Goriginal Content

Fantasy Life review

EoD - Instagram fun

Xeodrifter diary #12

GN Podcast #479

EoD - Wii U holiday

EoD - Smash online
 

Watch_Dogs on Wii U looks closer to the 360/PS3 version


Also check out:
Discussion Preview
84 total comments (View all)
No Avatar
09 Mar 2014 19:46

jrob23 wrote:
StarStabbedMoon wrote:@jrob23 It'd be unrealistic to expect the Wii U version look anywhere close to the PS4/Xbone version. Minimal effort to the port would mean it'd look worse than PS3/360.


that's just stupid. Out of the box a port to Wii U will look better than PS360..period end of story. saying otherwise makes you look retarded. That simple port...like COD Ghosts and AC4...looks much better than PS360 and only slightly worse than PS4 and Xbone. So, any effort whatsoever would close the gap even further between them. Especially the Xbone and Wii U as the PS4 is clearly more powerful. But the Wii U and Xbone are in the same neighborhood so to speak.


The Xbone is on paper about 3 times more powerful than the Wii U in all categories, CPU, GPU, & RAM size/speed are all multiple times larger &/or faster then what the Wii U sports.

The 360 on the other hand has a Xeon 3 core CPU that is clocked much higher then the Wii U's but thanks to advances made in CPU technology the much lower clocked Wii U CPU can crunch code at almost the same speed as the 360, but the Wii U CPU is slower overall. This is made up for by the Wii U's much more advanced GPU that pulls more weight then the 360''s, but aside from offloading certain tasks to the GPU it can't fully compensate for a low power CPU in all situations.

The RAM on the WII U is also slower then the 360's RAM, again, like the situation with the CPU being compensated by the GPU, the 1GB of slow RAM available to games is compensated for by a small amount of snappy eSRAM, but memory bandwidth is still fighting from a speed deficit against the 360 while Wii U has the raw RAM size advantage, however it's very tough to optimize for these unique RAM & CPU/GPU configurations when working on multi platform games.

It's been estimated that the total optimized power gad between the 360 & Wii U is 1.25x - 1.5x. So even if the developers put forth maximum effort then they would only benefit from a supposed 25-50% boost to distribute between resolution, frames per second, & on-screen asset detail. Some people say the 400% power jump from the 360 to Xbone is fairly minor to how the cross-gen games are looking, so then why would a 3rd party developer put forth maximum effort to get at most a 50% boost out of the Wii U? 3rd party sales prospects on the Wii U are further reason to not put forth the effort for that extra 25-50% power boost.

TL:DR - The hardware power gap between the Xbone and Wii U is about 6-12x larger than the gap between the 360 & Wii U.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 20:23

Isn't 5GB of the Xbone's RAM reserved for the OS, so thus games only get 3GB? I dunno but to me that makes the 8GB of RAM seem less impressive, even if it is 2 more GB than the Wii U has for games. Also the Xbox One's CPU apparently clocks in at 1.75 GHz, which doesn't sound too much higher compared to the Wii U's commonly rumored 1.24 GHz. Granted I know the Xbone apparently makes up for it by having 5 extra CPU cores since the Wii U's CPU is only a tri-core, but since most PC games only require quad core CPUs for max settings I can't really see many console games on either Xbone or PS4 making use of every single extra core. (I should note that hardware is still a somewhat new area for me so apologies if my information is way off)

Regardless of this though, one can still make a game look impressive with the specs given if they put in the right amount of effort, regardless of the console. PlayStation 2 was not a powerhouse system during its generation, but developers like Naughty Dog and Insomniac still put out some really impressive looking games on the platform. Similarly, the Sega Genesis couldn't display as many colors or have sprites as large as the SNES (also lacked the ability to do effects like Mode 7), but there were still plenty of games that took advantage of what was given and still look good today (2D seems to age better than 3D).
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 20:49

Just gonna throw this out there. I understand how specs work being a PC gamer but do I care how much more powerful console a is than b? Not really. What matters is the games and currently for consoles the Wii U has the better games. Oh and you don't need that many cores or a lot of CPU RAM to run a game well. Just need a good GPU.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 21:04

gbpackers31 wrote:
GoNiners wrote:@8bit101

"Which logic from a technical standpoint" is clear? I don't see how any definitive conclusions can be drawn from that.


I imagine he meant to say "Which is logical from a technical standpoint" i.e. Wii U is closer in power to the 360/PS3 and therefore is only logical the visuals will be closer to the 360/PS3.



Correct.

PS4 - ~1.4 teraflops (I'm not buying Sony's claim of 1.8tf, too many games run at 30fps)
xBone - 900 gigaflops to 1 teraflop
Wii U - 300-400 gigaflops (estimating due to zero frame drops with heavy use of dynamic lighting in most 1st party games sub HD twins choked on this effect)
PS3 - 170 gigaflops (Sony said at the PS3 reveal that its a 1 teraflop device, seems they love to embellish the power of their consoles)
x360 - 115 gigaflops (funny the weaker xbox 360 outperformed the PS3 on all multiplats)
Wii - 12 gigaflops (just because)

Cheesus wrote:
MasterofMonster wrote:On par? The Wii-U is stronger than the 360. It has been shown a lot of times already. :/


Whenever Nintendo shows off Zelda Wii U and Galaxy 3, maybe it will blow me away and make me a believer!


The biggest thing that shows how much stronger the Wii U is the liberal use of dynamic lighting in most of Nintendo's first party offerings. Pikmin 3, Nintendoland, even NSMBU you can see some, SM3DW has dynamic lighting all over the place and still maintains a full 60fps.

Dynamic lighting is a massive frame rate killer. The PS3 had very few examples of it and other assets in the scene had to be significantly reduced to do it. Take TLOU, they used the effect in very dark rooms where you only had a flash light. But when you examine the scene closely the polygons are atrociously low with extremely blurry textures because dynamic lighting would drag the frame rate down into the teens. The GPU in the PS3/x360 just weren't designed to handle it very well.

The Wii U does a great job with dynamic lighting, it's what makes most of these first party games look so good.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 21:28

Cheesus wrote:
MasterofMonster wrote:You have not seen Mario Kart 8 yet, I see. Nor Pikmin 3. Nor the Wii-U version of Need For Speed.

Nice try, there. :roll:


Mario Kart 8 looks good and all, but it just barely compares to Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing Transformed, which was on PS3 and XBOX 360.


Bwahaha. all Star racing in a technical level or on an artistic level couldn't hold a candle to what we saw of MK8.

You mean that game (sonic all star racing) that barely chugs along at 25fps on the PS3/360?

Mario kart 8 looks an entire generation ahead of Sonic all stars racing, plus MK8 using dynamic lighting not present in the ps360 versions of sonic all star racing (only PC).... And MK8 runs at 60 fps, even in split screen WHILE rendering a second screen...... Come on son, if the Wii U was only on par with the 360, why would a vastly better looking game like MK8 run flawlessly at a much higher frame rate than Sonic All Star racing does on ps360? It's just not humanly possible to get a 115 gigaflop device (x360) to run MK8 at 60fps, at least without significant concessions
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 22:28

element187 wrote:
Cheesus wrote:
MasterofMonster wrote:You have not seen Mario Kart 8 yet, I see. Nor Pikmin 3. Nor the Wii-U version of Need For Speed.

Nice try, there. :roll:


Mario Kart 8 looks good and all, but it just barely compares to Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing Transformed, which was on PS3 and XBOX 360.


Bwahaha. all Star racing in a technical level or on an artistic level couldn't hold a candle to what we saw of MK8.

You mean that game (sonic all star racing) that barely chugs along at 25fps on the PS3/360?

Mario kart 8 looks an entire generation ahead of Sonic all stars racing, plus MK8 using dynamic lighting not present in the ps360 versions of sonic all star racing (only PC).... And MK8 runs at 60 fps, even in split screen WHILE rendering a second screen...... Come on son, if the Wii U was only on par with the 360, why would a vastly better looking game like MK8 run flawlessly at a much higher frame rate than Sonic All Star racing does on ps360? It's just not humanly possible to get a 115 gigaflop device (x360) to run MK8 at 60fps, at least without significant concessions


Don't forget the terrible screen tearing issues the PS360 versions have too.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 22:32

Yeah personally I think MK8 looks better than Sonic All Star Racing Transformed. The textures and lighting alone look like a real step up from that game. As for the framerate, I checked out Digital Foundry's comparison video and while all three versions were locked at 30 FPS, the Wii U version maintained it's 30 FPS framerate the most (I'll be fair and mention that the one exception seems to be the Skies of Arcadia track, which seemed to drop the most on Wii U than the other versions, making me wonder what was so different about that stage to cause it since it wasn't really any more detailed than others, but it's odd though because I don't remember seeing frame drops whenever I played that stage on my copy).

Mario Kart 8 will be clocking in with a 60 FPS framerate, and many people who have played demos and such so far say it's silky smooth, so combine that with the extra level detail and I feel like it's safe to say the Wii U can indeed do things better than the PS3 and Xbox 360 could. I know some may argue that actually this may just simply show that Nintendo EAD is simply just better at figuring out the proper techniques to get a higher FPS compared to Sumo Digital, but hey I'd take that as a positive anyway. :P

Oh and as for the vertical sync thing someone just brought up, that's a good point too. Batman Arkham Origins on WIi U reportedly has no screen tearing compared to the other console versions of the game, though reports on the framerate comparisons are mixed (some say it's better, some say there's no difference, but hey it was semi-widely reported that the Wii U version has much less game breaking glitches, making me think the porting company [Human Head Studios, who in the past have made original productions like Prey] was better at ironing things out compared to the parent developer, WB Montreal, who apparently have stated they're NOT going to release anymore patches for 360 and PS3).
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 22:42

element187 wrote:
Cheesus wrote:
MasterofMonster wrote:You have not seen Mario Kart 8 yet, I see. Nor Pikmin 3. Nor the Wii-U version of Need For Speed.

Nice try, there. :roll:


Mario Kart 8 looks good and all, but it just barely compares to Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing Transformed, which was on PS3 and XBOX 360.


Bwahaha. all Star racing in a technical level or on an artistic level couldn't hold a candle to what we saw of MK8.

You mean that game (sonic all star racing) that barely chugs along at 25fps on the PS3/360?

Mario kart 8 looks an entire generation ahead of Sonic all stars racing, plus MK8 using dynamic lighting not present in the ps360 versions of sonic all star racing (only PC).... And MK8 runs at 60 fps, even in split screen WHILE rendering a second screen...... Come on son, if the Wii U was only on par with the 360, why would a vastly better looking game like MK8 run flawlessly at a much higher frame rate than Sonic All Star racing does on ps360? It's just not humanly possible to get a 115 gigaflop device (x360) to run MK8 at 60fps, at least without significant concessions


No No NO NOOOO! It doesn't look better than 360, I know this because I never owned a 360 and I just beat 200% Mario Kart 8!!11!

Joking aside haha, I suppose I'm in no position to compare the systems since I never owned an Xbox 360 or PS3, or played any first party games (Beside Banjo Kazooie 3, which I hate calling it a first party Microsoft game)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Nintendo Land actually looked pretty great, I just kinda think the games we have for Wii U right now are just unfinished Wii games, like New Super Mario Bros. U, Pikmin, and Donkey Kong. Of course I'm not saying they look like straight Wii ports (okay, NSMB U did but I think it was just to hold us until 3D World) they look like that have some nice touches added to them. Mario Kart 8 looks like it was built for the Wii U, and it's why it seems to be the best looking game yet.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 22:49

@CheesusBanjo Kazooie 3 Never happened. IT NEVER DID, STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD.
User avatar
09 Mar 2014 23:31

Was this guy seriously expecting it to look like a PS4/XBone game?
No Avatar
09 Mar 2014 23:55

At least they're taking the time to make it looks better than 7th gen versions.
No Avatar
10 Mar 2014 02:09

sonicspike41 wrote: The PS4/X1 use x86 architecture, which has a longer history and better support than what Nintendo is using.


Nintendo has used IBM's power based architecture for the Gamecube, the Wii and the Wii U. Microsoft used IBM's power based architecture for the Xbox 360. Developers have not forgotten how to develop/port games to the power based architecture in a generation. They are still developing/porting games to the Xbox 360. Let's not forget that the PS3 has the cell based architecture and developers learned to develop/port games to that system.



sonicspike41 wrote:They also use existing graphics APIs, while Nintendo's have famously been "custom", making it more difficult to achieve the same results.


Nintendo uses OpenGL and so does Sony. OpenGL is an existing API. Microsoft on the other had uses a custom API called Direct X. It's proprietary since they developed it. Anyone how wants to use it has to license it. OpenGL is also the graphics API for Linux, (Mac)OS X, IOS (iPad and iPhone), and Android. PCs support both Direct X and OpenGL.
User avatar
10 Mar 2014 02:33

@Cheesus
Sonic All Stars looking better than Mario Kart 8? :/
User avatar
10 Mar 2014 02:46

Even though the Wii U/PS3/360 versions of Watch Dogs aren't gonna be as good as the PC/PS4/One versions, as long as every version of the game is fun and enjoyable to the end credits, each version should be worth the money to whoever buys it. Inferior in design and content? Yes, but inferior in entertainment? That's a matter of opinion.

I enjoy open world games and as long as Watch Dogs keeps me entertained, then it's $60 well spent.
User avatar
10 Mar 2014 05:27

Oh sh*t. Tech talks.

All I know is that there are already a couple of Wii U games that look better than the average PS360 efforts. Use your eyes.

Now I hope Watch Dogs will indeed look better since it is delayed and stuff but I'd rather have a stable 30fps game with good graphics than a sh*load of laggy fail with amazing visuals.

And as I've already stated, they should make really good use of the gamepad first, and think about graphics later.
User avatar
10 Mar 2014 06:02

patjuan32 wrote:
sonicspike41 wrote: The PS4/X1 use x86 architecture, which has a longer history and better support than what Nintendo is using.


Nintendo has used IBM's power based architecture for the Gamecube, the Wii and the Wii U. Microsoft used IBM's power based architecture for the Xbox 360. Developers have not forgotten how to develop/port games to the power based architecture in a generation. They are still developing/porting games to the Xbox 360. Let's not forget that the PS3 has the cell based architecture and developers learned to develop/port games to that system.



sonicspike41 wrote:They also use existing graphics APIs, while Nintendo's have famously been "custom", making it more difficult to achieve the same results.


Nintendo uses OpenGL and so does Sony. OpenGL is an existing API. Microsoft on the other had uses a custom API called Direct X. It's proprietary since they developed it. Anyone how wants to use it has to license it. OpenGL is also the graphics API for Linux, (Mac)OS X, IOS (iPad and iPhone), and Android. PCs support both Direct X and OpenGL.



this.
and also the x86 come useful when you have a complex OS running on.

I know Apple guys here can say that IBM RISC chip were optimal also for an os, many of apple fan remember when less powerful risc cpu outperfommed bigger intel cisc cpu with windows.(when apple switched to intel the bugs are triplicated!!)

anyway IBM risc is far superior when you have to use low power , and ARM is reaching so much good levels that in the future nintendo could switch to arm cpu like the ones used on servers...

also optimized OpenCL is going to reach directx levels soon... just look at graphic quality of some games on tablets...

sony and microsoft only think that using x86 will let them to have easy and quick port from pc.
also this was a request by developers.

but in reality what we see is that developer were not ready with games
read this:
http://www.gengame.net/2014/01/capcom-d ... -last-gen/
User avatar
10 Mar 2014 20:58

On a small scale - then sure nintendo land is on par visually with ps3 but let's be real here there will be no game that will rival the graphics of uncharted 2 (for example) and its scale. Even if a wiiu game had a budget of a game like the last of us you will never see uncharted-like graphics.

I really don't see how the wiiu is more powerful than ps3. I have the wiiu but to play nintendo games and never expected it to be better graphics-wise than ps3 from day one. I just hope the online for smash and mariokart will be perfect and that's it.

Economicaly nintendo is amazing - cheap manufacturing/components and no r&d at all (pretty sure they haven't since the gamecube era) sold at high price. I am ready to say that it costs less than $100 to make a wiiu despite whatever article is on the internet (official or not).

I am happy nintendo is strugling selling this system because maybe now they might think twice before coming up with a cheap overpriced machine. I think a change is greatly needed.
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 05:46

b-osiris wrote:On a small scale - then sure nintendo land is on par visually with ps3 but let's be real here there will be no game that will rival the graphics of uncharted 2 (for example) and its scale. Even if a wiiu game had a budget of a game like the last of us you will never see uncharted-like graphics.

I really don't see how the wiiu is more powerful than ps3. I have the wiiu but to play nintendo games and never expected it to be better graphics-wise than ps3 from day one. I just hope the online for smash and mariokart will be perfect and that's it.

Economicaly nintendo is amazing - cheap manufacturing/components and no r&d at all (pretty sure they haven't since the gamecube era) sold at high price. I am ready to say that it costs less than $100 to make a wiiu despite whatever article is on the internet (official or not).

I am happy nintendo is strugling selling this system because maybe now they might think twice before coming up with a cheap overpriced machine. I think a change is greatly needed.


Wow I don't even know what to respond to this.
Try basing your assumption on facts.
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 14:32

thorn-rock wrote:
b-osiris wrote:On a small scale - then sure nintendo land is on par visually with ps3 but let's be real here there will be no game that will rival the graphics of uncharted 2 (for example) and its scale. Even if a wiiu game had a budget of a game like the last of us you will never see uncharted-like graphics.

I really don't see how the wiiu is more powerful than ps3. I have the wiiu but to play nintendo games and never expected it to be better graphics-wise than ps3 from day one. I just hope the online for smash and mariokart will be perfect and that's it.

Economicaly nintendo is amazing - cheap manufacturing/components and no r&d at all (pretty sure they haven't since the gamecube era) sold at high price. I am ready to say that it costs less than $100 to make a wiiu despite whatever article is on the internet (official or not).

I am happy nintendo is strugling selling this system because maybe now they might think twice before coming up with a cheap overpriced machine. I think a change is greatly needed.


Wow I don't even know what to respond to this.
Try basing your assumption on facts.


he is the avarage sonian/boxian

the gaming culture is so low nowdays.
in their eyes on average gamers like him wiiu has no games that looks better than ps3.

these are not gamers that want to look behind the "toy" graphics of nintendo land.

it's like the oscar...
we italian won with "la grande bellezza"...but still the average people that only watch movies like iron man or spiderman here in italy say that the movie is ugly and with no action...

simply they have another (low) level of movie culture ...
as these gamers have another (low) level of gaming culture...

this is clearly not fault of nintendo marketing...
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 14:42

@b-osiris
Literally Everything you said there is a big smelly pile of troll, so, yeah, good luck with that.
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 15:02

b-osiris wrote:On a small scale - then sure nintendo land is on par visually with ps3 but let's be real here there will be no game that will rival the graphics of uncharted 2 (for example) and its scale. Even if a wiiu game had a budget of a game like the last of us you will never see uncharted-like graphics.

I really don't see how the wiiu is more powerful than ps3. I have the wiiu but to play nintendo games and never expected it to be better graphics-wise than ps3 from day one. I just hope the online for smash and mariokart will be perfect and that's it.

Economicaly nintendo is amazing - cheap manufacturing/components and no r&d at all (pretty sure they haven't since the gamecube era) sold at high price. I am ready to say that it costs less than $100 to make a wiiu despite whatever article is on the internet (official or not).

I am happy nintendo is strugling selling this system because maybe now they might think twice before coming up with a cheap overpriced machine. I think a change is greatly needed.

Oh ho ho ho! This guy! :lol:

Seriously, Wii U under $100 to make? Seriously do you realize that if the profit margin was that high NIntendo would not have posted the losses they did? And that Uncharted comment... just look up the meaning of art style. Too many people think "not photo-realistic = bad graphics"
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 15:13

alko wrote:it's like the oscar...
we italian won with "la grande bellezza"...but still the average people that only watch movies like iron man or spiderman here in italy say that the movie is ugly and with no action...


Well f*ck me if 'la Grande Bellezza' was not an awesome movie.
That's just sad to hear.
User avatar
11 Mar 2014 16:11

thorn-rock wrote:
alko wrote:it's like the oscar...
we italian won with "la grande bellezza"...but still the average people that only watch movies like iron man or spiderman here in italy say that the movie is ugly and with no action...


Well f*ck me if 'la Grande Bellezza' was not an awesome movie.
That's just sad to hear.


yeah i agree, but is not a movie for the common people that used to watch blockbuster movies like transformers...

also movie transfomers are good product but they are on different level...

same as for games...

i'm not claiming he is a boxian, only that what he wrote reflects what the common boxian think about Nintendo games...

Wind Waker was one of the most revolutionary game ever released, but when it was released many gamers simply blocked their eyes on the "kiddish" graphics...

there are people that intend movies or games only as visual experience ...
they are very similar on the way they judge art.
movies, music, games ect , they need the "wow" effect to be pleased with the product.
there are instead people that want to look deep into the essence of the movie, or song or game.

i want to be clear-> there is not a "superiority" of one on the other...they are simply different levels of enjoyng the form of art or product if you like.

you cant' play wind waker if you don't want to sail a new world and get lost in its ocean...you cant watch "la grande bellezza" if you dont want to enter the slow decadence of the ethernal city of Rome (the reason the movie is so "slow")...

people that get used to "fast" experiences cant get the beauty of games like Pikmin...
User avatar
16 Mar 2014 13:13

b-osiris wrote:On a small scale - then sure nintendo land is on par visually with ps3 but let's be real here there will be no game that will rival the graphics of uncharted 2 (for example) and its scale. Even if a wiiu game had a budget of a game like the last of us you will never see uncharted-like graphics.

I really don't see how the wiiu is more powerful than ps3. I have the wiiu but to play nintendo games and never expected it to be better graphics-wise than ps3 from day one. I just hope the online for smash and mariokart will be perfect and that's it.

Economicaly nintendo is amazing - cheap manufacturing/components and no r&d at all (pretty sure they haven't since the gamecube era) sold at high price. I am ready to say that it costs less than $100 to make a wiiu despite whatever article is on the internet (official or not).

I am happy nintendo is strugling selling this system because maybe now they might think twice before coming up with a cheap overpriced machine. I think a change is greatly needed.


User avatar
16 Mar 2014 16:18

Are you showing us the worst post in the thread?

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way