19 replies to this topic

[Feld0]

In an interview, Miyamoto said that they're once again trying to move the focus away from raw horsepower with the Wii U, just like they did with the Wii, so we shouldn't hope to see something that crushes the current generation and sends it to oblivion.

The reason for this, according to him, is that Nintendo want the console to remain affordable. Would you say it's a good thing that they're trying to keep costs low, or do you hate them for not going all out and crushing the competition with superior specs?

[Camcam281]

I voted good, but I have another reason besides the price point! It shouldnt be about what console has the most raw power, it should be about the newness (is that a word?) and originality! The Wii U is one of a kind and most won't be copied like Microsoft and Sony did with motion controls. Having a screen on the controller that works with the tv screen is very unique and should be what people look at when deciding to buy it. So in conclusion, it shouldnt matter in the end, even if something else comes out that is more powerful!

[The Lonely Koopa]

The way I feel is their trying to get as much as they can out of it but without making the price big since if a console too expensive and people dont buy it you lose profit.That being said not even modern computer games truly crush the xbox or playstation 3 when you just look at graphics since even if a systems specs blows them aways its still hard to see the differences in graphics alone which is why your not going to get much better graphics out of a systems unless you want a 800 buck price tag on your consoles at launch which is sucide.

[TheSparrow87]

First off, I reckon even without top of the line current hardware it is still going to surpass XPS360 graphically in a significant way, we are 5-6 years later so no matter what, the difference is going to be there. (gief japanese street tech demo!)

Second, I agree with what I think Nintendo believes, which is; Graphics from modern day technology on modern day tv's are good enough, not at their limits, but they will do until UHD starts taking over living rooms. I believe they did say that they will focus more on actual animation and AI of games. (think Reggie mentions it during a GT interview)

Finally, the reason why I have always loved nintendo is their innovation, they may bring out the same franchises year after year, but every time (well, most of the time) they are a complete unique experience, with focus never being on graphics (even though the games usually look great, just a side effect of great designers). I absolutely love that they are still focusing on that innovation, they know their console is going to look great, yet the main focus of their unveiling was the new way of playing yet again.

So yeah, I like Nintendo's approach on consoles

I don't know if my points came across very well, it's a bit late here and my head's not really with it atm, maybe ill look over it again tomorrow and edit .

[Dementis]

ADBHRTQB.

Don't skim these things. I read an thread on NeoGaf and only one person noticed the whole problem with the thread, and he was ignored.

Miyamoto never said that it wouldn't be much more powerful than the Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3, he said it wouldn't be DRAMATICALLY more powerful. It could be more powerful, but not to such an extent that it's say, 50 times as powerful. The console is likely to be at least 10 times as powerful.

EDIT:

And it seems that this post has been ignored as well.

Edited by Dementis, 22 June 2011 - 06:11 AM.

[SparktehFox]

It's over 50% more powerful (seeing as the 50% models where underclocked), what more do you need? The PS4 isn't going to be much more powerful than the PS3 either and we have no idea what Microsoft might do.

[AMAC]

I'm not really bothered about how the Wii U compares to its competition. There's a big step up from the Wii and I'm perfectly happy with the graphics we've seen from the tech demos. The actual games will probably look much better than the demos. I'd rather have an affordable console, than one which will cost a small fortune but crush the opposition.

[Feld0]

I'm not really bothered about how the Wii U compares to its competition. There's a big step up from the Wii and I'm perfectly happy with the graphics we've seen from the tech demos. The actual games will probably look much better than the demos. I'd rather have an affordable console, than one which will cost a small fortune but crush the opposition.

From the look of the demos, the Wii U seems to be pretty damn competitive power-wise already. I bet we're actually just in another GameCube situation - Nintendo's being modest about the system, even though they've got all the rights in the world to brag their souls out about it. I mean, packs enough grunt to deliver visuals superior to the PS3's on two (and potentially even three) HD screens at the same time. If that's honestly not good enough for you, I don't know what is.

[Mukkinese]

From what Ubisoft have been saying the amount of processing power available might well vary from game to game. They said "some games will look better, some will look the same".

that gives two possibilities, in my mind, one, that the amount of processing power used for the second screen display can limit the overall power available for the larger display/gameplay; that is if the image on the second screen shows a filly rendered three dimensional game scene in real time, which is significantly different than that shown on the T.V., it would take significantly more power to process, compress and stream than a fairly static image of a map or inventory.

Or, and quite feasibly, they want to prepare us for a lot of straight ports with minimal work done to take advantage of the new machine.

[The Lonely Koopa]

From what Ubisoft have been saying the amount of processing power available might well vary from game to game. They said "some games will look better, some will look the same".

that gives two possibilities, in my mind, one, that the amount of processing power used for the second screen display can limit the overall power available for the larger display/gameplay; that is if the image on the second screen shows a filly rendered three dimensional game scene in real time, which is significantly different than that shown on the T.V., it would take significantly more power to process, compress and stream than a fairly static image of a map or inventory.

Or, and quite feasibly, they want to prepare us for a lot of straight ports with minimal work done to take advantage of the new machine.

Im pretty sure they are talking about doing straight ports.

[Dementis]

ADBHRTQB.

Don't skim these things. I read a thread on NeoGaf that was the exact same topic and only one person noticed the whole problem with the thread, and he was ignored.

Miyamoto never said that it wouldn't be much more powerful than the Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3, he said it wouldn't be DRAMATICALLY more powerful. It could be more powerful, but not to such an extent that it's say, 50 times as powerful. The console is likely to be at least 10 times as powerful.

EDIT:

And it seems that this post has been ignored as well.

Edited by Dementis, 22 June 2011 - 06:14 AM.

[giggity3000]

Note: You'll probably ignore me cand continue this thread.

The rumors of the 50% extra power was only for the Dev kits but they were underclocked! With R700 series graphics card it should be 400% stronger or more and Nintendo said we've only seen 10% of it's potential and that doesn't mean 10% of its potential graphic wise but it could be for online experience, games, running power, ETC. But if a wireless streaming with no lag, power beyond Ps3, and incredible tech demos are only 10% then I don't know about you but i'm really excited about this console.

Edited by giggity3000, 22 June 2011 - 07:36 AM.

[Narcidius]

Sparrow and dementis make really good points that deserve attention... The hardware worries are a real red herring, and nintendo is really putting their energy where it matters (ai is a great place to focus the extra processing power, IMO)...

[Dementis]

Sparrow and dementis make really good points that deserve attention... The hardware worries are a real red herring, and nintendo is really putting their energy where it matters (ai is a great place to focus the extra processing power, IMO)...

To be honest, I don't really know what it means for them to focus on AI. Does having more extra processing power for AI mean that there can be more characters on the screen?

[The Lonely Koopa]

To be honest, I don't really know what it means for them to focus on AI. Does having more extra processing power for AI mean that there can be more characters on the screen?

Im pretty sure hes talking about increasing the intelligence of AI.

[Narcidius]

Im pretty sure hes talking about increasing the intelligence of AI.

Mostly this, but the former as well (more characters on screen). Currently, the complexity of AI routines are severely hampered by available processing power. This doesn't much matter in a game like Zelda, which seems to focus on duels rather than big battles with crowds... but I could see it doing great things for a franchise like Pikmin, where enemies (and player-directed AIs) are required to coordinate with/react to one another. Big AI breakthroughs are a while down the line... but improved NPC coordination/interaction is an improvement we could see right away with a little more processing oomph in the hands of developers.

[Dementis]

Mostly this, but the former as well (more characters on screen). Currently, the complexity of AI routines are severely hampered by available processing power. This doesn't much matter in a game like Zelda, which seems to focus on duels rather than big battles with crowds... but I could see it doing great things for a franchise like Pikmin, where enemies (and player-directed AIs) are required to coordinate with/react to one another. Big AI breakthroughs are a while down the line... but improved NPC coordination/interaction is an improvement we could see right away with a little more processing oomph in the hands of developers.

The reason I asked is because I've never really seen a problem with AIs being unintelligent. Then again, I've never really played an FPS where I presume those things would be important.

[Oni-Link]

The system is Probably still going to be more powerful.But it wouldnt matter to me how much more powerful it is.

[Narcidius]

The reason I asked is because I've never really seen a problem with AIs being unintelligent. Then again, I've never really played an FPS where I presume those things would be important.

Yeah, but not just FPS (though that would be good... anyone ever played Crysis?). If you've played an RPG/Adventure like Fable III on the Xbox, you know that any time there are more than a few NPCs on screen, there are severe framerate issues and even some inexcusable rubber-banding. Fable III doesn't look all that awesome in terms of HD graphics... but the NPC AI in an environment like an RPG town, where each character is reacting to a number of variables regarding your character, his reputation, his current clothing and equipment, his actions, the actions of others, their own jobs and relationships to one another, etc., can get VERY demanding on a processor!

[Dementis]

Yeah, but not just FPS (though that would be good... anyone ever played Crysis?). If you've played an RPG/Adventure like Fable III on the Xbox, you know that any time there are more than a few NPCs on screen, there are severe framerate issues and even some inexcusable rubber-banding. Fable III doesn't look all that awesome in terms of HD graphics... but the NPC AI in an environment like an RPG town, where each character is reacting to a number of variables regarding your character, his reputation, his current clothing and equipment, his actions, the actions of others, their own jobs and relationships to one another, etc., can get VERY demanding on a processor!

Yeah, it's just FPS sprang to my mind. I've seen my uncle play COD and at one point there were quite a lot of characters on screen. I presume they'd have to strike a balance between intelligence and how many there are on screen.

But are there really severe framerate issues? One of the reason I love video games is because I've never really noticed any frame rate drops. Though I have been secluded to Nintendo games this gen.