Can I swap you unintentional racists for the straight up racist and proud of it cretins that I get to deal with?
Are Next Gen Graphics Really Needed on Next Gen Hardware?
- Thread starter LightyKD
- Start date
- Views 8,612
- Replies 105
- Likes 2
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 5,484
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- Sacramento, California
- Website
- lazerlight.x10.mx
- XP
- 5,487
- Country
I play games.
I don't play graphics.
It's nice when graphics complement the game though, but to have the game as a complement to the graphics is just pathetic.
I don't play graphics.
It's nice when graphics complement the game though, but to have the game as a complement to the graphics is just pathetic.
Yes (you suggest having a wiiu in the OP. I would like it if you would assume I read posts I quote from
). But how's that relevant? You want to talk about how to best utilize gaming hardware, but the moment I reply to that, you start talking about your own machine.
I expect more from the Wii U seeing that it has four times the RAM and a substantially stronger GPU and CPU. It's not a whole lot stronger than last gen consoles, but it is stronger nonetheless.
Actually, both the cpu and the gpu of the Wii U are in the same league as last gen consoles. See here:
http://kyokojap.myweb.hinet.net/gpu_gflops/
If the clocks for the Wii U are correct, then it is around 50% more powerful gpu-wise. That is approx the difference between XboxOne and PS4 as well... And just like those current gen systems, the difference is not that big visually. You need at least 3x-4x times the power to have a strong visual upgrade in order to not look "last-gen".
The RAM, is not that much of a benefit. IIRC it has 2GB, but 1GB is for the OS. The OS of XBOX360/PS3 was not that bloated...Plus, RAM is not that important for gaming consoles. And it certainly does not improve graphics...
Lastly, the CPU should be somewhat more powerful, but not by much (maybe 20-50%, i have not looked into it). The CPU is the least important part of a gaming console anyway, plus, i am willing to bet a good chunk of it is used by the OS... More than PS3/XBOX360 at least...
All in all, the Wii U is definitely more powerful than a PS3, BUT this difference is not that big in order to have noticeably better looking games...
Actually, you do play graphics... You don't play without a monitor, do you?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 5,484
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- Sacramento, California
- Website
- lazerlight.x10.mx
- XP
- 5,487
- Country
Actually, the OS runs off the dual-core ARM11 that's in it. I do wonder if Nintendo could reduce the OS memory footrint and give that to the games, but make it part of an update rather than what the 3DS does by swapping. I mean, does it really need 1GB for the OS and whatever app it's running?
As long as it looks good aesthetically, I don't care about how shiny it is. I still think Wind Waker and Metroid Prime on the NGC look good. I also think ALttP and Super Metroid look fine. I don't think OoT holds up well graphically, though. You have to work within the hardware limitation. In the end, it depends on what the developer is going for. A big open world won't work for every game, but others it works great for.
Most of the most beautiful games I've played aren't really that hardware intensive. Games like Bastion, Wind Waker (well, it was at the time, but not on modern hardware and still looks good), and Dust: An Elysian Tail. They're all great gameplay wise as well.
Most of the most beautiful games I've played aren't really that hardware intensive. Games like Bastion, Wind Waker (well, it was at the time, but not on modern hardware and still looks good), and Dust: An Elysian Tail. They're all great gameplay wise as well.
I didn't know that. Although now that i read the article on Wikipedia, it says it has a single ARM9 core... Anyway, even if used purely for games, it is not that much better than the Xbox360 cpu. It is clocked really low, and has fewer threads... But it is OoO and has some other architectural improvements. I don't know the details though, and i don't want to search right now...
The fact remains, cpu and ram are the least important parts of a gaming machine. All depend on the gpu for modern gaming. GPU is the bottleneck, if your gpu is limiting you, no amount of cpu cores and/or extra ram will save you...
So, even if Nintendo manages to provide more RAM for the Wii U, i don't believe it will make that much of a difference. Maybe on loading times.
The eternal "art vs graphic engine" argument...
In my opinion, the best is a mixture of both. I have seen many games on powerful engines that have poor art assets and don't do justice to their hardware requirements, and i have seen many "artsy" games that are really behind the times so much that it doesn't do justice to the art. The optimum path is somewhere in the middle, with powerful yet not extreme graphical engines and thoughtful art usage to perfectly exploit that capability. Nintendo before the Wii used to do that approach. It had powerful hardware but not the best in absolute terms, and used it perfectly. After the Wii Nintendo overfocused on art and the results are showing...
With a GPU any CPU 50% stronger and 5 times more RAM it's fair to expect better textures - last gen was bottlenecked by a low amount of memory first and foremost. The amount of shared RAM, (in the case of the PS3 VRAM) directly corellates with the size of textures you can use - you have to store them somewhere to display them.Actually, both the cpu and the gpu of the Wii U are in the same league as last gen consoles. See here:
http://kyokojap.myweb.hinet.net/gpu_gflops/
If the clocks for the Wii U are correct, then it is around 50% more powerful gpu-wise. That is approx the difference between XboxOne and PS4 as well... And just like those current gen systems, the difference is not that big visually. You need at least 3x-4x times the power to have a strong visual upgrade in order to not look "last-gen".
The RAM, is not that much of a benefit. IIRC it has 2GB, but 1GB is for the OS. The OS of XBOX360/PS3 was not that bloated...Plus, RAM is not that important for gaming consoles. And it certainly does not improve graphics...
Lastly, the CPU should be somewhat more powerful, but not by much (maybe 20-50%, i have not looked into it). The CPU is the least important part of a gaming console anyway, plus, i am willing to bet a good chunk of it is used by the OS... More than PS3/XBOX360 at least...
All in all, the Wii U is definitely more powerful than a PS3, BUT this difference is not that big in order to have noticeably better looking games...
Actually, you do play graphics... You don't play without a monitor, do you?
I agree to a degree. It needs graphical work and the hardware to make the aesthetic fully realized and appealing. I have a lot of troubles playing a lot of N64, PS1, and NES games anymore. They are a bit painful to look at, even though the gameplay is generally still solid and the aesthetic itself might still hold up, if it was updated with modern graphics. I think OoT and MM are a good example of that (being remade for the 3DS, better graphics but same aesthetic).
With a GPU any CPU 50% stronger and 5 times more RAM it's fair to expect better textures - last gen was bottlenecked by a low amount of memory first and foremost. The amount of shared RAM, (in the case of the PS3 VRAM) directly corellates with the size of textures you can use - you have to store them somewhere to display them.
No 5 times. 1gb free for games vs 512mb for last gen consoles. Xbox's 512 were unified as well...
Plus, having textures stored in ram but no ability to actually process and display them in a timely manner because you lack the gpu power and memory bandwidth, makes them useless...
PS: Actually, the amount of RAM of last gen consoles was ok for their processing capabilities. Their gpu's gflops were matched by the available 256mb vram perfectly (my older ATI HD3870 gpu had double the gflops and 512mb vram for a comparison), and around 256mb of main ram for a game of that magnitude is not low when you consider all the tricks they used to stream data and the lack of a heavy OS and background tasks.
512MB was never fully available, the systems ran background tasks and the OS just like the Wii U does, the games didn't run on bare metal. Even if they did, 1GB shared RAM is still better than 512/22x256 so yes, I expect the textures to be better. I rag on the Wii U myself, but it is better than the 360 or the PS3 specs-wise, there's no denying that.
None is denying that the Wii U has better specs than the 360/PS3. What i am saying, is that the difference is not that big to have a really noticeable impact. Maybe an extra effect or two, or somewhat better fps, but that's about it. Games will not have much difference, it is not a generational leap.
PS: Last gen systems still had OS and background tasks ofcourse, but they were more lightweight. Current gen systems are really bloated, they consume more RAM for OS and background tasks than a Windows 8.1 gaming PC...
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 14,600
- Trophies
- 4
- Location
- Another World
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 25,207
- Country
Because FFXV with DX12 support along every other new game will be released on PC Day 1.
I'd rather wait for a superior PC version than play on a "next-gen" console that can't even handle 1080p 60fps and etc.
Also, it will be released...
Soon(tm)
I'd like to think a good example of something for this thread would be the relatively recent Playstation Exclusive, (and game I happen to have very recently played,) The Order 1886.
The Order, was a relatively okay title in my opinion. Gameplay was a little samey with atypical get behind cover and shoot things mechanics, sprinkled in with some stealth, some really cool steam-punk weapons, and a decently engaging story.
Graphically however, it was fucking gorgeous. It was INCREDIBLY cinematic, and at times I felt like I was engaged in a play along, Victorian era Lycan hunting movie.
I would like to think that the graphics of the game are what kept me engaged even more than the gameplay, I was just in shock at how fantastic everything looked.
When we think about console iterations, we think about the next levels of power systems can bring to games in their power, their playstyle, and obviously, their look. I'd like to think that this current generation, hadn't demonstrated the sheer jump in capability, until The Order 1886 came along.
I'm sure there are other titles you can name they may demonstrate this that I may not have played, but for a console exclusive and for a release still relatively early in its' life cycle, The Order was a great example of why graphics should play a hand in your gaming experience, and be a part of your console experience.
Let's just hope the next game in the series is a tad bit longer than seven hours though eh?
The Order, was a relatively okay title in my opinion. Gameplay was a little samey with atypical get behind cover and shoot things mechanics, sprinkled in with some stealth, some really cool steam-punk weapons, and a decently engaging story.
Graphically however, it was fucking gorgeous. It was INCREDIBLY cinematic, and at times I felt like I was engaged in a play along, Victorian era Lycan hunting movie.
I would like to think that the graphics of the game are what kept me engaged even more than the gameplay, I was just in shock at how fantastic everything looked.
When we think about console iterations, we think about the next levels of power systems can bring to games in their power, their playstyle, and obviously, their look. I'd like to think that this current generation, hadn't demonstrated the sheer jump in capability, until The Order 1886 came along.
I'm sure there are other titles you can name they may demonstrate this that I may not have played, but for a console exclusive and for a release still relatively early in its' life cycle, The Order was a great example of why graphics should play a hand in your gaming experience, and be a part of your console experience.
Let's just hope the next game in the series is a tad bit longer than seven hours though eh?
No . . . but next gen graphics would help next gen consoles be the best they can be. Just imagine how much more cooler and successful the 3DS would have been/still be if it had PSP Vita graphics AND 3D display. It doesn't have to be that way, but Nintendo needs to step up their console super power, their next gen console better be able to compete with Sony and Microsoft's specs, and power wise.
EDIT-Also as OP posted above PCs are always a smart investment. A €$800.00 Desktop PC can last you twice as long as any gaming console and do so much more. Not to mention they have some of the best titles which regular consoles can't even deal with. And as you mentioned in your first post, you'd be surprised how many PC games already mirror what you just described longing for, Sims 3 anyone?
EDIT-Also as OP posted above PCs are always a smart investment. A €$800.00 Desktop PC can last you twice as long as any gaming console and do so much more. Not to mention they have some of the best titles which regular consoles can't even deal with. And as you mentioned in your first post, you'd be surprised how many PC games already mirror what you just described longing for, Sims 3 anyone?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,004
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- In the Murderbox!
- Website
- www.twitch.tv
- XP
- 16,135
- Country
I'd like to point out that your approach is deceptive since it implies that you can't have state-of-the-art graphics, story and good gameplay all in one package which is false - you obviously can. Now to comment on what you said, what you're calling an 8-bit pixelated mess was in fact next gen graphics at one point. What we call next gen graphics will become a 64-bit pixelated mess by users gaming on 128-bit machines running at 16k resolution in a decade or two because it will look like junk when blown up to that resolution on a future display. Everything you've said is only relevant to you in this exact point in time, it will be irrelevant as time goes on. Graphics as a tool are important, they allow developers to better represent their vision on-screen and had we not developed them over the years, you wouldn't have any 8-bit mess to play with because you'd be stuck with 2-bit graphics. Graphics have nothing to do with realism, realism is an aesthetic choice.
Absolute nonsense. The 360/PS3 lasted a decade, show me one $800 PC from 2005 that can still run contemporary games at playable speed. PC's rely on upgrades, that's a fact. A gaming PC quickly becomes obsolete and requires upgrades, the only upgrade a console needs is another console when it reaches the end of its life span, that's the whole point of owning one over owning a gaming PC - not having to deal with upgrades.
Similar threads
