General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[Autosaver]

Of course, but that really doesn't mean the last gen versions are "ass". AC4 is probably the last example I would use.

[Kaabiitorori]

I've never downloaded a retail game from the eShop before. So there's really no point in me getting an external hard drive, as I usually go retail.

 

Ah I see. It's just that your "B. Buy another USB stick and download Splinter Cell Blacklist" option made me wonder whether you purchase eShop games frequently and therefore maybe the use of an external HDD would suit you better or not. Fair enough then! =)

[Sami]

The... PS4 version really doesn't look that much better? Yeah, it looks a little cleaner, but I don't get what you're saying. Its not a significant improvement graphically. We're at a point where graphics themselves really aren't going to improve a whole lot at all, not with the same kind of improvement we got in past generations. There's some improvement, but its not as significant as you're implying.

 

I'm not denying a damn thing. X-Box One and PS4 are a lot better than last gen and Wii U. But the graphical capabilities aren't so significant of an advancement from last gen, especially when you consider how previous generation gaps were huge jumps in graphical capabilities. And the Wii U's graphics don't look "bad" by any means of the word, that was all I was saying.

 

 

Its the things OTHER than graphics that sets the current-gen consoles ahead of last gen (and Wii U). Framerate, memory, space. The graphics are improved, but its not nearly so significant as it was in previous generations.

 

This argument is flawed on several levels, so I suppose I'll try going one by one - 

 

1. 720p in 2014 is poor, sorry. It's not 2006 anymore. When 1080p has been the standard among televisions for almost six years now, there's no excuse. The difference is night and day.

 

2. Graphical leap isn't as significant as last gen? ... You say this by using a cross-gen game to compare? I mean, don't get me wrong, the resolution alone makes an enormous difference and all of the added effects make the other version look like ass in comparison, sure, but seriously?

 

Well, hey, if a bunch of launch title cross-gen games are fair play for comparisons, then I'd go as far as to say that the leap between Gen 6 and Gen 7 was pretty shit too.

 

 

 

360-

 

PS2-

 

"It's just a little bit clearer"

 

3. Exclusive games this generation already look leaps and bounds better than what we've gotten on the PS3 and 360. The difference is, once again, night and day. Especially when you consider you're seeing 2.5x as many pixels being rendered and thus over double the amount of detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(look at them in full size to make the difference even bigger but even when shrunk the parity is extremely clear)

 

4. We're still at the very beginning of the generation. Even when not taking cross-gen development into account, games developed early on in the console's life cycle always look awful compared to what comes later.

 

 

 

 

5. Man looking back the 360 was hardly even a leap over the original Xbox huh

 

 

 

360-

Xbox-

 

 

"Last gen versions look like ass"

 

Links to footage that don't show that much of a difference in next-gen AC4.

 

I lol'd

 

Yeah, the one on the left looks like ass. The textures suck, the particle effects are nonexistent, the aliasing is horrendous, and the character models are less detailed.

 

 

Of course, but that really doesn't mean the last gen versions are "ass". AC4 is probably the last example I would use.

 

That image is compressed to shit and not a good example at all.

 

Here's an actual clear comparison.

 

The difference is just as big as it was last time, and this will only become more clear as time goes by. My PS3 would probably explode trying to run Infamous Second Son at 1080p.

[PSI Wind]

I still personally think we should aim for 60 FPS instead to give a much more responsive game. A game can look fucking amazing (Unleashed), but when the framerate is bad (PS3 version except in Holaska) it looks jarring and worse than it could've been, especially with my example because you get a taste of it.

That's not to say you can't go 1080p 60 FPS, but look at Ryse. 30 FPS 900p

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

 

But you...

 

 

 

... Whatever, okay. At least we don't have to talk about this shit anymore. 

 

 

Well yeah, it's still just a notion, but this is a case where I can actually see it ringing true for once.

 

Can't say I agree with your opinions on last gen though. To say nothing of the PS3 and Xbox 360's wonders just because the current gen looks somewhat better seems rather cold and tasteless. Not to mention the possibility that companies are just all together giving more umph to the 8th gen counterparts than the 7th gen counterparts these days.

[Autosaver]

http://www.gamekapocs.hu/media/hirek/mgsv_ps3vps4.gif

 

Still not a good example.

 

I'm not saying there is no difference from PS3 to PS4. All I'm saying is AC4 isn't really the game to use when comparing the jump in graphics. It's not that big of a jump there. A multiplat will never really show off the system.

 

Now if you compare screenshots of InFamous to InFamous Second Son, the difference can be seen.

[Sami]

I'm pretty fucking sick of performance being sacrificed for fancy effects as well, but to me a stable 30 is good enough. I can forgive a few relatively unnoticeable dips here and there, but shit like MGS4 and Sonic Unleashed is god damn unacceptable. :|

 

30fps is the barest necessity there is, followed closely by image quality (higher resolutions and/or anti-aliasing), then 60fps.

 

 

Still not a good example.

 

I'm not saying there is a different from PS3 to PS4. All I'm saying is AC4 isn't really the game to use when comparing the jump in graphics. They're really not that big of a jump.

 

Now if you compare screenshots of InFamous to InFamous Second Son, the difference can be seen.

 

I wasn't comparing the generational leap, though. I was saying the Wii U version looks poor compared to the PS4 version, and it does. Just like the PS3 version of MGSV looks poor compared to the PS4 version. Comparing the two inFamous games is a whole other argument altogether.

 

The main point regarding Assassins Creed stems from the Batman discussion - why on Earth would someone pay $60 for the version that looks vastly inferior? To deny its inferiority is just silly to me, the difference is immediately noticeable.

 

 

I still personally think we should aim for 60 FPS instead to give a much more responsive game. A game can look fucking amazing (Unleashed), but when the framerate is bad (PS3 version except in Holaska) it looks jarring and worse than it could've been, especially with my example because you get a taste of it.

That's not to say you can't go 1080p 60 FPS, but look at Ryse. 30 FPS 900p

 

Oh, and something else I want to add, actually - higher resolutions affect gameplay as well. The greater the resolution, the greater the amount of pixels on screen, the more you can actually see. This is especially noticeable in shooters. The difference between Peace Walker on PSP and PS3 is fucking monumental thanks to resolution alone. Your aim vastly improves because you can actually see what you're aiming at from a distance.

[Autosaver]

Yeah honestly, I wouldn't really pay $60 for Arkham Knight.

[PSI Wind]

Maybe for some games, 30 FPS solid works. For games like Sonic or Mario, 60 FPS helps out in both graphics and gameplay. And for something like MGS, it needs both to be truly wonderful. Of course, the Ground Zeroes last-gen ports will be fine games, but not the best.

[Sami]

Yeah honestly, I wouldn't really pay $60 for Arkham Knight.

 

Okay, thank you. That's all I was really saying about the cross-gen games to begin with.

 

The rest of that post is referring to the "diminishing returns it's not that big a difference" argument which I'm admittedly really god damn tired of. There's more to gaming visuals than just polygon counts.

I still personally think we should aim for 60 FPS instead to give a much more responsive game. A game can look fucking amazing (Unleashed), but when the framerate is bad (PS3 version except in Holaska) it looks jarring and worse than it could've been, especially with my example because you get a taste of it.

That's not to say you can't go 1080p 60 FPS, but look at Ryse. 30 FPS 900p

 

For what it's worth, Ryse had pretty good anti-aliasing to compensate. It's not replacement, mind you, but it makes it easier to swallow. The game looks fine when upscaled to 1080p;

 

 

The framerate never dips below 26fps during actual gameplay, but I do hope things improve performance-wise.

[Wraith]

I can see why the whole "diminishing returns" argument exists honestly. A lot of developers don't even take advantage of extra power to create bigger games. Just prettier ones. Games on average aren't much bigger or longer than they were 10 years ago. It may not be necessarily 100% correct but I can see how many come to that conclusion.

[Sami]

I can see why the whole "diminishing returns" argument exists honestly. A lot of developers don't even take advantage of extra power to create bigger games. Just prettier ones. Games on average aren't much bigger or longer than they were 10 years ago. It may not be necessarily 100% correct but I can see how many come to that conclusion.

 

Hm... I dunno if I'd say that. The scope between big PS3 games and big PS2 games is pretty substantial, and the hardware specs now allow for just as large of a leap in that kind of design. 

 

I mean, I can understand it when people are comparing late generation PS3 games to PS2 games and expecting a leap like that, but I don't think that it's a fair comparison yet. I think the difference between inFamous games is pretty big as is, and it's a shame that the Wii U isn't really getting that. I'd love to have seen Mario 3D World in 1080p and with more detailed environments, for instance, and I think Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze looks pretty underwhelming visually.

[Solkia]

Honestly you don't even need to hit 60FPS for fluidity. 45FPS looks exactly the same.

 

Just set the framecap at 45-50, the lack of 15 frames isn't going to mean anything.

 

You can have 1080p and a fluid game on Wii U, I'm not sure why the goal is 60FPS when 45FPS has the same effect.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Well looks like Nintendo is trying to clear up misconceptions in japan at least about the wii-u, they just opened a site dedicated to it

http://www.gonintendo.com/s/223968-japan-nintendo-opens-a-new-wii-u-site-to-explain-the-system

the actual site in japanese http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wiiu/hardware/pickup/index.html

Maybe we should ask our native japanese member on her thoughts about the site

[Kaabiitorori]

Well looks like Nintendo is trying to clear up misconceptions in japan at least about the wii-u, they just opened a site dedicated to it

http://www.gonintendo.com/s/223968-japan-nintendo-opens-a-new-wii-u-site-to-explain-the-system

the actual site in japanese http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wiiu/hardware/pickup/index.html

Maybe we should ask our native japanese member on her thoughts about the site

 

Seriously, I ADORE the 2D Mario art they have used for the website (much akin to Super Mario 3D World). They are gorgeous~ *_*

 

 

 

 

[MegasonicZX]

Seriously, I ADORE the 2D Mario art they have used for the website (much akin to Super Mario 3D World). They are gorgeous~ *_*

 

 

 

 

Bowser and kamek watching youtube/hulu is probably the best thing that came out of this.

[Kaabiitorori]

Bowser and kamek watching youtube/hulu is probably the best thing that came out of this.

 

 

"First the Internet. Then THE WORLD!"

[Conando]

I do have a question. How is below 1080p somehow not acceptable in this day and age? Barely any Xbone and PS4 games reach it, and aren't even 60 fps at the sub full HD resolutions (Xbone is typically 720 while PS4 is 900p); while the PS3 and Xbox 360 frequently had sub-HD (as in sub 720) resolutions that were upscaled? If you're going by native 1080p consistently, all of them are horribly outdated (well, that and 4k TVs and Monitors are becoming affordable now. None of them are cutting edge. Not even close). Get used to it if the AAA developers continue on their quest to make obnoxious resource hog games, they're going to choose more particle effects and bells and whistles over 1080p every time.

 

Edit: Also. Discoid, please don't tell me you're using bullshots to get your point across. Second Son and Killzone were confirmed to not look as good as the screenshots and early trailers. Solkia had it right with the Batman thing, we should have left it at that. (Not particularly singling you out with that last sentence, that's a general statement.)

[Salamander]

Other consoles sure do have a lot of boring hyperrealistic humans, huh.  Oh, and highly detailed fabric, can't forget that.  These totally noticeable advancements in graphical power definitely look like they're being used in worthwhile and interesting ways to enrich the player experience.

[Sami]

I do have a question. How is below 1080p somehow not acceptable in this day and age? Barely any Xbone and PS4 games reach it, and aren't even 60 fps at the sub full HD resolutions (Xbone is typically 720 while PS4 is 900p); while the PS3 and Xbox 360 frequently had sub-HD (as in sub 720) resolutions that were upscaled? If you're going by native 1080p consistently, all of them are horribly outdated (well, that and 4k TVs and Monitors are becoming affordable now. None of them are cutting edge. Not even close). Get used to it if the AAA developers continue on their quest to make obnoxious resource hog games, they're going to choose more particle effects and bells and whistles over 1080p every time.

Edit: Also. Discoid, please don't tell me you're using bullshots to get your point across. Second Son and Killzone were confirmed to not look as good as the screenshots and early trailers. Solkia had it right with the Batman thing, we should have left it at that. (Not particularly singling you out with that last sentence, that's a general statement.)

Those aren't bullshots, for starters. Judging from the uncompressed b-roll footage InFamous looks as good as advertised, and Killzone looks just like that screenshot. Think I'd know, considering I've owned it since November. The shot still has slight imperfections you can see if you look for them, like jagged lines on the grass.

Also not sure where you're getting the "900p is the standard" thing from either. 1080p is very much the standard on PS4. Look here if you don't believe me - http://m.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

In regards to 4K being on the horizon; yes, it's arrived. No, it's not the standard or anything even remotely close to that. Do you own a 4K TV? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does, either. I'm not asking for "cutting edge", I'm asking for native support for what has been standard since 2008. I can accept anti-aliased 900p as "close enough" if the game looks good otherwise, but yes, 720p is unacceptable for me. That's exactly why I'm perfectly willing to buy Gen 8 ports of Gen 7 games - double the resolution makes an enormous and extremely noticeable difference. In 2014, 720p looks bad.

I don't expect you to agree, and that's fine. However when expected to invest several hundreds of dollars on a new machine, I expect a substantial leap from the old one. Two of the new consoles provide this, and one does not. Why pay hundreds for performance almost exactly the same as the console I've already owned for over half a decade?

Other consoles sure do have a lot of boring hyperrealistic humans, huh. Oh, and highly detailed fabric, can't forget that. These totally noticeable advancements in graphical power definitely look like they're being used in worthwhile and interesting ways to enrich the player experience.

Yeah man it really is such a shame that everything that isn't arbitrarily bright and cartoony looks exactly the same. It's almost as if there are more differentiating factors in art than "cartoony" and "not cartoony", how crazy.

[Willsy]

Wait, I thought the Wii U could handle 1080p? Maybe I'm wrong? I dunno, could someone clear this up for me?

[Sami]

Wait, I thought the Wii U could handle 1080p? Maybe I'm wrong? I dunno, could someone clear this up for me?

It depends on the content. Technically it can, but so can the PS3 and 360. The only retail games rendered natively at 1080p are, as far as I recall, Rayman Legends and Wind Waker HD. There might be one or two others I'm forgetting, but I don't think so. Everything else is 720p, including Donkey Kong, both Mario games, Pikmin 3, etc. Smash is also 1080p, but I don't think any other upcoming game is.

[Blacklightning]

It depends on the content. Technically it can, but so can the PS3 and 360. The only retail games rendered natively at 1080p are, as far as I recall, Rayman Legends and Wind Waker HD. There might be one or two others I'm forgetting, but I don't think so.

A quick google search indicates that MK8 and Bayonetta 2 will run native 1080p/60fps. On the currently released side, fucking MH3U of all games hits 1080p, though considering it uses 3DS assets upping the resolution can't have been terribly difficult. There's talk that ZombiU and CoD pulls it off, but I can't find anything cement that's not either outdated or potential fanboy wanking.

 

Me personally, I'm of the stance that doesn't give a fuck either way, but I think I already made that known.

[Sami]

A quick google search indicates that MK8 and Bayonetta 2 will run native 1080p/60fps. On the currently released side, fucking MH3U of all games hits 1080p, though considering it uses 3DS assets upping the resolution can't have been terribly difficult. There's talk that ZombiU and CoD pulls it off, but I can't find anything cement that's not either outdated or potential fanboy wanking.

 

Me personally, I'm of the stance that doesn't give a fuck either way, but I think I already made that known.

Native screenshots of both Bayonetta and Mario Kart 8 are 720p, only Smash is providing native 1080p screenshots and footage. Call of Duty is 640p and ZombiU is 720p. M3U is 1080p though, yeah. Thought I was forgetting something.

Sources-

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/zombiu-performance-analysis-video

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-wii-u-face-off

[Mr Loopone]

I do have a question. How is below 1080p somehow not acceptable in this day and age? Barely any Xbone and PS4 games reach it, and aren't even 60 fps at the sub full HD resolutions (Xbone is typically 720 while PS4 is 900p); while the PS3 and Xbox 360 frequently had sub-HD (as in sub 720) resolutions that were upscaled? If you're going by native 1080p consistently, all of them are horribly outdated (well, that and 4k TVs and Monitors are becoming affordable now. None of them are cutting edge. Not even close). Get used to it if the AAA developers continue on their quest to make obnoxious resource hog games, they're going to choose more particle effects and bells and whistles over 1080p every time.

 

 

In terms of PC gaming, they have had 1080p resolutions since the monitors first supported it and is a reason why many people play gaming on a PC. It is also the reason why some PC players are jumping straight to 4K even though at the moment, the standards aren't fully finalised [only just got finalised this year] and not many companies are making 4K monitors [seems to be mainly Chinese and Korean makes]. Plus there aren't any 4K Blu-ray players yet so at the moment, it is a smaller audience. Even then not everyone is a dedicated PC gamer, that's why I think this console generation is going to be shorter so when the PS5 and the one after the Xbox One come out they support 4K when the audience has expanded beyond the early adaptors. Well unless the PS4 and the Xbox One get redesigns that include HDMI 2.0. Then again if developers find it hard to reach 1080p, it will be even worse with 4K.

 

Regarding less than 1080p though on the new consoles, it depends on how the developers handle it. If it is a cartoony style with some AA, it wouldn't be as bad and harder to notice the lower resolution but if it is a more realistic style then it can be noticeable even with the best AA solution unless the developers took special care or have an art design that can upscale good. It could also be a budget/time thing since it takes longer to make a larger detailed texture and might have had a shorter development cycle. While the PS4 will able to handle 1080p better than the Xbone (can run it with compomises) and very hard on the Wii U (a bit like the PS3, a few 1080p games but not the standard), with developers focus on graphics might see plenty of sub-1080p games later in the generation unless Sony put a requirement for a minimum resolution + frame rate or the developers get better and more 1080p games. Regarding the Wii U, wouldn't expect many more games that use 1080p since Nintendo are mostly happy with 720p unless Nintendo develop HD remakes of Gamecube/Wii games. Besides given the choice would rather have a higher performance than lots of unneeded effects providing that the game still looks good, even though irony is that I can play games as low as 12fps providing that is the target [N64 games, Road Rash 2] and not going from say 60fps to 20fps (slowdown).

 

Despite Discoid's point saying that 1080p was a standard 6 years ago, that seems to apply in the US/Japan? or anyone who had a Blu-ray player/PS3 to watch Blu-ray movies that compared to DVD is a smaller target audience. Even then there were only a few 1080p games on the PS3 such as WipEout HD, the Rayman games and slightly less than full 1080p Gran Turismo 5 and 6, the latter having more framerate problems due to higher resolution. Okami HD apparently runs at a 4K resolution interally but find it hard to believe. In Europe only some TV shows (the latest shows, documentaries and American imports) are in 1080p, many are still in 720p or 1080i even programmes that are made to this day with local news going as down as 576i [e.g. on my TV, I can't local news on the HD channel and instead comes from a different area altogether]. Plus there aren't many HD channels with most of them having to pay extra even if someone already has a satellite subscription just for better picture quality however there are more than in the past. Regarding TV sets, only the past year or two have most sets been 1080p as a standard with 720p only been reserved for very cheap/old sets or the case of the low end but more common Panasonic plasmas (such as X60, ones like the ST60, GT60, VT60 and ZT60 were more of a specialist area).

 

There are some countries that don't have 1080p sets, some not even 720p though.