Google+

Topics

Wii U

73 comments

  • KnowYourPokemon - September 13, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    Honestly this is going to be the first console I ever purchase on day 1. 32gb of memory is plenty for me since I rarely buy digital games for my consoles in the first place and an actual line up of launch titles. I'm seriously tempted to just trade in my PSVita/PSV games toward it .
  • KnowYourPokemon - September 13, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    And seriously as far as price goes I'm surprised anyone else is surprised. It's a brand new console, the fact that it can run games on the get go just as well(if not better) than current gen consoles just prove the kind of potential it has for when devs get used to the hardware(just look up launch 360 games... not too impressive compared to what it has now).
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    It amuses me how you people are saying and claiming that the console is going to be more powerful than current-gen consoles, when all the proof they have shown so far, is that at best, they can run current-gen games on more or less the same graphical level, but WORSE. (This being more evident on the comparison between the ACIII versions between the wii U and the PS3 version.) It's also funny how you're comparing the wii u to the 360 back when it started, and how it has progressed, but failed to mention how even early games of the 360 looked immediately more advanced and, *ahem* CLEARLY next gen compared to PS2, GC or Xbox games. No such difference has been shown in any single game announced for the Wii U so far.
  • jay-lytwynenko - September 13, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    The Wii U isn't really 'next-gen', but it is proven that the Wii U will be the 'best' console on the market. The most powerful, providing that it is slightly more powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3. It should run games faster and cope better with current gen-software. This puts it in a great place for this up coming year. But obviously when the 720 comes out and what have you, they ARE going to be on a whole different level. But the point of the Wii U is to up-step current competition and offer its players a better experience for less. When 720 comes out, I may sell my own mother to get it. It will be mega-sexy, but for now, I will trade my old Wii for this new console ;)
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    "The Wii U isn't really 'next-gen', but it is proven that the Wii U will be the 'best' console on the market. The most powerful, providing that it is slightly more powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3. " See, that's the thing... Aside from the new controller, which while it looks nice, has yet to prove itself. The rest of what we've seen from the console doesn't really convince me that it's the "best" in anything from the other current gen consoles. Comparison with other current gen games already out on the other consoles look the same at BEST, if not run slightly worse, so it's not like it has an edge there. Then, like I've repeatedly pointed out, the memory capacity in the system, for either bundle, is far inferior than what current gen consoles have.And cost-wise, it's not even going to be cheaper than either the current 360 or the PS3. That, and considering that both the Ps3 and 360 have a catalog of 6+ of games taht the Wii U doesn't have... aside from Wii-U exclusives, how exactly is the Wii proven itself to be indisputably superior to even current gen consoles?
  • jay-lytwynenko - September 13, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    In a comment I made earlier concerning the memory thing: "Memory wise, I will be getting the premium bundle, 32GB is plenty. And Nintendo have also confirmed that you can plug a regular old HDD into your Wii U and add extra memory. So you could plug in a 2T HDD if you wanted for maximum space. The reason for this is because HDD prices are plummeting and offering a better opportunity for those who want to invest. This also lowers the price for a console from Nintendo that will be the most powerful console on the market until Sony and Microsoft launch their next-gen consoles." I think this is pretty awesome that you can use your own HDD, giving you a choice of how much memory you want. I mean, yeah, 250GB HDD on a console sure looks nice, but I have never filled it. I think the memory is fine, and the fact you can choose yourself how big you wanna go memory wise is a great idea. An I do agree when you say 'it still needs to prove itself', it does, but at the same time, I am judging on the specs rather than what I have seen from demos and whatnot. I never trust pre-launch material because only when it launches, do you get to see and experience it for yourself. The tech says its better than 360 and PS3, we will just have to see how it holds up against the two. And by better, I only mean a slight amount, its not mega advanced. I think that it is nice the Wii U is coming back to hard core gamers as well, supporting Mass Effect 3 and releasing games like FIFA and even Bayonetta 2. I do have high hopes.
  • KnowYourPokemon - September 13, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    There's honestly nothing wrong with the 32gb of hard drive space and honestly if you're one for downloading full games onto your consoles hard drive instead of using discs you can still use external devices with the WiiU for storage.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    ...Which costs extra, on top of the 350 you're already gonna be dishing out. Though I concede that it's good that it allows already existing HDDs, and not demanding proprietary hardware like Sony stupidly did for the PSV -.-
  • KnowYourPokemon - September 13, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    Damn, here I was getting ready to comment on how "well at least it wont be extremely overpriced memory like PSV" but you beat kind of beat me to the punch in a way :P
  • Thedigitalg - September 13, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    Why does everyone even get a hard-on for graphics, anyway? Is there a single person in the history of mankind who has ever bought a Nintendo console for its stunning detail and mindblowing textures? The good Nintendo games are far better than the best 360 and PS games, that is why people buy them. The only problem is they are few and far between.
  • Thedigitalg - September 13, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    For the record, I am a shameless Nintendo fanboy (which all gamers should be!). Thought I'd get that in there before someone else did.
  • jay-lytwynenko - September 13, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    Agreed. This is definitely a good point. I buy consoles for the 'games' and want good games. I have never gone out and bought a game with the thought 'this game has super real graphics, Im buying this shit'. Its awesome what we can do now with tech and all that, but generally, I will love a game that has a specific 'look' rather than imitating real life. Borderlands, Zelda, Rayman, the list goes on. Nintendo always delivers in this sense. And Im a fan of Nintendo too, much love to them, and all my £££. I dont need to pay my rent in November right?
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    Yes, games are definitely the most important part of a console, I don't most sensible people disagree with that... But then you guys say that as if Nintendo was known for having the best catalog of games in their latest consoles... (N64, GC, Wii.) And I'm not talking about their first party support (which yes, it's the most robust of any console, but the worth of those games and whether they justify the cost is honestly, subjective for each person.) What I'm saying is, sure, ultimately, if the console has good games, and you think those games make it worth getting it, then by all means. But right now, they are revealing details of the console itself, not the games, and as such, i am judging the console from what we know, and explaining why I don't really feel it's as great as it could be.
  • Thedigitalg - September 13, 2012 12:10 p.m.

    Sacrilege. The Gamecube was the best console ever. I didn't get an xbox for four years after launch because I was still playing the lunchbox. And I said, Nintendo had problems keeping up good games for the Wii, but the big games made it worth buying anyway.
  • jay-lytwynenko - September 13, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    Gamecube was AWESOME. I had many a fun playing Wind Waker and Star Fox on that dinky little thing. XD
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 12:36 p.m.

    That I won't argue, Wind Waker was a specially great game ^^ Just, like I stated above, outside from it's first party support, the third party support wasn't the greatest, and there was a lot of games that ended up coming out for the PS2 and Xbox that I wished had arrived for the GC, but never did, and that's my main gripe with nintendo consoles at the moment, third party support.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    Not saying the GC wasn't great, but even if you loved the shit out of the selection of games it had. (Which you clearly did, and that's more than fine.) statistically speaking, it didn't even came close to having the third party support the PS2 had, let alone the 3rd party support or overall selection of games that the SNES offered. What I'm saying is, the last 3 Nintendo consoles haven't had the greatest third party support, obviously, for some that isn't as important as they prefer or are happy with mainly the first party stuff Nintendo makes, but for me, that's simply not the case
  • ParagonT - September 14, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    Because specs don't just cover "graphics" it covers available physics, multi-player caps, AI, object rendering, object amounts available in an area, and more. It increases the available resources that can then be used by developers to make games with perhaps massive battles, or maybe bigger maps, or perhaps more physics as quick examples. It covers much more than some may think, so its important. If graphics were not important ever, then why have we moved passed older consoles? Innovation of controllers and accessibility? Those are indeed viable, but those need the specs that people seem to hate as well so its a no brainer in my eyes why specs are important. Specs increase potential. As for Nintendo games, that's just personal preference as you've pretty much admitted. The sheer audacity that I don't use my Wii shows that to me that Nintendo games are not my type.
  • KnowYourPokemon - September 13, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    "It amuses me how you people are saying and claiming that the console is going to be more powerful than current-gen consoles, when all the proof they have shown so far, is that at best, they can run current-gen games on more or less the same graphical level, but WORSE. (This being more evident on the comparison between the ACIII versions between the wii U and the PS3 version.)" I think the real question to ask is "Was that demo of the WiiU version relative to the final product?" I can only assume they've had more time to work on the PS3 version, which would make sense. Until I hear it from all the other cross platform games I can't really take one games issues as evidence for everything to be produced on the console.
  • Elard621 - September 13, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    You are seriously wrong. Assasin´s Creed III for Wii U looks better than on the other plattforms. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__p5Nv1P4jw Compare 1:02 and 1:26, look at the wall. Which of both versions has better light effects? And that considering Wii U is offscreen while PS3 is direct video.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    ...The lightning effect in the wall is exactly the same in both versions. And really, the Wii U version was too blurry to properly judge it. besides, watching a video and actually playing the game are two very different things, have you actually played them both? no, but an editor here at GR did, and he made the comparison without beating around the bush: http://www.gamesradar.com/wii-u-good-news-and-bad-news-after-more-quality-time-nintendos-new-console-gamescom/ "Right now, PS3's version of Assassin's Creed III is, simply put, better. Even gamers without my robot eyes would be able to see the difference. Smoother edges, better frame-rate, more detailed textures… it's akin to the kind of difference we used to see in multiplatform games when the PS3 version would look shaky in comparison to Xbox 360 release" So yeah... You will excuse me if I'll take an informed opinion of someone who has actually sees both versions back to back and in person, than making up differences in a video that's not defined to properly judge.
  • gingerlemon - September 14, 2012 2:31 a.m.

    AC3 is a really bad example. It's a multi-platform title. Firstly, a multi-platform game is never going to be a good comparison, there's no real financial benefit for a dev to spend time to get more out of one version than another. Secondly, a multi-platform title that was then ported to another console is even worse to use as a comparison. Thirdly, if you (for some unknown reason) need to compare graphical fidelity, compare two titles made exclusively for a platform, by a dev who knows how to push that particular console to the max. So yes, I cannot excuse you for blinding accepting another's view without considering all the variables for yourself. Does AC3 look better on WiiU? Maybe not. Assuming that then means all WiiU games cannot look as good/better/worse than PS3? That's specious reasoning at best.

Showing 21-40 of 73 comments

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

OR…

Connect with Facebook

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