Biohazard

Launch PS3 and Xbox 360 games looked better then PS2 and xbox games. We're not talking about that we're talking about Launch PS4 and Xbox720 titles that will look better then the Wii U's exclusive launch titles. I'm willing to bet Sony will have God of War 4 and Uncharted 4 as launch titles.

Oh. I was confused for a second.

It's not deniable that the launch titles of the PS4 and 720 are going to look better than Wii U exclusive titles, the 720 and PS4 will be using 2012 hardware.  Quality wise though it's mostly going to be ports of Wii U games, 360 games, and PS3 games. God of War 4 and Uncharted 4 won't be launch titles, quit living in lalala land

*SIGH* you know guys...this isn't rocket science. Just because the clockspeed may be lower, doesn't mean the CPU is going to be weaker than the Cell or Xenon. ANd some of you sound like you think this means that the clock speed is now going to be only like 2 Ghz. As I am sure most of you know, the clockspeeds of the Xenon(360 CPU) and the Cell(PS3 CPU) is 3.2 Ghz. If the Wii U CPU clockspeed really is lower, than its probably 3.0 Ghz, a measly .2 difference. Besides, the CPU will easily make up for it in other areas, such as multithreading. The CPU is either a Tri-Core or Quad-Core Power7 based processor, which can support up to 4 threads per core. However, Nintendo is likely to lower the amount of threads per core. Even then, it will still be better. The 360 and PS3 support 6 threads of code.

Even if the CPU is a Tri-Core, it can do 3 0r 4 threads per core, meaning it can support 9-12 threads. Heck, if Nintendo is using Quad-Core and does 2 threads per core, that is 8 threads, which is still higher than what 360 and PS3 can do. SO with Wii U, you are essentially looking at 8-12 threads of code for Wii U. And its a given that Wii U will have more RAM than 360 and PS3. We are most likely taking 32 MB of eDRAM and 1.5 GB of unified RAM(although .5 will likely be reserved for OS but still.) And the GPU will have a minimum clockspeed of 600 Mhz compared to the 500 Mhz clock of the 360 and the 550 Mhz clock of the PS3, Even Crytek, a dev team who are big on specs, said Wii U is minimum as powerful as the current HD twins. So despite a lower CPU clock, its pretty clear that Wii U still has better hardware than 360 and PS3

Sorry about the first part, but this really iclockspeed thing really isn't a big deal and it certainly doesn't mean the Wii U is weak.

I think Wii U is going to be more powerful than PS360, and in some cases clearly so. Once we see a game built from the ground up using the Wii U. Think how Uncharted looks on PS3. Most of the rumors(coming from sources verified in the industry) point to the Wii U being optimized for 3rd party engines. I don't see them having to do a lot of optimizing to run current gen engines personally. While games won't look as good as their PC counterparts(nobody should expect a console game to look better than top of the line PC games IMO), games that are built from the ground up on the Wii U should outclass PS360 if the small tidbits of information coming in is correct

As far as overheating and the 4850 are concerned in the OP, I have faith in Ninty. They always put out rugged consoles and remember the GPU isn't going to be an 'Off-The-Shelf' 4850. It's going to be a custom GPU that is likely similar in power to a 4850.

While it's great to see a screenshot of AC3, Darksiders II(really hyped for that game), etc.... the true test will be a game built from the ground up to take full advantage of the Wii U's HW.



If not before then

The fact that the industry was sucking performance out of the current generation for so long is simply because the consoles games are to be developed from ground up - they have the low-level advantage of programming access to developers.

3rd party games will not be using full WiiU potential and there will always be some 3rd party games that will not have the programming skills to fully push the technology , especially the early 3rd party games, optimizing takes time since it's delicate and harder. You can expect stuff from ID Software to obliterate the competition in 3rd party sector. First parties will obviously be the highest quality as that's nintendo we're talking about.

You can't compare console to PC - you can only come to a technical theoretical equivalents - having that in mind - the end performance potential is 40 to 60% higher simply because the PC hardware is extremely inefficient with it's OS, API and Driver overhead.

It's not the developers that would not optimize PC games - THERE IS NOTHING TO OPTIMIZE ON PC, nothing the devs can do, they just do with what they can, some devs do a better job in the challenge than others obviously. This shows you how it doesn't matter how good your codebase is and how good of a developer you are, look what happend to Rage, id software had no choices, it was out of their reach, it's all about the DRIVERS.

The point also is - those that make APIs and Drivers and Operating Systems(windows), aren't game developers.

The idea of "WiiU" being "optimized for 3rd party engines" is totally silly .. that's journalist-style misunderstanding when handing out second hand information.

The actual news was that Epic Games pushed nintendo for better hardware specs, and nintendo accepted, that's when the V5 kits bit a bit more powerful than expected .. along with the massive V4 kit spec bump.
So it was a spec bump - that's all - there is nothing "optimized" to be done - that wrong perception. The CPU has instructions that it is planned to have, that's a custom IBM chip co-developed by nintendo, The GPU has the features and machine code that it has, there is no "code for 3rd party engines" in there - it's not how the whole technology works - the API will be obviously full-proof, it's not like API would be bad .. this is not something that can be taken lightly - it would affect all games and every single piece of software using it. Nintnedo historically does a good job on the stability and quality of the hardware, nintendo uses a custom OPENGL and probably OPENAL(audio) for their machines - they will have to write / replace the whole API since the new console - making an API is definitely a job that is being developed throughout the consoles development. then there's the SDK which is not going to be finalized until release and these kinds of stuff get regularly updated after the console release, a serious bug is what they cannot accept - that won't affect just one engine, but everything. People need to stop seeing unreal engine as "special", just because of the popularity and their mod tools which i really don't like by the way (i like the sandbox approach from crytek far more than the wireframe weirdness in UDK). UE3 is very old now. IDTech5 and Cryengine 3 are better.


The middle ware is what the middleware is - if the middleware is crap - the games will be crap.
The game is what developers make - if developers are crap - the game is crap.
If the free middleware is not good enough - developers can purchase other or make their own.

The system is totally as the system is - modern hardware - there is no silly and unnecessary cutbacks in the machine code that would only allow for example: "16 bit color"

Everything depends on what is put on TOP of the system. The ease of development will be improved by better API developed by nintendo. Free Middleware is intended for certain 3rd Party developers who have little kills and resources to tackle making their own tools, it's intended for the APP and WiiUWare market that's because those indie developers obviously don't have the skills to make advanced dev tools, so they have to purchase commercial middleware which doesn't guarantee to work best - 3rd party developers will now be able to get this for free on WiiU making it very attractive and also spend that money on making a better game, which in turn ups the quality standard on the WiiU and can potentially contribute to better success - that can drive forward the popularity and therefore sales of the system.


The word "middleware" was coined because these pieces of software are EXTREMELY hard to make and only the best of programming teams can do a really good job. That's why dedicated companies were founded who focus only on the development tools and the basis of the games, one of those basis is a physics engine, for example Havok.


Game devs like EPIC and ID Software and Crytek don't rely on middleware that much - they use perforce for codebase and a few other different things, which is not really the thing that impacts the actual platform hardware ,but it really is up to the developer skill and resources to make that as high quality as possible - Carmack said that one of those Code Analysis license tools costs about 50.000$ and id Software used 3 different code analysis tools to make sure their game is super bug-less. Static code analysis is not optimizing - it's only to get rid of bugs - programmer errors. Here's an example PVS-Studio did for the recently released Doom3 source code: http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0120/

The industry usually doesn't make custom modelling tools - they use stuff like Maya, 3Dsmax and zBrush, these tools are usually not regarded as middleware because they don't interfere with the actual platform hardware and the game code. So you guys also need to know in which cases "middleware" term applies to the software - as a product. The software that is custom created at the studio is just software or dev tools, they don't call their own stuff "middleware" , middleware is usually a product / package that is done by another company and licensed / sold.


Nintendo probably has it's own custom "middleware" (which is software - it's a physics engine, development kits(modelling, mapping) , codebase (perforce) , code analysis (PVS-studio) , everyone can make his own, nothing special for experienced programmers)

The most used middleware is obviously the physics engine - these stuff is not sold like a plug-in object code, it's source code and licensed ... it can be modified and optimized so that rule "crap developer = crap game" is totally valid. It doesn't really matter what big super duper expensive "middleware" you put in your game - it won't work if you don't know how to properly implement it and make sure you don't screw up in a different area that would make the game run like crap while it's not even the middleware that would be faulty.

The "unoptimized middleware can kill the system" is a debatable statement. It doesn't kill the system it kills the games, system is fine. The middleware is the cause obviously, but this problem comes from situations where a developer purchases a lot of development tools that may not be as optimized for the system - those devs then have to work on already unoptimized development tools and the game cannot end up any better. Better developers can choose to have custom proprietary stuff making it from scratch, or are able to modify the existing middleware to fix it's flaws.


The bottom line is - whatever you do not properly program it can run as bad as a 10 year old game. WiiU will be technically more powerful than the X360 in many ways. The games will immediately look better on it, without even the violent optimizing that has yet to come, if gearbox software can make it, anyone can, gearbox software isn't really the pusher of the tech industry but they aren't bad at all, the Aliens Colonial marines being at the level gearbox described "best version on consoles" - this is a total confirmation that the much more experienced developer companies will get even better results.



Finally to conclude:
I just want to explain that the argument of optimizing engines in a way people think is against the laws of technology and also other things:
- Nintendo cannot optimize 3rd party engines: they don't have authorization to the proprietary code.
- EPIC licenses engines to other developers, but nintendo's tech is very rarely relied on third parties (except physics like havok) , they prefer their own proprietary stuff which they do not license to anyone.
- The optimization from a lower software level to some higher software engine is impossible - it goes against laws of physics and mathemathics and logic, and how the tech works. The optimization is done with the developer of the game. It solely relies on the game and what the game has inside (middleware) is totally not hardware's problem and hardware, nor API, nothing from nintendo can make up for a crappy programmed software. It's all game developers fault, obviously, if you have a stable system that doesn't RROD, but that's something else .. i talking about the aspect of situation without the low-probability variables, nintendo always makes polished systems so that's totally not a reason to worry about.

If UE3 will run like crap - it's UE3's fault.

Firstly its pretty stupid to say the least to argue the point that the 3DS has better graphics than the PSP when I have already stated the 3DS has a better gpu.

Uhh a few posts back you said "I love my 3DS but its not as powerful as sony's portable console that dates back to 2004."  Now you're saying it is more powerful, but the PSP has the faster CPU, measured only my Mhz and nothing having anything to do with advanced architecture like the ARM11 that's in the 3DS.  Sorry bud.

You also tried to prove the PSP is more powerful by comparing Ridge Racers, A crappy iPhone port to the 3DS, vs. a game Sony developed for the PSP probably a year ago, trying to do a "proof's in the pudding" comparison.  And yet you are trying your hardest to discredit the 3DS's "proof's in the pudding" comparison by saying the PS2 is more powerful than the 3DS or something because the PS2 version of RE4, which Resident Evil Revelations looks better than btw just on graphical effects alone, has "a lot going on inside and outside," whatever the hell that means.  Give it up, 3DS is quite a lot more capable than the PSP.  Deal with it.

You may believe the 3DS is powerful but currently there is no evidence to support that.

Find me a PSP or a PS2 game that looks better than this, amigo.  Capcom literally had to show the press a separate demo that turned off various effects like HDR and depth of field just to prove to guys like you that just won't believe the 3DS is this capable.  Apparently it still didn't work because they can't fix stupid I suppose.

I have both a wii and original xbox connected to a projector which is about six feet diagonal in screen size. The very idea that Mario Galaxy compares to Conker is so utterly stupid its beyond a joke.

Yeah I know, Galaxy looks and runs so much better.  Seriously, that clip you showed of Conker has the framerate dip when he's TALKING to somebody, with no action going on.  Mario Galaxy stays at 60 fps forever, AND has better textures, don't lie.  Believe what you want, but you're wrong, buddy.  (and you're Projecting these games?  Projectors suck for games, period.  No wonder you can't tell the difference.)

In fact I have another Game on Wii that beats out Conker too.  Sonic Colors, not only runs at a higher framerate, but also has gigantic worlds with many more graphical and particle effects going on at the same time.  Seriously, this is a losing argument for you.

No Metroid Prime 3 is not comparable to Half Life 2. It may have a better frame rate though. Half Life 2 does struggle at times on xbox but then its running a physic's engine which MP3 doesn't have to do. MP3 doesn't really attempt to simulate a real world either in physics or visually. Its more cartoon like working to the limitations of the wii.

I'd say they are comparable.  Metroid Prime 3 does have a physics engine.  It's not on EVERYTHING but the enemies do react with physics when struck with missiles and such.  And since the game runs better than Half Life 2 does on the Xbox (seriously, have you ever actually PLAYED that version.  The framerate gets horrendous near the end.  And it's a buitchered up version of the game too.  The Xbox clearly can't handle it, but they tried anyway.)

The ps2 is more powerful than the gamecube in some ways but it only has about 450 dmips of integer performance,"

Whoa holy carp.  Had to stop right there.  You have no idea what the hell you're talking about now.  Seriously, NO.  The Ps2 was in no way more powerful than the Gamecube in ANY respect.  Hell take RE4, which you seem so proud of on the PS2.  The Ps2 version was butchered to all hell from the GameCube version.  Not only did the game look half as good, it also had longer loadtimes times to boot.  Seriously, go look at comparison screens to see just how many effects they had to turn off for the PS2 version to even run.

Is it even worth it to talk to someone so misinformed?

The ps2 and original xbox both have 32bit colour.

*BZZT* Wrong.  PS2 had 24-bit Color, without the Z-buffer that both the GameCube and the horsing DREAMCAST had,

Mario Galaxy could have been done a lot better on original xbox,

Not quite homeboy.  All those special effects and stuff you listed after this not goodness would have taken a huge hit to the framerate.  Mario Galaxy does look better than any Xbox game.  Soul Calibur II is actually a perfect example of this.  The framerate takes a huge dive with 720p.  Also, I'm not sure that Dolby 5.1 has to do with graphics, but whatever.

Even now people still believe the wii is more powerful than the original xbox. We have basically reached the end of wii development and it has never achieved the level of games that the original xbox has.

Actually, RE4 was a first year Wii game, quickly ported to the Wii for some quick bucks.  And yet, RE4 looks better than every Xbox game I've seen.  Heck apprently the original Xbox couldn't run RE4, which is why it never got a port of the game.  That appeals to your sense of logic, right?

Anyway, done talking to somebody so misinformed.  There's no point for me and no hope for you.

Apple is indeed a very influential company, and Steve Jobs was certainly an extraordinary man, but to say that Apple has done anything influential for gaming is, quite simply, a lie.  The only thing Apple has accomplished is creating a smart phone which can play Touch Based Games (a genre of game which Nintendo pioneered) the quality of a Flash Game usually.  There are rare exceptions, such as the exceptional Infinity Blade, which do make the Smart Phone Market (read: Not just Apple) a bit more hardcore, but overall you simply cannot get a true gaming experience without physical buttons.

Shigeru Miyamoto is absolutely and unequivocally the most influential player in the history of video games, with Nolan Bushnell right behind for pioneering (though not perfecting) Electronic Gaming.  Microsoft is almost single-handedly responsible for the rise of Online Gaming for consoles, marking it high on the list of influence as a company, and Sony is home to the (once creative, now lackluster) geniuses who invented the Dual-Analog as well as first used Memory Cards (which, though not as awesome as Hard Drives, are exceptional for being portable) rather than saving data to the game copy.

Apple, on the other hand, has contributed absolutely nothing to gaming (Mac is still trailing behind PC by years in gaming).  Smart Phones aren't the rise of a new generation of gaming, rather, they are simply a fad which only the simplest of minds could possibly conceive as more comprehensive and visceral than any true gaming device.

So, what's my point with all of this? The point is that I, along with many other people, know better than to say Steve Jobs was more influential to gaming than, well, pretty much anyone else (Even Zynga was more influential than him).  A survey of 1,000 people proves absolutely nothing, as that is an extraordinarily small percentage of even a single state's population, much less a country or the world.

Let people be entertained by their smart phone games, what with their bird flinging, finger-flick slashing good times. Meanwhile, I'll be off playing real games created by true professionals with actual talent.

I believe nintendo has a great product in the Wii U... but i am a little worried. i look at the success of the Wii and think man that could have been about 20 million more consoles sold better. i think the innovation know as motion controls was great but lack of HD graphics hurt nintendo in the end. they missed out on all the good third party games and loss a lot of consoles sold to microsoft and sony.  they have to make this console powerful enough to compete in the next gen. yes we have all heard the rumors but we really don't know what the console can do yet. im in love with the controller an believe it gives them an advantage over their rivals even though the next gen hasn't started yet. some people will automatically think im a graphic whore but truth is they have to compete and get the third party games. i can go back to gamecube... a lot of my friends left nintendo because they didn't offer grand theft auto on their console. nintendo has to understand that most of their loyal fans have grown up and though we still appreciate the mario type games we also want the best of what the third party developers have to offer.

*Sigh*, More generic Fanboyism is at work here via generic "LOL, no" Comments.
Honestly, All of you need to get your Heads out of your ***** and think logically.

1.Apple Products are Extremely high Quality in both Design and Features, so there is no Doudt that a Potential Apple Console would be Beautiful in Both Design and Features.

2.Apple has a Dedicated Fanbase, and no, the Fanbase isn't full of "Apple Drones that would buy any and all products if it has the Apple Logo on it". I'm a Fan of Apple, and I buy their products because they are Very High Quality and they give me everything I both Need and Want from a Phone/Tablet. Yes some things are to be Desired, but they aren't very Big issues.

3. Look at Microsoft, They were a PC-Only Bisness. Now, Guess what, they are now in the Console bisness. Can Apple go the Same way, DEFINATLEY, There is no doudt in my mind.

And if iPhone/iPad gaming gets more and more popular, It would be a No-Brainer for Apple to Develop a Console of Sorts.

4. Apple Most likely won't need to Rely on First-Party software, but if they had to, they could easily Acquire a Games Developer/Publisher or even Set up their own Studio.

Now, I disagree that there "Isn't a point for Next-Gen consoles", as Consoles will continue to stick around for at Least 5 more Years. But, it remains true that Technological Progress has gave birth to many more (Far Superior) Options to Consoles.

Interesting, someone who thinks the exact opposite of most here... I honestly didn't think there were any dedicated gamers who preferred apple products. Also, be careful about spouting 'Think logically' when you don't know what it means; Going from point A to point B can vary between people, and what values they hold.

Before I post my counter-argument, I'd like to state that I AM a Nintendo Fanboy, so simple saying 'Apple is roxors' is not going to convince me to throw away modern gaming. Now that I've got that out of the way...

1. Ok. So your Ipod has features that you like? Good for you! I've had an Ipod Touch since I graduated, that's 4 years now, and I've used it solely for music, and to finish watching Clannad when my computer was broken. Guess what replaced it last march? Sure, the 3DS might not be able to play video, or use (well-over)half of the apps... The thing is, I never used any of those features anyway. The one feature I did use, the music player, I like better on the 3DS. Sure the Ipod had a better interface... But the 3DS has more folder control, better randomization and didn't require me to go through that annoying Itunes. I also like the clamshell design better, and I hate rubber cases so my Ipod is all scratched up... As well as the simple fact that Nintendo products are near indestructible. I had to take apart an old gamecube for Science once: It was near impossible.

Point is: While an Apple console would have features and designs of previous Apple products that you may enjoy, The Wii U/Ninty consoles would have features and designs of past Ninty products that I've enjoyed. Logic dictates that if I enjoyed my Ninty products better than my Apple products, than the same will hold true in the future. Next point.
2. Nintendo has an even more dedicated fanbase who won't buy everything they put out. I'm one of the biggest fanboys here, and I still haven't bought OoT 3D or Starfox 64, let alone the 2 Mario Galaxy games. TBH, I really don't get your point here... Logic dictates that because Apple Fans don't buy everything, they won't buy an apple console unless they play games, but because Gaming fanbases are they won't buy anything that isn't MicroSonyTendo? Are... You arguing against yourself now? O.o?

3. Well, 2 things... 1st off, Microsoft doesn't make PCs. They're an OS and Software company. 2nd off, Windows is infinitely better for gaming than mac. ESPECIALLY in Japan, where my fandoms lie. Case in point. So when Windows -> Xbox, they built it like a PC to make it easy for Devs to Multiplat PC games. That's why Ninty is making the Wii U like a PC. Logic dictates that if Apple made their console like a Mac, it would have the gaming priority of a Mac. Which is to say, almost none.

...Before you ask, yes. Yes I am a PC gamer as well. Sheesh, who said you could be part of one fandom >.>

4. Do you know why Nintendo survived the N64/GC years? First-Party Support. Nintendo is the single largest game developing company on the planet, with far more IPs and Studios than anyone else. Even without major 3rd party support they were able to survive 2 whole generations. Now, I ask... what makes you think apple can survive without any? Even if this console has awesome specs at a cheap price (Which is hardly possible with Apple), if it's only getting games that are already on other consoles, why would someone buy this console and miss out on Zelda Wii U? Logic dictates that one should buy not on hardware or brand, but on which one has the games you enjoy. If Apple has no exclusives that you enjoy then, outside of sheer fanboyism, why woud you buy it?

Hmm... It's been a while since I had a debate like this. We need more opinions on this site

http://nintendo3dsbl...and-speculation

Technically, they have written it off as "rumors and speculation", but that still isn't downright denying it. I wouldn't put much stock in this rumor, as it just seems like something that would be a bad decision all around. Nintendo should (hopefully) know that.

I think the general rule should be this..."Don't take any news seriously from anybody unless it's confirmed by Nintendo themselves."

I don't think we need another company like Apple in the console making business, unless Apple used the same level of quality they apply in making there computer hardware, employed dedicated skilled experts in making consoles and games and had good quality first party and exclusive third party games. The Apple console would have to be very innovative, another plain old PS3 or Xbox console wouldn't be enough because we have seen it all before. I don't think Apple is going to enter the console business because they would have pull a a whole lot off, (even though I am pretty sure a hell of a lot of Apple Fan-boys would buy anything Apple excretes) Apple is trying to take on the gaming market from a different angle, by making cheap, affordable games available on there popular iPhone and iPad for casual gamers to enjoy. l don't think "hardcore" or more dedicated gamers are going to stop buying consoles because of this anytime soon.

Apple really doesn't have as much experience with games as many people are giving them credit for. They do not develop any first-party games, and it seems that everyone has forgotten that the iPod Touch and iPhone did not even ship with an app store of any kind in their first year on the market. iOS (iPhone OS at the time) became a gaming platform entirely by accident - Apple didn't do much other than provide software development kits for apps that some companies decided to make a few games with. Next thing you know, 99-cent experiences became one of the leading reasons for people to get an iOS device - but the platform's third-party developers are responsible for that, not Apple themselves.

For Apple to design a good, competitive console, they would need to focus an immense amount of resources on that. Not to mention that they'd be competing with three companies that have all been in the console race for at least a decade, and are extremely well established in it. Add to that that Apple do not have any experience developing first-party games (which, let's face it, they'll need at least some of) and it just doesn't seem like the greatest business idea for them. The closest I can possibly see them coming to a game console is if they made the app store available on the Apple TV, and let you use iOS devices as controllers for it. But even that won't come close to the depth of the experiences that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can offer.

-