# Rumor Nintendo Tweaked Wii U to Run Unreal Engine 4



## Valwin (Mar 11, 2012)

> Inside sources claim that Nintendo has tweaked the Wii U to run the Unreal Engine 4. We've heard multiple times that the Wii U was still in a tweaking process with Nintendo, with new specs cropping up with every dev kit



the rumor



> Nintendo tweaked the Wii U to make sure it can run UE4.
> I've just heard it from a friend that Epic has UE3 & UE4 up and running on Wii U hardware.
> 
> His source works for a developer, one that I shall not name, but they do work on pretty much every system. So that alleviates any concerns that I didn't have over the Wii U power issue as far as I'm concerned.
> .



Source

via

Source





Spoiler


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Mar 11, 2012)

Epic gif.


----------



## frogboy (Mar 11, 2012)

Expected this, it's a next-gen console after all.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 11, 2012)

Epic news.


----------



## CollosalPokemon (Mar 11, 2012)

frogboy said:


> Expected this, it's a next-gen console after all.



1GB+ RAM
Unreal Engine 4
HD

I think so. I heard PS4 and Xboxygen (was the name confirmed?) were supposedly capable of running Unreal Engine 4. If the $299 price rumour is correct I may want to pick one up during launch, despite that Nintendo is revolving the console around the controller instead of telling us what the console is capable of itself =/ either way I hope to see some new things *not* about the controller (date, price, spec confirmations) during E3.I wonder if it will be launched during early-mid October; it seems a few games are coming out October 23 and the 31 so it's possible.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 11, 2012)

CollosalPokemon said:


> frogboy said:
> 
> 
> > Expected this, it's a next-gen console after all.
> ...



Of course they won't tell you what the console is capable of right now. That'd be stupid on their part and the fact that it's still being worked on and finalized, it's pointless.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 11, 2012)

OK, great !  Cause there is no way in god damn hell I'm buying a system that competes with current gen.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 11, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> OK, great !  Cause there is no way in god damn hell I'm buying a system that competes with current gen.


I'm pretty sure that's not their objective, probably the reason why they're also porting multi-plat games for the wii u is because third party devs want to gather more sales, like, assuming most people that have a wii get a wii u, their market will also increase for those people that only had a Nintendo console up until then.


----------



## 1Player (Mar 11, 2012)

heartgold said:


> Epic* rumor*


There fixed it for you. 
________________________________________________________

My Imagine Pony running Unreal 4. Now that's good stuff.


----------



## Walker D (Mar 11, 2012)

It seems to me that the new xbox and ps4 will pass by far the specs of the Wii U  ...They will release their consoles after Nintendo, and I don't think that they will leave Nintendo with the most powerfull one.

With Nintendo trying so much new things with the new videogame, this situation could be bad for the wii U acceptance.

This real possibility worries me a bit..


----------



## Valwin (Mar 11, 2012)

1Player said:


> heartgold said:
> 
> 
> > Epic* rumor*
> ...




you poor thing  you seem upset


----------



## Midna (Mar 11, 2012)

Walker D said:


> It seems to me that the new xbox and ps4 will pass by far the specs of the Wii U  ...They will release their consoles after Nintendo, and I don't think that they will leave Nintendo with the most powerfull one.
> 
> With Nintendo trying so much new things with the new videogame, this situation could be bad for the wii U acceptance.
> 
> This real possibility worries me a bit..


Well it's not as if we've seen the Nextbox and PS4 specs yet. The PS4 will no doubt be an ahead of the curve Five-Hundred-and-Ninty-Nine-U-S-Dollah powerhouse and released at least a year after the Nextbox. Rumours about the Nextbox, on the other hand, are shaping up badly. It seems like they might be trying to bag the casual audience like the Wii did.

Only time will tell.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 11, 2012)

Walker D said:


> It seems to me that the new xbox and ps4 will pass by far the specs of the Wii U  ...They will release their consoles after Nintendo, and I don't think that they will leave Nintendo with the most powerfull one.
> 
> With Nintendo trying so much new things with the new videogame, this situation could be bad for the wii U acceptance.
> 
> This real possibility worries me a bit..



Really? Nintendo is worrying you? NINTENDO? You know, people said the same thing about the Wii and the remote controller, but look at it now, the Wii became a frickin juggernaut and destroyed the competition.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 11, 2012)

Valwin said:


> 1Player said:
> 
> 
> > heartgold said:
> ...


On one side we have a childish hater and on the other side we have a fanboy.
Things could get interesting. 


I don't see what's the issues with Nintendo doing this, they clearly can, and will if they want more games on their consoles. Seeing as Darksiders 2 is already confirmed for the Wii U, the Unreal Engine 4 can prove real useful for it.


----------



## Walker D (Mar 11, 2012)

Midna said:


> Walker D said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the new xbox and ps4 will pass by far the specs of the Wii U  ...They will release their consoles after Nintendo, and I don't think that they will leave Nintendo with the most powerfull one.
> ...




Sure, I agree.

But thinking about the most suitable market strategy for this companys to compete with Nintendo, the probability of the better specs compared with Ninty, is ( to me) high.

It's just a thought  ...but looks to be a strong possibility.


As you said, lets see what Microsoft will try.


----------



## Walker D (Mar 11, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Really? Nintendo is worrying you? NINTENDO? You know, people said the same thing about the Wii and the remote controller, but look at it now, the Wii became a frickin juggernaut and destroyed the competition.



True.

But now it's a new generation of consoles. Wii had a good price, was inovative and different from the competition, was family friendly, and stuff. Many may dislike it, but it was unique and won.

The new consoles may be as inovative, good price, family friendly and stuff  ...as the wii U	  ...we don't know		  (but it's kinda possible)
In that case, being far behind specs-wise, may be a real problem.

That kind of possible scenario that made me kinda worry


----------



## Rockhoundhigh (Mar 11, 2012)

Nintendo, I think I'm in love... all over again


----------



## DDTarZan (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm still recovering over the fact that Nintendo is taking a step up in graphics. It's funny, because I figured Sony and Microsoft will be first in line to jump on the ~$300-graphics-machine bandwagon this generation. I probably spoken too soon, though. Kony and Microshaft will more than likely jump the Wii U's supposed Unreal 4 engine in due time.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 11, 2012)

i...have...the power! (or ninty has)


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 11, 2012)

Of course the Nextbox and the PS4 will have better specs than the Wii U. However, it'll take a lot more than simple increases in technology to see a noticeable difference of one next-gen console to another, since the curve that describes capabilities has been leveling out more compared to prior generation devices. Specs won't be the only thing to pull in developers. Ease of development is easily a major factor.


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 11, 2012)

I don't really care, I'm into this for some great looking Nintendo titles and Nintendo have a great way of making their own games still look great.

I guess its good for more 3rd party releases but I buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games. As long as they keep them in a good steady supply, I'm good. I've got plenty of other platforms to play on as well as sifting through what I bought during Steam sales.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Mar 11, 2012)

If it will truly run it, its gonna be great bcz i think the majority of pcs dont have the ability of running it on HD quality (afaik)


----------



## Qtis (Mar 11, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Really? Nintendo is worrying you? NINTENDO? You know, people said the same thing about the Wii and the remote controller, but look at it now, the Wii became a frickin juggernaut and destroyed the competition.


PS1 and PS2 anyone? Nintendo has been a market leader in portables for a long time, but TV based consoles not so. The PS2 has sold over 150 million units by the end of '11, but that didn't help the PS3 with all making the same amount (at least to date). The Wii has sold around 95 million by the end of '11. Sadly, nothing is set in stone for gaming. That's what I've noticed from previous gens..

Before praising or judging the WiiU, I'd just wait for more details. Before that I'd hold your horses since the tech is still frigging changing! Look at the development of different hardware components from before. It's basically limitless possibilities, but at what kind of cost for the end user..


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 11, 2012)

If It didn't run Unreal Engine 3 there is something sorely wrong, since that engine was put into gaming use like 6 years ago, it's old by today's standards. Now if it can run the latest version of Crytek's engine, then all will be good. I just hope Nintendo realizes that they need to put out a whopper of a console if they expect to win market share and protection from future console releases by the competition. They aren't going to last if they can't run all the same games as the next generation of consoles at the same performance levels, it won't help them to be inferior in the graphics department.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 11, 2012)

Qtis said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Nintendo is worrying you? NINTENDO? You know, people said the same thing about the Wii and the remote controller, but look at it now, the Wii became a frickin juggernaut and destroyed the competition.
> ...



Sony just screwed up with the PS3 is all, when you have competition you cannot launch a console that is more than 2X the cost of your competitors. I know I know basic marketing 101 but thats Sony for you, pure arrogance at its finest. I think they learned something the next PS system will be at what ever price Nintendo or Microsoft launches at since it seems like they will launch first. 

Right now Nintendo has the market momentum, so lets see what they can do with it, but really just learning from Sony's blunder should be enough to keep them from falling as bad.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 11, 2012)

Would be awesome...but I smell bullshit.

First off: that rumour leads back to one single poster who has it from hearsay. That's pretty bleak, even for a rumor.

Second: unreal engine 4 isn't finished yet. Estimates from Epic's CEO himself are said around 2014. And those who are familiar with the releases of previous unreal engines know that this sort of estimates are no joke (UT2003 was half a year overdue, and UT3 was even released a full year after "rumors" claimed that the game and the engine would be ready).
With that in mind...how the hell could nintendo tweak their console for that non-existing console? No...at best, they're currently tweaking the WiiU so it can easily be used by the current engine (bioshock infinite, some gears of war game...it's not like it won't be used).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2012)

This was to be expected.







Nothing to be really excited about at this point.  We first need to know at what resolution the engine runs.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 11, 2012)

ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN.



Foxi4 said:


> This was to be expected.
> 
> http://gamingbolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/samaritan-processing.png
> 
> Nothing to be really excited about at this point.  We first need to know at what resolution the engine runs.


The Samaritan demo is based off Unreal Engine 3. Not 4.

Epic's Rein said that the Samaritan demo looks like crap compared to UE4 so we can assume that the new engine is leaps and bounds above it.
_This year's Samaritan demo, however, was highly optimized and according to Epic's Mark Rein, it could be running on a laptop next year or a smartphone the year after. This is where Rein pointed out that the UE4 demo will make the Samaritan look feeble by comparison and will generally be crap next to what they show off for the next generation engine, saying "Imagine if that were a piece of crap, what would the next thing look like?"_http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Epic-VP-Unreal-Engine-4-Demo-Makes-Samaritan-Look-Feeble-40315.html

If it is indeed powerful enough to run  Unreal Engine 4, I guess that means it will get pretty much get all multi-platform ports next-gen and won't be left in the dust like the Wii.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 11, 2012)

So the Wii U is going to be a cess pool of overhyped First Person Shooters? Gross.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 11, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> So the Wii U is going to be a cess pool of overhyped First Person Shooters? Gross.


I didn't like that the 360 had so many FPS's. but it still had lots of other games.
If the Wii U get's some FPS games I don't see any issues with that, Nintendo will just reap more cash that way by making everyone happy. xP


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2012)

soulx said:


> ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did not know that, you are right! However, I think I'm not far off when saying that the spec requirements are similar - Samaritan is told to run on weaker systems now that it's been optimized, surely UE4 would run on a similar build.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 11, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> So the Wii U is going to be a cess pool of overhyped First Person Shooters? Gross.


Not sure if trying to troll or just being ignorant. -___-'

Just like saying the Wii has only childrens games or weird fitness things. Or that the DS is just in existence for Nintendogs. Sure the PS3/360 have quite a few FPS games, but there are also a wide variety of games that are in no way FPS. I would love to play a few of the PS3/360 games with the Wii controlling scheme, but that just isn't possible since the Wii is just so far behind spec wise. If the WiiU can run the engines used in PS3/360 games, it's better than before. At least WiiU owners have a *choice of buying* a game similar to those on the other rivaling consoles. Currently their only option is a PS3/360, nothing else. (The PC doesn't count in comparison because it isn't a console per se. Otherwise we could just as well use all emulators available for the PC to render all those consoles useless nowadays  )


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2012)

Qtis said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > So the Wii U is going to be a cess pool of overhyped First Person Shooters? Gross.
> ...


Why is everybody's angle the genre of games when this article is about a graphics engine? There is nothing in the way of developing any game of any genre using Unreal Engines - Lineage 2 is an MMO and it runs on Unreal Engine 2. That engine was not made for FPP games solely, it was made to display high def graphics.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 11, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> soulx said:
> 
> 
> > ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN.
> ...


Samaritan will probably be running on smartphones(tablets) in the next few years as mobile tech is rapidity increasing from a Epic spokesman.

As a whole Unreal4 is targeted for next gen gaming, not the current ps3/x360, so I think it'd require a beefier machine then those, maybe the WiiU just manages to support it. We hardly know the WiiU specs and developers have been saying the devkits have been constantly changing since last years E3.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 11, 2012)

heartgold said:


> Samaritan will probably be running on smartphones(tablets) in the next few years as mobile tech is rapidity increasing from a Epic spokesman.


That's just Epic being crazy. Considering the Samaritan demo needs 2.5 TFLOPS and was originally running on three NVIDIA 580 GTX graphics cards in SLI, there's no way in hell that it'll be running on mobile devices in the near future.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 11, 2012)

If this is true, I wouldn't be surprised. Keeping up with developments in the industry is going to be vital for this system to survive.


----------



## Walker D (Mar 12, 2012)

Wever said:


> Would be awesome...but I smell bullshit.
> 
> First off: that rumour leads back to one single poster who has it from hearsay. That's pretty bleak, even for a rumor.
> 
> ...



If that is true and the rumor is impractical, the Wii U can easy have some wii-like problems with the nextgen competition, when the unreal engine 4 starts to become a standard in graphics.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 12, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> So the Wii U is going to be a cess pool of overhyped First Person run and gun Shooters full of sniper-tards online? Gross.


fixd


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 12, 2012)

Walker D said:


> Wever said:
> 
> 
> > Would be awesome...but I smell bullshit.
> ...


Not necessarily. The thread title may be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's all just a lie.
1. obviously, the WiiU can be tweaked to smoothly run the latest iteration of Unreal Engine 3.
2. Unreal Engine 4 won't become a standard engine if it cannot run on consoles. As such, it's not that unlikely for Epic to tweak their next engine so it will run smoothly on the wiiU (as this will most likely be released before the UE).

(point 2 obviously requires a good knowledge of the wiiU's hardware)


----------



## Walker D (Mar 12, 2012)

I read in ZeldaInformer about a Nintendo Enthusiast' interview with an industry insider. It's kinda interesting.	 ..Here is the full thing : http://www.nintendoe...next-gen-wii-u/

And it has a deeper look on this Unreal Engine 4 stuff :



> _NE: Okay, let's get to the big question: Unreal Engine 4. Is it a yes or no on the Wii U hardware?_
> 
> _I: Wii U already can run something akin to Unreal Engine 3.9 but I find this whole topic much less noteworthy than many are making it out be. While details on feature requirements for the new engine are nearly zero, comments from Epic suggest that there should be no reason why the Unreal Engine 4 won't be able to scale "down" to work on the Wii U. Just remember that that it's not power that is the main factor for an engine, rather, it's the features offered by the hardware and the age of the hardware. For example, in theory, if there were to be an Unreal Engine 4 right now, it possibly could be scaled down in terms of power to work on the PS3 and 360 because they support the features that are considered standard across the industry. However, in reality, when the Unreal Engine 4 is released we probably won't see much Unreal Engine 4 on them because those systems are aging. The modern hardware going into Wii U could be new enough to support the Unreal Engine 4 at least on a scaled down level in terms of power._
> 
> _See, this is specifically the issue that was encountered with the Wii, which Nintendo wants to avoid. The problem wasn't so much that the hardware was weak, rather, it was that the hardware didn't follow industry standards at the time and therefore impossible for developers to easily port the newest engines to the Wii. The Wii U solves this and more. More than a year ago, the Wii U dev kits were already souped up Xbox 360′s in some ways. So, developers were basically just "dragging and dropping" their PC and 360 code onto the early Wii U hardware last year, even before any new software and projects had begun development. This is how games like Darksiders 2 were up and running on Wii U hardware for E3 2011 after only a matter of weeks in development, though Nintendo finally decided not to show the "instant" port those developers had completed. _


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 12, 2012)

Walker D said:


> > _the Wii U dev kits were already souped up Xbox 360′s in some ways_



inb4 "OMG! Nintendo is copying Microsoft! flamewar flamewar!"


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Walker D said:
> 
> 
> > > _the Wii U dev kits were already souped up Xbox 360′s in some ways_
> ...


Soon enough we won't have to worry about them. For most Nintendo fansboys "HD" was a mythical and elusive creature that they only heard of from scary stories in school. The moment they boot up their WiiU they will be like "AW MAH GAWD, LIEK, SO MANY PIXULZ", their eyes will literally melt and their skulls will explode.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 12, 2012)

HD may not have been "affordable" when the consoles first released (one reason why Nintendo didn't go HD with the Wii), but that affordability came sooner than they expected, giving owners of the other consoles enjoyment at that time while not emptying out their pockets as quickly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> HD may not have been "affordable" when the consoles first released (one reason why Nintendo didn't go HD with the Wii), but that affordability came sooner than they expected, giving owners of the other consoles enjoyment at that time while not emptying out their pockets as quickly.


I was sort of making a joke, but yeah, I suppose you're right. 

Still, Wii was barely an upgrade from the Gamecube, you gotta admit that.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 12, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > HD may not have been "affordable" when the consoles first released (one reason why Nintendo didn't go HD with the Wii), but that affordability came sooner than they expected, giving owners of the other consoles enjoyment at that time while not emptying out their pockets as quickly.
> ...



Oh, I know you were making a joke. I was just adding some input for those who might have wondered, since Nintendo didn't go that route in the first place. And yes, the Wii was not much of an upgrade from the GC. Guess most of their R&D went into motion controls.

_edit_
I kinda wish though that Nintendo was able to allow the Wii U to play Wii games "in HD", but they said they couldn't do it. Might be because of their render method for the GC/Wii, if it is anything like how the DS renders stuff.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


I've noticed that whenever Nintendo pulls out the big guns and releases a remarkably strong console for its time, it always has a_ fatal flaw_, one that renders the entire effort pointless and the investment wasted. It was the case with the Virtual Boy and its sheer bulk, the Nintendo 64 and its cartridge medium, the Gamecube and its miniDVD drive, among other issues... Or am I the only one who noticed that?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 12, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I've noticed that whenever Nintendo pulls out the big guns and releases a remarkably strong console for its time, it always has a_ fatal flaw_, one that renders the entire effort pointless and the investment wasted. It was the case with the Virtual Boy and its sheer bulk, the Nintendo 64 and its cartridge medium, the Gamecube and its miniDVD drive, among other issues... Or am I the only one who noticed that?



The N64 and GC dilemma, imo, was a factor with load times, but part of that depended on the developer's method of loading. The VB.......yeah......
We'll see what Nintendo has up their sleeves with the Wii U this coming E3, and what faults it will have as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed that whenever Nintendo pulls out the big guns and releases a remarkably strong console for its time, it always has a_ fatal flaw_, one that renders the entire effort pointless and the investment wasted. It was the case with the Virtual Boy and its sheer bulk, the Nintendo 64 and its cartridge medium, the Gamecube and its miniDVD drive, among other issues... Or am I the only one who noticed that?
> ...


Yeah, you're right, the N64 did have little RAM and VRAM, didn't it...? I don't think it suffered from slow loading times though - cartridges are generally much faster then discs, especially back then. That said... A CD is 650MB's, a cartridge back then was up to 250 if I remember right. Same deal with miniDVD's - 4,7GB vs 1,4GB single-sided single-layered and you have a clear winner right there.

As for the flaw of the WiiU, I can tell you what the flaw is already - a second set of triggers, preferably analog would be welcome on it, unfortunatelly they're not there.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Mar 12, 2012)

Qtis said:


> PS1 and PS2 anyone? Nintendo has been a market leader in portables for a long time, but TV based consoles not so. The PS2 has sold over 150 million units by the end of '11, but that didn't help the PS3 with all making the same amount (at least to date). The Wii has sold around 95 million by the end of '11. Sadly, nothing is set in stone for gaming. That's what I've noticed from previous gens..


Yeah, but you forget that the PS2 had more than 6 years lead on the Wii. I don't know if you're trying to say the Wii has done good or otherwise because the Wii has sold over 95 million units where as the PS3 has only sold around 60 million units, of which about 10% were replacements for failed hardware. I do think that Nintendo will be behind the curve once the other Next Gen consoles are released but I think that curve isn't as sharp as it used to be with graphic and processing technology coming to a relative slow down.


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 12, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, you're right, the N64 did have little RAM and VRAM, didn't it...? I don't think it suffered from slow loading times though - cartridges are generally much faster then discs, especially back then. That said... A CD is 650MB's, a cartridge back then was up to 250 if I remember right. Same deal with miniDVD's - 4,7GB vs 1,4GB single-sided single-layered and you have a clear winner right there.
> 
> As for the flaw of the WiiU, I can tell you what the flaw is already - a second set of triggers, preferably analog would be welcome on it, unfortunatelly they're not there.



It already has 4 trigger buttons, not analog though.
They may be analog when the console gets re-revealed at E3 , the Classic Controller has analog at least, and it's compatible with the Wii U.
I'm still hoping that they release a new CCpro that doesn't need a Wiimote to plug in to.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Qtis said:
> 
> 
> > PS1 and PS2 anyone? Nintendo has been a market leader in portables for a long time, but TV based consoles not so. The PS2 has sold over 150 million units by the end of '11, but that didn't help the PS3 with all making the same amount (at least to date). The Wii has sold around 95 million by the end of '11. Sadly, nothing is set in stone for gaming. That's what I've noticed from previous gens..
> ...


Since when replacements count as sales, mister? I doubt anyone in their right mind would just chuck their YLOD'ed PS3 into the garbage bin and buy a new one, people sent them to Sony.





> I do think that Nintendo will be behind the curve once the other Next Gen consoles are released but I think that curve isn't as sharp as it used to be with graphic and processing technology coming to a relative slow down.


That much is correct, the curve won't be visible at first, but in 3-4 years time it'll start being apparent like with the XBox 360.



Eerpow said:


> It already has 4 trigger buttons, not analog though.


Oh yeah, I totally didn't notice the ones on the back, thanks for correcting me!

Still... Nintendo, swap them for analog ones, pretty please. It's not a big change, c'mon.


----------



## emigre (Mar 12, 2012)

Meh, I'm gong PC next gen.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Mar 12, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Since when replacements count as sales, mister? I doubt anyone in their right mind would just chuck their YLOD'ed PS3 into the garbage bin and buy a new one, people sent them to Sony.


Maybe to you and I it seems like the logical thing to do, but don't forget the world is chalk full of idiots and lazy asses who'd rather toss it and slap down a few hundred dollars for a new one. Believe me I've seen it first hand on several accounts, now I'm being generous but I'd say you're lucky if half of the failed consoles were sent back to sony under warranty. Besides all failures aren't due to YLOD, some of them were Disc Read Errors and fried Power Supplies, etc.



Foxi4 said:


> That much is correct, the curve won't be visible at first, but in 3-4 years time it'll start being apparent like with the XBox 360.


How will the curve become visible 3 or 4 years after the tech is already out? It doesn't take them that long to figure out the full potential of technology these days.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 12, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> How will the curve become visible 3 or 4 years after the tech is already out? It doesn't take them that long to figure out the full potential of technology these days.


Quite easily - engines don't grow on trees. It takes time to develop one that will utilize the potential of a given console fully each generation - launch titles will not be as technologically advanced as the titles released 3 or so years later - then even the slightest difference specs wise will determine which version will have better visuals and which one will be a watered down port.


----------



## Midna (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


I'm confused. The Wii U doesn't have analog shoulder triggers, and has two sets of the shoulder buttons it does have





Even so, that is by no means a flaw of the same caliber of having inadequate RAM and storage space.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 13, 2012)

Midna said:


> Even so, that is by no means a flaw of the same caliber of having inadequate RAM and storage space.


Whenever something is positioned "in the place where a trigger normally would be" I call it a trigger and just distinguish between analog and digital ones, and I would very much like them to be analog simply because it allows programmers to use pressure sensitivity as a feature in their games (for example for acceleration, breaking or drifting in racing games) but yeah, it's not a "major" fault, more of an inconvinience. Still, behind today's standards.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> RchUncleSkeleton said:
> 
> 
> > How will the curve become visible 3 or 4 years after the tech is already out? It doesn't take them that long to figure out the full potential of technology these days.
> ...


My point is that since tech is coming to a relative slow down that the next gen Sony and Microsoft consoles won't have a quantum leap in specs above the Wii U. I highly doubt there will be a big difference in graphics and motion(frames per second) between the next gen consoles. While it may take 3 to 4 years to fully realize the power of each system that also goes for Sony and Microsoft.


----------



## Sylar1 (Mar 13, 2012)

Hopefully they'll actually put some games on the console, it can run unreal 4 all it wants, but its pointless if there are no good games for it.


----------



## jonthedit (Mar 13, 2012)

I'm in no way buying a Wii U until they change the name! If its price drops down to around 100 - 150$ I'll consider buying it with the name it currently has.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



What I have noticed is that every generation from the 2600 on up to today the least powerful system has always been the #1 seller... The one exception might be the SNES and Genesis, not sure what system sold more. 

Every time a company tries to get too far ahead of its competition it leads to ultra expensive consoles that usually ultra flop. The PS3 is the one exception to this and even it could be argued that being in 3rd place out of 3 possible is not doing so great. At least Sony avoided 3DO's fate so far... of course they can't keep up being in the red for 2 billion a quarter for very long. 

I think Microsoft hit a happy medium with the 360 and had it not been for the reliability issues would have sucked up even more of Sony's market. (Lets face it with 150 million PS2's sold it was Sony's market to lose.) 

Amazingly more then 50% of Sony's customers from the PS2 era said "The PS3 is too expensive." and went with the competition. You couldn't have paid me to say that was going to happen.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



Cartridges a fatal flaw on the N64?

How old are you exactly?

The N64 was a contender against the PS1 no problem, in fact, I'd probably call those two a draw. Yes, while the PS1 had good graphics (I thought they personally looked too much like shit and too pixelly and was a complete mess), the N64 had blazing fast load times, and the games actually weren't that bad looking and were a lot more fun than what you can find on the PS1. Conkers Bad Fur Day for example.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 13, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Yeah, but you forget that the PS2 had more than 6 years lead on the Wii. I don't know if you're trying to say the Wii has done good or otherwise because the Wii has sold over 95 million units where as the PS3 has only sold around 60 million units, of which about 10% were replacements for failed hardware. I do think that Nintendo will be behind the curve once the other Next Gen consoles are released but I think that curve isn't as sharp as it used to be with graphic and processing technology coming to a relative slow down.


What I meant with it is that being a success this gen doesn't account to an automatic success in the next gen. The Wii is doing great so far, but it doesn't mean the WiiU will be an automatic success. There are a lot of variables there from prices to customer value and reception in general. We'll just have to wait and see once the final specs have been released. Otherwise all the talk is just pure speculation for and against the WiiU..


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 13, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I'd probably call those two a draw.


No. Don't be ridiculous. I realize this is the _*GBA*_temp but try being objective here. The PlayStation sold about 4 times as well as the N64, it had 2031 games more then the N64, it lasted longer then the N64 and its disc medium was more affordable and had a larger capacity then the FLASH medium of the N64 (which in those times was not cheap to manufacture, by the way). I'm not going to derail this thread anywhere past the "you're wrong and I know it pains you to hear that but you just are" point.

This is not a beauty contest but an objective comparison of the two.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > I'd probably call those two a draw.
> ...


Perhaps his intentions aren't about sales figures? You're jumping the gun a bit. He feels N64 is a superior choice for him as better graphics, faster loading times over higher storage medium thus more content for PS1. Fairly reasonable.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, you're right, the N64 did have little RAM and VRAM, didn't it...? I don't think it suffered from slow loading times though - cartridges are generally much faster then discs, especially back then. That said... A CD is 650MB's, a cartridge back then was up to 250 if I remember right. Same deal with miniDVD's - 4,7GB vs 1,4GB single-sided single-layered and you have a clear winner right there.



To my understanding, I believe PSX games often reached 650MB, as opposed to the N64's 256MBit or 64MB. The fact the Capcom ported Resident Evil 2 with FMVs intact on the N64 was miraculous.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 13, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > I'd probably call those two a draw.
> ...



You're point is moot. Just because something has a bigger library or sales more, does not mean it's better lol, you should have learned learned that before the N64 came out. Yes, the disc media had a larger capacity, but does that mean that it was still used best? No. Personally, I think Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 looks like shit, same with Silent Hill and others just to name a few. I'm not saying that the N64 had better graphics, but sometimes trying to do too much makes it worse. The N64 had a ton of great games and even just a few of them were far better than the entire PS1 library.

I'm not denying the shortcomings of the N64, I'm saying, that a lot of times, they worked out better than what the PS1 had in a lot of cases. Graphics aren't everything, that's why Nintendo is still around. They don't focus on that, and instead on rely on giving us the best experience possible. And if I have to accept a little graphical drop but it still looks amazing, in turn for blazing fast load times and amazing imaginative games, I'd gladly accept.


----------



## Coto (Mar 13, 2012)

The PSX was a market success, while the N64 wasn't. Sony attracted all "mature" public by releasing games which weren't released in consoles back in time. N64 was superior in rendering and graphics, but every add-on bought was stupidly expensive. I love the N64, but the lack of more games, expensive cartridge development (overall development) and price-tag caused to cease all N64 related production and invest on newer hardware. (GC)

In terms of quality, the N64 had some epic games, but PSX too. BTW, have you noticed how important is the 3rd party software support today? They can save big companies asses.


----------



## Elrinth (Mar 13, 2012)

Nevermind 
Looking forwards like crazy to see what UE4 is capable of.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 13, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> You're point is moot.


Not in the opinion of +/- 130 million PS1 users.





> Just because something has a bigger library...


If you're trying to say that +/- 2400 games is somehow worse then +/- 370 games then I have to warn you that the probability of finding "good" games is much higher when you have a larger library.





> or sales more


I was convinced that it's humans who buy consoles - sales don't just grow on their own. If a console sells it means there's a market for it.





> does not mean it's better lol


"Better" is a subjective term. If it's any consolation to you then judging from the ammount of PS1 users the N64 was shoeshining PS1's shoes.





> you should have learned learned that before the N64 came out.


Before the N64 came out, the SNES and the Genesis were going head to head when it comes to sales, and guess what, they offer roughly the same quality of gaming. Their "console war" was never resolved and up to this day you'll have hardcore Genesis fans and hardcore SNES fans, their numbers are roughly equal too.





> Yes, the disc media had a larger capacity, but does that mean that it was still used best?


Yes, the CD's have higher capacity, but does that mean that it was utilized worse then in the case of cartidges? Butter is butterly - that's a stupid argument. You either have capacity or you don't, the rest depends on the developer. The horrible thing about the N64 was that it was more powerful specs wise but all the content had to be compressed to fit the cartridge - the games on the console would be twice as spacious and twice as pretty if the ROM size limitation wasn't there.





> Personally, I think Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 looks like shit, same with Silent Hill and others just to name a few.


I personally like pepperoni, I also prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi, unfortunatelly my subjective feelings are not influencing the argument, nor should they even be included in it. We can only consider the factual pros and cons of each console, and in that kind of a comparison the N64 loses flat out on the first lap, sorry.





> I'm not saying that the N64 had better graphics,


Actually it had in some instances simply because it was beefier, unfortunatelly the RAM issues and the medium were slowing it down. Were it released with a CD drive and with the "Expansion Pak" stock, things would look dramatically different.





> but sometimes trying to do too much makes it worse.


Judging from the sheer ammount of add-ons the Nintendo 64 had, I'd say it's Nintendo who tried too had at times. This isn't even limited to the N64 - they've always released a bunch of useless crap for their consoles, Nihil Novi.





> The N64 had a ton of great games and even just a few of them were far better than the entire PS1 library.


With which you are of course familiar with and thus you have a say in the matter...?





> I'm not denying the shortcomings of the N64, I'm saying, that a lot of times, they worked out better than what the PS1 had in a lot of cases.


A short-comming can't "work out better" - it's a flaw. You just deal with it.





> Graphics aren't everything,


N64 had better graphics then the PS1.





> that's why Nintendo is still around.


Nintendo is actually known for releasing powerful home consoles - the NES revived the market single-handedly and ate ATARI's for breakfast, the SNES was on-par with the Genesis and sufficient specs-wise, the N64 was more powerful then the PS1 but sold less and had a smaller library due to certain design flaws, in other words, it was released before it was well thought-through just to compete, the Gamecube was also way more powerful then the PS2, it's just that some jackass thought it's a great idea to use a format as weird as miniDVD and cut multimedia functionality when "media hubs" were at the peak of their popularity. The only instances where Nintendo hardware was "poor" spec-wise were most of their handhelds and the Wii, and it's just like that to this day.





> They don't focus on that, and instead on rely on giving us the best experience possible.


Graphics and size of the content are parts of the experience. Moreover, Nintendo has only influence over first-party and second-party titles - the rest of your so-called "experience" is created by third-party developers, that being the great majority of developers by the way, who have to make-due with what the hardware company offered them to work with. This is why you have Dragon Age and Skyrim on the 360 and not on the Wii - because the Wii isn't nearly as capable and Nintendo knew they're releasing obselete hardware on Day 1. What they also knew is that there are people out there, people like you, who will buy the console anyways. They were also aware of the fact that if they market it as a family-friendly platform, it'll be #1 on every single parent's list on Christmas and other holidays, and thus they made humongous sales with hardware that was 5 years behind its times. I'd know - I bought one. Fair play, I enjoyed what it had to offer but soon enough after the developers stopped being all crazy about motion controls and the novelty factor was gone all that was left was shovelware - nobody wants to develop games for a console that simply doesn't give you wiggle room. If you can't spread your wings, you ain't gonna fly.





> And if I have to accept a little graphical drop but it still looks amazing, in turn for blazing fast load times and amazing imaginative games, I'd gladly accept.


Consider this - graphically amazing and imaginative games. Welcome to the world of PS1 and PS2 - where were you all this time?

I'm not really going to argue with you further - there's a saying around here that you don't dispute about tastes, I just want you to be truthful to yourself, compare the two consoles objectively looking at them from every angle and not through the pink glasses of nostalgia and loving particular franchises but look at them for what they truly are and then determine which one was the superior at the time. You can't just look at one aspect, you have to look at all of them - specs, library, sales, controls (oh yeah, dual analog on the PS1, did I mention that? And a controller that's not a batarang), graphics, multimedia capacity (CD medium ---> CD player. No CD medium, no multimedia capacity) and so on and so forth.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 13, 2012)

On the whole issue of N64 VS PS1... Thank god I owned them both! Golden Eye, F-Zero X, Mario 64, Tekken, SOTN, Road Rash couldn't imagine not playing them all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 13, 2012)

PsionicRoshambo said:


> On the whole issue of N64 VS PS1... Thank god I owned them both! Golden Eye, F-Zero X, Mario 64, Tekken, SOTN, Road Rash couldn't imagine not playing them all.


It's always best to have every console in a given generation - full spectrum of video game history, awww yeah...


----------



## Midna (Mar 13, 2012)

Oh god I was about to get involved in this but... no.

I'll just reinforce the fact that extremely low RAM and storage space, combined with a problematic dev kit and a competitor with none of these flaws was absolutely what drove developers away from the N64, which in turn prevented it getting a large number of games, which in turn resulted in it's poor sales, which were much worse than the PS1.

It was more powerful than the PS1 though. The reason the PS1 sometimes seems more advanced is because the devs had 650MB of space to fill with pre-rendered backgrounds and voice acting.

Edit: Why is the guy arguing for the N64 making excuses for it's graphical capabilities? The N64's graphics were it's only saving grace. If you want to list the N64 up as better than the PS1, the graphics are one of the only aspects you have at your disposal. Pssh.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2012)

The fact that second and third developers found how to use the measly 4KB of texture cache to their advantage was a very smart move. Factor 5 was one of them, and the N64 version of Indiana Jones and the Internal Machine ended up being more graphically advanced than the PC port. Then there's World Driver Championship, which had a polygon count higher than the average PSX game, had an MP3 soundtrack and widescreen support, all without an expansion pack. How that company pulled off such a feat is beyond me. The N64 was a very powerful machine.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > You're point is moot.
> ...



I'm not reading all of your post, it's a fucking mess. So I'm just going to glance over it, and post to what I find interesting:

First of all, again, a bigger library does not mean better games. Like I said, you should know that with history in gaming. Looking at the Wii, Atari consoles and everything, more games does not mean better. Dual analog? I HAAAATE dual analog.

A short coming is not always a flaw you idiot. Did the N64 have discs? No. It had flash memory. Because it didn't have disc, it meant that it had ridiculously fast load times, which I'd gladly settle over for.



> This is why you have Dragon Age and Skyrim on the 360 and not on the Wii - because the Wii isn't nearly as capable and Nintendo knew they're releasing obselete hardware on Day 1. What they also knew is that there are people out there, people like you, who will buy the console anyways


Do you know why _I_ buy Nintendo consoles? Because they're fun and don't try to be realistic. They offer experiences, graphic wise or not, that appeal to me sooo much more than what Microsoft and Sony have been able to do.



> I just want you to be truthful to yourself, compare the two consoles objectively looking at them from every angle and not through the pink glasses of nostalgia and loving particular franchises but look at them for what they truly are and then determine which one was the superior at the time



Just because something has superior hardware and everything, does not mean it's better. We've been over this in another thread. Superior means which console offered you the best gaming experience, and since it's a fucking OPINION, you can't say that the PS1 was better than the N64, or the PS2 was better than the GC. Go look at our posts. In your posts, you say that the PS1/PS2 were the much better consoles. Now go look at mine? Did I say anywhere that one was better than the other? I said one was a draw, that's it. So hopefully with you reading this (and hopefully you going back and re-reading your posts), hopefully you will come to realize that you gotta stop posting your opinions as fact and not freak out and get all butthurt when someone disagrees with your opinion.


----------



## Janthran (Mar 14, 2012)

What kind of news is this, anyway?
The thing hasn't even been released yet, so why is it a surprise that they're still working on changing it?
>_>


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 14, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> The fact that second and third developers found how to use the measly 4KB of texture cache to their advantage was a very smart move. Factor 5 was one of them, and the N64 version of Indiana Jones and the Internal Machine ended up being more graphically advanced than the PC port. Then there's World Driver Championship, which had a polygon count higher than the average PSX game, had an MP3 soundtrack and widescreen support, all without an expansion pack. How that company pulled off such a feat is beyond me. The N64 was a very powerful machine.



That and Star Wars on the N64 was a graphics whores wet dream at the time, Factor 5 just didn't know the meaning of "limitations" must have been some mad genius working there.

The N64 had graphics on its side and to be honest it had its share of utter classic games, where it not for a few near legendary games I would call the N64 a complete bomb. In fact it was bad enough that I skipped the GC and went with DC and PS2 for that gen, oddly enough this worked out great since I picked up a couple of Wii's this gen and 4 wavebirds plus a truck load of old GC games I missed for next to nothing (I mean really some games I got for under 2$ used lol) It was almost like getting a GC for free for me. Now if only I could travel back in time and kill myself before I bought F-Zero GX.... Holy hell I hate that game (Oddly enough I love every other F-Zero ever made, and almost everyone I have talked too said it was awesome...)


----------



## Gahars (Mar 14, 2012)

@[member='ShadowSoldier']



> A short coming is not always a flaw you idiot.




Oh really?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 14, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='ShadowSoldier']
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, but again, with the way it worked out, the flash based cartridge system worked out in the end. So it's kind of hard to call it a "flaw" when something good came out of it. Does that not mean that the flaw is cancelled out?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 14, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > @[member='ShadowSoldier']
> ...



Except that (costly, I should add) shortcoming meant that developers were less willing/able to make games for the console, leading many to jump ship (Square most notably). Some faster load times are nice, but there's no denying that this effectively crippled the console's life span; I would hardly call that cancelling out.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 14, 2012)

Gahars said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...



Not really crippling it. Lasted 5-6 years just like the PS1 did before the successors. No different than now with the Wii being 2006, WiiU being 2012. PS2 was the same age when PS3 came out. Aside from square, I can't really think of anybody big who was like "eh, no to N64".

I'd also like to point out that, on the N64 wikipedia, it said cartridges were more expensive, thus us consumers had to pay more. But I don't think I've ever paid for a game above 60, just like today. The only game I didn't know how much my parents paid for were Ocarina of Time. But I remember seeing it and all the others at display for $49.99.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 14, 2012)

Whereas the PS1 saw a constant flow of games throughout the entirety of its lifespan (and beyond), the N64... didn't; drought wouldn't be an inaccurate way to describe its release schedule. The sales clearly suffered as a result: the N64 (like the Wii) basically entered life support, give or take a few jumps every now and then, in wait of the next system.

As for developer's, Square's shift to Sony should definitely not be discounted. Capcom and Konami placed a lot more focus on Sony as well. while they produced some titles for the N64, many of their most defining and iconic titles (Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, etc.) were produced for the Playstation 1 rather than the N64. 

As for your second point, don't forget to factor inflation into the price. That money back then translates to a higher (by a fairly decent amount, I'd wager) price today.


----------



## Midna (Mar 14, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Just because something has superior hardware and everything, does not mean it's better.








The N64 was more powerful than the PS1. You are retarded. There is a reason you never saw any open world free camera games like Super Mario World or Zelda on the PS1. The same reason why the N64 got a full 3D Castlevania and the PS1 got an SNES style platformer. You have gotten yourself so used to making excuses about the Wii and DS for the past 6-8 years, you've forgotten that Nintendo used to be a a big contender in the power department. Maybe you weren't even around. The PS1 was definitely a more complete and sanely designed console. And the N64 was a bomb in terms of sales and game support.

Even so, your personal favorite console is still completely up to your opinion. You might consider the N64's AAA games as a complete reason to prefer the console, and that's completely valid. In fact, that is really all you have to say to justify your opinion. "The N64 was better because it had Zelda, Mario 64, Banjo...". And that will be completely valid. No one will have any grounds to argue. As long as you don't mention any of the other stupid shit you've been throwing around.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 14, 2012)

When I bought N64 games back in the day, they were $59.99. With tax (which was 7.75% at the time), it came out to $64.64

Seriously, not kidding.


.....How did we get to discussing this from talking about the Wii U possibly running the Unreal Engine 4?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2012)

One thing's for sure, mentioning the N64 certainly brings back good memories, like Mario Party 1-3, Banjo Kazooie, Mystical Ninja 64, etc. It had its limitations, sure, but it also had good games, and it definitely slaughtered the PSX in terms of hardware (CPU, GPU, etc).But the PSX had vast volumes of 3rd party games.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> One thing's for sure, mentioning the N64 certainly brings back good memories, like Mario Party 1-3, Banjo Kazooie, Mystical Ninja 64, etc. It had its limitations, sure, but it also had good games, and it definitely slaughtered the PSX in terms of hardware (CPU, GPU, etc).But the PSX had vast volumes of 3rd party games.


What's powerful hardware good for when you don't have VRAM to store graphics resources or cartridge space to even feature the content in the first place? Implementing unified RAM for all resources was revolutionary but at the same time was a woe for developers - an unexpected hurdle. They tried to fix this by putting even more RAM in the console, but did it work? Not really. These are incredibly important factors that we mustn't forget about. Try to remember games like Turok 2. Without the expansion pak you were welcomed in a world of fog - the draw distance had to be limited so much that it successfuly made the game unplayable - you were being shot at by enemies which haven't even appeared on the screen yet. Thank god that the loading times were fast since the game was practically loading ALL THE TIME, streaming levels to make-due with the laughable resources at hand. A rare instance of the PC port being superior in every way to the original. I'm not even mentioning the games that REQUIRED it to function, like Majora's Mask. This technical limitation killed the console and what made it worse was the fact that it was deliberate - Nintendo left the RAMBUS open and placed a jumper in the slot, knowing well that they were releasing hardware with insufficient memory. I'm not going to argue anymore, it's not my intention to change anyone's mind nor do I enjoy being called an idiot. Whoever disagrees is either blinded by subjective nostalgia or disregards the facts.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2012)

I know the N64 was severely limited, and the fact it used RDRAM meant it had very high latency. Heck, it could have pushed higher poly rates than the PSX had Nintendo allowed developers to use the Turbo 3D microcode, games could have reached 500,000/second instead of the lower 120,000/second.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I know the N64 was severely limited, and the fact it used RDRAM meant it had very high latency. Heck, it could have pushed higher poly rates than the PSX had Nintendo allowed developers to use the Turbo 3D microcode, games could have reached 500,000/second instead of the lower 120,000/second.


You can have as many poly's as you want, that doesn't change the fact that you can't texture them. Nintendo 64's texture cache was limited to 4kb - why input unified memory when you're going to put up arbitrary restrictions like that? 

I see your point and both consoles were good, I was just re-establishing my point, sort of a final comment.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Mar 14, 2012)

We've got entirely too many people tossing around terms like "you idiot", "you are retarded", et cetera. 
Knock that shit off right now. 
If you can't defend your position without shit-flinging, then you don't need to be posting at all.


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 14, 2012)

PsionicRoshambo said:


> Now if only I could travel back in time and kill myself before I bought F-Zero GX.... Holy hell I hate that game (Oddly enough I love every other F-Zero ever made, and almost everyone I have talked too said it was awesome...)


Was it the steep learining curve?
That's one of my favourite parts about that game. :3




the_randomizer said:


> One thing's for sure, mentioning the N64 certainly brings back good memories, like Mario Party 1-3, Banjo Kazooie, Mystical Ninja 64, etc. It had its limitations, sure, but it also had good games, and it definitely slaughtered the PSX in terms of hardware (CPU, GPU, etc).But the PSX had vast volumes of 3rd party games.



+1000 for mentioning Mystical Ninja!


----------



## MakiManPR (Mar 14, 2012)

If I remember, Retro Studios said they used a custom Unreal Engine for Metroid Prime(The 3 games). Imagine another Metroid game running on the Unreal Engine 4? ....AWESOME!
But knowing Nintendo they'll use it for WiiSport.


----------



## silver_ryder (Mar 14, 2012)

MakiManPR said:


> If I remember, Retro Studios said they used a custom Unreal Engine for Metroid Prime(The 3 games). Imagine another Metroid game running on the Unreal Engine 4? ....AWESOME!
> But knowing Nintendo they'll use it for WiiSport.



Is hard for me to understand this kind of statement...!



Some people just ignore videogames, and put hardware above all, Wii have great games, like every single console of this generation.

In fact is funny that the the haters of Wiisports and Wiisports Resort, change of mind with Sports Champions, Kinect Adventure, or other Move/Kinect game.

In this moment people are talking more and hating, and playing less video-games...


----------



## Midna (Mar 14, 2012)

For the record, everyone hates Wii Sports, Sports Champions and Kinect Adventure.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

Midna said:


> For the record, everyone hates Wii Sports, Sports Champions and Kinect Adventure.


Well, Wii Sports was... amusing... to a certain extent. I did enjoy the bowling and boxing but it got "old" quickly and became a party-game only, later to be replaced by M&S Olympic series. At the end of the day it was just a glorified Wii tech demo, so I can understand why people hate it.


----------



## silver_ryder (Mar 14, 2012)

Midna said:


> For the record, everyone hates Wii Sports, Sports Champions and Kinect Adventure.


Sure...! If you are "everyone" you are right.

But my point was other, and like me other people care just about gaming, and consoles is just way for that.

For example:

* Hard to go back to the 3DS after playing on the PS Vita?* Anyone else find it hard?


Is this a real topic!?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

silver_ryder said:


> But my point was other, and like me other people care just about gaming, and consoles is just way for that.


Y'know, the console itself is a good subject aswell. Weaker consoles will only sport less complex games, and not only graphically. The performance of the platform strictly determines the content of the games made for it, so we should talk about them, comment, give creative criticism and cross our fingers hoping that Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, whatever company reads your message loud and clear. It's the Internet afterall, a place for exchanging thoughts and opinions.


----------



## silver_ryder (Mar 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> silver_ryder said:
> 
> 
> > But my point was other, and like me other people care just about gaming, and consoles is just way for that.
> ...


What is for you more our less complex game!?

But yes i understand the meaning, the game Ai, in-game world, interaction, etc ill be  better with powerful hardware, but for now for example whats the meaning to have a standalone PC of 2000€ for gaming if the experience ill be the same on far cheaper console, the big difference ill be the visuals nothing more, but is obvious that a game like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc ill be very limited on a Wii.

In the end development is about the money, and the producers of games have more market share with the PS3 and 360 together than Wii standalone, that's why ill be important for WiiU to be compatible with the majors third party developers.

In the end is all about games, and the Wii have allot of good, and the top 5 of brilliants games of this generation.

Just for the record i have PS3, 360, Wii, 3DS, (DS already sold) and PSP play a few games and sold after a 1 year.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

silver_ryder said:


> What is for you more our less complex game!?


A... more complex... or less complex game? Code-wise and content-wise?



> But yes i understand the meaning, the game Ai, in-game world, interaction, etc ill be  better with powerful hardware, but for now for example whats the meaning to have a standalone PC of 2000€ for gaming if the experience ill be the same on far cheaper console, the big difference ill be the visuals nothing more, but is obvious that a game like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc ill be very limited on a Wii.


They would be non-existant, and in fact are non-existant because the hardware physically cannot pull it off. We're slowly reaching the point where even the PS3 and the 360 are having a hard time trying to run titles originally made for the PC, and the forementioned Skyrim should be all the proof you need.



> In the end development is about the money, and the producers of games have more market share with the PS3 and 360 together than Wii standalone, that's why ill be important for WiiU to be compatible with the majors third party developers.


And to be compatible with third-party developers they need to offer resources necessary to produce games that will be up-to-date, able to have a fighting chance againts their own competition.



> In the end is all about games, and the Wii have allot of good, and the top 5 of brilliants games of this generation.


And which games would those be? Because tastes in games are a subjective term, for me, Fallout: New Vegas was the cherry on the tasty pie of this generation and it's *not* on the Wii.



> Just for the record i have PS3, 360, Wii, 3DS, (DS already sold) and PSP play a few games and sold after a 1 year.


Just for the record, I played all three home consoles of this generation (girlfriend has a 360, brother in-law has a PS3, I own a Wii) but I only own the Wii. Gonna buy a PS3 pretty soon, they're lovably cheap nowadays. This doesn't change the fact that I look on the Wii objectivly - it's too underpowered for its own good.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> You can have as many poly's as you want, that doesn't change the fact that you can't texture them. Nintendo 64's texture cache was limited to 4kb - why input unified memory when you're going to put up arbitrary restrictions like that?
> 
> I see your point and both consoles were good, I was just re-establishing my point, sort of a final comment.



For a long time, I was severely biased against playstation to the point of antipathy, mostly because I didn't really give it a chance, and I perceived anyone who owned a PSX as some stuck-up, snooty jerk. But, back in the early 2000s, I discovered ePSXe and PCSX and started buying PSX game. I didn't realize the awesome games I missed out on. Both consoles were and still are awesome.


----------

