Wii U


  • Darkhawk - August 24, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    Pretty pathetic that Nintendo's "Next Gen" console is struggling to compete, at least visually, with the Current Gen. How is this acceptable?
  • A000 - August 24, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    PS3/360 = Consoles at end of lifespan. Wii U = Console not even at beginning of lifespan yet. Systems that developers have had over 6 years to learn and program for will look quite nice by now. The Wii U is brand new, and no one has had a great deal of development time for it, but it still looks pretty good. Also, if I recall correctly, everything on the Wii U is running in 1080p, whereas most stuff on the PS3/360 runs at 720p. Plus the Wii U is also outputting 480p to the GamePad at all times. Thats no small task. This type of graphical inconsistency between generations has precedent. When the 360 came out, there were a few games on launch day that also had original xbox versions, and the 360 versions barely looked any better. I don't think it's anything to worry about, yet at least. But we shall see.
  • ParagonT - August 24, 2012 7:24 a.m.

    I will say that its really early to see, but unlike most, I'm not here to see the "potential" and what could be of the console, but what it will be able to do. No way anyone I personally know is going to make an investment into a system in the hopes of "better" games, they should have made the line pretty straight forward of what will come from the system, not a dream of possibilities. That should have been their focus in the beginning, to show us what it can actually do, not "The controller will change the industry!". I'm unconvinced as of yet, but others may be. Fair enough, maybe I'll change my mind in the future.
  • chrisda - August 24, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    That is still no excuse for nintendo, this is supposed to be the Next generation. This is hardware 6-7 years newer than the 360 and the ps3. Video capabilities have exploded since then. There's very very few instances in which a succeeding generation looks worse than the previous generation. Take a look at today's PC games, this is what the next gen consoles for Microsoft and Sony are going to look like, what's nintendo's excuse?
  • A000 - August 24, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    I think their reasoning (rather than the word "excuse") is that they don't care about graphics. And quite rightly so. They also insist on not making a loss on their hardware. So they've got reasons, whether people like them or not. Video capabilities are always exploding. A graphics card or chip is out of date if its been out for more than a month. From the reports we've seen so far. The graphics chip of the Wii U seems to be very very good, its the CPU thats letting it down apparently. Personally I don't care either way. If the games look pretty, thats great. If they don't, but they're still fun, thats great too. We've known from the beginning that the Wii U wasn't going to be an absolute powerhouse. Anyone expecting the Wii U to be able to match up graphically with whatever consoles Sony and MS come up with next, are idiots and they're going to be disappointed. Still, I'll be disappointed if reports like this one end up being true across other games and becomes the general rule rather than the exception. But I don't think that will happen. This is one report, by 1 person of 1 play session of 1 ported game with limited development time. I still think we all just need to wait and see.
  • KnowYourPokemon - August 24, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Exactly, I'll never really understand why people are using the "The next PS and Xbox will overpower the WiiU so bad" argument. Do they realize the gamecube had more power in it than the PS2? Yet the PS2 ended up being an amazing success even though it had the least amount of power for consoles that gen.
  • ParagonT - August 24, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    Graphics are not necessarily "everything" for some people, but I think that the reason Nintendo does not improve on this area is because of their demographic; Kids, seniors, ladies, weight concerned individuals, and some fans of the golden days of Nintendo (as a start). Graphics although are not only important in appearance as well, but by inferring what people mean (they mean system "power" I think), you can say that the power of a system includes things like: Available number cap for multi-player, AI, physics, draw distance, and much more that affects more than just the looks of the game, but core mechanics. So in all, I think than "not caring" as you've said is dead on the mark, but not what people assume their reasons to be. It's just that they don't care because they have a corner of the gaming market cornered (somewhat), so they have no need to tend to what people call "the core players". Not meaning that "graphics" (if you mean power) doesn't mean anything, because it very well does. Minecraft is a great example. It's "graphics" are very subjective to thought (I think it's beautiful haha) and its not very realistic in terms of other games, but it takes quite a bit of power to run it on decent settings without resource lag. Which shows that just because a developer takes a different artistic view of the world in their game doesn't mean that power is not important. I'm not sure what other point I was trying to make, because I had to go do my laundry, came back and was like "What the hell did I type? What was I even trying to say?" My bad.
  • dispatcher_83 - August 24, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    You do realize that developers have to make a game based on the lowest common denominator, and then polish/enhance/design up from there right? Did you honestly expect this game to look 100x better than either existing console? If so you are an idiot. Graphics aren't the only thing and to assume next gen consoles are going to look like high end pc's now means you haven't been paying any attention to the rumors about what next gen consoles are going to be.
  • Rowdie - August 24, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    hehe, No.
  • A000 - August 24, 2012 6:41 a.m.

    "Should developers still be unclear whether the GamePad will feature rumble or not?" The GamePad does feature rumble. It was demonstrated during the GamePad overview during their E3 presentation.
  • wingsdjy - August 24, 2012 5:55 a.m.

    It sounds like Nintendo once again is trying to discourage 3rd party developers from making games for their console. Why do they feel the need to keep everything such a big secret this late in the game? We still don't know: - Price of the console - Price of the games - Feature set of the controller - etc That is ridiculous for a console that supposedly comes out in 2-3 months.
  • A000 - August 24, 2012 6:33 a.m.

    What exactly don't you know about the controller? The controller is the one thing we do know about.
  • kolesrage - August 24, 2012 7:26 a.m.

    Add to that list - we also don't know the launch date. It could NOT be coming out in 2-3 months, especially if they're still doing hardware revisions. I find it pretty interesting how that speculative bit has stuck around so strongly. It's even reflected in the article.
  • Joco84 - August 24, 2012 5:07 a.m.

    worrying times
  • CurryIsGood - August 24, 2012 4:58 a.m.

    I want it to look better than the ps3 for Nintendo's sake. And not just a little bit better even, it should be clear before anyone in the world it is better.
  • SpiritTemple - August 24, 2012 3:38 a.m.

    Lets just hope all the problems are fixed before release, I don't want the Wii U to be as bad as when the 360 was released (Red ring of death). Also the Wii U version of AC3 looked amazing, so I don't care if everyone thinks the PS3 version looks better, I'm still getting it on Wii U. Leave Luck To Heaven.
  • SpiritTemple - August 24, 2012 3:31 a.m.

    First *BLUE SHELL* ...Last

Showing 21-37 of 37 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.