Google+

Topics

Wii U

We Recommend By ZergNet

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.
  • 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.
  • Elard621 - September 14, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    Though you are right on the fact that playing it is better than seeing it on a video, you cannot always trust Gamesradar. You need other profesional opinions. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/06/does-assassins-creed-iii-look-better-on-ps3-or-wii-u/ http://www.gamezone.com/products/assassin-s-creed-iii/news/assassin-s-creed-3-on-wii-u-is-a-big-win Considering that there are divided opinions, judging both versions would be a dumb thing. So Assasin´s Creed III should be out of this until the game´s launch. You will have to look for other examples if you want to prove that Wii U won´t compete graphically with current-gen consoles. My opinion is that it will be like the difference between Wii and PS2 or Gamecube. Of course, it will be outshined when the PS4 comes out, but I won´t care as long as I have my Hyrule Field on HD.
  • BladedFalcon - September 14, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    Fair enough, though I've yet to see a single upcoming Wii U gameplay footage that looks particularly outstanding, even when considering the console's exclusive titles. And this is a bit suspicious, when you think about it. Because, when you're confident about your machine's power, or want to show off what it can really do, you show at LEAST gameplay of one game that looks amazing, even if it could take years to actually come out. (The 360 did it with Gears of War, the PS3 did it with Uncharted and Killzone 2, And heck, even Nintendo did it with the 3DS and Kid Icarus: Uprising.)
  • Elard621 - September 15, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    Yes, I also think that they haven´t shown anything truly powerful. But, ZombiU looks like a modern 360 game. Considering that Wii U is at that graphical level just at the start of the cycle, it probably will have great looking games. Now, to surpass PS4? Not in a million years.
  • gingerlemon - September 14, 2012 2:19 a.m.

    Comparing a game like AC3 is a huge mistake. AC3 is a cross platform title, that was probably in development before they had a Wii U dev kit. The WiiU is exactly the same as the Wii when it came out; That is to say, it's using low powered cheaper components rather than the cutting edge of technology. It's basically modernised versions of similar powered components to a PS3/360. And exactly why is that a bad thing? Having Zelda and Mario with (at least) PS3 graphics is amazing. Does it matter that its going to be a generation behind? Who cares. Enjoy it for what it is, not what it isn't.
  • shawksta - September 13, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    The price is reasonably predictable, it is a Console after all. I don't understand this whole memory amount though, are they serious with 8 and 32? Maybe this space is for something other than what we think it is, it's really weird.
  • JAZ9030 - September 13, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    Well I guess even if I ever want this system I'll have to get an HD TV first. Then I'll be abale to read the subtitles on my games.
  • planetheads - September 13, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    the storage capacity isnt a problem,so far i can extend it with a sd memory or external drive.which they way cheaper than buying a new hard drive for a 360.
  • icbacomingupwithapropername - September 13, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    if you convert $300 to pounds it comes out at £186 or in other words abou 2 quid more expensive than the botom of the range ps3.
  • Camoxide - September 13, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    You forgot VAT which brings it up to £223.30 So probably £230+ over here.
  • gingerlemon - September 13, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    The original Wii cost $250 in the US, and £179 in the UK, which is more like $350. Us brits always get shafted on price.
  • grappler51 - September 13, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    I think the price is pretty fair, if you think the PS4 or 720 will be any cheaper you're stupid. Also glad to see some good exclusives like Bayonetta 2 and Monster Hunter.
  • lonegrunt81 - September 13, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    At $350 I'll be waiting for the REAL next gen consoles or a price drop. To those thinking of the 8gb version should remember how long the low end 360 and PS3 launch consoles stuck around before they became out dated, simply not worth it.
  • Moondoggie1157 - September 13, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    Not trying to start an argument here, because I mostly agree with you. But, wasn't the PS3 originally launched with 60 or 80 gigs? I had my original until just a year a ago when I moved. But yea, anyway... At $350, I think I'll just wait until Sony or Microsoft deliver something REALLY interesting, the WiiU already seems tacky to me, call me a cynic.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    I think it started with 60 gigs, but take into account... this was 6 years ago, when digital downloads weren't still a thing, and when memory size had not yet expanded the way it has now. 60 GB back then was a LOT specially compared with the 360, which had a 20 GB HDD on their PREMIUM version. This is 6 years later, when digital downloads of full retail games have become a thing, and they weight several gigs to download. The fact that the wii u's premium version comes with a HDD that's almost half the size of what a console offered 6 years ago? it's kinda ridiculous, and to me, it sends really bad signs about Nintendo's still small understanding of the importance of the Internet and the digital market.
  • filipe-alves - September 13, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    totally agree with you, 32gb is a joke, specially since they plan to have a psn kind of thing for the Wii U Nintendo should've learned by now...
  • gingerlemon - September 13, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    You're comparing mechanical hard drives to SSD. Mistake.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    Not really, being a HDD or an SSD storage drive doesn't make an impact in my argument, in that, no matter the format, a 32 GB storage capacity for a supposed "digital ready" console is really, really low and deficient for today's standards. Sure, you probably could expand the SSD memory later on, but that's an extra cost that should have to be contemplated for a machine that really, already falls behind in so many technical aspects.
  • gingerlemon - September 14, 2012 2:02 a.m.

    What you're not considering is the price. SSD is significantly more expensive than a HDD. So it's very relevant to your argument.
  • Thedigitalg - September 13, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    What do you people do, download a game and leave it there? I don't know about anyone else, but I always delete a game after I've finished it, even if I have 40gb+ of space. It's really not a hardship to delete and redownload later if you want to replay it. I'd rather that than spending an extra £50 for more memory I'll never use.
  • BladedFalcon - September 13, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    Not everyone has the luck to be in a place that offers ultra-high speed connection, so when a 5+GB game takes over half a day (if not more, in other people's cases)to download... Yeah, expecting you to delete the game and re-download it again can be an annoying pain in the ass. Not to mention, that's space that could also be occupied to store other media, such as music or videos. The thing is.. it's not like the packs are offering you 32 Gigs on one side, and say, at least 128 on the other. If they offered it like that, then i could understand your point of view, and it's nice that they could let you choose not to pay extra money for space you don't want. The issue comes with the fact that first: Neither version of the console is exactly "cheap" to begin with, and both memory capacity for both is rather pitiful.

Showing 41-60 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.