore', but these customers still game, and are less likely to be susceptible to boredom to a specific control scheme, or really care about specs. However, everyone will eventually get bored when the same game is being released 5 times a year with a slightly different story (for the single player oriented) and the multiplayer aspects are virtually identical across those games. 

 

We need a platform where originality shines, yet all of these titles can co-exist with minimal cost. We also need continual updates to the experience, which will only happen with interface in this medium. My point, after a long rant, is that horsepower, after a point, does not really add to, or detract from the experience as a whole. User interface and framerate is more meaningful, combined with game play elements. 

[Penguin101]

I can see that. The point of it all, and Iwata is brilliant for seeing this, is that there will always be only 'so much' you can do with horsepower and traditional controls. Movies are the same way, look at what Hollywood is going through right now. No originality, remakes of previous films, recycled 'hits', and so on. Did it start, possibly, from the high cost of blockbuster film making? 

 

There is really a parallel here. Anyone can pretty much build a PC right now, at affordable prices, and make up for the costs over a console in game savings (Steam sales), that runs every thing at near max. It is awesome, but it will, at some point, begin to get boring. After all, your options are keyboard/mouse, controller, third party options, F2P (where the free part is just a new form of DLC vehicle), but each of these game are very similar, and they overlap. Unless you love multiplayer, you end up with game play that is very similar from release to release. 

 

So, if we have 100 people who play games, let us not look at traditional demos, and place them into the multiplayer, singleplayer, and spare time versions of both. Lets delete the word casual from this analysis. Multiplayer oriented people will require games that offer them the connectivity and/or competition. Single player oriented people may want leader boards and community, but, they do not necessarily buy a game for multiplayer, and vice versa. The spare time variants are not 'hardcore', but these customers still game, and are less likely to be susceptible to boredom to a specific control scheme, or really care about specs. However, everyone will eventually get bored when the same game is being released 5 times a year with a slightly different story (for the single player oriented) and the multiplayer aspects are virtually identical across those games. 

 

We need a platform where originality shines, yet all of these titles can co-exist with minimal cost. We also need continual updates to the experience, which will only happen with interface in this medium. My point, after a long rant, is that horsepower, after a point, does not really add to, or detract from the experience as a whole. User interface and framerate is more meaningful, combined with game play elements. 

 

Oh sure totally, but I'd rather see a 4k system with innovation. In all honesty if it's still 1080p I'd rather just see add-on peripherals that enhance user experience instead of me shelling out lots of money on a new console, I'd rather spend a third of the price of a new console on a new control peripheral for the Wii U. As the Wii U supports 1080p and decent enough HD graphics. AND I'm sure it can support new and cool ways to control games.

 

If Nintendo wanted my wallet next gen it'd have to up the game in resolution, as I wouldn't see the point when I'm happy with 720p/1080p that Wii U provides

Edited by Penguin101, 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[Robotic Sunshine Commander]

I just wanna play my g0damn games. as long as it doesn't look like sh1t.

[Mewbot]

Precisely, and that's Nintendo's plan, 7 years from now it'll be too early for Sony and Microsoft to make a new console, but just right for Nintendo to bring out a 4k console. Forcing the competition into a difficult situation. Mwhahahahahahaha

Yeah, and unlike the wii vs ps720 scenario the graphical difference will be much tinier because they'll all be in 1080p (unless Microsoft loses it and tries a 4k console) and they'll all be running the same engines quite happily. BUT Nintendo has a freaking tablet controller that puts them ahead of the competition and their boring old touchpad, I mean seriously? A touchpad? That's sooo 1988.

Edited by R00bot, 12 April 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[Lebon14]

Personally, looking at the graphics in Lego City Undercover (an exemple), they look pretty darn good for what it is.  Then, again, it may not be using the WiiU at full capacity graphic-wise but, still, it looks great. I'm not a graphics whore: I'm not looking for top notch graphics with the best physics ever, etc, etc, etc. As long as it looks good and not an half-assed job, whatever resolution (depends on the game console generation here), I'll be happy.

 

the graphical difference will be much tinier because they'll all be in 1080p (unless Microsoft loses it and tries a 4k console)

 

A 4k console? In your dreams... for now. Even a the nVidia GeForce GTX Titan can't even run a game full quality at 4k at a decent framerate. And, that's the most powerful single-GPU on the market (at 1000$ a pop). In Unigine, in 2560x1600, it only gets ~45fps. Note that UltraHD (aka 4k) is 7680x4320. How would you plan to make a console, at this present date, when the most power single-GPU card on the market can't even run something smooth in 2560x1600 in a GPU Benchmark software? And how UltraHD TVs are crazy expensive? Tell me about it.

 

Now, I also know that you are hypothetical here.

Edited by Lebon14, 13 April 2013 - 12:30 AM.