The 8th generation arrived.....last year.

[lapan]

Well maybe its because, good or bad, most people expect a next generation console to bring something new to gaming. Ya, a console with a tablet is different but considering nobody bought it and nobody cares nothing really changed because of it.

Sony seems to care enough to copy it by making the Vita the PS4's version of that tablet.

You are aware that the PS3 used the Vita as a off screen/extra input device before the Wii U was even released, right? If anything Nintendo copied Sony.

Wasn't that only a crossplay mode that included copying your saves back and forth and was only compatible with a few games?

 

[MetalDooley]

Apparently no-one paid attention when the PS2 was the weakest in its generation.

They didn't.A lot of people don't seem to know it was the weakest console of the big 3

Also I bow to your superior knowledge of the Kessel run sir

You are aware that the PS3 used the Vita as a off screen/extra input device before the Wii U was even released, right? If anything Nintendo copied Sony.

I feel I should point out that Nintendo did the whole using a handheld as an extra input device thingy back with the GBA and Gamecube.Who copied who again?

 

[Warachia]

Apparently no-one paid attention when the PS2 was the weakest in its generation.

They didn't.A lot of people don't seem to know it was the weakest console of the big 3

Also I bow to your superior knowledge of the Kessel run sir

You are aware that the PS3 used the Vita as a off screen/extra input device before the Wii U was even released, right? If anything Nintendo copied Sony.

I feel I should point out that Nintendo did the whole using a handheld as an extra input device thingy back with the GBA and Gamecube.Who copied who again?

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

 

[MetalDooley]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

 

[Warachia]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

My mistake then, I assumed when you inferred that they what the vita does from what Nintendo did, that you were saying the GBA does the same thing the Vita does.

 

[Korolev]

Because the WiiU was Nintendo catching up to the last generation. Now they are being left behind again. At least, that's how I see it. New Generations are, partly, defined by new hardware and software.I don't see the WiiU has being an answer or an equal to the Xbox One or PS4. I see it as a last ditch effort to make some equivalent to the 360 and the PS3. The WiiU could almost be considered.... the last console of the last generation.

 

[GoaThief]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

My mistake then, I assumed when you inferred that they what the vita does from what Nintendo did, that you were saying the GBA does the same thing the Vita does.

Who copied who doesn't really matter, the point is that it's not new technology or exclusive to the Wii U which certainly adds to the argument that the Wii U is not "next gen".

 

[Lightknight]

It's not that people don't think the 8th generation has arrived definitionally. It's a disagreement that the WiiU is functionally 8th gen. Just that the WiiU itself isn't a large enough technological step to feel like it's 8th gen technology. It's more powerful than the 360 and ps3, yes, but not by enough to make a drastic difference whereas the consoles we're getting next month are something like 10x as powerful (ps4/ps3 comparison).

What we like to see from generation to generation is a significant step. Thta is the entire point of dividing consoles by generation, they're tiered. Something large enough to make us want to change and to give us a new experience. Nintendo singlehandedly brought peripheral control to the console market with the wiimote. While technologically everyone laughed at it, it at least made a step in user interface that made it fresh and enjoyable. This time though, it uses the same controller and a gamepad which only a handful of games actually utilize and the ones that do generally have workarounds that would manage on a thumbstick. So for an added $140 price to the console that is an underpowered entry for the 8th generation it's no wonder why it is dismissed.

Add that to the fact that the WiiU isn't popular at all. It's selling around 120k units per month now (1.5 million units per year to put that in perspective. They wouldn't breach 10 million for another 4 years at this rate if we assume they've hit 4 million this month). So, they are on track to sell fewer units than the Dreamcast did in the same amount of time. Considering that the gamer market is larger now that means it's doing even worse even if it exactly matches the Dreamcast's numbers (dreamcast sold just over 10 million units from september 9, 1999-march 30, 2001. (first launched in Japan in 1998 but didn't make it to a global market until sept. 1999). 19 months in the global market, 10.4 million units. That's 528,421 units per month on average. Even giving it the full 30 months for the year it was in Japan only you'd be looking at 334,700. WiiU's average is around that number thanks to the initial five months that saw 3 million units sold. But with every month that ratio is dropping and next month it may be exactly that rate as it finally exceeds 4 million like it's so close to doing. But it has to be over 5 million per year to even match the Dreamcasts' sales. Sales should have been much higher last month. The big $50 sale hit on the 20th and we only saw 10k more units sold in September than August. I didn't expect the $50 to fix the problem, but I did expect better performance.

So while yes, this is the 8th generation, it's rapidly shaping up to be one of the failures of the generation and not a legitimate entry. Nintendo does have those from time to time. Consider that the gamecube only sold 22 Million units when all was said and done and I believe it was even more powerful than the competition despite being cheaper. Playstation 2 sold nearly 7 times as many. Followed by the wii which has just broken 100 million. So while the WiiU may fail, Nintendo isn't necessarily out of the game. But this does certainly make consumers not feel like the console is a legitimate 8th gen entry. The dreamcast was also the system that followed the abysmal Sega Saturn. Successful console companies can usually wade out one or two failures after a successful generation. Nintendo is sitting on gobs of cash so this won't be the death of them. But it will signify change for the company. It's difficult when Nintendo doesn't have the sort of ties Sony and Microsoft have to hardware companies.

But for all these reasons, the WiiU just looks like a really late entry into the 7th generation without being advanced enough to warrant a new tier. If it is 8th gen, it is the Wii of the 8th gen but without a wiimote equivalent to push it.

 

[KazeAizen]

I get the feeling people are going to start arguing the generation of the Wii U the same way people still argue about the generation of the Dreamcast. Although I hope it doesn't come to that.

Me either.

I'd say at as late as the 16bit generation when the Megadrive hit the shelves. Of course, it may have been earlier.

I was never aware that it started that early. Hell I was a kid in the 90s. Generations didn't even really become a thing until Gamecube it seems to me.

Not just to do with specs. Ultimately, the games being released on the 2 other major consoles, PC, and everything else in between won't be capable of being played on the Wii U.

Also, graphics and power do certainly matter in terms of what kinds of games your making and what emotions you're trying to get from the player. Whilst storytelling reigns supreme, there are video games that do work better for having more visual... weight. But this really does come down to what game companies do with the technology.

And this is where I think the entire industry has misstepped. Save for indies because they don't have that kind of budget and Nintendo who gets it. Just because a console or platform has greater graphical capabilities doesn't mean we should utilize it for the sake of using it. It means the games cost more to make and that just puts pressure on it being a hit. Hell I think less powerful stuff is what we need right now. We've reached a graphical apex with consoles and PCs. They need to hang back, work with what we've got for a bit, and not spend money on ways that will cause them to spend that much more money. People claim a huge gap between PCs and consoles. In this day an age I don't see it. That gap has closed.

Personally, I think conversations like that would suck even more.

It'd be more fun then talking about arbitrary numbers that only tech heads care about. Essentially I want a return to the days of the mascot wars. Just as heated but more fun then saying. My graphical processor can kick the shit out of his graphical processor. I know its not good to dwell in the past but I can't be the only one who misses the days when the war's participants were actual characters instead of numbers.

 

[KazeAizen]

It's not that people don't think the 8th generation has arrived definitionally. It's a disagreement that the WiiU is functionally 8th gen. Just that the WiiU itself isn't a large enough technological step to feel like it's 8th gen technology. It's more powerful than the 360 and ps3, yes, but not by enough to make a drastic difference whereas the consoles we're getting next month are something like 10x as powerful (ps4/ps3 comparison).

And here is the argument I make that I wish others would make. Give me a reason to care about the numbers. I mean seriously give me a real reason to care about the numbers. By the end of this last gen the 360 and PS3 reached a point that I can see very little in the way of visual change. Hell I was the one who never had a problem with the Wii not being HD then again I could give 2 fucks about HD. Visual fidelity and graphical jumps need to stop being the concern of industry execs and consumers. The only one that doesn't seem to care about that stuff is Nintendo and mostly because they have so much money then they know what to do with. Indie devs and devs like Platinum know that great visuals aid in a game but actual gameplay is the real star. We have reached the visual apex of games for a while. What devs should be doing is say inventing new ways to play games. Wii U is a prime target but no one in the industry seems to have an imagination large enough to use the pad in unique ways.

 

[KazeAizen]

So this is really eating at me. Why can't people just admit that the 8th generation of games started last year with the Wii U? I mean seriously it seems that to me people said the Wii U doesn't count as an 8th gen consoles but rather a 7.5 gen consoles because its specs are maybe just barely better then the PS3 and 360's. Are tech specs really so important and vital to your gaming experience now that when one piece of hardware doesn't meet some arbitrary bar it is automatically excluded from current gen talk?

When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs? Also if those are so freaking important to everyone I kind of feel sad about gamings future. Oh sure the games will look phenomenal and such but when people start talking more about the processing power and less about the consoles mascots in terms who is better that just seems utterly soulless to me and that's the last thing I want gaming competition to turn into. Soulless arguements of which consoles has the biggest metaphorical dick. I'd like to see talk more along the lines of who is the bigger badass. Bayonetta or that guy from Ryse who is pretty much Kratos light.

Yeah so... seriously? Even if you take the argument that it's not specs that make the generation, what games does the WiiU have that define next-gen? It has basically no killer titles.

Wow real mature with the video. It has the Wonderful 101, Pikmin 3, and Bayonetta 2 soon, Also Mighty No. 9 will be released next November for it as well as Hyper Light Drifter. Also didn't a certain awesome hand held have a drought of a launch as well?

 

[KazeAizen]

I mean seriously it seems that to me people said the Wii U doesn't count as an 8th gen consoles but rather a 7.5 gen consoles because its specs are maybe just barely better then the PS3 and 360's.

The funny thing is, the same argument could be made with this logic to say that the Xbone and PS4 are last gen to, considering how big a difference there is between them and the top-tier PCs. That's what happens when you wait too damn long to get your next console gen out.

But thankfully that logic is completely flawed. Gen listings aren't about specs, but time periods.

I think its about time periods too, but now I'm going to say something that might piss people off. I don't think the gap between consoles and PCs is as big as people think anymore.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I mean seriously it seems that to me people said the Wii U doesn't count as an 8th gen consoles but rather a 7.5 gen consoles because its specs are maybe just barely better then the PS3 and 360's.

The funny thing is, the same argument could be made with this logic to say that the Xbone and PS4 are last gen to, considering how big a difference there is between them and the top-tier PCs. That's what happens when you wait too damn long to get your next console gen out.

But thankfully that logic is completely flawed. Gen listings aren't about specs, but time periods.

I think its about time periods too, but now I'm going to say something that might piss people off. I don't think the gap between consoles and PCs is as big as people think anymore.

It really depends on how much money you want to spend.

A $500 self-build PC (assuming things like peripherals, monitor and software are brought forward from an older unit) could in-theory compete with the level of graphical fidelity and particle effects of what we've seen from the previews of next gen consoles.

Expecting the likes of the PS4 to and Xbone to outdo someone's Titan or 7990 equipped monster, especially very early into a consoles cycle where there isn't as much optimization is folly.

Until developers have some time to get the hang of the next-gen its too early to say how far the gap has closed, especially with all three platforms running X86 now.

 

[GoaThief]

It's not that people don't think the 8th generation has arrived definitionally. It's a disagreement that the WiiU is functionally 8th gen. Just that the WiiU itself isn't a large enough technological step to feel like it's 8th gen technology. It's more powerful than the 360 and ps3, yes, but not by enough to make a drastic difference whereas the consoles we're getting next month are something like 10x as powerful (ps4/ps3 comparison).

And here is the argument I make that I wish others would make. Give me a reason to care about the numbers. I mean seriously give me a real reason to care about the numbers. By the end of this last gen the 360 and PS3 reached a point that I can see very little in the way of visual change. Hell I was the one who never had a problem with the Wii not being HD then again I could give 2 fucks about HD. Visual fidelity and graphical jumps need to stop being the concern of industry execs and consumers. The only one that doesn't seem to care about that stuff is Nintendo and mostly because they have so much money then they know what to do with. Indie devs and devs like Platinum know that great visuals aid in a game but actual gameplay is the real star. We have reached the visual apex of games for a while. What devs should be doing is say inventing new ways to play games. Wii U is a prime target but no one in the industry seems to have an imagination large enough to use the pad in unique ways.

Why do those numbers matter? Features that Nintendo consoles only dream of, bigger everything - even the number of clients in multiplayer (64 in Battlefield is a good example). Immersion in titles like Skyrim.

We haven't reached an apex in graphical capabilities either, but you don't seem to see the difference between SD and HD so I can see how all that is lost on you.

 

[Billy D Williams]

And if you feel that nintendo's new console bought nothing new to the table you should try one out before you judge

I specifically said that bringing a tablet to a console is new. I also said it doesn't really revolutionize gaming cause nobody has or cares about Wii U.

You can keep your over hyped inferior graphics on PS4 Xbone if all I wanted were shiny turds I'd only buy a PC as it is I enjoy good game-play over that shit any day.

I think I'll just stick to my PC instead. The fact that you ASSUME I'm going to buy a console kind of makes you seem overly defensive about your product, making me suspect either your self esteem is way to tied up in the thing or your pushed to the point of legitimate anger by somebody disagreeing with you and you become so angry that you will make assumptions just to discredit the person who disagrees with you. So no, I'm sticking with my PC this gen so your more or less completely wrong in your accusation, sorry to disappoint.

And I still stick to my stance that while it is technically an 8th gen console the Wii U has made such a minuscule impact on gaming that I can't blame anyone for brushing it aside.

Also, considering the Wii U's hardware is extremely weak I wouldn't be surprised if in 2-3 years someone makes a stable Wii U PC emulator. I wont even need to buy one!

 

[KazeAizen]

It's not that people don't think the 8th generation has arrived definitionally. It's a disagreement that the WiiU is functionally 8th gen. Just that the WiiU itself isn't a large enough technological step to feel like it's 8th gen technology. It's more powerful than the 360 and ps3, yes, but not by enough to make a drastic difference whereas the consoles we're getting next month are something like 10x as powerful (ps4/ps3 comparison).

And here is the argument I make that I wish others would make. Give me a reason to care about the numbers. I mean seriously give me a real reason to care about the numbers. By the end of this last gen the 360 and PS3 reached a point that I can see very little in the way of visual change. Hell I was the one who never had a problem with the Wii not being HD then again I could give 2 fucks about HD. Visual fidelity and graphical jumps need to stop being the concern of industry execs and consumers. The only one that doesn't seem to care about that stuff is Nintendo and mostly because they have so much money then they know what to do with. Indie devs and devs like Platinum know that great visuals aid in a game but actual gameplay is the real star. We have reached the visual apex of games for a while. What devs should be doing is say inventing new ways to play games. Wii U is a prime target but no one in the industry seems to have an imagination large enough to use the pad in unique ways.

Why do those numbers matter? Features that Nintendo consoles only dream of, bigger everything - even the number of clients in multiplayer (64 in Battlefield is a good example). Immersion in titles like Skyrim.

We haven't reached an apex in graphical capabilities either, but you don't seem to see the difference between SD and HD so I can see how all that is lost on you.

Don't you mean engagement in titles like Skyrim not immersion?

I can see the difference between SD and HD now finally on TV. On consoles though I only see the difference between the HD collector's versions of old games that are getting new releases. Other then that I've never seen what is HD and what is not. Why should we care if its HD or not? Between all the art styles and techniques we have no real frame of reference for an HD game vs. an SD game. We just have better graphics and aesthetics now which I don't see the big difference or point of reference people make when they say its in HD. I could see every pore on that soldiers face in CoD in SD. I can see them all perfectly fine in HD as well. So again reference point and why should these numbers matter for the next gen when its not what we need?

 

[Lightknight]

And here is the argument I make that I wish others would make. Give me a reason to care about the numbers. I mean seriously give me a real reason to care about the numbers. By the end of this last gen the 360 and PS3 reached a point that I can see very little in the way of visual change. Hell I was the one who never had a problem with the Wii not being HD then again I could give 2 fucks about HD. Visual fidelity and graphical jumps need to stop being the concern of industry execs and consumers. The only one that doesn't seem to care about that stuff is Nintendo and mostly because they have so much money then they know what to do with. Indie devs and devs like Platinum know that great visuals aid in a game but actual gameplay is the real star. We have reached the visual apex of games for a while. What devs should be doing is say inventing new ways to play games. Wii U is a prime target but no one in the industry seems to have an imagination large enough to use the pad in unique ways.

Consoles are just platters on which you're putting food. A bigger platter can hold more content that a smaller cannot. The WiiU, in being so weak, will face the same problem that the Wii faced this past generation. It will not get ports of major AAA next gen titles because they simply won't fit.

Additionally, it does not matter how you feel about graphics. It does not matter how I feel about graphics. It matters what the consumer market as a whole feels about them and in case you didn't know, the market pays a premium for beauty. If you've only ever been interested in Nintendo IPs then yeah, SD vs HD won't matter to you.

Not only that, but a more powerful machine isn't just graphics. It's physics, faster installation/loading time, AI, larger and more detailed environment, longer games (The "premium" 32GB hdd is a joke where large games are concerned, you're talking about not being able to hold 1 large game). Taking just physics for example, if a ball drops, does it fall at the same rate as a ball dropping in real life? See, our brains calculate hundreds of things we interact with every day. It makes predictions based on that calculation and things that don't follow that calculation throws red flags. It essentially confirms that what you're seeing isn't real or that there's something wrong. A much more subtle form of uncanny valley if you will. More power means utilities that update that and create NPCs that respond in more realistic or intuitive manners.

So yeah, numbers matter. You're talking about demanding developers to innovate out of necessity when they have better options that allow them to develop what they want to. You can wave away better hardware all you want but it isn't like the WiiU would have been harmed by being powerful enough to at least get AAA ports from the next gen. The thing about Nintendo is their IPs are all on the artistic side. That's completely a valid option to make but they aren't considering all the other companies that would ally with Nintendo if their games could just fit on the WiiU console. There's even a decent chance that we'll be getting VR headsets this generation. There is literally no benefit to a weaker console. Right now we're talking about a $300 machine that is functionally current-gen vs $400 for the most powerful console of the next generation that can play bluray disks and has 500 GBs of storage and access to the full AAA library that the next generation will bring.

So of course people aren't seeing the WiiU as next gen. I'm sorry if their reasoning doesn't make sense. But with hardware that's still largely current gen it should.

 

[Grimbold]

Maybe it has been said before but making up numbers for console generations is completely arbitrary. And if you don't bring your console to the market more or less at the same time as all competitors you will inevitably be caught between two stools, no matter who you are and also no one cares.

 

[Lightknight]

Don't you mean engagement in titles like Skyrim not immersion?

Immersion being used here as the feeling of being inside the game world is a valid term to use. GoaThief did not err in using it. A game can be engaging without being immersive. Engaging just captivates or grabs your attention. It is part of a world being immersive. On the flip side, a game cannot be immersive without being engaging. So your term is merely a subset of the larger set that is immersiveness.

Before we continue, I should clarify that I don't think a game has to be realistic to be immersive.

As I said earlier, games with incorrect graphics will interfere with immersion. Every time something happens that isn't quite right, your brain notices. This is not distinct in Nintendo/art based games. But it is in any game that relies on realism and that constitutes a LOT of games people love. Take bioshock for example. It is a very artistic world but still relies somewhat on the physical nature of our world. So I'm not saying just the CODs of this world but any game that operates in 3D space in a way that our world behaves.

I can see the difference between SD and HD now finally on TV. On consoles though I only see the difference between the HD collector's versions of old games that are getting new releases. Other then that I've never seen what is HD and what is not. Why should we care if its HD or not? Between all the art styles and techniques we have no real frame of reference for an HD game vs. an SD game. We just have better graphics and aesthetics now which I don't see the big difference or point of reference people make when they say its in HD. I could see every pore on that soldiers face in CoD in SD. I can see them all perfectly fine in HD as well. So again reference point and why should these numbers matter for the next gen when its not what we need?

What kind of consoles have you played? If you're basically a Nintendo advocate who doesn't enjoy some realism in games then you wouldn't really tell the difference between Nintendo SD titles and their HD counterparts (unless, like you said, they were made a long time ago and are just being re-released). Nintendo games rely on Artistic direction which holds up to the test of time far better than realistic games have fared comparatively. It's the reason why a game like Final Fantasy Tactics is still a ton of fun, because it could be made exactly as is today and we wouldn't think anything of it. But pop in the original 007 or Resident Evil one and it's hard to look at despite being cutting edge at the time.

Since nearly all of Nintendo games rely on that, it wouldn't be hard for the Nintendo-only fan to miss the importance of hardware improvements. Perhaps a game like Pikmin could benefit from better graphics but Pikmin 3 was darn pretty. Something interesting happened this past generation. Realistic-esque games reached a point where they could still be enjoyed 7 years after coming out. I played the original bioshock for the first time last year. It was wonderful. It wasn't perfect and our tech has evolved a lot since then but it may still be playable 10 years from now and that is a landmark. It's finally something that our children and our children's children can play and appreciate without saying how boring or ugly it is. So we could be looking at a time where artistic games lose that advantage.

 

[GoaThief]

It's not that people don't think the 8th generation has arrived definitionally. It's a disagreement that the WiiU is functionally 8th gen. Just that the WiiU itself isn't a large enough technological step to feel like it's 8th gen technology. It's more powerful than the 360 and ps3, yes, but not by enough to make a drastic difference whereas the consoles we're getting next month are something like 10x as powerful (ps4/ps3 comparison).

And here is the argument I make that I wish others would make. Give me a reason to care about the numbers. I mean seriously give me a real reason to care about the numbers. By the end of this last gen the 360 and PS3 reached a point that I can see very little in the way of visual change. Hell I was the one who never had a problem with the Wii not being HD then again I could give 2 fucks about HD. Visual fidelity and graphical jumps need to stop being the concern of industry execs and consumers. The only one that doesn't seem to care about that stuff is Nintendo and mostly because they have so much money then they know what to do with. Indie devs and devs like Platinum know that great visuals aid in a game but actual gameplay is the real star. We have reached the visual apex of games for a while. What devs should be doing is say inventing new ways to play games. Wii U is a prime target but no one in the industry seems to have an imagination large enough to use the pad in unique ways.

Why do those numbers matter? Features that Nintendo consoles only dream of, bigger everything - even the number of clients in multiplayer (64 in Battlefield is a good example). Immersion in titles like Skyrim.

We haven't reached an apex in graphical capabilities either, but you don't seem to see the difference between SD and HD so I can see how all that is lost on you.

Don't you mean engagement in titles like Skyrim not immersion?

I can see the difference between SD and HD now finally on TV. On consoles though I only see the difference between the HD collector's versions of old games that are getting new releases. Other then that I've never seen what is HD and what is not. Why should we care if its HD or not? Between all the art styles and techniques we have no real frame of reference for an HD game vs. an SD game. We just have better graphics and aesthetics now which I don't see the big difference or point of reference people make when they say its in HD. I could see every pore on that soldiers face in CoD in SD. I can see them all perfectly fine in HD as well. So again reference point and why should these numbers matter for the next gen when its not what we need?

No, I mean immersion but schematics aside I've just given some reasons above which are all valid, and others have given more. You're just choosing to ignore them.

Why are none of the above valid? The vast majority of people can see and appreciate the difference between SD and HD for example, just because you're an exception does not mean it doesn't qualify.