Is the Wii U underpowered?
- Thread starter VG_Addict
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh stop with this. Really, when's the last time 'more processing power' was the main factor in producing a good game on terms of actual gameplay?...I actually cannot think of any examples. On their own, pretty (photorealistic) imagery, more objects, faster load times, or more characters on screen or doing shit still don't make good games, or even interesting ones; it's not the range of capability that creates quality.Stavros Dimou said:
You have landed a point though; the way a developer chooses to use that performance is what matters, but I'd take the shot that the ways developers choose to use that performance have not varied much in...years (because money still runs this industry). Probably longer than any single generation's time in the sun. Rather, games that frequent the more powerful consoles push those features you've mentioned slowly forward by genre. Looks improve (and that remain the bulk of the cost), while the games themselves have not changed much.
Really, the power posturing has been present since consoles came about, but as old as it is, I only find it exacerbated by the recent resurgence of the PC game market.
Spy vs Spy about a couple weeks ago.The Lunatic said:
That doesn't answer my question though. Why play on an underpowered console such as the PS4 or the Xbox One when a PC can beat their socks off? If power matters, why buy into a console that we know is going to stick around far longer than the hardware staying relevant? Xbox One and PS4 were outdated on launch. 2 years from now they will be very outdated. 5 years from now? Well, you get the idea.
Because they like the games. That's why I played Spy vs Spy a few weeks ago and that is why I am going to play Dungeon Explorer for the Turbografx-16 this weekend.
Edit: Also I do love how you took your argument to the most silly extreme you could think of. Comparing the Wii U to the Commodore 64, hilarious.
Really? That was your answer to that question? He asked "but who uses a walkman anymore?" and you responded "well, just last week I listened to a George Carlin cassette on it." And then you make fun of him for taking an argument to a silly extreme. I thought his response was quite witty, considering I don't agree with his initial first point.Yopaz said:
And herein lies the tragedy. There's a chance here to show that a distinction can be made between some power, enough power, no power, etc. What he's said is that the Wii U is technologically less powerful compared to its competition, ergo there's no reason to have it, and you had the chance to reveal that as a black-and-white type simplification of the item.
but heres the thing, often gameplay requires processing powerRacecarlock said:
i dont think skyrim would run on a PS2
He misunderstood my question in the first place. I wasn't saying lack of power wasn't a big deal. I was saying the PS4 and Xbox One was underpowered compared to a gaming PC. By his logic no-one wants to play games on an underpowered platform. Explain to me again how dodging a question then making a silly comparison is witty. All I see is a console gamer in the delusion that the PS4 and Xbox One are actually powerful and won't give a straight answer when confronted with the power of a PC.144 said:
So yeah, call it witty if you think so. I call it an avoidance strategy.
Does the NES count? I played Super Mario Bros a week ago. Still plays as well as it did in 1985. Hell, it's still more fun than most modern games that I have played.The Lunatic said:
You could make the case that it is. But then you could also make the case that all the consoles are. The Wii-U is clearly not trying to sell itself on power, and honestly it's getting harder and harder to see the difference that power offers anyway.
One would imagine, considering that covers probably over 99% of all the console games that have ever been released. It's easy to forget that as recently as last November the Wii-U was the most powerful console in existence.Kinitawowi said:
The WiiU is barely more capable than the 360, and arguably weaker than the PS3 (considering you make the most out of the incredibly awkward architecture of the PS3). Compared to the xbone and ps4 it's quite under-powered.
And while normally I'd say that doesn't really matter (historically, the strongest hardware didn't win the console race), this generation is quite different. For one thing, both the xbone and ps4 use x86 architecture and components that make them VERY similar to PCs, while the WiiU doesn't. This means that a lot of people will prefer to develop for current gen/PC, because it will take a lot less effort than it did to release cross platform (and, barring some massive exclusivity deal, you want as many platforms as possible).
Basically this is why so many devs want nothing to do with the WiiU. It's low installed user base coupled with the relative difficulty of developing for the platform make it very unattractive.
Which is a shame, really. The graphics race is detrimental to the industry right now (and it's oh so ironic that the xbone and ps4 are laughably weak compared to even medium-spec PCs right now) and a relatively weak console that does well because it actually puts more focus on fucking gameplay instead of graphics would be a very good thing. Alas, I don't think that console is going to be the WiiU
And yeah, all those games could be ported to previous gen.
And while normally I'd say that doesn't really matter (historically, the strongest hardware didn't win the console race), this generation is quite different. For one thing, both the xbone and ps4 use x86 architecture and components that make them VERY similar to PCs, while the WiiU doesn't. This means that a lot of people will prefer to develop for current gen/PC, because it will take a lot less effort than it did to release cross platform (and, barring some massive exclusivity deal, you want as many platforms as possible).
Basically this is why so many devs want nothing to do with the WiiU. It's low installed user base coupled with the relative difficulty of developing for the platform make it very unattractive.
Which is a shame, really. The graphics race is detrimental to the industry right now (and it's oh so ironic that the xbone and ps4 are laughably weak compared to even medium-spec PCs right now) and a relatively weak console that does well because it actually puts more focus on fucking gameplay instead of graphics would be a very good thing. Alas, I don't think that console is going to be the WiiU
And yeah, all those games could be ported to previous gen.
Compared to the Xbox One and PS4, yes, it is 'underpowered', but specs have never meant everything (PS1 and PS2 weren't as powerful as their rivals and see how they fared), it's all about what you can do with the system.
Nintendo has done some good things with the system, the problem is no one else will for a mix of reasons, most of them somewhat petty though once the focus has fully shifted to next-gen systems, it'll be more of a problem.
Nintendo has done some good things with the system, the problem is no one else will for a mix of reasons, most of them somewhat petty though once the focus has fully shifted to next-gen systems, it'll be more of a problem.
From a purely hardware standpoint the Wii U is quite underpowered compared to the PS4/XBO or even a cheap PC, you can buy desktop PC's with more grunt than the vague specs of the Wii U, sources:VG_Addict said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U#Console
http://wiiudaily.com/wii-u-system-specs/
Specs:
?Tri Core, 1.24 GHz (or 3ghz according to Wii U Daily) PowerPC-based 45nm CPU (basically the Xbox 360 CPU) with 2 MB cache.
?2 GB RAM: 1 GB is allocated for games and is shared between the CPU and the GPU, while 1 GB is allocated to the operating system. This is quite low, even a cheap PC comes with 4GB of ram now adays and I'm seeing 8GB become standard, 2GB is just tiny.
?Custom 40nm AMD GPU with 32 MB embedded eDRAM clocked at 550 MHz. Not much I can say here, seems like a low spec video card
Now that I think about it these specs aren't much higher than my previous GPU, an AMD Radeon HD 6950 which had 950mhz GPU with 2GB RAM, a GPU that's 2-3 years old and which I've just replaced.
Actually if the specs Wikipedia and Wii U Daily are correct then the newest smart phone have roughly the same processing power and ram as a Wii U, the only difference being that the Wii U has a graphics card, so yeah they've practically caught up anyway.Stavros Dimou said:
Having said all of that, I must agree with Chozo hybrid here:
At the end of the day hardware specs aren't the be all of systems, if they were then I'd just play on my PC and laptop which both leave all the consoles in the dust hardware wise but I still got the previous gen consoles and a PS4 and will be getting a Wii U when it drops in price because they have good games on them that I want to play. I would get the XBO but well I don't trust Microsoft to not pull a complete 360 with their DRM so I'll wait till it's $100 or something. They need to learn somehow.chozo_hybrid said:
It is, but the question is, now that we've seen next-gen and what it offers, does it really matter that much?
Whenever this debate pops up, and the following answers...I'm reminded of Sean Connery in the Rock. "Losers always whine about their 'best'. Winners go home and f*** the prom queen!"
That's pretty much the defense for the Wii U guys, and it's bullshit. ANd everyone that's above 20 should know so! When the SNES was released no one said "Well sure, the SNES might be more powerful but graphics aren't everything!" No, everyone was raising how much better it was than the Megadrive as a point. And also this "Well Nintendo has always been low on third party..."
Konami, Capcom, Square etc etc etc. Hell, Konami once had several publishing studios just so they could churn out games. Ultra Games anyone? Sure, Nintendo has always been strict, but a lot of those games we consider classics of the era weren't made by Nintendo. Hell, on my top 5 SNES list there's not one Nintendo game, and I know my list isn't that uncommon.
That's pretty much the defense for the Wii U guys, and it's bullshit. ANd everyone that's above 20 should know so! When the SNES was released no one said "Well sure, the SNES might be more powerful but graphics aren't everything!" No, everyone was raising how much better it was than the Megadrive as a point. And also this "Well Nintendo has always been low on third party..."
Konami, Capcom, Square etc etc etc. Hell, Konami once had several publishing studios just so they could churn out games. Ultra Games anyone? Sure, Nintendo has always been strict, but a lot of those games we consider classics of the era weren't made by Nintendo. Hell, on my top 5 SNES list there's not one Nintendo game, and I know my list isn't that uncommon.
Yes, the core gamers who didn't give a shit about the Nintendo 64 (shorter loading times than PS1, not sure about power) or the GameCube (more powerful than the vastly more poplar PS2). Nintendo should have kept banging that drum of having to give up developers such as Rare and focused on that audience that clearly didn't give a shit about them rather than the audience that bought it like hot pockets making it the first successful home console since the SNES in Nintendo's regard.Chaosritter said:
Did you honestly think this statement through?
Under powered? Yes. Next gen? Yes since it passes the test of being the follow up to the previous console.I think its specs are both its Achilles heel and strength. By strength I mean its more accessible to smaller studios since they don't have to spend a lot just to make the game look better than the shovelware on the Xbox One ans PS4.
This article [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story] gives a good answer to that sort of question. It's a third-party developer who worked on a Wii U game outlining the problems he encountered and the problems he didn't-
The CPU of the Wii is actually, on paper worse than a 360 or PS3. Luckily, like the PS3 there's a lot of little tricks that can make up the difference. The GPU is better than a 360 or PS3 but many times worse than a PS4 or 360.
There's absolutely no way you can get a game that was designed to stretch a PS4 or Xbox One to run on a Wii U without making significant cuts. But with work you can make games that weren't possible with a PS3 or 360. It might be able to remove the wall in the middle of the Strip on Fallout: New Vegas, but it probably couldn't populate Vegas with a genuine crowd of NPCs. Not without significant amounts of development time.
The CPU of the Wii is actually, on paper worse than a 360 or PS3. Luckily, like the PS3 there's a lot of little tricks that can make up the difference. The GPU is better than a 360 or PS3 but many times worse than a PS4 or 360.
There's absolutely no way you can get a game that was designed to stretch a PS4 or Xbox One to run on a Wii U without making significant cuts. But with work you can make games that weren't possible with a PS3 or 360. It might be able to remove the wall in the middle of the Strip on Fallout: New Vegas, but it probably couldn't populate Vegas with a genuine crowd of NPCs. Not without significant amounts of development time.
I think the 'Wii U' is onto something: we're seeing game studios spend increasingly larger budgets on creating high-resolution graphical assets for their game, including textures, shadows, reflection-maps, etc; they are increasing the graphical quality whilst neglecting the other aspects of games.
Nintendo's machine is certainly slow when compared to a PC or the latest console offerings from Microsoft and Sony, but as a gaming platform it can run enough to produce fun and interesting games, and I would not count it out yet. One of the bigger problems with it, which has very little to do with the hardware specifications, is its large touch-screen controller.
Because it's mandatory and none of the other consoles use these, developers are essentially writing code that's only going to be used on one machine.
Also, the notion of backwards compatibility has hung around since Microsoft and Sony both told us we'd have no luck in that respect. But consider the games that the 'Wii U' can run: It supports Wii, Game Cube, Nintendo 64 games, and SNES, NES, Neo Geo and SEGA Master System titles! The unfortunate thing is that these cannot be loaded via their original cartridges, but instead must be purchased via their 'Nintendo Network'. The console runs them on a virtual machine.
Now, I'm sure there will be home-brew emulators available for both the Xbox and PlayStation consoles, but these Nintendo games are official: the company is basically looking backwards and offering up both their pre-existing game libraries and those of other classic consoles. It's a clever exercise in nostalgia, which we all know is worth a lot of money.
In short, good games were made for the Nintendo 64 and SNES, which had a fraction of the Wii U hardware capabilities, and so it's only under-powered when you consider third-party ports. That, plus the touch-screen controller, makes Nintendo an unlikely contender for game studios wanting to release their games onto numerous platforms, as the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One offer more consistently-comparable hardware specifications, and thus you'll likely see the two systems sharing multiple different games.
Nintendo, on the other hand, will have to rely on their own first-party developments: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Smash Bros and so-on. It's quite an exciting time.
Microsoft recently unveiled a new graphics technology that I'm very excited about: when you're texturing a large mesh, you typically need the texture to remain in memory. This is what mip-mapping is good for, because you can use lower-quality textures to cover a large area and reserve the expensive high-resolution textures for parts of a mesh that are more visible to the player. But now, with their 'Graphine' tiled textures, you can basically only load parts of a huge texture into memory, effectively getting high-quality high-resolution textures for about 16MB.
So, the primary reason why consoles (and gaming computers) have so much RAM is for textures. They are huge arrays of data, often gigabytes large for something with a lot of detail. Now you don't need to use all of that RAM, theoretically (I SAID THEORETICALLY!) and that means, well, good news! Of course, it requires DirectX 11.2, which means you can't run it unless you're using Windows 8.1 or an Xbox One...
But anyway, the Wii U was built for simple games without all of the graphical bells and whistles that modern gaming strives to provide; my theory is that Nintendo has decided against investing millions into almost-negligible graphical upgrades and, instead, wishes to compete in the arena of gameplay, which is incredibly wise, as games are only going to swallow more and more money as graphical quality increases and we can have all manner of beautiful lighting effects. This, of course, means less time for story, gameplay and engaging characters, but at least the dull, lifeless characters will be incredibly well-lit on the Xbox One! Heheh...
Nintendo's machine is certainly slow when compared to a PC or the latest console offerings from Microsoft and Sony, but as a gaming platform it can run enough to produce fun and interesting games, and I would not count it out yet. One of the bigger problems with it, which has very little to do with the hardware specifications, is its large touch-screen controller.
Because it's mandatory and none of the other consoles use these, developers are essentially writing code that's only going to be used on one machine.
Also, the notion of backwards compatibility has hung around since Microsoft and Sony both told us we'd have no luck in that respect. But consider the games that the 'Wii U' can run: It supports Wii, Game Cube, Nintendo 64 games, and SNES, NES, Neo Geo and SEGA Master System titles! The unfortunate thing is that these cannot be loaded via their original cartridges, but instead must be purchased via their 'Nintendo Network'. The console runs them on a virtual machine.
Now, I'm sure there will be home-brew emulators available for both the Xbox and PlayStation consoles, but these Nintendo games are official: the company is basically looking backwards and offering up both their pre-existing game libraries and those of other classic consoles. It's a clever exercise in nostalgia, which we all know is worth a lot of money.
In short, good games were made for the Nintendo 64 and SNES, which had a fraction of the Wii U hardware capabilities, and so it's only under-powered when you consider third-party ports. That, plus the touch-screen controller, makes Nintendo an unlikely contender for game studios wanting to release their games onto numerous platforms, as the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One offer more consistently-comparable hardware specifications, and thus you'll likely see the two systems sharing multiple different games.
Nintendo, on the other hand, will have to rely on their own first-party developments: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Smash Bros and so-on. It's quite an exciting time.
Microsoft recently unveiled a new graphics technology that I'm very excited about: when you're texturing a large mesh, you typically need the texture to remain in memory. This is what mip-mapping is good for, because you can use lower-quality textures to cover a large area and reserve the expensive high-resolution textures for parts of a mesh that are more visible to the player. But now, with their 'Graphine' tiled textures, you can basically only load parts of a huge texture into memory, effectively getting high-quality high-resolution textures for about 16MB.
So, the primary reason why consoles (and gaming computers) have so much RAM is for textures. They are huge arrays of data, often gigabytes large for something with a lot of detail. Now you don't need to use all of that RAM, theoretically (I SAID THEORETICALLY!) and that means, well, good news! Of course, it requires DirectX 11.2, which means you can't run it unless you're using Windows 8.1 or an Xbox One...
But anyway, the Wii U was built for simple games without all of the graphical bells and whistles that modern gaming strives to provide; my theory is that Nintendo has decided against investing millions into almost-negligible graphical upgrades and, instead, wishes to compete in the arena of gameplay, which is incredibly wise, as games are only going to swallow more and more money as graphical quality increases and we can have all manner of beautiful lighting effects. This, of course, means less time for story, gameplay and engaging characters, but at least the dull, lifeless characters will be incredibly well-lit on the Xbox One! Heheh...