34 replies to this topic

[thunderspider]

Hello people, i need an answer about the generational leap, between gens, and how Wii U fits against Xbox One and PS4 .

I think the leap between PS3 and PS4 was much smaller than Ps2 to Ps3. So i think Ps4 is around 4 times more powerful than Wii U , and PS3 was around 15 times more powerful than Wii.

So anyone here can explain or know the difference between all Playstations, and if any of this calculations above have any chance to be close to the real thing?

[Chrop]

If you're creating a face and go from 5 triangles to 100 triangles, there's a huge difference, but if you go from 1000 triangles to 2000 triangles, it's harder to notice since there's not much else you can add,

Take this picture, this is the problem the PS3 to the PS4 has, there's not really a huge differerence when looking at the PS1 to the PS2.

The best we can do to make games look better is have 4k resolution, better lighting, better optimisation etc. the models themselves will only look slightly better.

 

Now the Wii U to the PS4/Xbox One, it's definitly behind them, but not by a lot. But just enough to stop graphically demanind games not be 1080P on the Wii U while it would be on the PS4. 

[thunderspider]

I've imagined that Wii U is not so behind the other two, i mean, the difference between a Wii and a PS3 is ridiculous

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

Although the PS4 may be 4x as powerful as the Wii U, and it's a push, enabling anti-aliasing and going from 720p to 1080p can actually take 4x the power. We will start seeing something called "diminishing returns".

[Raiden]

Wii U is PS2

XBO is Gamecube

PS4 is Xbox.

 

 

Basically. Wii U will optimize more over time while PS4 and XBO have no secrets. PC based systems showing all the muscle they have now. Wii U is begining to but just barely. Zelda will flex it. Fast Racing Neo will flex it. While may not look as good as FFXV XCX will flex it in just the fact it's several times larger. XV is smaller than people think. MK8 and Smash loosned the Wii U up.

Edited by Strider Hiryu, 22 December 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[iEatTacos]

To me, Wii U is much closer to PS4/Xbone, than it is to PS3/360.

[3Dude]

Wii U is PS2
XBO is Gamecube
PS4 is Xbox.

Really, even this comparison is more different than the current situation.

That generation also had a huge feature capability split.

At the bottom was ps2, with broken unusable s3 texture compression, and no hardware shaders.

In the middle...ish was gamecube, with s3 texture compression, and a fixed function gpu with a pretty good feature set, particularly for embm based effects... no dot 3 support.

On top-ish was xbox, with s3 texture compression and a fully programmable shader gpu. Good with dot 3, seemed to chug on embm.


This gen we all have machines with fully proggramable shader gpu's, with just differences in overall system power, but more or less the same fature sets.

The differences between ps2 cube and Xbox seem considerably bigger to me.

[Raiden]

Really, even this comparison is more different than the current situation.

That generation also had a huge feature capability split.

At the bottom was ps2, with broken unusable s3 texture compression, and no hardware shaders.

In the middle...ish was gamecube, with s3 texture compression, and a fixed function gpu with a pretty good feature set, particularly for embm based effects... no dot 3 support.

On top-ish was xbox, with s3 texture compression and a fully programmable shader gpu. Good with dot 3, seemed to chug on embm.


This gen we all have machines with fully proggramable shader gpu's, with just differences in overall system power, but more or less the same fature sets.

The differences between ps2 cube and Xbox seem considerably bigger to me.

I know. Dreamcast also had a lot of high res textures. Esp when you look in SEGA first party. Like Sonic Adventure 2 or Shenmue II by Man Mo temple the walls outside the gates esp.

I just throw that out there as it's the closest thing people can relate to without going into technical jargin people ignore/ don't friggin know what the frak you be talking about willis. It's a rather crude comparison but the closest comparison one can make that most will get.

 

 

Like I could not do TurboGrx16 since that was technically 8 bit in a 16 bit gen. Could not throw out 7800 vs NES vs SMS. Not fair to me. If I go intellivision vs Coleco vs 2600 it makes no sense.

 

btw just for fun texture rips from DC on SA2. GCN had no issues with this. I know Xbox had some issues with Shenmue II like transparency and DC was amazing with reflections as seen in Shenmue 1. Sure PS2 got Ecco but any DC port on PS2 kinda sucked and on GCN and XB were great.

http://i.imgur.com/0bq6Ld4.png

http://i.imgur.com/SPXZNos.png

[Schoat333]

Wow, there is a lot of technical information here. Not just bashing based on opinions like you see on other system forums....

 

Good stuff!

[thunderspider]

Really, even this comparison is more different than the current situation.

That generation also had a huge feature capability split.

At the bottom was ps2, with broken unusable s3 texture compression, and no hardware shaders.

In the middle...ish was gamecube, with s3 texture compression, and a fixed function gpu with a pretty good feature set, particularly for embm based effects... no dot 3 support.

On top-ish was xbox, with s3 texture compression and a fully programmable shader gpu. Good with dot 3, seemed to chug on embm.


This gen we all have machines with fully proggramable shader gpu's, with just differences in overall system power, but more or less the same fature sets.

The differences between ps2 cube and Xbox seem considerably bigger to me.

 

 

In pure specs , whats the difference between the sixth and eigth gen?

Thanks 

Edited by thunderspider, 03 January 2015 - 05:57 AM.

[Raiden]

 

In pure specs , whats the difference between the sixth and eigth gen?

Thanks 

 

Numbers

[megafenix]

i also think there hasnt been much generation leap, this kind of feels like the transition from nes to snes, not the huge leap from 32/64bits systems to the 128 bits systems like gamecube,xbox and ps2 or the great leap from these consoles to the ps3 and 360. Although i admit that the the new graphic features make the games look prettier and is nice to have games in native hd or full hd instead of sub-HD and less screeen tear

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by megafenix, 22 January 2015 - 06:00 PM.

[Raiden]

FFV is using the DOA5 Engine. Looks really nice tho

[Marcus]

 

Basically. Wii U will optimize more over time while PS4 and XBO have no secrets. 

 

What is this based on?

not the huge leap from 32/64bits systems to the 128 bits systems like gamecube,xbox and ps2 or the great leap from these consoles to the ps3 and 360. 

 

 

That whole bit-rating was largely marketing nonsense. After you get to 32bit, it's mostly just meaningless. As seen by the fact that the vast majority of recent PC games still ran on 32-bit operating systems. (as recent as Assassin's Creed 4)

[Raiden]

What is this based on?

Wii U uses a console architecture. XBO and PS4 are just PC's with a custom OS. PS4 and XBO have diminishing returns. Consoles traditionally because of how they were designed games got better looking over time as they optimized better. PS4 and XBO being a PC you see what they have to offer now.

 

X86 machines they have need just raw specs because X86. Wii U is custom in every way so that every part is made to work with another making so it doesn't need the raw specs PS4 and XBO need. Wii U is built as a console. Wii U still can't produce games as good looking as PS4 or XBO but it's not far behind. It's no slouch. Some games we see on PS4 and XBO can run on Wii U fine but the real difference is 1080P on PS4 and 720 on Wii U.

[Marcus]

Wii U uses a console architecture. XBO and PS4 are just PC's with a custom OS. PS4 and XBO have diminishing returns. Consoles traditionally because of how they were designed games got better looking over time as they optimized better. PS4 and XBO being a PC you see what they have to offer now.

 

Not really seeing how this is different for consoles than PCs. "Console architecture" is a completely arbitrary term. The improvements over time happen everywhere. Skyrim looked a lot better than Oblivion because of all of the graphical techniques they learned throughout the last generation. It looked better on consoles and it looked better on PCs. In fact, Skyrim runs on my PC a lot better than Oblivion does.

If anything, I'd think it'd be the exact opposite. PS4 and Xbox are going to increase in potential MORE than the WiiU because they can largely share a knowledge base with PC developers and therefore more pioneering techniques will be discovered for them.

Edited by MarcusT, 25 February 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[3Dude]

Wii U uses a console architecture. XBO and PS4 are just PC's with a custom OS. PS4 and XBO have diminishing returns. Consoles traditionally because of how they were designed games got better looking over time as they optimized better. PS4 and XBO being a PC you see what they have to offer now.
 
X86 machines they have need just raw specs because X86. Wii U is custom in every way so that every part is made to work with another making so it doesn't need the raw specs PS4 and XBO need. Wii U is built as a console. Wii U still can't produce games as good looking as PS4 or XBO but it's not far behind. It's no slouch. Some games we see on PS4 and XBO can run on Wii U fine but the real difference is 1080P on PS4 and 720 on Wii U.

Everything has diminishing returns.

Even though ps4/xbone are basically off the shelf pc's with a netbook cpu crammed into an apu, they are still closed systems, as opposed to actual pc's that can have thousands of different hardware and driver combinations games have to be compatable with. Which means they also have a lot of room for optimization. Although, it doesnt look like any AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA publishers got time for dat.

Crap out games, match parity for legal platform holder bs reasons, dont take any advantadges of system specific features, and simply tell the dumbasses who buy your games that the missing features, broken games, and de-evolution of game design, are modern features that are actually BETTER than the obsolete game design of games that worked as recently as metroid prime, and market it until you brainwash them into believing it. Just like Activision says they do.

Not really seeing how this is different for consoles than PCs. "Console architecture" is a completely arbitrary term. The improvements over time happen everywhere. Skyrim looked a lot better than Oblivion because of all of the graphical techniques they learned throughout the last generation. It looked better on consoles and it looked better on PCs. In fact, Skyrim runs on my PC a lot better than Oblivion does.
If anything, I'd think it'd be the exact opposite. PS4 and Xbox are going to increase in potential MORE than the WiiU because they can largely share a knowledge base with PC developers and therefore more pioneering techniques will be discovered for them.

This isnt that likely of a scenario, because of the reasons I already stated, publishers have ZERO interest in actually forwarding the progress of game design and optimization. That requires talent, risk, and motivation. They are far happier to keep things exactly where they are, and use marketing to convince their brainwashed audience that crapping in their face is actually advancment, and anything else is backwards.

Aside from that, ps4/bone are in fact, closed systems, while the pc scene, is NOT. PC technology will continue to improve, utilizing the latest in its gpu/cpu technology (When its not a complete and absolute fraud, G*Glares at Nvidia*) however, these will NOT directly translate to ps4/xbone, as they will mantain the same processors for their entire lifespans, meaning THERE advancements will come from better utilization of THE SAME processors, in optimization, rather than advancements made possible by new hardware. In fact, the pc scene is ALREADY being held back by the underpowered ps4/xbone, as big name engine companies like epic already REMOVED their next gen lighting engines because ps4/xbone couldnt handle them, and they didnt want to be blacklisted by two huge partners making ps4/xbone look dated before they ever released.

Due to the nature of all consoles now having programmable pipelines, instead of Nintendo being stuck with fixed function pipelines, any new effects that can be approximated from pc to ps4/xbone, can in fact be approximated down to wii u, and even smart phones.

Thats the reason Nintendos games looks so damn good on wii u. Its not the instant dismissal favourite 'Art style'. Nintendo has INCREDIBLY high end systems they work with. Where do you think those ridiculously quality character renders and things they use for splash screens come from? These are things no ps4/xbone, or current home pc can do in real time. However, they take these advanced effects and approximate them into similar looking effects that CAN work on wii u.

How far thats going to go, depends on whos doing it, how good they are, and how much drive they have. Its becoming increasingly obvious, by the RIDICULOUS leaps wii u's been making already, that they have some seriously motivated people in that department. A human resource factor neither sony nor MS has in their corner (Ms never had them for gaming as msgamestudios has never been anything more than a transient quantity of bought 3rd parties, and sony is currently laying off all of their talent except santa monica and naughty dog). Which is why, Nintendo games get BETTER looking as they near release, and other studios get constantly whined at for 'downgradatons'.

[Marcus]

This isnt that likely of a scenario, because of the reasons I already stated, publishers have ZERO interest in actually forwarding the progress of game design and optimization. That requires talent, risk, and motivation. They are far happier to keep things exactly where they are, and use marketing to convince their brainwashed audience that crapping in their face is actually advancment, and anything else is backwards.

 

Oh sure most of them don't care about that. But some do. If you ever read those graphics white papers or whatever they're called, you do come across companies who innovated on the way to their goal. I believe realtime ambient occlusion was first used in Crysis, for example. I don't know if they entirely invented the algorithm or not but I think they were the first to get it working. 

I also read one on how Valve invented a particular kind of improved motion blur for Portal 2.

Edited by MarcusT, 25 February 2015 - 11:26 AM.

[3Dude]

Oh sure most of them don't care about that. But some do. If you ever read those graphics white papers or whatever they're called, you do come across companies who innovated on the way to their goal. I believe realtime ambient occlusion was first used in Crysis, for example. I don't know if they entirely invented the algorithm or not but I think they were the first to get it working. 
I also read one on how Valve invented a particular kind of improved motion blur for Portal 2.

Hows Crytek doing these days?

I do read them. Would you like me to cross reference my favourite journals and siggraph presentations with some of the greatest advancements in real time cg history with the list of studios who have been run out of business, or bought gutted, and liquidated to the point where its now just a name and has none of the original talent who made the breakthroughs by incumbent publishers like EA?

The people who care, the people who made the advancements are being run out of the industry. We now have a culture of 'devs' who wait on Direct X for graphical 'breakthroughs', because microsoft has succeeded in killing open GL (And NOT by being better, by being rich as Wii).

[GAMER1984]

Everything has diminishing returns.

Even though ps4/xbone are basically off the shelf pc's with a netbook cpu crammed into an apu, they are still closed systems, as opposed to actual pc's that can have thousands of different hardware and driver combinations games have to be compatable with. Which means they also have a lot of room for optimization. Although, it doesnt look like any AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA publishers got time for dat.

Crap out games, match parity for legal platform holder bs reasons, dont take any advantadges of system specific features, and simply tell the dumbasses who buy your games that the missing features, broken games, and de-evolution of game design, are modern features that are actually BETTER than the obsolete game design of games that worked as recently as metroid prime, and market it until you brainwash them into believing it. Just like Activision says they do.

This isnt that likely of a scenario, because of the reasons I already stated, publishers have ZERO interest in actually forwarding the progress of game design and optimization. That requires talent, risk, and motivation. They are far happier to keep things exactly where they are, and use marketing to convince their brainwashed audience that crapping in their face is actually advancment, and anything else is backwards.

Aside from that, ps4/bone are in fact, closed systems, while the pc scene, is NOT. PC technology will continue to improve, utilizing the latest in its gpu/cpu technology (When its not a complete and absolute fraud, G*Glares at Nvidia*) however, these will NOT directly translate to ps4/xbone, as they will mantain the same processors for their entire lifespans, meaning THERE advancements will come from better utilization of THE SAME processors, in optimization, rather than advancements made possible by new hardware. In fact, the pc scene is ALREADY being held back by the underpowered ps4/xbone, as big name engine companies like epic already REMOVED their next gen lighting engines because ps4/xbone couldnt handle them, and they didnt want to be blacklisted by two huge partners making ps4/xbone look dated before they ever released.

Due to the nature of all consoles now having programmable pipelines, instead of Nintendo being stuck with fixed function pipelines, any new effects that can be approximated from pc to ps4/xbone, can in fact be approximated down to wii u, and even smart phones.

Thats the reason Nintendos games looks so damn good on wii u. Its not the instant dismissal favourite 'Art style'. Nintendo has INCREDIBLY high end systems they work with. Where do you think those ridiculously quality character renders and things they use for splash screens come from? These are things no ps4/xbone, or current home pc can do in real time. However, they take these advanced effects and approximate them into similar looking effects that CAN work on wii u.

How far thats going to go, depends on whos doing it, how good they are, and how much drive they have. Its becoming increasingly obvious, by the RIDICULOUS leaps wii u's been making already, that they have some seriously motivated people in that department. A human resource factor neither sony nor MS has in their corner (Ms never had them for gaming as msgamestudios has never been anything more than a transient quantity of bought 3rd parties, and sony is currently laying off all of their talent except santa monica and naughty dog). Which is why, Nintendo games get BETTER looking as they near release, and other studios get constantly whined at for 'downgradatons'.

You probably already answered this before but... what is your opinion on the lack of AA for most Wii U games.... and assuming the console will only get better we should see this not be an issue on Wii U in the future? Future being this year... next year? Or are we to assume nintendo doesnt think AA is a priority and they could care less thats why most games dont get it. I believe 3d world and captain toad are the only ones using some form of it right?