[HiGHFLYiN9]

Quote:

N's going to do HD remakes of all their popular Wii titles and charge full price for them.
 
I kid.
 
I hope. 

I predict that the console will be a complete disappointment to core gamers. I expect slightly better graphics than the Wii with 3D glasses and a built in motion item that you wear that tracks your movements, the console will sell for $299 and cost less than half of that to produce. I hope that I'm wrong... it's tough being a realist  
 
 

 

[oqvist]

Nintendo have several times hinted there will be no 3D and it will instead be considerably more powerful then the stone age PS 3 and 360. Got to give it to Nintendo that they never follow any flow they create their own which make them a bit unpredictable

 

[EddieE]

A few developers have leaked info about the specs. Looks like it'll be more powerful than PS3 but what amounts to "significant" is in the eye of the beholder - I'm no tech guy but from what I read it's alledgedly a souped up Xbox 360, using similar architecture but better components. Don't quote me on that, maybe someone more techhie could weigh in.

What I do know is that the full power of the PS3 is seldom if ever used, mostly because games are developed cross platforms but also, I read, because it is expensive and difficult for a developer to take advantage of the full power of the PS3.
 
If Nintendo make tools that allow the full power of the Wii2/Cafe/Stream to be tapped more easily then "a little more powerful" could easily look "significantly more powerful" on the screen, compared at least to what we are used to.

 

[gloco]

I've been on the sideline for years, but how much better can games look compared to what the PS3 and Xbox 360 are doing?  Seriously, how much more eye candy do consumers want?
 
I think the rush to the top (in term of gfx) has really stunted what the industry is capable of producing as the consumer has become hung up on gfx and specs.
 
Anyway, I'll be keeping an eye on the Wii2 or Project Cafe...whatever they are calling it for now.  

 

[EddieE]

Well if you look at the PC versions of 360/PS3/PC games they always look better, so there is room for improvement even by todays standard.
 
For me, the real test of how good graphics can get is in a football game (association or american - or any large stadium team game really).
 
They might look humble at first glance, but to be "perfect" in that genre there is a seriously long way to go. You have 22 players who all have to look like their real life counterparts, all animated realistically - we're nowhere near that even. Then you have in an ideal world you have real life referees, linesmens, managers and subs benches, coaches on the sidelines, realistic grass, stadia. But the big thing is the crowd -
 
Even when a football game has the core elements perfect, which its nowhere near, there will still be the bench to have a fully textured polygon crowd (randomly generated features/clothes, no one's going to put the effort in for induvidual models) that are completely realistic with a lot of diverse animations, so you can pause the game and zoom in on a dad explaining what's going on to his toddler son in row Q. By today's capabilities that is a looong way in the future so there is plenty of imrpovement to be done.

 

[sridhar3]

Quote:

I've been on the sideline for years, but how much better can games look compared to what the PS3 and Xbox 360 are doing?  Seriously, how much more eye candy do consumers want?
 
I think the rush to the top (in term of gfx) has really stunted what the industry is capable of producing as the consumer has become hung up on gfx and specs.
 
Anyway, I'll be keeping an eye on the Wii2 or Project Cafe...whatever they are calling it for now.  

 
Crysis 2 on PC w/ SLI.  A friend said it, "Looked better than real life."
 

Quote:

Well if you look at the PC versions of 360/PS3/PC games they always look better, so there is room for improvement even by todays standard.
 
For me, the real test of how good graphics can get is in a football game (association or american - or any large stadium team game really).
 
They might look humble at first glance, but to be "perfect" in that genre there is a seriously long way to go. You have 22 players who all have to look like their real life counterparts, all animated realistically - we're nowhere near that even. Then you have in an ideal world you have real life referees, linesmens, managers and subs benches, coaches on the sidelines, realistic grass, stadia. But the big thing is the crowd -
 
Even when a football game has the core elements perfect, which its nowhere near, there will still be the bench to have a fully textured polygon crowd (randomly generated features/clothes, no one's going to put the effort in for induvidual models) that are completely realistic with a lot of diverse animations, so you can pause the game and zoom in on a dad explaining what's going on to his toddler son in row Q. By today's capabilities that is a looong way in the future so there is plenty of imrpovement to be done.

I don't think this will ever happen.  They update stats and have pretty much been using the same graphics for the past few years, and the games still sell like hotcakes, so why waste the time/effort/money to make such improvements?

 

[EddieE]

The megadrive and super nes versions sold like hot cakes why did the playstation and saturn versions look better? And why did the PS2 and Xbox versions look better still when the previous generation still sold like crazy? Given the PS2 and xbox sales you wouldn't think they'd bother making the PS3 and 360 versions look any better yet for some unknown reason...
 
Sorry, but the reason the last few generations have not looked much better is because they've been on the same machines, and still they have done all they can to improve by the increments they can.
 
Developers always want to make games look as good as they can, of course they are going to make their games look better with each new generation.
 
What I described above is the benchmark I hold in my head for video games, the point at which someone can truly say "do systems really need to have better graphics" and I can consider it seriously, until then, yes they do, because they can't do that yet. 

 

[marvin]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91/img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Nintendo has always had systems plague with crappy games because they are for a younger audience generally, and its not like Sony and M$ are not guilty of this either, it was more the ratio that I was talking about.
 
...
 
But where Sony and M$ spent millions on deals with developers trying to get killer IPs and other things, nintendo just rehashed the same old stuff, or remixed hardware and added laggy wiimotes... to me it is the effort level and attitude that bothers me... but I guess that is just how I perceive it.

 

Any successful system is going to see a lot of low budget shovelware. The PS2 had over ten thousand titles available, and the vast majority of those title are as crappy as any shovelware available on the Wii. While there's a lack of compelling third party development on the Wii, mostly due to the lack of crossplatform compatibility with the PS360 (read: UE3 isn't Wii compatible, the Wii's exclusives stack up pretty well in quality (and very well in sales) when compared to it's competitors.
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91/img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Core gamers today are not, generally, real gamers. Yes they play video games but real core gamers are pretty much extinct. Activision pretty much made sure of that with call of duty and the whole 3rd person, hide behind everything shooter didn't help either.

 
You're well into "no true Scotsman" territory. While the sixth and seventh console generations brought in audiences that weren't traditionally thought of as gamers, I fail to see much difference between someone who played Q3A/UT/CS in 1999 and someone who plays CoD/Gears/Halo today. The only real difference is that the latter games give less of an edge to better players in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience.
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91/img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Core gamers today are not, generally, real gamers. Yes they play video games but real core gamers are pretty much extinct. Activision pretty much made sure of that with call of duty and the whole 3rd person, hide behind everything shooter didn't help either.

 
It really isn't a matter of whether it's been done or not. After all, the biggest gaming hits have traditionally been sequels and the big franchises sell more games than ever. The real issue with profitability is that games are much more expensive to make these days. We aren't in the days where hit console games can be made by a small team anymore with budgets that can be recouped by selling a million copies.
 
The high development cost of the HD generation is what's been pushing developers and publishers to move to the Hollywood style "AAA or/and bust" strategy. There isn't much survivable ground between AAA and indie these days and many good developers that worked in that range have closed. The only bright spot is that gaming's still attempting to generate franchises intead of borrowing them wholesale from other less expensive to develop mediums.

 
Quote:

What I described above is the benchmark I hold in my head for video games, the point at which someone can truly say "do systems really need to have better graphics" and I can consider it seriously, until then, yes they do, because they can't do that yet. 

Cost, not technical capability will likely prevent that. An achievement like that is a bit like breaking the land speed record. Technically impressive, but horrifyingly expensive and practically worthless. The "Aren't today's graphics good enough?" idea doesn't push that today's graphics should be the pinnacle of gaming graphics. Rather, it's a statement that the pursuit of graphics has negatively impacted gaming by focusing on eye candy at the expense of quality content and solid mechanics.

 

[gloco]

I run two 5770's in crossfire so I get an idea of what can be done, but I'd rather have a game with deep gameplay.  As much as people poop on Nintendo for what they have done with the Wii, at least they did do something revolutionary with how people play and introducing more casual players to consoles.  Anyway, I enjoy watching Sony lag in sales  
Quote:

 
Crysis 2 on PC w/ SLI.  A friend said it, "Looked better than real life."
 

Quote:

I don't think this will ever happen.  They update stats and have pretty much been using the same graphics for the past few years, and the games still sell like hotcakes, so why waste the time/effort/money to make such improvements?

 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

I run two 5770's in crossfire so I get an idea of what can be done, but I'd rather have a game with deep gameplay.  As much as people poop on Nintendo for what they have done with the Wii, at least they did do something revolutionary with how people play and introducing more casual players to consoles.  Anyway, I enjoy watching Sony lag in sales  


 

No offense, but if you think about what they could pull off with the PS2, and now with the PS3 with proper coding, PCs should be able to pull of a hell of a lot more... but there is no real investment in the PC market, because the consoles are so much more lucrative. The "Nintendo Effect" is pretty far reaching even though the PC is plagued more by piracy really. Why try and compete with technical marvels when you can make hella cash doing nothing... find a product that sells itself. Nintendo did so without getting into the black market, somehow.
 
Maybe id will be able to pull something crazy with Rage... but so far PC gaming is dead if you don't play one of the greats, or maybe SC2.
 
They just keep throwing more powerful pieces of hardware at ancient engines that still can't handle multithreading properly even though dual cores have been out for over 6 years now...
 
Wii would have been an excellent idea had it games that functioned properly/tightly... I still don't see why they just don't add mice support to consoles and call it a day... the sensor technology now has pretty much eclipsed human ability, so while it is not "motion sensing" in the way Nintendo would have you believe in the best, they are supremely effective, and damned accurate if you know what you are doing.
 
The new logitech G500 (as well as all the other mice based on that avago sensor, the new phillips ones suck)  can do like 6 m/s without clipping and can do 1:1 tracking all the way up to 5700 dpi... my wii can't even make it past the OS menu without me having to dust off the IR bar, or the controller having a seizure. Both Razer and Logitech have ultrapolling, wireless mice... the wiimote lags significantly, especially when moved quickly... A big part of gaming is competition, be it with your friends, online, or for fun with whoever... who wants to compete/play with flat tires, broken hockey sticks, or remotes that don't track properly?
 
People don't even seem to like the move that much, and is everything the Wii mote was and more... Play golden eye for the Wii online and you get rolled by people using GC controllers, try socom 4 or killzone 3...same thing. The move lags less, is more robust, more precise and all round what the Wii mote should have been had they taken it seriously... but even with that they don't seem to be able pull off real games with it. Then there is the kinect... atleast with sony and MS you have substance without the peripheral gimmicks.
 
People praise nintendo for a revolution in gaming, when it was really just a revolution in sales.