Darksiders Dev: Wii U is on Par With Current Gen
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Sony did release something similar, I can't even remember the name but it was on par with the PS2's "EyeToy" (or w/e that was called) in its total and utter failure. I think the Kinect is still chugging along in obscurity somewhere but it's fared far better. It makes sense though that neither would do as well as the Wii for two reasonsTreblaine said:
1) They're not a Wii, just peripherals nearly as expensive as the Wii
2) If you've already got a Wii you're likely not going to drop money on either.
That's completely leaving out though that most of what's known as the "core" gaming demographic doesn't give one iota of a fuck about the Wii because it's a shit console with a shit library of games. (save a scant few gems that hardly make it worthwhile)
On a personal level Nintendo can, quite frankly, bite me; they burned the fanboy bridge between us years ago. Shy of the WiiU turning out to be God's gift to gaming I'll probably not buy it. Especially if motion controls and that fucking Wiimote remain the center focus of the console.(I see some potential in the touchpad controller, but I have little faith) Still, I claim a small victory for common sense that Epic Mickey 2 will be multi-platform and that Warren Spector regrets the exclusive Wii release for the first one. (I hate to say I told you guys so, but I so freaking told you guys so) My hope for the next decade of Nintendo's financial status is that they crash and burn so hard it makes the downfall of SEGA look like an M-80 in a mailbox. Maybe then they'll take their collective heads out of their ass.
fine by me, that's all everyone was really expecting. Nintendo is the only one of the big three who knows what the hell they're doing when designing hardware for games
Just about everything you've described is subjective. Yes, there's a ton of shovelwave, but does that mean that the Xbox and PS3 don't have their fair share of crap? There are plenty of people on this site who think Nintendo's first party game are of a higher quality than most other games. In fact, the reviews seem to agree as well. The most recent Legend of Zelda got perfect 10's from numerous sites (more than 1/3 of reviews listed on Metacritic are 100%) and many people, myself included, believe that Legend of Zelda gets better with every game.Vault101 said:
And I personally don't see gears of war or halo as incentive enough to warrant a Xbox purchase, but some people do. Especially considering the price difference between the Wii and the Xbox.Vault101 said:
Fact of the matter is that, whether you like it or not, Nintendo is on top. They sitting pretty financially, unlike Sony and Microsoft, with the Wii despite everyone "poo poo"ing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if WiiU was somewhere around the current generation. We'll never know for sure since Nintendo never releases hard numbers. Besides, the industry is at or very near a point where packing much more into a machine isn't going to help.
I would be surprised if consoles lasted more than another generation given how technology is progressing. The idea of having a single dedicated device for games just seems silly, not to mention the popularity of mobile etc.Abandon4093 said:
Nintendo will always be there, likely they will be here even when Sony and Microsoft exit the race. They're sitting in a really comfortable place in the market where they have the casuals and the long time fans of Nintendo. The casuals alone would be enough to keep Nintendo afloat.
I think the problem is that we assume that the new Sony and Microsoft consoles are going to continue their technical progression like they did with the current generation. Given how both companies have only been making money on their consoles for about a year now, it could be suicide to try and ship a console at a loss. If that's the case, don't expect the next generation to be much different technically from the last. Also I'll be damned if I buy a new Xbox/ps3 at 600 dollars.
I've owned a Wii since near it's release and I've enjoyed it, and I'm really interested in what the Wii U has to offer. I know this might make me a 'casual' or a 'fan boy' or whatever term people are using now-a-days, but I have always been impressed by Nintendo's ability to get the most out of limited hardware. I thought some of the best looking wii games out there looked on par with the other consoles.
I haven't really read anywhere in this article that explicitly said that the Wii U wouldn't be more powerful then the current generation, just that it was capable of doing what the Xbox/Ps3 were and that they didn't have an incentive to make the game look better. But I'm interested in what Nintendo could do with improved power what ever the case, because they are awfully crafty when it comes to putting a game together on limited resources.
I haven't really read anywhere in this article that explicitly said that the Wii U wouldn't be more powerful then the current generation, just that it was capable of doing what the Xbox/Ps3 were and that they didn't have an incentive to make the game look better. But I'm interested in what Nintendo could do with improved power what ever the case, because they are awfully crafty when it comes to putting a game together on limited resources.
I don't mean the wii-mote (that Sony's "equivalent" seems to be the terribly unsupported PlayStation Move) but how Nintendo unveiled that tablet-like controller thingy for Wii-U:KeyMaster45 said:
Seem very similar to PS Vita, but that thing costs a mint and if it is supported anything like PS-Move it won't have any significant traction. Unless Sony gets backed into a corner and are DESPERATE to counter the Wii-U.
Nintendo in general and Wii in particular have lost a lot of rep and in my amateur opinion they should keep focusing on the casual market though they are going to struggle as Microsoft is now pushing hard there with Xbox and Kinect and media-services while Sony have always been a home entertainment company.
Nintendo will find it very hard to break back into the core audience, I predict, as Xbox and PlayStation have committed fanbases and the core audiences that Nintendo made like Zelda, Metroid and so on have somewhat run their course. Sony developed new IPs for this gen like Resistance and uncharted with also Gears of War on Microsoft's side. But Nintendo seem to be trapped in 1980's.
Because Miyamoto and Reggie would go Super Sayian and murder any staff would tried to sell a core Nintendo console for anywhere near the $400-$600 that Microsoft and Sony originally charged for their Xbox 360s and PS3s. So in order to make a profit, they have to cut back on power and tech a bit.kman123 said:
Not like its ever really hurt them - they still drown in all the money they make from their "underpowered" consoles, while the Xbox 360 and PS3 struggle to be profitable.
Nintendo produces prototypes and experiments all the time, but they only go into production with things they can produce rapidly and cheaply and sell at a lower price point then the competition. This is one of the reason's they're so profitable compared to the other two.Paragon Fury said:
I'm not really surprised. I do have to say this though, estimates originally put it at 50% more powerful than a PS3. The hearsay of a single developer doesn't mean that it's not true. In terms of graphics it will do better simply because it's using a much newer GPU. But, they didn't plan on selling it at a massive price point, which has always been their strong point. I'm looking forward to this system TBH. But I'm sometimes called an optimistic fool by friends. We'll see what happens though. I mean, I'm not buying until there are titles I want to play on the system, as I did with the 3DS.
It's funny that people always bring up the lost "street creds" with the hardcore gamers. It doesn't matter. While I agree that there will always be a reference point from the last generation, that doesn't mean any nay sayers will actually stay away from it. Look at the reference point we had with the PS2, yet PS3's hardly moved for a long while. If there is good games and it performs equal to or even a little bit better than the others, people will buy it. I mean, if it's as good as the PS3 and it has an equal life span of what remains on the PS3, then it's all good.
It's funny that people always bring up the lost "street creds" with the hardcore gamers. It doesn't matter. While I agree that there will always be a reference point from the last generation, that doesn't mean any nay sayers will actually stay away from it. Look at the reference point we had with the PS2, yet PS3's hardly moved for a long while. If there is good games and it performs equal to or even a little bit better than the others, people will buy it. I mean, if it's as good as the PS3 and it has an equal life span of what remains on the PS3, then it's all good.
I'm in partial agreement. But I don't think it'll go down that easily. There are a lot of advantages to dedicated hardware, and a lot of disadvantages to hardware made to do everything. Hardware made to do everything sees almost no optimization with rare exception. That is why Android as a mobile platform misses out on a lot of games that iOS has. I'm with you though, platforms that sell in the $600 range are off limits for most people. I live with two room mates and that is a month and half worth of house bills for me.Waaghpowa said:
Anyone else think that the graphical capabilities are almost at the ceiling? Or rather, the ceiling we want them to reach? I seriously doubt anyone here wants to play a game where everything legitimately looks human and realistic.
I doubt that any sane human being could enjoy a Call of Duty game where you're basically shooting "real" people in the face.
What can really be improved graphically nowadays? LA Noire has that awesome face-motion-capture system. We have all this beautiful scenery rendering a-la Far Cry 2, Crysis, etc. Uncharted 3 had really pretty fire. What are we missing?
I doubt that any sane human being could enjoy a Call of Duty game where you're basically shooting "real" people in the face.
What can really be improved graphically nowadays? LA Noire has that awesome face-motion-capture system. We have all this beautiful scenery rendering a-la Far Cry 2, Crysis, etc. Uncharted 3 had really pretty fire. What are we missing?
Certainly there are advantages, but to me, having less is more. Especially with clutter. As I've stated before, I'm a PC gamer. I would rather deal with some poor optimization, especially if I can fix it myself, if it means that my one device does it all. The whole 600 dollar range for a "only plays games" console seems absolutely absurd to someone like me who has a computer that doesn't cost much more but does close to everything.Baresark said:
There's actually quite a bit that could be improved but consoles are so far behind technically and just don't have the power without cutting corners. A lot of the improvements aren't necessarily visual, things like physics and destruction.BrunDeign said:
Here's an Nvidia demonstration video of new tech. Stuff like this still requires a certain level of technical power which sadly, current consoles can't do. Maybe next gen, but I doubt any of it will reach full potential. Things like this are always restricted by available hardware.
What's the best selling game of all time? The top 5? Top 20? Yeah, I think Ninty knows what it's doing.
I am in complete agreement with you about PC gaming. I have been chiefly a PC gamer for along time myself. It does do everything. My only concern, to be honest, is while consoles have held back PC gaming, they are also the main devices responsible for gaming being what it is today. And I just have a hard time imagining gaming as a whole progressing without a dedicated piece of hardware. I don't think consoles are the big problem people make them out today, I think the big problem with gaming and publishing and all of the ills of gaming in general, is that the many of the companies intentionally prohibit gaming capabilities. Once that is fixed (if ever) then gaming can progress again. As for now, I'll sick to mostly to indie games. But I am still looking forward to see what is done with this system.Waaghpowa said:
They dont always aim one generation behind. Look at say the gamecube vs the PS2, both systems were pretty much on par with each other. In the case of the N64 it was in essence launching the PS2 generation, But really this all comes from being out of synch due to the Snes being able to hold its own against the up and coming playstation. Since then Nintendos place in the console generations has fluctuated wildly and still not regained its equilibrium.kman123 said:
The being behind a console generation is actually a new advent with the Wii, thats in essence being replayed by the WiiU.