# Are Next Gen Graphics Really Needed on Next Gen Hardware?



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

I know I might get a lot of BS for this thread but hear me out. Throughout the history of gaming there has always been the war of better "visuals vs more landmass", Sometimes by the end of a console's cycle a medium is found but nobody ever gets to push landmass further. After watching the Xenoblade Chronicles Direct yesterday, I was thinking about this and how much I would love to see a game where you could explore not one but maybe five or six whole planets, complete with different forms of life, societies, ect. If the next console could usually handle 10 or 20 times the game from the previous, why not make a game with previous level graphics but with as much area as you want?

In the case f the Wii U, I'd imagine that such a game would look like Monster Hunter Tri U, I.E. a very sharp Wii game. With the right art direction that wouldn't be bad and there would be plenty of space to create multiple worlds. For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X. Obviously that game would have the level of interstellar politics as found in Mass Effect and enough action to keep you busy. Such a game might be a daunting task but I'm sure that gamers would appreciate the effort.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> I know I might get a lot of BS for this thread but hear me out. Throughout the history of gaming there has always been the war of better "visuals vs more landmass", Sometimes by the end of a console's cycle a medium is found but nobody ever gets to push landmass further. After watching the Xenoblade Chronicles Direct yesterday, I was thinking about this and how much I would love to see a game where you could explore not one but maybe five or six whole planets, complete with different forms of life, societies, ect. If the next console could usually handle 10 or 20 times the game from the previous, why not make a game with previous level graphics but with as much area as you want?
> 
> In the case f the Wii U, I'd imagine that such a game would look like Monster Hunter Tri U, I.E. a very sharp Wii game. With the right art direction that wouldn't be bad and there would be plenty of space to create multiple worlds. For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X. Obviously that game would have the level of interstellar politics as found in Mass Effect and enough action to keep you busy. Such a game might be a daunting task but I'm sure that gamers would appreciate the effort.


The thing is, with huge game worlds you end up with a lot of empty space, which IMO is just annoying. Creating a huge game world that is as filled with things to do and places to go as any other game would be a massive undertaking and isn't likely to happen. You'd be talking about a play time of possibly 1000+ hours if they pulled that off but the game would have to be prohibitively expensive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

This is another case of mistaking graphics and aesthetics, and there's a big difference between the two. _"Graphics"_ are the tool set and canvas the developer uses to give the game a certain look, meaning its _"aesthetics"_. There is very little correlation between the complexity of the game for the GPU and its aesthetics, at least on paper. It's true that hyper-realistic games tend to be more intensive on the GPU, but that's not a rule by any stretch of the imagination - there's nothing standing in the way of making a non-realistic game that's graphically-intensive. Simple things like particle effects, life-like physics or real-time lighting were unimaginable just a few generations ago - now they're common in video games and they're only getting better. Consoles _should_ strive for more and more computational power simply because it removes limitations and allows developers to better realize their artistic visions, not because more power allows for more realism - it does, but that's a side effect, not the main goal.


LightyKD said:


> For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore




Here you go. Almost everything in this game is procedurally-generated, you can explore forever.


----------



## Arras (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X. Obviously that game would have the level of interstellar politics as found in Mass Effect and enough action to keep you busy. Such a game might be a daunting task but I'm sure that gamers would appreciate the effort.


Isn't that sort of what Star Citizen is supposed to be?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 25, 2015)

If I want to spend 2 work years tweaking my graphics engine to get the shiniest pixels possible then that works for me, however if I just want to make something shiny, press subsurf a few times and just export that* then grunt also plays a part.


*maybe that is an oversimplification, however art has long been ahead of real time games. Consider


That would be a film from 1995, some stuff I see there I would be impressed to see EA pull off next year.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 25, 2015)

Yes.

Stop settling for mediocrity because you buy bad consoles.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 25, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> settling



You call that settling? I would have said we sailed past evangelising a few months back and were well into proselytising at this point.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes.
> 
> Stop settling for mediocrity because you buy bad consoles.


 
Wii U and OUYA arent bad consoles. They might not be your cup of tea but they get heavy useage in my household effectively making them good consoles for my family's needs. With that said, EVERY device has its limits and again there will always be that struggle of space over graphics. It's not bad to have a middle-ground.




Foxi4 said:


> This is another case of mistaking graphics and aesthetics, and there's a big difference between the two. _"Graphics"_ are the tool set and canvas the developer uses to give the game a certain look, meaning its _"aesthetics"_. There is very little correlation between the complexity of the game for the GPU and its aesthetics, at least on paper. It's true that hyper-realistic games tend to be more intensive on the GPU, but that's not a rule by any stretch of the imagination - there's nothing standing in the way of making a non-realistic game that's graphically-intensive. Simple things like particle effects, life-like physics or real-time lighting were unimaginable just a few generations ago - now they're common in video games and they're only getting better. Consoles _should_ strive for more and more computational power simply because it removes limitations and allows developers to better realize their artistic visions, not because more power allows for more realism - it does, but that's a side effect, not the main goal.
> 
> 
> Here you go. Almost everything in this game is procedurally-generated, you can explore forever.






I forgot all about this game. It's looking really good


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 25, 2015)

The "as much area as you want" was already possible in previous generations. I forgot how the feature was called...'seamless loading' or something in that vein. The idea is that the game just builds the world around your personal perspective; it adds stuff in the direction you're going and removes it from memory the parts where you're no longer nearby. That and procedural level generation, pretty much allows for endless direction no matter where you go.

The thing is: huge open worlds aren't as fun as they might sound. Jdbye already said it: it just makes things look more empty. That's why developers don't go that route (unless it's randomly generated, which is actually a game mechanic). No man's sky certainly aims to fill that "explore multiple planets" game, but I doubt it'll be more fun than just staying on one planet (Christ...I pity those who wants to collect everything 100% in no man's sky  ).


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> Wii U and OUYA arent bad consoles. They might not be your cup of tea but they get heavy useage in my household effectively making them good consoles for my family's needs. With that said, EVERY device has its limits and again there will always be that struggle of space over graphics. It's not bad to have a middle-ground.


 

I'll at least accept an argument for the Wii U but the Ouya is a garbage "console".

If your best argument is "it's not for everyone!" then it's bad.


----------



## Depravo (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> Wii U and OUYA arent bad consoles.


 
The OUYA only becomes bad when you describe it as a console. Call it a low-performance android box for hobbyists and it almost sounds interesting. The OUYA is to consoles (PS/Xbox) what the Raspberry Pi is to a gaming PC.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'll at least accept an argument for the Wii U but the Ouya is a garbage "console".
> 
> If your best argument is "it's not for everyone!" then it's bad.


 

That's always the argument for every console. Buying a console is also buying a philosophy in game development. I would never tell someone to buy any console that didn't fit into their personal philosophy of gaming. Back on topic, I remember reading about some of these level streaming tactics a few years ago. I'm glad to see that some of them are in use. I do get that a game of such a magnitude could be daunting, hell Oblivion felt that way back in 2005. With that said, I think it works better in a SciFi setting i.e. No Man's Sky or Xenoblade than in a fantasy one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> Wii U and OUYA arent bad consoles. They might not be your cup of tea but they get heavy useage in my household effectively making them good consoles for my family's needs. With that said, EVERY device has its limits and again there will always be that struggle of space over graphics. It's not bad to have a middle-ground.


They're not good _systems_ though. You're not playing the _system_, you're playing _games_. Mario games would be just as fun on a PS4 as they are on the Wii U, Android games would be just as fun on the Xbox One as they are on the OUYA, your personal enjoyment of the content clouds your judgement of the actual hardware.



LightyKD said:


> That's always the argument for every console.


No, it's not - not when the console is meeting the par.





> Buying a console is also buying a philosophy in game development.


No, it's buying a piece of plastic electronics that plays games at a certain level of performance - the better the performance the better the plastic you bought. It's all about a balance of performance versus price tag unless you're one of those people who are more interested in buying a narrative than buying a quality product.





> I would never tell someone to buy any console that didn't fit into their personal philosophy of gaming.


I still don't see a meaningful link between the console and the software a given user plays. They're two separate entities.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'll at least accept an argument for the Wii U but the Ouya is a garbage "console".
> 
> If your best argument is "it's not for everyone!" then it's bad.


 
I had an Ouya, fortunately someone stole it from the basement storage room in my building.
And my problem with the Ouya is not poor hardware (though I hate the analog thumpads on the controllers), but the lack of support and good games designed for it that play good on it.
That aside, I don't really think games on new consoles must have "Next-Gen Graphics". Regarding that and my opinion I will quote myself from some other thread:


sarkwalvein said:


> ...
> Actually I believe that having very strong hardware that allows for rapid (less optimized) development, and lets the development team concentrate on the game story, art, gameplay, etc. instead of the programming, is good hardware.
> People may look at it as "laziness" , but you know, it is a world of limited resources, if you put more effort into the code optimization, you have to take away effort from some other place.
> And if you told me you would either give me a 720p60 game with very good and refined gameplay or a 1080p60 game with some buggy not fun gameplay, I would go with the one that plays better.
> Also having stronger hardware to give more room to being lazy at optimizations would be better...


I would like interesting games, with new ideas and gameplay...
Even recycled ideas from the past that could be cool after some reworking.


Foxi4 said:


> This is another case of mistaking graphics and aesthetics, and there's a big difference between the two. _"Graphics"_ are the tool set and canvas the developer uses to give the game a certain look, meaning its _"aesthetics"_. There is very little correlation between the complexity of the game for the GPU and its aesthetics, at least on paper. It's true that hyper-realistic games tend to be more intensive on the GPU, but that's not a rule by any stretch of the imagination - there's nothing standing in the way of making a non-realistic game that's graphically-intensive. Simple things like particle effects, life-like physics or real-time lighting were unimaginable just a few generations ago - now they're common in video games and they're only getting better. Consoles _should_ strive for more and more computational power simply because it removes limitations and allows developers to better realize their artistic visions, not because more power allows for more realism - it does, but that's a side effect, not the main goal.
> 
> 
> Here you go. Almost everything in this game is procedurally-generated, you can explore forever.




I actually knew about that game, and it makes me remember of an alternate take on the infinite universe idea of Elite whose remake I didn't know existed until two minutes ago.
I would really like to get that game, but I don't plan on getting a PS4 until it enters the ~250€ range.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> I actually knew about that game, and it makes me remember of an alternate take on the infinite universe idea of Elite whose remake I didn't know existed until two minutes ago. I would really like to get that game, but I don't plan on getting a PS4 until it enters the ~250€ range.


You can get the game on PC then. Don't expect the PS4 to enter the 250-odd range soon, the PS3 only got there recently. You could get it pre-owned though, it'll probably drop to that level in a year or two.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> You can get the game on PC then. Don't expect the PS4 to enter the 250-odd range soon, the PS3 only got there recently. You could get it pre-owned though, it'll probably drop to that level in a year or two.


 
For some reason I thought that game was a PS4 exclusive, but if there is a PC version I will of course look for it. (talking about No Man's Sky)


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 25, 2015)

*Sees the thread about graphics opinions, grabs popcorn as he goes back to playing Wii U gaemz* ;O;


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> *Sees the thread about graphics opinions, grabs popcorn as he goes back to playing Wii U gaemz* ;O;


I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with Wii U games, the Wii U on the other hand is a whole different can of beans.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with Wii U games, the Wii U on the other hand is a whole different can of beans.


 

And that's a fair enough assessment, I've seen people bash the games themselves far too often, simply for being on a Nintendo console, the console hardware is one thing, how good the games are is quite another piece of the puzzle


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

Glad that some people are taking this thread about GRAPHICS seriously. Seriously, this thread wasn't made to be a OUYA bashing thread and if you don't like the OUYA, don't fucking play it. No need to bash those who do. The conversation isn't about which piece of plastic is better it IS about how to better utilize hardware and what might be possible if people were not always focused on graphics but used the extra hardware to make bigger games.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 25, 2015)

graphics matter cause

















like i want to like you xenoblade x but wtf is up with those faces


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> Glad that some people are taking this thread about GRAPHICS seriously. Seriously, this thread wasn't made to be a OUYA bashing thread and if you don't like the OUYA, don't fucking play it. No need to bash those who do. The conversation isn't about which piece of plastic is better it IS about how to better utilize hardware and what might be possible if people were not always focused on graphics but used the extra hardware to make bigger games.


But they're already doing that, they've always been doing that. We're making huge strides in both the audio-visual presentation and the mechanics of games with each passing generation and graphics are a big part of that progress. You can't have complexity without the specs to power it, everything always goes back to the silicon.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

soulx said:


> graphics matter cause
> ...
> 
> 
> ...


 
I find many similarities between the art style of those faces (particularly the on I left in the quote) and the company previous work on Xenosaga.
So... It looks like an intentional... art decision.
I find them very doll-like, but it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> I find many similarities between the art style of those faces (particularly the on I left in the quote) and the company previous work on Xenosaga. So... It looks like an intentional... art decision. I find them very doll-like, but it doesn't bother me.


Indeed. A very poor artistic direction, but a direction nonetheless. To be fair, I'll take this over the misshapen heads of Toriyama's Dragon Ball or the awful One Piece style, but it's still dangerously close to Uncanny Valley.

Very unflattering screenshots by the way, those textures look _soooo_ last gen. At least the environments and the character models look alright, shame that they stuck that pixelated wallpaper all over them.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> Glad that some people are taking this thread about GRAPHICS seriously. Seriously, this thread wasn't made to be a OUYA bashing thread and if you don't like the OUYA, don't fucking play it. No need to bash those who do. The conversation isn't about which piece of plastic is better it IS about how to better utilize hardware and what might be possible if people were not always focused on graphics but used the extra hardware to make bigger games.


 
I don't want to add to the fuel here, but when I said things like seamless loading already being on last gen, I wasn't talking about the ouya. I'm not as proficient as to the specs of that console vs the needed specs for what you want (I quote from the OP: _"__For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X."_)...but it seriously doubt it can do something like that aside scaling down graphics to the area of Faster Than Light.


----------



## Originality (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Indeed. A very poor artistic direction, but a direction nonetheless. To be fair, I'll take this over the misshapen heads of Toriyama's Dragon Ball or the awful One Piece style, but it's still dangerously close to Uncanny Valley.


Ehhhhhh..... I'd still say they're a long way from reaching uncanny valley level, at least in XCX. The hardware and game engine aren't quite there. I've seen some amazing renders that are well into uncanny valley, but games still have a long way to go. Plenty of room for improvement... and that's why there will still be at least 3 more console gens to go.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

Originality said:


> Ehhhhhh..... I'd still say they're a long way from reaching uncanny valley level, at least in XCX. The hardware and game engine aren't quite there. I've seen some amazing renders that are well into uncanny valley, but games still have a long way to go. Plenty of room for improvement... and that's why there will still be at least 3 more console gens to go.


I meant Uncanny Valley as a derogatory term, just so we're clear. 



Taleweaver said:


> I don't want to add to the fuel here, but when I said things like seamless loading already being on last gen, I wasn't talking about the ouya. I'm not as proficient as to the specs of that console vs the needed specs for what you want (I quote from the OP: _"__For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X."_)...but it seriously doubt it can do something like that aside scaling down graphics to the area of Faster Than Light.


Technically speaking level streaming has been around since the original Unreal. It wasn't very seamless at that time and games still stuttered every now and then to load chunks, but that's where level streaming made its first steps. Then Half-Life came along and used a similar approach towards levels, and that's a rather old game as well. For all intents and purposes the OUYA has enough horsepower to stream levels just fine, it's a matter of implementation, not horsepower.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> I don't want to add to the fuel here, but when I said things like seamless loading already being on last gen, I wasn't talking about the ouya. I'm not as proficient as to the specs of that console vs the needed specs for what you want (I quote from the OP: _"__For once, I would love to see a space exploration game where you travel through space and get to have massive worlds to explore in vein of Xenoblade X."_)...but it seriously doubt it can do something like that aside scaling down graphics to the area of Faster Than Light.


 

You DO know that the OUYA isnt my ONLY game console, right?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Very unflattering screenshots by the way, those textures look _soooo_ last gen. At least the environments and the character models look alright, shame that they stuck that pixelated wallpaper all over them.


 
LOL, sad but true.
Textures on the doll/robot look very low res, and I find annoying the texture is so poor I can't read the text on Lynlee's clothes.
Meh, perhaps they put more texture RAM on the NX.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> LOL, sad but true.
> Textures on the doll/robot look very low res, and I find annoying the texture is so poor I can't read the text on Lynlee's clothes.
> Meh, perhaps they put more texture RAM on the NX.


The NX is not replacing the Wii U though, it's not Nintendo's next gen, it's supposed to be sold alongside the 3DS and the Wii U.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 25, 2015)

soulx said:


> graphics matter cause
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

My big issue with the faces are less about the polygons and more about the fact that these characters are supposed to be American yet they look VERY anime. I've seen Amine with US characters done right and Xenoblade doesn't fit the bill.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> My big issue with the faces are less about the polygons and more about the fact that these characters are supposed to be American yet they look VERY anime. I've seen Amine with US characters done right and Xenoblade doesn't fit the bill.


 
Well, regarding that the only cues for "American" in typical anime style are big nose, tall, blue eyes and normally blonde (stereotypical as fuck from a Japanese PoV).
I don't really remember anime with specific good depiction of Americans... Perhaps Cowboy Bebop? Or Monster? (but that would be Germans, not Americans)
Ah... I might be just forgetful.


----------



## Vipera (Apr 25, 2015)

I thought the same long time ago, back when I just started HS.

I really liked Doom, and my idea was that they should've focused on making thousands of levels in one disk (now that was possible) rather then make a few with the best hardware. Something that, if you really think about it, it's not the best idea ever.
First, there's the filler factor: the more time you spend playing a game, the more you are prone to suffer from filler. If I had a game with 50 episodes of Doom and I am playing the 36th there is very little left to try out and eventually I will be dealing with 12 different keys of the same maze level.
Then, there is the time factor: It still takes a lot of it to come up with 500 levels of Doom and you can't afford to make the game look the same after a few. You need more ideas, therefore more time, for a level pack that almost no one will ever play. You could build an algorithm, but they are as fun to play as Sudoku.
I have this game called "Alphabounce" for the DSi. It was an interesting concept because it had a very high number of levels (something like thousands). However, the novelty got old pretty fast due to the fact that the levels were incredibly boring and offered no variety after a few of them. That, and the loading times that the algorithm needed in order to make them.

People always talk how the overworld of Wind Waker was. To me, it was boring and frustrating.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, regarding that the only cues for "American" in typical anime style are big nose, tall, blue eyes and normally blonde (stereotypical as fuck from a Japanese PoV). I don't really remember anime with specific good depiction of Americans... Perhaps Cowboy Bebop? Or Monster? (but that would be Germans, not Americans) Ah... I might be just forgetful.


The quality of anime characters having _"large eyes"_ is a western trait to begin with. They're big in order to be emotive, it's a characteristic borrowed directly from western animation. As you've probably noticed, asians typically have narrow, slanted, smaller eyes, not large anime-like ones. Anime characters are not based on asian physiology, they're based on western physiology.


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Indeed. A very poor artistic direction, but a direction nonetheless. To be fair, I'll take this over the misshapen heads of Toriyama's Dragon Ball or the awful One Piece style, but it's still dangerously close to Uncanny Valley.
> 
> Very unflattering screenshots by the way,* those textures look soooo last gen*. At least the environments and the character models look alright, shame that they stuck that pixelated wallpaper all over them.


 
Well, Wii U technically *IS* last gen in terms of processing/graphical power... Somewhat more modern shaders and more RAM is all it has over the PS3/XBOX360...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Well, Wii U technically *IS* last gen in terms of processing/graphical power... Somewhat more modern shaders and more RAM is all it has over the PS3/XBOX360...


Generations refer to time frames, not specs. For all intents and purposes the Wii U is current gen, Nintendo's last gen console was the Wii. I don't remember anyone calling the Wii previous gen just because it was only a tad stronger than an Xbox.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The quality of anime characters having _"large eyes"_ is a western trait to begin with. They're big in order to be emotive, it's a characteristic borrowed directly from western animation. As you've probably noticed, asians typically have narrow, slanted, smaller eyes, not large anime-like ones. Anime characters are not based on asian physiology, they're based on western physiology.


Yep, kind of, or more like in a non-existent cartoonish physiology that is definitively not Asian.
Anyway I don't know what is an "American" expected to look like in an Anime, the only thing I know is they usually use those cues in anime and manga for implying western (big nose, blue eyes, tall, sometimes blonde, and... loud... very loud - I forgot about that part of the stereotype)


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Generations refer to time frames, not specs. For all intents and purposes the Wii U is current gen, Nintendo's last gen console was the Wii. I don't remember anyone calling the Wii previous gen just because it was only a tad stronger than an Xbox.


 
Yeah, but you commented on the textures of the game, and textures are all about the gpu power of a console... The time frame is irrelevant here, Wii U is about as powerful as the last gen consoles from the competition, so of course its games will look approx. the same...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Yep, kind of, or more like in a non-existent cartoonish physiology that is definitively not Asian. Anyway I don't know what is an "American" expected to look like in an Anime, the only thing I know is they usually use those cues in anime and manga for implying western (big nose, blue eyes, tall, sometimes blonde, and... loud... very loud - I forgot about that part of the stereotype)


The Japanese society lives in isolation on their little island, they tend to be unintentionally racist at times, but usually they don't depict a whole lot of physiological differences between westerners and asians _(unless they're black in which case they go nuts and pull out the big 'ol racist booklet)_. 


TemplarGR said:


> Yeah, but you commented on the textures of the game, and textures are all about the gpu power of a console... The time frame is irrelevant here, Wii U is about as powerful as the last gen consoles from the competition, so of course its games will look approx. the same...


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.


----------



## Depravo (Apr 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The Japanese society lives in isolation on their little island, they tend to be unintentionally racist at times


 
That sounds like where I live.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 25, 2015)

Depravo said:


> That sounds like where I live.


Can I swap you unintentional racists for the straight up racist and proud of it cretins that I get to deal with?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Apr 25, 2015)

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.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 25, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> You DO know that the OUYA isnt my ONLY game console, right?


 
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.


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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...



DiscostewSM said:


> 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.


 
Actually, you do play graphics... You don't play without a monitor, do you?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Apr 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> 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/
> 
> ...


 

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?


----------



## TecXero (Apr 26, 2015)

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.


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 26, 2015)

DiscostewSM said:


> 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?


 
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.



TecXero said:


> 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.


 
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...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> 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/
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## TecXero (Apr 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> 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...


 
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).


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> 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.


----------



## TemplarGR (Apr 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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...


----------



## Margen67 (May 8, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Windows 8.1 gaming PC...


is what everybody should have #PCMasterRace


----------



## VinsCool (May 8, 2015)

Margen67 said:


> is what everybody should have #PCMasterRace


 
still awaiting windows 10 and dx12


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 8, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> still awaiting windows 10 and dx12


 
Because FFXV with DX12 support along every other new game will be released on PC Day 1.


----------



## Margen67 (May 8, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> 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)


----------



## chavosaur (May 8, 2015)

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?


----------



## SammyPoke (May 8, 2015)

*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? _


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (May 8, 2015)

Meh. With the extra power they care more for realism and flares.. I'm sorry, but I'll take an 8 bit pixelated mess with a story over a beautiful piece of art with nothing to do.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2015)

Mchief298 said:


> Meh. With the extra power they care more for realism and flares.. I'm sorry, but I'll take an 8 bit pixelated mess with a story over a beautiful piece of art with nothing to do.


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.


SammyPoke said:


> A €$800.00 Desktop PC can last you twice as long as any gaming console (...)


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.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (May 8, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.*


 
Kind of a contradiction, don't you think? Graphics are aesthetic. My point was that developers tend to try too hard in the area of looks. The Order 1886.. Very VERY short game. Seems they didn't waste time with how it looked though.


----------



## Catastrophic (May 8, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The 360/PS3 lasted a decade, show me one $800 PC from 2005 that can still run contemporary games at playable speed.


If a PC from 2005 had the same kind of power as a 360/Ps3 in 2015 then that same computer will still have the same kind of power as a 360/Ps3 in 2015 as well. My old laptop which is less powerful than consoles could run Skyrim at 60fps with the lowest settings. Your argument doesn't make sense.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2015)

Mchief298 said:


> Kind of a contradiction, don't you think? Graphics are aesthetic. My point was that developers tend to try too hard in the area of looks. The Order 1886.. Very VERY short game. Seems they didn't waste time with how it looked though.


Graphics are not aesthetics, those are two completely different things. You can have a very graphically-intensive game that doesn't look realistic at all.


Catastrophic said:


> If a PC from 2005 had the same kind of power as a 360/Ps3 in 2015 then that same computer will still have the same kind of power as a 360/Ps3 in 2015 as well. My old laptop which is less powerful than consoles could run Skyrim at 60fps with the lowest settings. Your argument doesn't make sense.


First of all, that's not what you said earlier - you specified an $800 price point (which is already twice as much as a console). Secondly, a PC equally as powerful as a console will not produce the same results as a console - consoles benefit from shortened API's as well as a smaller OS overhead, no driver issues and a lot more optimization since they're all identical. In order for a PC to last as long as a console it has to be levels of magnitude stronger than the console or periodically updated, otherwise it will fall behind.


----------



## Catastrophic (May 8, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> First of all, that's not what you said earlier - you specified an $800 price point (which is already twice as much as a console).


I never said anything about specifying a price. I think you're confusing me for someone else on this thread.



Foxi4 said:


> Secondly, a PC equally as powerful as a console will not produce the same results as a console - consoles benefit from shortened API's as well as a smaller OS overhead, no driver issues and a lot more optimization since they're all identical. In order for a PC to last as long as a console it has to be levels of magnitude stronger than the console or periodically updated, otherwise it will fall behind.


I know what you mean, and you're right. I was referring to when you said "show me one $800 PC from 2005 that can still run contemporary games at playable speed". You really don't need an all that powerful computer just to get a game to work well with decent fps.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2015)

Catastrophic said:


> I never said anything about specifying a price. I think you're confusing me for someone else on this thread.
> 
> I know what you mean, and you're right. I was referring to when you said "show me one $800 PC from 2005 that can still run contemporary games at playable speed". You really don't need an all that powerful computer just to get a game to work well with decent fps.


Yes, yes you do. Hardly any PC can last a decade and still play games at a quality comparable to consoles. If we're talking quadruple digits then fine, maybe a $1000+ PC would stay relevant for that long, but that's a huge expense and usually a pain in the ass. I'm not saying that PC's are worse, they're objectively better, but a console is a good marriage of performance, quality and price point because it's built for purpose whereas PC's are multipurpose because that's their nature. As for the reply, I'm talking to you and another user at the same time, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## SickPuppy (May 8, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes.
> 
> Stop settling for mediocrity because you buy bad consoles.



bad console, blah. Only in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2015)

SickPuppy said:


> bad console, blah. Only in the eye of the beholder.


Objectively below par.


----------



## SickPuppy (May 8, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Objectively below par.



Quite right.

It's all a matter of how much time and money they want to sink into a game, which might never happen with the Wii U since most of the third party jumped ship already. I don't think Nintendo itself will release anything spectacular for their own console.


----------



## Vahnyyz (May 8, 2015)

I'll be honest and say that I only really read the first post and a few the others after, and I don't think they'd have to have "empty space" between planets, why not have a society of space pirates similiar to Skies of Arcadia, or a battle system where you have to go through an astoroid belt and pick up space parts like in Kingdom Hearts. The idea of having an expansive world sounds absolutely amazing and they've already been introduced several times. The problem with KH is that the "lands" weren't explorable and the NPC and things you interacted with only really did the 1, maybe 2 things. I think that incorporating that into a game wouldn't be super hard, it would just increase the actual gameplay into having multiple fighting systems which sounds awesome. Personally I would imagine any given character to have multiple battle stats depending on what that character would want to do, and you could try to "evenly" level him out or become some sort of space warlord where your stats are maxed out in space combat but land combat isn't your forte. Not that I've had any real experience in building games, but I do like thinking of games and ways they could be better. Evolving fighting systems would be cool too; starting out with a fighting system where you have high low left and right and can create "skills" like in legends of legaia, then skills that can be combined like in grandia, skill upgrades like in Chrono Cross where they get stronger, a fighting system that you actively have to run around and attack from different positions like in some of that final fantasies and then going into a monster hunter type system where you have access to the others if you set up your system that way or you just play the way you want button mashing or what have you.

TL~DR
I Love Legends of Legaia and RPGs 

great another great post ruined and killed by me


----------



## VMM (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> They're not good _systems_ though. You're not playing the _system_, you're playing _games_. Mario games would be just as fun on a PS4 as they are on the Wii U, Android games would be just as fun on the Xbox One as they are on the OUYA, your personal enjoyment of the content clouds your judgement of the actual hardware.
> No, it's not - not when the console is meeting the par.No, it's buying a piece of plastic electronics that plays games at a certain level of performance - the better the performance the better the plastic you bought. It's all about a balance of performance versus price tag unless you're one of those people who are more interested in buying a narrative than buying a quality product.I still don't see a meaningful link between the console and the software a given user plays. They're two separate entities.


 

Consoles and their games aren't two different entities, let's face it,
no one would buy Nintendo systems if it weren't for their games.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

VMM said:


> Consoles and their games aren't two different entities, let's face it,
> no one would buy Nintendo systems if it weren't for their games.


Exactly, that's my whole point. Why wouldn't people buy their consoles if not for their games? Could that mean that they're poor consoles? The games and consoles *are* separate entities - you buy them separately, don't you? Clearly they're separate products if they're sold separately.


----------



## VMM (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Exactly, that's my whole point. Why wouldn't people buy their consoles if not for their games? Could that mean that they're poor consoles? The games and consoles *are* separate entities - you buy them separately, don't you? Clearly they're separate products if they're sold separately.


 
I agree with you that WiiU is a poor console, for sure,
but when people buy WiiU they are buying it for one simple reason, Nintendo games,
so can we really say they are separate entities? Surely you buy them separately,
but they, but they are not only what makes them people buy WiiU,
but it's the reason why they choose it over a PS4 or a X1.
At least for me, exclusives are part of what makes console worth for buying or not,
therefore I would say they are directly related, instead of a separate entity.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 14, 2015)

Everybody buys consoles for the games. Be it Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft or whatever.
If you wanted over the top hardware, you would buy a good PC (that perhaps you also do), but the consoles are bought because they grant access to specific games.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 14, 2015)

People buying consoles to use as media players is far from unheard of, and perhaps even commonplace today.

"but the consoles are bought because they grant access to specific games"
Really? There may be some and it may be a factor in more. I would argue though that no small number of people seek little more than a relatively simple to use machine that allows them, and possibly some others in the same room or somewhere TCP/IP packets can reach, to swing a virtual sword, fire a virtual gun, pilot a virtual vehicle or throw a virtual ball. 
I would not say the established names and franchises are entirely immaterial but it can be if said items in the list above are fulfilled by some other means then what came before matters less.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 14, 2015)

That virtual sword, virtual gun, virtual vehicle or virtual ball, all form part of a specific virtual world from a specific game available on a given console and that no small number of people get to know and associate with a given console through well done advertisement.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Everybody buys consoles for the games. Be it Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft or whatever.
> If you wanted over the top hardware, you would buy a good PC (that perhaps you also do), but the consoles are bought because they grant access to specific games.


Not "top hardware", just hardware that performs well for the price. News flash - some people don't feel like building a gaming PC or maintain it over the years, console gamers just like to sit on a couch and play games on their no-nonsense gaming system that was built from the ground up for that specific purpose - playing video games. I didn't buy a PS4 to play the next God of War, I don't give a shit - I might buy it, but I don't have a raging boner for it. I bought a PS4 because it plays games well and it's a good balance of power and price point. I bought it because it's good hardware, it doesn't have to use exclusives for crutches, it's just good enough on its own merits. Can you say that about the Wii U? No, it's a Mario Kart/SSB4 Machine, it can't stand on its own two feet without its crutches of exclusives that validate its existence.


VMM said:


> I agree with you that WiiU is a poor console, for sure,
> but when people buy WiiU they are buying it for one simple reason, Nintendo games,
> so can we really say they are separate entities? Surely you buy them separately,
> but they, but they are not only what makes them people buy WiiU,
> ...


Exactly. Nintendo spits in your face by keeping their games hostage and having you buy their obsolete, poorly designed system in order to play them. They don't respect you enough to provide a system that doesn't suck and rely on exclusives to lure you in. A console should speak for itself, if you can't sell product X without the premise of product Y, product X is just crap because it's not good in and out of itself.


----------



## VMM (May 14, 2015)

I wonder why can't Nintendo get things right at least once.
* With N64 they used the catridges while everybody was already using CDs, jeez, even Sega and Turbografx were using in their 16 bit consoles.
* With Gamecube they used Mini-DVD and claimed it was their own proprietary midia, which couldn't handle that much data.
* With Wii they released a very obsolete and poorly designed videogame, which it's main selling point was a gimmick made for casuals.
* With WiiU they released another obsolete and poorly designed videogame, that didn't get the attention of casuals neither the hardcore gamers, a double failure

Why don't they just pay the damn copyrights and put all the midia support(Blu-Ray, CD, DVD etc like X1 does),
make an appropriate gaming machine for the price of $400-$500 and focus on gamers.

The casual gamers have migrated to Smartphones and Tablets a long time ago, it was a stupid decision to focus on them with WiiU,
specially considering that WiiU retail games are sold by $60 which is a lot to ask to the casual gamer,
since the games they usually buy rarely go above $15

I just hope Nintendo doesn't do a big mess out of this NX device


----------



## TecXero (May 14, 2015)

VMM said:


> I wonder why can't Nintendo get things right at least once.
> * With N64 they used the catridges while everybody was already using CDs, jeez, even Sega and Turbografx were using in their 16 bit consoles.
> * With Gamecube they used Mini-DVD and claimed it was their own proprietary midia, which couldn't handle that much data.
> * With Wii they released a very obsolete and poorly designed videogame, which it's main selling point was a gimmick made for casuals.
> ...


 
A lot of that can be answered just by pointing out how the company works. As for the Wii, Nintendo, after the GameCube, probably wanted to limit their investment. Nintendo has pulled the whole "lateral thinking with withered technology", before, which seems to work for them. Honestly, it could work well for other developers too, if Nintendo was nicer to third-party games. Wii U just followed suit.

As many problems I have with Nintendo, the Wii U and 3DS are the only consoles that have interested me this generation. There's a couple of things on PS4 I want, but I'm sure they will find their way to PC, eventually. I don't mind that Nintendo uses weaker hardware, as long as it's not overpriced and there's interesting exclusives. I don't really need it to have multimedia support, as I already have plenty of other things that I can stream media to or shove discs in.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 14, 2015)

VMM said:


> I wonder why can't Nintendo get things right at least once.
> * With N64 they used the catridges while everybody was already using CDs, jeez, even Sega and Turbografx were using in their 16 bit consoles.
> * With Gamecube they used Mini-DVD and claimed it was their own proprietary midia, which couldn't handle that much data.
> * With Wii they released a very obsolete and poorly designed videogame, which it's main selling point was a gimmick made for casuals.
> ...


 
Nintendo's cheap and don't want to pay for the licence but if they did then the Wii would have played DVDs out of the box and Wii U with Blu-rays but it's Nintendo..

We're in 2015 and there's not a Music Player or Video Player included *sigh* thank god my HDTV can play videos via USB. And the menus are actually fast.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

TecXero said:


> A lot of that can be answered just by pointing out how the company works. As for the Wii, Nintendo, after the GameCube, probably wanted to limit their investment. Nintendo has pulled the whole "lateral thinking with withered technology", before, which seems to work for them. Honestly, it could work well for other developers too, if Nintendo was nicer to third-party games. Wii U just followed suit.
> 
> As many problems I have with Nintendo, the Wii U and 3DS are the only consoles that have interested me this generation. There's a couple of things on PS4 I want, but I'm sure they will find their way to PC, eventually. I don't mind that Nintendo uses weaker hardware, as long as it's not overpriced and there's interesting exclusives. I don't really need it to have multimedia support, as I already have plenty of other things that I can stream media to or shove discs in.


Why won't we call the Wii for what it is? Nintendo had a contract with IBM, a contract that cost them $1 billion USD, and the result of that contract was the Gekko and the line of processors that followed it. Since the Gamecube failed to meet their expectations, they had to think of a way to utilize the hardware they already had without having to improve upon it too much. They've mobilized, they've slightly beefed up the specs, they revived the WiiMote concept which was a previously shelved GC controller, they've oriented the system around it and they've released the Wii as their last shot at home consoles - very little risk involved and a fair chance at making their money back. The Wii was a success, everyone was happy, but the Wii U? That's where they got greedy.


----------



## Hungry Friend (May 14, 2015)

My main issues with Nintendo are the forced gimmicks(stylus with the DS, motion with the Wii, Gamepad with the Wii U) but on the other hand, I still believe they make some of the best games on the planet. I just wish the gimmicky stuff(I know gimmicky is in the eye of the beholder) was 100% optional and you could, for exmple, have 2 pro controllers connected to the Wii U and discard the gamepad. Games would have to be patched to allow Pro controller only support but naturally there are titles that need the Gamepad. Generally speaking though, I want it to be optional, which would also lower the cost of the Wii U significantly.

Raw horsepower is overrated imo; art direction is everything. Naturally it's nice if a console has more assets to work with, but some people are WAY too picky about resoolution, textures and that kinda shit when in reality, good art design very often makes up for a system's lack of power. Take Dragon Quest VIII for example, a beautiful PS2 game that isn't terribly demanding graphically, even compared to other PS2 games, but its cell shaded style made its presentation timeless. Even if you don't like Akira Toriyama's art, you have to admit DQVIII is an excellent representation of that particular style. Framerate is the only thing I can be picky about, and only in games that requires lots of quick twitch reflexes like fighting games(don't play any FPS games), Racing games, Platformers etc.

Too much money is spent on making games look really pretty, and it's steadily jacking up dev costs. It's possible to make gorgeous games without spending assloads of money if their art style/direction is solid enough. Chrono Trigger, FF6, Phantasy Star IV, Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Suikoden 1-2(especially 2), Mario games, Zelda games, Metal Gear Solid 1-4 and TONS of other older games still look great today due to their superb art direction, and the hardware most of them run on is practically stone age tech by today's standards.

edit: The death of the mid-budget game and mobile obliterating dedicated handhelds is really hurting the industry as a whole. Most games today are either "AAA" games that cost WAY too much to make with beautiful graphics or cheap mobile shit. We need more mid-range games. OT I know but it's true.


----------



## TecXero (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Why won't we call the Wii for what it is? Nintendo had a contract with IBM, a contract that cost them $1 billion USD, and the result of that contract was the Gekko and the line of processors that followed it. Since the Gamecube failed to meet their expectations, they had to think of a way to utilize the hardware they already had without having to improve upon it too much. They've mobilized, they've slightly beefed up the specs, they revived the WiiMote concept which was a previously shelved GC controller, they've oriented the system around it and they've released the Wii as their last shot at home consoles - very little risk involved and a fair chance at making their money back. The Wii was a success, everyone was happy, but the Wii U? That's where they got greedy.


 
I agree on the Wii front. I don't think it was a bad idea, though I didn't care much for the Wii until homebrew became more interesting on it. It just didn't have many appealing games to me. As for the Wii U, poor choices were made, especially with the controller, but in the end it's a cheap little console that has games that interest me. Nintendo is very greedy, but as long as it's packed as something that I enjoy at a fair price, I don't mind. Wii U for exclusives like Bayonetta 2 and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, 3DS for mobility, and PC/HTPC for everything else. I know that it's not something everyone wants, it's just what works for me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

TecXero said:


> I agree on the Wii front. I don't think it was a bad idea, though I didn't care much for the Wii until homebrew became more interesting on it. It just didn't have many appealing games to me. As for the Wii U, poor choices were made, especially with the controller, but in the end it's a cheap little console that has games that interest me. Nintendo is very greedy, but as long as it's packed as something that I enjoy at a fair price, I don't mind. Wii U for exclusives like Bayonetta 2 and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, 3DS for mobility, and PC/HTPC for everything else. I know that it's not something everyone wants, it's just what works for me.


The Wii was perfectly fine considering the losses they took with the Gamecube. People keep saying that Nintendo was still profitable at that point in history, but I can't help but think that they mostly stayed afloat thanks to the great success of the GBA, the Gamecube seemed more like a money pit to me. They had technology that they needed a use for so they've updated a Gamecube and it worked out, fine, good for them. My problem here is that after they've recuperated and made up tenfold, I expected them to come out with something new and exciting, not the same rehashed technology. Stapling three Wii's together is not my idea of progress.


----------



## TecXero (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The Wii was perfectly fine considering the losses they took with the Gamecube. People keep saying that Nintendo was still profitable at that point in history, but I can't help but think that they mostly stayed afloat thanks to the great success of the GBA, the Gamecube seemed more like a money pit to me. They had technology that they needed a use for so they've updated a Gamecube and it worked out, fine, good for them. My problem here is that after they've recuperated and made up tenfold, I expected them to come out with something new and exciting, not the same rehashed technology. Stapling three Wii's together is not my idea of progress.


 
Consoles are already low-end to me on the technology front. The only thing that interests me when it comes to consoles is what I can't play on PC. Handhelds are an exception, since they're portable and I put a high value on portability. I'd rather have a game on my 3DS than on my PC. Yeah, I'd probably be happier if Nintendo also developed their games for PC, but the Wii U is a cheap enough investment that it's not a big deal to me.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The NX is not replacing the Wii U though, it's not Nintendo's next gen, it's supposed to be sold alongside the 3DS and the Wii U.


 

That's what Nintendo said about the DS too, that it would not be replacing the GameBoy line and we all know how that ended. 

On the main topic, I would say my opinion on the level of tech is... Yeah it's good enough for games. Then again I am happy playing old 16 bit games too so my tastes in graphics are "Can I tell what is going on and is the frame rate constant and not choppy?" Meeting that requirement is something I can tell in like 2 seconds... The "Is the game fun to play? and will I want to keep playing and finish it perhaps multiple times?" that's the hardest spec to hit of all.... 

You can't put a bit number on it, you can't slap Mhz on it, you can't even put a brand name on it. I enjoy a good game from ANY company even EA as "evil" as they are.

Fun it's all about the fun for me  If I am not having fun I don't care what the game looks like.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

TecXero said:


> Consoles are already low-end to me on the technology front. The only thing that interests me when it comes to consoles is what I can't play on PC. Handhelds are an exception, since they're portable and I put a high value on portability. I'd rather have a game on my 3DS than on my PC. Yeah, I'd probably be happier if Nintendo also developed their games for PC, but the Wii U is a cheap enough investment that it's not a big deal to me.


There's a difference between being on the low-end of the spectrum and not being on the spectrum at all, y'know. The PS4 and the XBO may very well be low-to-mid-end in comparison to your average PC, but thanks to shortened API's and customized architectures they get the job done relatively well. The same cannot be said about the Wii U which simply can't support current gen mainstream games, no matter how you slice the cake.


Psionic Roshambo said:


> That's what Nintendo said about the DS too, that it would not be replacing the GameBoy line and we all know how that ended.


I don't remember them ever saying anything like that, but to be fair, the Game Boy line lived on for a while in the form of the Micro.


----------



## Deleted User (May 14, 2015)

I have no idea if I said anything on this thread at an earlier date, but I don't think having lots of polygons/triangles on models and maps is really a necessity, and super HQ shading isn't a necessity either. You can sometimes achieve a pretty nice look with lower poly graphics, and if you know what you're doing, you can also get a pretty great look with fairly low poly graphics.
With frame rate, sometimes having a smoother frame rate can make a game easier to play, 60fps is only really needed if a game has issues like input lag when played at 30fps.
The thing that matters most to me is good gameplay, but at the same time, I don't want to look at a game that mainly uses overly bright, clashing colours, and where all the characters are just a lump of polygons.


----------



## TecXero (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> There's a difference between being on the low-end of the spectrum and not being on the spectrum at all, y'know. The PS4 and the XBO may very well be low-to-mid-end in comparison to your average PC, but thanks to shortened API's and customized architectures they get the job done relatively well. The same cannot be said about the Wii U which simply can't support current gen mainstream games, no matter how you slice the cake.


 
Even if it did, it wouldn't really matter to me. The "mainstream" games I play are generally also on PC, so I'd prefer to play them on there. Wii U I think fills its niche fine, but it's just that, it's a niche console. It's for people that enjoy Nintendo games. I tend to enjoy some of their Donkey Kong, Metroid, Zelda, SSB, F-Zero, Star Fox and a few other titles on their systems. It's definitely a niche thing, but it works for me.
I'd rather have console specialized for gaming than something that tries to be everything but doesn't do any of them particularly well. Nintendo does know how to utilize their hardware, while I've seen nasty performance issues on PS4 when visiting a friend. Of course, that's more software side than anything, if the developers took more time to optimize a game for the PS4, I'm sure it could look almost as good and perform almost as well as if it was on PC. This generation and last are to a point for me where graphics kind of plateaued for me. Yeah, better hardware will still get better performance and allow for more resources for anything developers can think of, but as long as it's something interesting, is visually appealing, performs well, and at a fair price, I'll probably go for it.

As it is, I don't really see what Nintendo would have to gain by having more powerful hardware. Yeah, it would be easier for third-party companies to port multiplatform games to it, but Nintendo would have to do a lot more than that to get them on board. Nintendo isn't the nicest to outside developers. Not saying they shouldn't, just that I don't think they would fill their niche any better, might actually make it worse as it wouldn't be as affordable. A lot of people that are big into Nintendo stuff are generally either kids, which don't have much money or generally don't have parents willing to spend that much for something like that, or 20-somethings that are fairly nostalgic or grew up on Nintendo stuff (like myself) and don't have a lot of money as they're still ramping up their careers.

Do I wish Nintendo would drop their console and just develop games for PC? Sure, if they embraced the idea of options. As it is, though, the Wii U is the only one that has enough interesting stuff to get me to buy it out of the three main consoles around. If MS or Sony put out a few exclusives that interest me, I will probably consider buying their console, though I would still rather see everything just move to PC. Now handhelds, on the other-hand, I want to see stick around, at least until there's a decent handheld PC. I know there's some Android based alternatives, but they rarely have the gaming quality of dedicated handhelds.

Sorry for the long-winded nature of this. I tend to enjoy debates like this, despite how fruitless they tend to be. xD


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2015)

TecXero said:


> Even if it did, it wouldn't really matter to me. The "mainstream" games I play are generally also on PC, so I'd prefer to play them on there. Wii U I think fills its niche fine, but it's just that, it's a niche console. It's for people that enjoy Nintendo games. I tend to enjoy some of their Donkey Kong, Metroid, Zelda, SSB, F-Zero, Star Fox and a few other titles on their systems. It's definitely a niche thing, but it works for me.
> I'd rather have console specialized for gaming than something that tries to be everything but doesn't do any of them particularly well. Nintendo does know how to utilize their hardware, while I've seen nasty performance issues on PS4 when visiting a friend. Of course, that's more software side than anything, if the developers took more time to optimize a game for the PS4, I'm sure it could look almost as good and perform almost as well as if it was on PC. This generation and last are to a point for me where graphics kind of plateaued for me. Yeah, better hardware will still get better performance and allow for more resources for anything developers can think of, but as long as it's something interesting, is visually appealing, performs well, and at a fair price, I'll probably go for it.
> 
> As it is, I don't really see what Nintendo would have to gain by having more powerful hardware. Yeah, it would be easier for third-party companies to port multiplatform games to it, but Nintendo would have to do a lot more than that to get them on board. Nintendo isn't the nicest to outside developers. Not saying they shouldn't, just that I don't think they would fill their niche any better, might actually make it worse as it wouldn't be as affordable. A lot of people that are big into Nintendo stuff are generally either kids, which don't have much money or generally don't have parents willing to spend that much for something like that, or 20-somethings that are fairly nostalgic or grew up on Nintendo stuff (like myself) and don't have a lot of money as they're still ramping up their careers.
> ...


See, that's the thing - they would benefit from at least meeting the par. Most people have one primary gaming system, they don't buy several consoles nor do they invest in a beefy gaming PC if they already have a console. If Nintendo's console are far behind the status quo, their customers are pretty much required to own another system or at least a PC in order to access mainstream titles at all, and I have a problem with that. A good console should provide you with access not just to exclusives but also to third-party mainstream games, otherwise it's just not a lot of bang for the buck.

You've chosen the PC as your primary mainstream gaming machine and that's fine, you're also okay with owning a Wii U as an extension to it which is also fine, but you have to realize that most gamers aren't like that. The average customer wants an all-in-one, no-nonsense gaming system, I think that's pretty much obvious. You won't see those customers here though, we're obviously all enthusiasts on the Temp.


----------



## Acidflare (May 14, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'll at least accept an argument for the Wii U but the Ouya is a garbage "console".
> 
> If your best argument is "it's not for everyone!" then it's bad.


 
I agree the Ouya was a terrible Idea, who wants to pay twice for things which was the worst selling point of the Ouya consoles in my perspective, If you bought an application on your android phone/tablet and wanted the same application on the Ouya even if you use the same account across all devices you still had to pay for it on the Ouya console. I was all in for buying an Ouya console then I read this factor on a couple of sources reddit, the ouya forums, and a topic here on gbatemp as soon as I found out about that I said "No not buying it."

LightyKD it seems like what your asking for is one heck of a Star Trek or Star Gate game that has had years upon years of work put into it, but I feel you on that topic of a game where you get to explore multiple planets with different cultures and civilizations.
Although playing the metroid series from start to finish will give you some of the same feeling, it's actually a really fun/difficult series to play start to finish, if you own a Wii/WiiU with copies of Metroid Prime Trilogy, Other M and Super Metroid(VC), a DS Lite a DS Flash cart and a EZ-Flash 3in1/IV you can play the whole series from start to finish on 2 systems.


----------



## LightyKD (May 14, 2015)

Acidflare said:


> I agree the Ouya was a terrible Idea, who wants to pay twice for things which was the worst selling point of the Ouya consoles in my perspective, If you bought an application on your android phone/tablet and wanted the same application on the Ouya even if you use the same account across all devices you still had to pay for it on the Ouya console. I was all in for buying an Ouya console then I read this factor on a couple of sources reddit, the ouya forums, and a topic here on gbatemp as soon as I found out about that I said "No not buying it."
> 
> LightyKD it seems like what your asking for is one heck of a Star Trek or Star Gate game that has had years upon years of work put into it, but I feel you on that topic of a game where you get to explore multiple planets with different cultures and civilizations.
> Although playing the metroid series from start to finish will give you some of the same feeling, it's actually a really fun/difficult series to play start to finish, if you own a Wii/WiiU with copies of Metroid Prime Trilogy, Other M and Super Metroid(VC), a DS Lite a DS Flash cart and a EZ-Flash 3in1/IV you can play the whole series from start to finish on 2 systems.



You don't have to buy things on OUYA twice. It's rather a matter of being smart about where you buy your Android games from. I have OUYA's store, Amazon's app store and Google Play on my console and I buy my games according to this:

* OUYA version available? - buy first
* No OUYA version? - check Google Play
* Don't like the price? - check Amazon
* Amazon version too high or has no non-Fire TV controller support - buy Google Play version.


----------



## Acidflare (May 14, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> You don't have to buy things on OUYA twice. It's rather a matter of being smart about where you buy your Android games from. I have OUYA's store, Amazon's app store and Google Play on my console and I buy my games according to this:
> 
> * OUYA version available? - buy first
> * No OUYA version? - check Google Play
> ...


 
from what I had read I got the impression that anything bought on google play couldn't be downloaded it had to be paid for again if it was also in the Ouya store. for example SuperRetro16(SNES Emulator) from what I had gathered if I wanted to use my google play license on the ouya I would have to pay ouya for it if they offer it aswell


----------



## LightyKD (May 14, 2015)

Acidflare said:


> from what I had read I got the impression that anything bought on google play couldn't be downloaded it had to be paid for again if it was also in the Ouya store. for example SuperRetro16(SNES Emulator) from what I had gathered if I wanted to use my google play license on the ouya I would have to pay ouya for it if they offer it aswell



I play my GP version of Sonic 4 EP 2 on my OUYA all the time. Yes the menu might give you the buy option because your account has not purchased it but opening the game will take you to your Google Play copy


----------



## Acidflare (May 14, 2015)

LightyKD said:


> I play my GP version of Sonic 4 EP 2 on my OUYA all the time. Yes the menu might give you the buy option because your account has not purchased it but opening the game will take you to your Google Play copy


 
My only issue with Android game console's is root functions, I use Root for certain things like running a copy of ubuntu which requires root for the vnc server to function running a full fledged linux OS like Lubuntu on an android devices has a lot of features like support for flash and html5 sites there's no need for a mobile view at all the VNC viewer manages all of the zooming and scaling features, and depending on the device that the linux OS is installed on you may be able to play some linux games too. I also use root to connect my DS3 to my android as a mouse/game controller.

I think if android game console companies went the route that HTC went with the bootloader unlocking, sales would rise, I trust older HTC's phones because I can unlock my bootloader at my own discretion and update my device's android version, currently my HTC Wildfire S is running PACrom android 4.2.2 the phone only had an update from HTC up 2.3.3. My HTC One V is updated from 2.3.5 to 4.1.2 I am currently trying to decided whether I should update it to 4.4.4 or 5.1.1 . The way I see that HTC looks at it is, we are giving you the ability to use your retail device for development purposes if you screw it up don't come crying.


----------



## TecXero (May 14, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> See, that's the thing - they would benefit from at least meeting the par. Most people have one primary gaming system, they don't buy several consoles nor do they invest in a beefy gaming PC if they already have a console. If Nintendo's console are far behind the status quo, their customers are pretty much required to own another system or at least a PC in order to access mainstream titles at all, and I have a problem with that. A good console should provide you with access not just to exclusives but also to third-party mainstream games, otherwise it's just not a lot of bang for the buck.
> 
> You've chosen the PC as your primary mainstream gaming machine and that's fine, you're also okay with owning a Wii U as an extension to it which is also fine, but you have to realize that most gamers aren't like that. The average customer wants an all-in-one, no-nonsense gaming system, I think that's pretty much obvious. You won't see those customers here though, we're obviously all enthusiasts on the Temp.


 
That's true. Though, like I said, Nintendo has a lot more to do than have a more powerful console to get third-party games on board. Not saying they shouldn't, no harm in having more gaming options, just that Nintendo has shot themselves in the foot in that area multiple times. Nintendo has always done their own little thing while being slightly disconnected with reality and slow to change. As much as they say they push "innovation", it took way too long for them to embrace the internet, and even then they're still having troubles with it. Even in the NGC days, which was the height of Nintendo consoles for me, they still were backwards with their mini-DVDs.

I don't think it should have supported DVD Video playback, as then they probably would have gone the route of the other consoles, but full sized DVDs would have made it a lot easier for multiplatform games to be ported to it without going through and compressing everything. Which is fine for others, but all this is from my own selfish point of view. I don't have any desire to pay an extra $100 just so my Wii U could be another blu ray player.

Maybe Nintendo could fill their niche and have a multiplatform console. We'll see if they can stop doing whatever drugs they're doing long enough to go that way. Probably not. Ever since the N64, they've gotten by on niche consoles and dominating the handheld market. For now, I think the lower price helps justify it, but that's just me. Then again, you practically need some sort of external storage for it, and not everyone has spare HDDs laying around. I think Nintendo should probably knock $100 off the price, even if it would be selling at a loss again.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 15, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> [DS was not supposed to replace the gameboy]
> I don't remember them ever saying anything like that, but to be fair, the Game Boy line lived on for a while in the form of the Micro.



They did. The term they used was "three pillars" with the DS supposed to be the third of them. Do a search for nintendo three pillars and you will get some stuff back.


----------



## Acidflare (May 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> They did. The term they used was "three pillars" with the DS supposed to be the third of them. Do a search for nintendo three pillars and you will get some stuff back.


 
Edit: It's actually a great deal of a history lesson, I didn't know about this term my self. here is a link to a page that tells a great deal on the history of the third pillar http://www.nintendojo.com/features/specials/a-pillar-too-many

the GameBoy was at it's end of life. it lived from 1989 - 2002 a 12 year life span across 8 different console's I would say nintendo had a good run with the GameBoy line and they will probably go the same route with the DS line of systems there have already been which has already reached 9 different systems it'self. yes the DSiXL 3DSXL and N3DSXL are variations but would you call the SP and micro variations of the GBA or different console's they all feature slightly different hardware and features but still all run the same programming code. the whole nintendo handheld line confuses me are they different consoles or are they different variations of the same console, what are your guys' thoughts about it?


----------



## VMM (May 16, 2015)

Acidflare said:


> Edit: It's actually a great deal of a history lesson, I didn't know about this term my self. here is a link to a page that tells a great deal on the history of the third pillar http://www.nintendojo.com/features/specials/a-pillar-too-many
> 
> the GameBoy was at it's end of life. it lived from 1989 - 2002 a 12 year life span across 8 different console's I would say nintendo had a good run with the GameBoy line and they will probably go the same route with the DS line of systems there have already been which has already reached 9 different systems it'self. yes the DSiXL 3DSXL and N3DSXL are variations but would you call the SP and micro variations of the GBA or different console's they all feature slightly different hardware and features but still all run the same programming code. *the whole nintendo handheld line confuses me are they different consoles or are they different variations of the same console, what are your guys' thoughts about it?*


 

For me, the handheld line can be described as:
1st) Game and Watch
2nd) Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket and Gameboy Light
3rd) Gameboy Color
4th) Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, Gameboy Micro 
5th) Nintendo DS Phat, Nintendo DS Lite, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo DSiXL
6th) Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo 3DS XL, Nintendo 2DS, New Nintendo 3DS, New Nintendo 3DS XL


----------



## MikeyTaylorGaming (May 18, 2015)

The Real Jdbye said:


> The thing is, with huge game worlds you end up with a lot of empty space, which IMO is just annoying.


 
This is my problem with Zelda: Wind Waker.

I love the game,  but why, oh why why why, is all that sea there to waste so much time. It's so unnecessary!


----------



## The Real Jdbye (May 18, 2015)

mikeyt1998 said:


> This is my problem with Zelda: Wind Waker.
> 
> I love the game, but why, oh why why why, is all that sea there to waste so much time. It's so unnecessary!


 
They fixed that in WWHD though 
And there are islands evenly dispersed with things to do on each one, so it's not so bad.


----------



## MikeyTaylorGaming (May 18, 2015)

The Real Jdbye said:


> They fixed that in WWHD though


 
Aye aye! HD was the only version I actually played! The swift sail made things much quicker, though still a lot of travel between Islands if there's a specific place you want to be and don't have the Ballad Of Gales yet XD


----------



## aofelix (May 18, 2015)

The Real Jdbye said:


> They fixed that in WWHD though
> And there are islands evenly dispersed with things to do on each one, so it's not so bad.


 


Yeah still sucked. Travelling in WW HD was nothing but a chore. The crap found from island to island was just that... crap. Very few quality islands. Developers who dip into the open world genre really need to make the travelling fun. I'd say thats EQUALLY as important. I literally swift sailed on WW HD, set a direction then went away for 4-5 minutes. I treated it as a loading screen.

That and the frame rate dips in a few boss fights are the ONLY real major critiques I have of an otherwise MAGICAL and PHENOMENAL game. Its sad Nintendo overlooked the travelling bullshit and it does make me slightly worried for the new Zelda title.

Having an open world which works is very difficult. I hope the new Zelda title manages to do it although in all honesty, I think its an unnecessary risk for a franchise which does not need it.




The best open world experience  travelling wise I've ever had is Dark Souls since travelling from place to place was part of the challenge. 




Next gen graphics don't matter if we get next gen gameplay but developers seem obsessed with framerate + resolution pushing ATM.


----------



## p1ngpong (May 18, 2015)

I got an MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G graphics card the other day for my gaming rig.

If only I had bought an OUYA instead....


----------



## aofelix (May 18, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, yes you do. Hardly any PC can last a decade and still play games at a quality comparable to consoles. If we're talking quadruple digits then fine, maybe a $1000+ PC would stay relevant for that long, but that's a huge expense and usually a pain in the ass. I'm not saying that PC's are worse, they're objectively better, but a console is a good marriage of performance, quality and price point because it's built for purpose whereas PC's are multipurpose because that's their nature. As for the reply, I'm talking to you and another user at the same time, sorry for the confusion.


 


I think you're right but this gen might be a little different. Last-gen the consoles were really worth their money. The companies took a loss and thats because they packed in excellent hardware.

This gen, the consoles are really pretty weak by today's standards technologically. Therefore I'd bet on a GTX 970 being able to better PS4/XBOX Ones for this whole generation and stay relevant. Near the end they might stutter but I believe it will always be able to 1080p/medium settings a game which is still better than what a PS4 and XB1 will be able to do near the end of the gen.


Upgrading does become a ballache when a new DX revision comes out and your graphics card doesn't support that but if you can time your purchase to a relevant DX revision, you're pretty much set. I had a 5 year old rig which I upgraded because DX fucked it over. However, it was still able to play the newest titles at better quality than my PS3 and 360 (even a poorly optimised shitty port like Dark Souls). I think it was Bioshock Infinite which eventually convinced me to invest in a whole new rig. I could have just gone for a card but [piracy alert] Dolphin and PCSX2 made huge strides in emulation to the extent a 4670k could play ANY game at pretty much full speed. That swayed my wallet.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2015)

aofelix said:


> I think you're right but this gen might be a little different. Last-gen the consoles were really worth their money. The companies took a loss and thats because they packed in excellent hardware.
> 
> This gen, the consoles are really pretty weak by today's standards technologically. Therefore I'd bet on a GTX 970 being able to better PS4/XBOX Ones for this whole generation and stay relevant. Near the end they might stutter but I believe it will always be able to 1080p/medium settings a game which is still better than what a PS4 and XB1 will be able to do near the end of the gen.
> 
> ...


You're forgetting that last gen consoles were also more expensive. The PS3 started off at $499/599 depending on the bundle. The Xbox wasn't far behind at $399 or $299 for the useless Core model with no HDD that was quickly discontinued. Adjust that for 10 years of inflation and that's a hefty bill to pay, and it's not like they were powerhouses - 512MB Shared RAM wasn't much even back then. I think the PS4/XBO are well priced for what you're getting.


----------



## aofelix (May 19, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> You're forgetting that last gen consoles were also more expensive. The PS3 started off at $499/599 depending on the bundle. The Xbox wasn't far behind at $399 or $299 for the useless Core model with no HDD that was quickly discontinued. Adjust that for 10 years of inflation and that's a hefty bill to pay, and it's not like they were powerhouses - 512MB Shared RAM wasn't much even back then. I think the PS4/XBO are well priced for what you're getting.


 

Yeah I'm not debating their value. Both companies have obviously played it safe this gen by aiming to profit from day 1. 

I'm saying that its a different situation to previous generations when evaluating how long a PC will last since the consoles by todays technological standards are shitty compared to what the PS3/360 were when they were released.


----------

