[QUOTE="Jikayaki"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] Tech demoes are pretty meaningless though. Ummm, Gamecube Zelda demo, anyone remember that? Ditto for numbers on a sheet. 64 bit Jaguar and Megadrive Blast Processing and PS2 Emotion Engine = Pixar graphics, etc Games are what matter, and so far what I;ve seen is 360/PS3 multiplats. Why is it so wrong to judge a console on the games it has? I don't want the WiiU to be underpowered, no more then I wanted the Wii to underpowered. My wishes don't change reality tho :? Only judging it logicallylocopatho

That's not judging the WiiU logically by any stretch of the word. Your judging the WiiU's capability by a reel of PS3/360 footage. You do understand we haven't seen anything running on the WiiU's hardware outside tech demos and one alpha stage game. If you want to judge a system by its games at the very least wait until there actually are games to judge it by.

You still don't get it do you? At that point in time there was no games for the WiiU in any finished form. Merely early ports which weren't shown, one alpha stage game, and tech demos. Again if you want to judge a console based on its games you have to actually wait tell there are games to actually judge it by.

[QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"]

People seem to forget where Sony said the PS4 wouldn't be much more powerful than the PS3. Odd how memory works. :roll:

The tech demo shows that the WiiU is capable, and even with "teh 720p and no AA" it looks better than pretty much anything out currently, barring PC games. Never mind the fact that it was a rushed video (as all of the tech demos were, the bird one was even changed DURING E3) and was made well over a year before the console is being released. I don't understand why people want the WiiU to be so underpowered anyway. All I've heard people say this gen is how much they wanted some HD Mario and Zelda.

locopatho

That's not judging the WiiU logically by any stretch of the word. Your judging the WiiU's capability by a reel of PS3/360 footage. You do understand we haven't seen anything running on the WiiU's hardware outside tech demos and one alpha stage game. If you want to judge a system by its games at the very least wait until there actually are games to judge it by.

Here is the problem. I am a lifelong Nintendo fan. I've owned every Nintendo console. However, there were only maybe 2 games for N64 and GC that I felt looked better than the average PS1/PS2 game. Most of the games looked worse than competing consoles in my opinion. I know the hardcore Nintendo fans will hate me for saying that, but it is true.

That is the "history" you are pointing to in order to prove Wii U awesome graphics?Meanwhile you talk about tech demos. Have you seen the tech demos Nintendo has shown thus far for the WiiU? Mini game collections and Wii sports type titles that look barely any better than thesame terrible content that plagued the Wii. Zelda HD looked good, but certainly not better thangames like Gears 3 or Uncharted 3.And if "history" indicates anything, it will be that most games look terrible and only a tiny handful actually bother to push the console graphically.

ZIMdoom

I have no idea how you could of noticed only about 2 games for the Gamecube that where superior to their counterpart on the PS2. Sometimes in hindsight having own both the PS2 and Gamecube I often ignored how different some game look between the two. Resident Evil 4 in my opinion is a good example to look up to see the difference between what was possible on the Gamecube and what was possible on the PS2. First party games utilize a style that often isn't best used to determine graphical performance within Nintendo hardware compared to competitor hardware.

The history the op was referencing was that console Zelda games sometimes look better than Zelda tech demos. There were a few things within the Zelda HD demo that are impressive. A native resolution of 720p ironically is impressive compared to most games this gen and some at Neogaf believed it utilized global illumination. Since it was running in real time including running the demo twice on two screens I would say that it was relatively impressive.

[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"]

You know what I'm sick of reading?

"Wii U will be barely more powerful than the 360/PS3. NextBox, PS4 is going to blow it out of the water lol"

Where are you getting ANY of your info. It's ignorant, wrong, biased...and it's annoying to read. So stop. Seriously.

Grey_Eyed_Elf

Oh come on Nintendo was competetive with their competition before the Wii on the console space. The Wii was the first console from Nintendo significantly behind the competition. There is no historical precidence for Nintendo consoles to be weaker than their competition before the Wii.

I don't think any one honestly thinks WiiU will be as powerful as PS4/720. How it will compare depends on a number of factors we can't predict. Whether or not Sony and Microsoft will continue the loss leader method of hardware developement being the primary factor. When you factor in the costs of hard drives and secondary controllers, if PS4/720 launch with Move/Kinect, there exists a chance that PS4/720 won't be significantly more powerful if created to costs.

Then there is that product listing for Microsoft, which to my knowledge hasn't been debunked yet, which in my opinion points to Microsoft pushing for the Kinect crowd next gen including an update to the Kinect in 2014. The Kinect crowd is very much the same crowd interested in the Wii and would mean a very specific cost range for the console way below what it would take to significantly out perform the Wii U.

[QUOTE="Jikayaki"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well considering what the specs are and how good that tech demo looked, it's safe to say that no game will hit that level of graphical fidelity on the Wii U.

You also have to remember that the demo had absolutly no gameplay and was in a tight, controlled room.

loosingENDS

We have absolutely no idea what the specs of the Wii U are thus its impossible to say what Devs will and will not be able to pull out of the console. From rumors where looking at something 3x and 5x times the capability of current HD hardware. I don't see how fidelity equal to that Zelda demo will be impossible unless the final specs greatly under perform. There have been enough positive comments for individuals to cautiously optimistic regarding the Wii U's graphical capabilities. The next Xbox and PS are more than likely going to be noticeably more powerful, but that doesn't stop Wii U being more than a modest step forward in hardware.

Rumors are just rumors, there are many things to consider though

1. Wii had hardware far behind its time of release, i mean far far behind, so WiiU could essentailly have the same logic behind it

2. A screen pad is super expensive and to have a nice market price so they dont scare customers away would mean that they would probably have to use low PC hardware, up to mid range at best case

3. Not all PC hardware is strong today, there is still hardware that wont run Withcer 2 or Crysis 1-2 as good as xbox 360, mainly the low end video cards

So, until Nintendo comes up with price and final specs, i cant really say WiiU will actually be 3-5x more powerfull and TBH beeing 3-x more powerfull in a PC era that video cards are 10-15x more powerfull than consoles is not exactly a huge achievement and the impact in games may not be as big as believed

Of course rumors are rumors that's why I said its ok to be cautiously optimistic not willy nilly in regards to the WiiU's capabilities. That said from supposed leaks to majority of the hardware rumors in general all point to the alpha and perhaps second gen dev hardware all having a GPU within the 4000 series of GPUs within a specific range. There has been too much consistency to merely ignore.

1. Statements from Nintendo make me think they regret many of their choices regarding the Wii's hardware. They certainly don't regret not jumping into the deep end with Microsoft and Sony, but I do believe they think having more comparable hardware in features would of afforded them better support.

2. From all accounts I've found the tablet controller likely isn't super expensive. Its likely mostly a dump terminal with majority of the costs coming from the touch screen and the battery. There's a lot of vagueness regarding the patent, but I doubt it will end up costing much more than $50 to manufacture if that. Considerably more than your average controller's manufacturing cost, but when you understand that the WiiU has no internal hard drive like its competition will it likely more than evens out.

3. Certainly not all PC hardware is outragesly strong today. I'm running my computer merely using my motherboard's integrated card since my power supple went out and its no where near as capable as a xbox 360. Still hardware has progressed and the price to Nintendo to utilize significently more powerful than PS360 hardware isn't overly expensive. Really nothing regarding current rumors even on the high end is expensive.

Well considering what the specs are and how good that tech demo looked, it's safe to say that no game will hit that level of graphical fidelity on the Wii U.

You also have to remember that the demo had absolutly no gameplay and was in a tight, controlled room.

Wasdie

We have absolutely no idea what the specs of the Wii U are thus its impossible to say what Devs will and will not be able to pull out of the console. From rumors where looking at something 3x and 5x times the capability of current HD hardware. I don't see how fidelity equal to that Zelda demo will be impossible unless the final specs greatly under perform. There have been enough positive comments for individuals to cautiously optimistic regarding the Wii U's graphical capabilities. The next Xbox and PS are more than likely going to be noticeably more powerful, but that doesn't stop Wii U being more than a modest step forward in hardware.

[QUOTE="Master_Of_Fools"]

Wii U will have great games. Shigeru Miyamoto (Spelling?) said he is personally going to be incharge of the HD Zelda game and he hasnt been in charge since Ocarina Of Time so thats a good thing. Also with Smash, Bros, Metroid, and F-zero and Star Fox making a return man they cant go wrong.

lazyathew

No to my knowledge all that exists are some quotes that simply state Nintendo is interested in creating an entry into the Star Fox franchise. I don't remember anything specific to F-zero.

I fully expect the Wii U's launch to be more spectacular in comparison to the 3DS's own launch software. Mostly thanks to a selection of up ports of current and future third party titles. After the 3DS's own troubles I'd figure that Nintendo's first party line up for launch will end up beefed up in comparison as well, but I doubt you'll see major first party titles outside possibly a 2.5D Mario platformer. Think experimentally titles like what Brainage, Nintendogs, and Luigi's Mansion were.

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]Crytek is happy with it, Bethesda seems to have no problem with it, and the creator of Braid has said he's been told it has "Much more RAM" than current consoles. I would be fine with 1GB system, and 512MB VRAM. Although 2GB/512MB would be pretty good.thesnowdog2005

I imagine that depending on the type of RAM Nintendo goes with will see 1.5GB of unified system memory with 1T-SRAM for the GPU(at least 24Mb hopefully more), or 1GB of unified system memory and .5GB of VRAM along with the 1T-SRAM more or less like you stated. I don't expect Nintendo to gimp its system, so I'm not sure about GDDR3. Something interesting is if Wii U does have a Radeon HD 4850 or 4870 equivalent Nintendo could meet or exceed the standard bandwidth of the commerically available cards with DDR3 using IBM's memory controllers. I simply don't know how much these memory controllers would cost. I suspect because of Wii backwards compatibility that Wii U's memory set up will superficially resemble Wii's and Gamecube's. I don't think 2GB of system ram (main system and video combined) is completely out of the question depending on specifics, but it isn't likely.

It's way too soon to predict which of the next gen consoles will be the victor next gen or whether or not one of the console manufactures will bite the dust. First we only know anything concrete about the Wii U and are only starting to get rumors about the next Xbox. PS4 itself will likely launch in 2013 a full year behind Microsoft and more than a year behind the Wii U. This doesn't place PS4 in a good position for next gen with more of its western audience potentially absorbed by the next Xbox or Wii U and more of its eastern audience gained by the Wii U.

As far as who is in a better position coming next gen both Microsoft and Nintendo are in far superior positions than Sony. Microsoft bleed rather harshly this gen like Sony, but not the same extent and have been making profit on the Xbox brand for some time now. Nintendo lost mindshare with the core, but financially only Microsoft thanks to its large stream of revenue is as ready for next gen as Nintendo themselves.

PS4 winning the console wars is far from guarnteed nor do I believe that will be even a goal on Sony's part. Sony's strategy this coming gen is far more likely going to focus on preserving their current market and expanding into new markets. Sony's efforts practically are going to be defensive mainly trying to keep Nintendo and Microsoft from cannibalizing their market share.