Nintendo Wiiu

[nicorulez]

It will be very interesting to see the final specs. I am hopeful that it is a little more powerful than predicted by the online scribes. If not, it is going to be slaughtered in 2014 by superior hardware from Microsoft and Sony. The real question for this system besides the funky controller....eeewwww...is whether the system will the lead platform on franchises like COD or Madden or NFS....etc. If so, it may bode well for pc gamers as the AMD GPU is similar to current GPU's in high end systems. However, if it gets ports they may be shoddy. We shall see. Although I absolutely despise the Wii, the Wii U may be compelling if the controller is not a significant hindrance. Next few years will be fun.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by nicorulez

It will be very interesting to see the final specs. I am hopeful that it is a little more powerful than predicted by the online scribes. If not, it is going to be slaughtered in 2014 by superior hardware from Microsoft and Sony. The real question for this system besides the funky controller....eeewwww...is whether the system will the lead platform on franchises like COD or Madden or NFS....etc. If so, it may bode well for pc gamers as the AMD GPU is similar to current GPU's in high end systems. However, if it gets ports they may be shoddy. We shall see. Although I absolutely despise the Wii, the Wii U may be compelling if the controller is not a significant hindrance. Next few years will be fun.

Of course consoles that launch 2 years later are going to be faster. They can't be that much faster though. Maybe 5 times, if that. Lets even give them the benefit of the doubt and say 10 times... PCs today are more than 10 times faster than PS3/360, does anything on PC look that much better than GoW3 or Uncharted 3? Not really.

[mullet]

10 page thread doesn't matter, people are going to buy this system faster then they can make them and I will be inline to buy one to.

[nicorulez]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Of course consoles that launch 2 years later are going to be faster. They can't be that much faster though. Maybe 5 times, if that. Lets even give them the benefit of the doubt and say 10 times... PCs today are more than 10 times faster than PS3/360, does anything on PC look that much better than GoW3 or Uncharted 3? Not really.

Ninja, I think if you saw what a high end pc with dual CF or SLI configurations running Crysis 2 maxed out at 2560 by 1600 then you will see that pc's far outperform current consoles. Most XB360 or PS3 run at 720p and are upscaled. They would choke on the proverbial chicken if they tried to run at 2560 rez. Even if they natively run at 1080p, which a few titles like Gran Turismo do, they have to sacrifice some of the detail.

I agree that in theory the next next gen would normally be only 4 or 5 times as powerful, but my contention is that Nintendo is using old tech. If Sony and MS go with newer tech (remember, the XB360 used a GPU that had not even come out when initially introduced), they will be far more then 4 or 5 times more powerful. Alas, their cost will be higher too if they that route. Ultimately, it will be compelling to see.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by nicorulez

Ninja, I think if you saw what a high end pc with dual CF or SLI configurations running Crysis 2 maxed out at 2560 by 1600 then you will see that pc's far outperform current consoles. Most XB360 or PS3 run at 720p and are upscaled. They would choke on the proverbial chicken if they tried to run at 2560 rez. Even if they natively run at 1080p, which a few titles like Gran Turismo do, they have to sacrifice some of the detail.

Resolution is a problem of memory and fillrate. Any next gen console will have the memory and fill rate to run at high resolution. I'm talking about grahpics. Resolution is just the granulairty of the filter through which the graphics are presented. In terms of graphics, crysis 2 doesn't look hardly any better on a PC vs 360. Differences are minimal. Even comparing the best graphics between the top PC game and the top PS3/360 games its minimal. It has to do with the fact that the closer you get to "realistic" visuals, the harder it is to tell a difference between generations. PSX --> PS2 was an increase of something like 50x the power, the graphics difference was huge, blocky, unfiltered textures were now clear and models didnt look like they were made from legos. However, when you went from PS2 --> PS3, which also was probably 50x processing power, it looks better, a lot better, but not really the PSX to PS2 jump. Things are smoother, with better textures, yes, but did doesn't have the same holy crap factor as PSX to PS2. Heres a good comparison, when PS2 was doing tech demos, they did a FF8 cutscene rendered in real time. When PS3 was doing tech demos, they did a FF7 cutscene rendered in real time. Go dig them up and watch them, keeping in mind one is using 50x the power. They look pretty similar.

The next consoles will be even worse in this regard. They might have 10x or even 25x the power of todays, but thats a smaller jump than before, and that jump will have even less places to spend the processing power. What are they going to do, make models with even more polygons? More than GoW3 or Uncharted 3? Those models already look near photorealistic, add 10x the polys and they will hardly look different. Most polys now spend the majority of their time at sizes below 1 pixel per poly, pointless to add more. Add more texture data? Yeah, you'll get a little better detail there, but again, these models look near photoreal now. Its going to be more about art direction in the future consoles than raw specs.

PS: I have a high end PC, in fact most of my games are played on it right now. I dont see much difference runing crysis 2 maxed out at 1920x1200 vs the console, other than the res.

[nicorulez]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Resolution is a problem of memory and fillrate. Any next gen console will have the memory and fill rate to run at high resolution. I'm talking about grahpics. Resolution is just the granulairty of the filter through which the graphics are presented. In terms of graphics, crysis 2 doesn't look hardly any better on a PC vs 360. Differences are minimal. Even comparing the best graphics between the top PC game and the top PS3/360 games its minimal. It has to do with the fact that the closer you get to "realistic" visuals, the harder it is to tell a difference between generations. PSX --> PS2 was an increase of something like 50x the power, the graphics difference was huge, blocky, unfiltered textures were now clear and models didnt look like they were made from legos. However, when you went from PS2 --> PS3, which also was probably 50x processing power, it looks better, a lot better, but not really the PSX to PS2 jump. Things are smoother, with better textures, yes, but did doesn't have the same holy crap factor as PSX to PS2. Heres a good comparison, when PS2 was doing tech demos, they did a FF8 cutscene rendered in real time. When PS3 was doing tech demos, they did a FF7 cutscene rendered in real time. Go dig them up and watch them, keeping in mind one is using 50x the power. They look pretty similar.

The next consoles will be even worse in this regard. They might have 10x or even 25x the power of todays, but thats a smaller jump than before, and that jump will have even less places to spend the processing power. What are they going to do, make models with even more polygons? More than GoW3 or Uncharted 3? Those models already look near photorealistic, add 10x the polys and they will hardly look different. Most polys now spend the majority of their time at sizes below 1 pixel per poly, pointless to add more. Add more texture data? Yeah, you'll get a little better detail there, but again, these models look near photoreal now. Its going to be more about art direction in the future consoles than raw specs.

PS: I have a high end PC, in fact most of my games are played on it right now. I dont see much difference runing crysis 2 maxed out at 1920x1200 vs the console, other than the res.

Ninja, I agree with you to a point. However, the pc's really do destroy the consoles. If you look at lens for truth or even IGN head to heads it is clear to see. Direct X11 is really a leap beyond DirectX 8 or 9 that are seen on the consoles. Physics is also much more impressive. I agree that art direction is the future; but don't try to deny that Uncharted 3 on a more powerful system would not look that much more slick. Increase AA, AF, particle effects, HDR, specular lighting ,etc. The list goes on and on. Reality probably will not arise for twenty years, but I am holding out hope for the PS4 and XB720. Still not impressed by WiiU.

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Resolution is a problem of memory and fillrate. Any next gen console will have the memory and fill rate to run at high resolution. I'm talking about grahpics. Resolution is just the granulairty of the filter through which the graphics are presented. In terms of graphics, crysis 2 doesn't look hardly any better on a PC vs 360. Differences are minimal. Even comparing the best graphics between the top PC game and the top PS3/360 games its minimal. It has to do with the fact that the closer you get to "realistic" visuals, the harder it is to tell a difference between generations. PSX --> PS2 was an increase of something like 50x the power, the graphics difference was huge, blocky, unfiltered textures were now clear and models didnt look like they were made from legos. However, when you went from PS2 --> PS3, which also was probably 50x processing power, it looks better, a lot better, but not really the PSX to PS2 jump. Things are smoother, with better textures, yes, but did doesn't have the same holy crap factor as PSX to PS2. Heres a good comparison, when PS2 was doing tech demos, they did a FF8 cutscene rendered in real time. When PS3 was doing tech demos, they did a FF7 cutscene rendered in real time. Go dig them up and watch them, keeping in mind one is using 50x the power. They look pretty similar.

The next consoles will be even worse in this regard. They might have 10x or even 25x the power of todays, but thats a smaller jump than before, and that jump will have even less places to spend the processing power. What are they going to do, make models with even more polygons? More than GoW3 or Uncharted 3? Those models already look near photorealistic, add 10x the polys and they will hardly look different. Most polys now spend the majority of their time at sizes below 1 pixel per poly, pointless to add more. Add more texture data? Yeah, you'll get a little better detail there, but again, these models look near photoreal now. Its going to be more about art direction in the future consoles than raw specs.

PS: I have a high end PC, in fact most of my games are played on it right now. I dont see much difference runing crysis 2 maxed out at 1920x1200 vs the console, other than the res.

I'd have to disagree with that one. PS2 to PS3 is indeed just as big of a jump from the PSX. Maybe even more so because both the PSX and PS2 only rendered at 480i with some games being able to use progressive mode. 720p on the PS3 is a pretty significant leap.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Bman212121

I'd have to disagree with that one. PS2 to PS3 is indeed just as big of a jump from the PSX. Maybe even more so because both the PSX and PS2 only rendered at 480i with some games being able to use progressive mode. 720p on the PS3 is a pretty significant leap.

Look at some models from games and compare them. You can barely tell what PSX models are supposed to be half the time.

[nicorulez]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Look at some models from games and compare them. You can barely tell what PSX models are supposed to be half the time.

Ninja, play Crysis at 2560 with all the enhancements and honestly say there is no difference. The difference from a high end pc to PS3/XB360 is huge. Alas, I am concerned that Nintendo is doing their usual S__T and releasing a console that is realtively underpowered for the year it is released. Oh, it will have a unique controller no doubt, but the specs are not that impressive for a console released in 2012. God I hope Sony and MS release a console that is ballz to the wallz so to speak. Why shouldn't console gamers see the glory of GTX 590 power in a console with a terabyte harddrive, the ability to stream HD video and more. I am praying

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Look at some models from games and compare them. You can barely tell what PSX models are supposed to be half the time.

I'd definitely have to agree with that. I couldn't hardly play vigilante 8 cause I couldn't tell what was going on. I fell the same way about GT3 and GT4 going to GT5. I had a hard time telling which way a turn might go if you were looking down the track. It's much easier to see it now.

[Ninjaman09]

Originally Posted by nicorulez

Alas, I am concerned that Nintendo is doing their usual S__T and releasing a console that is realtively underpowered for the year it is released.

What an absurd comment. The only console they've ever released that could be called "relatively underpowered" was the Wii.

Originally Posted by nicorulez

but the specs are not that impressive for a console released in 2012

Nobody knows what the specs are, what are you talking about?

[Zelda_fan]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman09

Nobody knows what the specs are, what are you talking about?

nico is a physician and knows business. stfu.