30 replies to this topic

[GAMER1984]

Ok so we know that there is a lot not known about Wii U hardware. What we do know and has been confirmed by Nintendo is that developers have 1GB of RAM available for games. Developers seem to be struggling with Wii U development even getting Wii U ports to run noticebly better than 360 version of same game. My question is with us knowing Wii U has 1 GB verses 512mb available for 7th gen consoles what should be the "bare minimum" benefits of that? Even if they cant figure out the EDRAM, GPU layout, and CPU caches shouldnt applying the 1GB of RAM to games be the easiest thing to do? shouldnt we be reaping instant benefits from the increased RAM for Wii U? obviously im not a developer and i could be totally ignorant of this and way wrong. It just seems to me like the one things developers always ask for more of is RAM.... so why cant bare minimum they take advantage of Wii U's increase RAM over PS360?

 

P.S.  i ask because im looking forward to splinter cell blacklist to see if at bare minimum ubisoft can make the game look better than ps360.... im doubting it i really am if they do they are keeping it a very good secret.

Edited by GAMER1984, 16 July 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[MorbidGod]

First off, that specific game doesn't look as good as Watch Dogs on Wii U does. So if graphics is the only thing you want, you might be disappointed.

Second, how many times do I have to say this - adding more RAM doesn't make better graphics. Think about back in the N64 days. Did the expansion pack really make a big jump?

Think about it this way. I am someone who builds things and carves things. I had most of my life a small place to work. Limited tools. One day a billionaire gave me a work place with fancy tools as big as s football field. Does that make me a better sculptor, or merely gives me more space to work with?

That's what RAM does. Allows developers and programmers to have more room for more details. Better AI. Remember how blood stains in Golden Eye, how they went away? And on Perfect Dark they didn't? The extra RAM allowed Rare to do that (and much more).

So again, more RAM doesn't equal better graphics.

[GAMER1984]

First off, that specific game doesn't look as good as Watch Dogs on Wii U does. So if graphics is the only thing you want, you might be disappointed.

Second, how many times do I have to say this - adding more RAM doesn't make better graphics. Think about back in the N64 days. Did the expansion pack really make a big jump?

Think about it this way. I am someone who builds things and carves things. I had most of my life a small place to work. Limited tools. One day a billionaire gave me a work place with fancy tools as big as s football field. Does that make me a better sculptor, or merely gives me more space to work with?

That's what RAM does. Allows developers and programmers to have more room for more details. Better AI. Remember how blood stains in Golden Eye, how they went away? And on Perfect Dark they didn't? The extra RAM allowed Rare to do that (and much more).

So again, more RAM doesn't equal better graphics.

 

wasnt saying it did. I guess my question was whats the advantage of Wii U;s 1GB vs 360's 512mb for development? sub 720p 30 FPS vs native 720p 60 FPS? can the Wii U even achieve that.  take a game like black ops 2 we all know what happened. developers said "FULL HD" everyone was think 1080p Native though that wasnt what hemeant. anyway now that Wii U tools have matured do you think its possible for Wii U to run that game (if developed right) at 1080p 30 FPS? im just curious wondring from what we know Wii U has what can be achieved.

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

No console sales so developers be like pfffffffffffttttttttt we can't make games for that "thing" you watch how quickly that will change when Wii U's start selling alot!!!

[GAMER1984]

ive watched it many times but just watched the boss battle fight from Bayonetta 2.  that shows Wii U is "next gen" and a VERY capable console. im wondering how much more they can push the graphics even if its 720P 60 FPS its impressive... if its true that its 1080p 60 FPS then EA, DICE, and every other (so called) developers should be very ashamed of themselves and really should apologize to Wii U owners for not putting in enough work to make their games run on this amazingly power efficent punch above its weight next gen console.

Edited by GAMER1984, 17 July 2013 - 12:42 AM.

[Mewbot]

Developers are too lazy, and the ones that aren't lazy seem to be too scared the game won't sell so they don't make it at all.

[GAMER1984]

Developers are too lazy, and the ones that aren't lazy seem to be too scared the game won't sell so they don't make it at all.

I agree... Sad but you have to play what comes to the console.

[ShadowVector]

I guess my question was whats the advantage of Wii U;s 1GB vs 360's 512mb for development? sub 720p 30 FPS vs native 720p 60 FPS? can the Wii U even achieve that.

I think Wii U can do quite a bit better than sub 720p 30FPS, especially if it's a game built from the ground up. Maybe some won't see this as the best example, because of "cartoony graphics", but the developer for Mario Kart 8 said that they have the game running a 60FPS with the possibility of maintaining 60FPS for two players. (Mario Kart 8 Developer Interview)

And it also appears that the game will be running at 1080p, although not confirmed if it's native 1080p. (Mario Kart 8 for Wii U – Runs in 1080p 60FPS)

I personally think that Mario Kart 8 has some great graphics! It's clearly better than PS360, especially in the lighting system. It might be worth checking out this video, which appears to be in-game and the best quality that I could find: Mario Kart 8 Gameplay - IGN.

Edited by ShadowVector, 17 July 2013 - 04:21 AM.

[AndyG]

Theres no arguing that we already have some stunning games already available on the WiiU, sadly people think that graphics plays more importance than gameplay (ahem...Crytek....cough...cough). I might be getting a PS4 in the future just so i don't miss out on some of those third party titles due to lazy devs that didn't even bother trying to put their game on the WiiU. Ubisoft is moving further away everyday so we should just prepare for whats to come. Im not going to make a decision till a few years into the next generation of consoles, it's too early to decide what console will be on top.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

With RAM, you need to take advantage of it by adding better worlds, larger textures, etc. Since the games are straight ports, they tend to take advantage of 512MB RAM, not 1GB.

[MorbidGod]

wasnt saying it did. I guess my question was whats the advantage of Wii U;s 1GB vs 360's 512mb for development? sub 720p 30 FPS vs native 720p 60 FPS? can the Wii U even achieve that. take a game like black ops 2 we all know what happened. developers said "FULL HD" everyone was think 1080p Native though that wasnt what hemeant. anyway now that Wii U tools have matured do you think its possible for Wii U to run that game (if developed right) at 1080p 30 FPS? im just curious wondring from what we know Wii U has what can be achieved.

More RAM, more possible details and better AI. However, your other question I can't answer. Going by what Nintendo said, yes the Wii U is capable of 1080p at 30 FPS. But we obviously haven't seen that yet.

[3Dude]

You are expecting too much from those guys.

They are just c team stringers. They dont actually know how to do much, if they dis, they wouldnt be relegated to porting.

Notice how devs capable of making their own engines have no trouble with wii u?

Criterion, frozenbyte, shin en.

Activision/ea/others have those kinds of capable people, but they are their A team, and they dont want to 'waste' them on nkntendo consoles. Its been that way for decades, long nefore the 'wii issue'. Its the reason why 'nintendo gamers' dont buy these products, they are consistantly trash on nintendo systems, and 'nintendo gamers' often have more than just a ninyendo console, and thus dont buy the garbage version released for the nintdndo console.

But yes, they should all be ashamed.

[ShadowVector]

That's a nice pikture of Pikmin. Here is an HD one that I've got:



You can find more piktures here: Pikmin 3 Showing WiiU's Next Gen Potential

With only 1GB of RAM and less then one year since the Wii U's release, that's pretty darn impressive.

[Zinix]

That's a nice pikture of Pikmin. Here is an HD one that I've got:



You can find more piktures here: Pikmin 3 Showing WiiU's Next Gen Potential

With only 1GB of RAM and less then one year since the Wii U's release, that's pretty darn impressive.

That picture is ugly. 

[BlueBlur]

 

Is that from the PS4 version? jk

 

Seriously though, it's hard to believe people are still saying Wii U is underpowered, even though games like Pikmin 3 are showing next-gen level graphics.

Edited by VGCrasher, 17 July 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[alan123]

ive watched it many times but just watched the boss battle fight from Bayonetta 2.  that shows Wii U is "next gen" and a VERY capable console. im wondering how much more they can push the graphics even if its 720P 60 FPS its impressive... if its true that its 1080p 60 FPS then EA, DICE, and every other (so called) developers should be very ashamed of themselves and really should apologize to Wii U owners for not putting in enough work to make their games run on this amazingly power efficent punch above its weight next gen console.

how would Bayonetta 2 look on the X1 & PS4 though ?

[routerbad]

wasnt saying it did. I guess my question was whats the advantage of Wii U;s 1GB vs 360's 512mb for development? sub 720p 30 FPS vs native 720p 60 FPS? can the Wii U even achieve that.  take a game like black ops 2 we all know what happened. developers said "FULL HD" everyone was think 1080p Native though that wasnt what hemeant. anyway now that Wii U tools have matured do you think its possible for Wii U to run that game (if developed right) at 1080p 30 FPS? im just curious wondring from what we know Wii U has what can be achieved.

360 didn't have 512 strictly for games.

More RAM, more possible details and better AI. However, your other question I can't answer. Going by what Nintendo said, yes the Wii U is capable of 1080p at 30 FPS. But we obviously haven't seen that yet.

For BLOPS 2 its absolutely conceivable that it could have run at 1080p 60FPS, but the game was never developed that way for consoles, and was hastily ported to Wii U.  Even still it looked better on Wii U than the other consoles, but it could have been even better had they put their best talent behind it and marketed it as the first next gen COD.

[3Dude]

how would Bayonetta 2 look on the X1 & PS4 though ?

assuming infinite human resources and budget;

Less compressed textures, more fine details up close, more detail geometry on the buildings, more angle accurate real time reflections (as opposed to just a linear plane reflection)

However how much of a difference that actually makes may not be enough to warrant the exponentially more time and money required to do it.

Killzone 4's models look great right?

at 40k they are 1/3rd the polygons of bayonetta in bayo 2. Would tripling their polygon count make them look 3x better? Not really, the details would be too fine to make a large difference, so while the ps4 has the power to do it, there really isnt much incentive to spend the time and human resources... and the cost in hr would be huge.

and the city flies by way so fast, and is so large, that while the ps4 has the power to make it quite detailed in the fly by scene, the buildings geometry detail in kz3 city flyby is actually pretty similar to bayo 2's, the team likely didnt see the point in investing that much time in kz4's buildings when the player wouldnt really get a good look at them anyways.

That picture is ugly.

Pikmin 3 is a bit inconsistent in fps photo mode (you can take photos through the eyes of your characters its pretty cool XD), some areas are AMAZING, while others have very noticable lesser quality, while others have amazing assets right next to unfinished looking ones. (All creature models are top notch)

This game looks like it was the epiphany where nintendo realize they were woefully understaffed to make games with impressive visuals of this scale of fidelity, and needed 'twice as many human resources'.

When all is said and done though, from the actual gameplay camera, it all looks fantastic.

[Mewbot]

I agree... Sad but you have to play what comes to the console.

More devs need to take the plunge to try and get the console going. I think that's what Ubisoft was doing (and is now, to a lesser extent) when they released ZombiU, AC3, that Rabbids game, and all their other games.

 

I think they decided that they had little power over the console sales and chose to wait until Nintendo's first parties got the console running before they continued making games for it. Hence the Rayman Legends delay until after most of the first party games came out.

That picture is ugly. 

The mesh and textures for the roots are pretty bad.

 

I think it's because Pikmin 3 was originally a Wii title and they changed their minds partway through development.

That's a nice pikture of Pikmin. Here is an HD one that I've got:

You can find more piktures here: Pikmin 3 Showing WiiU's Next Gen Potential

With only 1GB of RAM and less then one year since the Wii U's release, that's pretty darn impressive.

That picture was pretty ugly. Out of all of the incredible pictures that were on that video you linked to, you chose that one.

 

What about this picture?

Or this picture?

But seriously, this game is beautiful.

Edited by R00bot, 17 July 2013 - 07:56 PM.

[ShadowVector]

That picture is ugly.

That picture was pretty ugly. Out of all of the incredible pictures that were on that video you linked to, you chose that one.

Ha! You guys are funny! Besides, I meant to post this one as the example of how good the game looks: