Wii U graphics.

#51TottentanzPosted 11/6/2012 2:53:36 PM
mistermerk posted...
Tottentanz posted...



Yeah, the graphics are fine, and you should stop worrying about it. The U will be a valid third party dev option for years, and the laughable people who believe third parties will suddenly go through some magic next gen leap are delusional at best. It is going to take a lot of cash and time to push past the U, and anyone who loves gaming knows that publishers prefer the least amount of effort for the greatest reward otherwise Madden would not look like a train wreck every year with promised fixes for the next year each year.


Lol no. Third parties have already pushed past the 360/PS3/Wii U years ago with mid-range PCs. Next gen stuff like Agnis Philosophy, UE 4 demo, Watch Dogs, Starwars 1313, etc. don't just "push past the U," they leave it in the dust. The extra power the other next gen consoles will harness will actually make it easier and cheaper to push past the Wii U, because they can "brute force" their way if need be and not have to rely on time-consuming optimization, etc.


lol, no.

You are bringing up a couple of examples, and UE4 wasnt impressive including the first game using UE4, Fortnite. Squeenix leasing their new engine is the first one to do so, and it is going to be sometime before we see the results assuming they produce anything of note with it.

As for actual third parties using any of the stuff you mentioned in their games, hahahahhaahahahaahahahahahaahhahaah haahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahhhhahaahahahaah......breath....ahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha.....pant pant pant.....ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahhaha

Devs could've past current gen systems years ago, and in some cases they did; however, like always, you assume the best case scenario for the other systems that suddenly pocket books will open up and dump hundreds of millions of dollars on games, engines, and eye popping graphics.

No sir, no sir, no sir, you are wrong as usual, as wrong as you keep touting around that 2.5tflops number as if it means something other than you assumed based on that Samaritan Demo that the numbers used to make it was setting the trend for next gen, and you so happen to forget that the actual flops needed to make it dropped by a tidy sum thanks to them using newer tech that had new capabilities that allowed them to use newer programming that allowed it to drop from 3 GPUs down to just one.

Yeah, I didnt forget where you got that 2.5tflops from, and I didnt forget the other trash you have been throwing around here as if you actually knew a single thing you were talking about. Whatever happened to you and GAF and never coming back here? Did you get banned from there already?

Anyway, back on topic........bahahahahahahaahahahahhaahah ahhahahahhahahahaha.....wipes away tears from my eyes.....hahahahaahhahaahahahahahaahahhahahhahaahahhaaha.......

There is a reason devs focus on consoles instead of PCs beyond just stable target specs, it allows them to sell the same unimproved graphics over and over with newer spit and polish to make gamers happy.

Madden could have gotten improved physics and graphics three games ago, but EA isnt going to dump money on that franchise because it makes money without it.

There are devs making some good money making nostalgia games, and there are devs losing their shirts on AA games.

Exactly what incentives are there for those AAAA games you thought were in the works. If you were a true gamer that loved the game for the game then you would be crying for the death of AAA and AAAA titles because they are stopping new IPs/risks to be taken.

Keep up that pipe-dream though, we need some dreamers in the world that make me laugh this hard.

By the by, your 10x church is built on your lies.
#52DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 3:21:24 PM(edited)
Wtf is that post? God so much ignorant gibberish.

First of all, games won't cost hundreds of millions to look better. In fact, the stronger the hardware, the CHEAPER it is to make it look better than last generation games. Money only becomes an issue when people are trying to push technology to its limits.

This goes back to the discussion I had earlier with other posters on this board. Halo 3 took $30million to make. GTA4 too even more. CoD costs about 20 million per game even though everything just derived from previous games.

Crysis on the other hand costs $10 million for both the creation of the game AND the Cryengine. PC games in general look loads better than console games. Look at Batman AA on PC with full settings...... ridiculous and can be done with a midrange PC running on a 560Ti.

So however much stronger the next consoles are, thats how much cheaper it will be to make games that look much better. The people spending craploads of money are the ones like GTA who are combing every last square inch of the hardware to work around their massively ambitious world.

Second of all, developers don't spend the least for the most. CoD is way more popular than Madden. The fact that you can't stop talking about a single game is quite pathetic and shows how little examples you actually have. CoD spends tens of millions per game because they want to stay on top of the competition whether its things like replays or menus or modes.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#53Beatperson14Posted 11/6/2012 3:21:39 PM
Yes, very bad. Nintensuck
---
MODS=FAQS
#54PotatoHogPosted 11/6/2012 3:25:01 PM
What Wii U games are going to be 1080p? I've heard Call of Duty: Black Ops II was 1080p but have also heard it was 720p.
---
Watching the Rams choke on the Packers Cobb reminds me that Sam "Bad"ford will never be on Godgers level.
#55ArturiaZweiPosted 11/6/2012 3:27:35 PM
I'm sure that the Wii U is capable of more than its ports and some of the first party games might demonstrate, but even if it weren't, I was satisfied with the visuals that I saw. Particularly with Rayman, there was a very appealing visual quality.
#56DynheartPosted 11/6/2012 3:31:24 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Wtf is that post? God so much ignorant gibberish.

First of all, games won't cost hundreds of millions to look better. In fact, the stronger the hardware, the CHEAPER it is to make it look better than last generation games. Money only becomes an issue when people are trying to push technology to its limits.

This goes back to the discussion I had earlier with other posters on this board. Halo 3 took $30million to make. GTA4 too even more. CoD costs about 20 million per game even though everything just derived from previous games.

Crysis on the other hand costs $10 million for both the creation of the game AND the Cryengine. PC games in general look loads better than console games. Look at Batman AA on PC with full settings...... ridiculous and can be done with a midrange PC running on a 560Ti.

So however much stronger the next consoles are, thats how much cheaper it will be to make games that look much better. The people spending craploads of money are the ones like GTA who are combing every last square inch of the hardware to work around their massively ambitious world.

Second of all, developers don't spend the least for the most. CoD is way more popular than Madden. The fact that you can't stop talking about a single game is quite pathetic and shows how little examples you actually have. CoD spends tens of millions per game because they want to stay on top of the competition whether its things like replays or menus or modes.


You make a more powerful system, you want to push it to it's limits, yes?

To maximize this effect, you need more manpower; it comes with the territory. It may be cheaper (don't know how), but the trend sure as hell isn't proving that to be the case.

I would not be surprised to see $70 games, $65 at the very least, on Microsoft's/Sony's next system; as they will need more people to/better tech to maximize the potential for those systems.
---
Currently suffering Final Fantasy XIII-2
#57MotiJrPosted 11/6/2012 3:34:45 PM
Please learn to differentiate between your opinion and fact.
---
Fanboys are a cancer to gaming but Sony fanboys are a particularly aggressive and repulsive form.
#58TottentanzPosted 11/6/2012 3:46:52 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Wtf is that post? God so much ignorant gibberish.

First of all, games won't cost hundreds of millions to look better. In fact, the stronger the hardware, the CHEAPER it is to make it look better than last generation games. Money only becomes an issue when people are trying to push technology to its limits.

This goes back to the discussion I had earlier with other posters on this board. Halo 3 took $30million to make. GTA4 too even more. CoD costs about 20 million per game even though everything just derived from previous games.

Crysis on the other hand costs $10 million for both the creation of the game AND the Cryengine. PC games in general look loads better than console games. Look at Batman AA on PC with full settings...... ridiculous and can be done with a midrange PC running on a 560Ti.

So however much stronger the next consoles are, thats how much cheaper it will be to make games that look much better. The people spending craploads of money are the ones like GTA who are combing every last square inch of the hardware to work around their massively ambitious world.

Second of all, developers don't spend the least for the most. CoD is way more popular than Madden. The fact that you can't stop talking about a single game is quite pathetic and shows how little examples you actually have. CoD spends tens of millions per game because they want to stay on top of the competition whether its things like replays or menus or modes.


Madden could be so much more, and it has a publisher that could make it happen. That is why I bring up Madden here and there. The improvements from game to game is so marginal that the idea that people are toting over the heads of Wii U owners that they dont get the new physics engine is borderline insanity when they should really be asking whey they didnt get that engine 2 years ago.

Dev costs go down as power goes up? How? Magic? No? Improved engines and more dev tools. How is this paid for? That's right, it takes time and money to get used to the new tools let alone to buy the new tools. The systems may have new items in them that makes lighting/shading easier or achieving better depth/tesselation, but actually having the engines/software to put the new power to use costs money.

There are only a handful of engines that merk and you bring up that push beyond current systems with all of them having a large price tag to use, and they will take years to actually produce a game because it's completely new territory.

Then we also need to consider that a lot of games are nothing more than spit and polish on 540p to give the illusion of a better resolution/detail, and actually putting in the detail for a 1080p game is going to again take time/money. 540p, a guy is wearing some pins, and now with 1080p, they are actually going to have to put details on those pins, buttons, hairs, etc rather than using illusions to do so.

These things dont happen with magic, a flip of a switch, or the sudden convenience of more additional power; it is going to take time and money. Just like this gen, there were certain games that looked better, but there were still games that looked barely better or just on par with the Xbox/PS2(look it up yourself I have already posted the vids and so have others). Not all devs will be able to afford the changes and will choose to use their old stuff until they can afford better stuff.

The resources have been there for years on PC, and few devs/publishers ever really tapped them either due to lack of money or lack of potential profit. Yes, once the other systems launch they will have more power, but again, the question of money and profit will be there. It took devs years to get to where they are now, and some are still saying the PS3 has a ways to go before it is finished being pushed(all Sony peeps), but somehow, when the others hit, they will suddenly leap ahead.

lol, no.
#59DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 3:48:29 PM
Dynheart posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
Wtf is that post? God so much ignorant gibberish.

First of all, games won't cost hundreds of millions to look better. In fact, the stronger the hardware, the CHEAPER it is to make it look better than last generation games. Money only becomes an issue when people are trying to push technology to its limits.

This goes back to the discussion I had earlier with other posters on this board. Halo 3 took $30million to make. GTA4 too even more. CoD costs about 20 million per game even though everything just derived from previous games.

Crysis on the other hand costs $10 million for both the creation of the game AND the Cryengine. PC games in general look loads better than console games. Look at Batman AA on PC with full settings...... ridiculous and can be done with a midrange PC running on a 560Ti.

So however much stronger the next consoles are, thats how much cheaper it will be to make games that look much better. The people spending craploads of money are the ones like GTA who are combing every last square inch of the hardware to work around their massively ambitious world.

Second of all, developers don't spend the least for the most. CoD is way more popular than Madden. The fact that you can't stop talking about a single game is quite pathetic and shows how little examples you actually have. CoD spends tens of millions per game because they want to stay on top of the competition whether its things like replays or menus or modes.


You make a more powerful system, you want to push it to it's limits, yes?

To maximize this effect, you need more manpower; it comes with the territory. It may be cheaper (don't know how), but the trend sure as hell isn't proving that to be the case.

I would not be surprised to see $70 games, $65 at the very least, on Microsoft's/Sony's next system; as they will need more people to/better tech to maximize the potential for those systems.


Better looking games ARE cheaper. Look to the PC. Or did you think Halo 3, Killzone 2 and CoD blow Crysis out of the water just because it cost 3x as much to make?

Of course its much cheaper when you have stronger hardware because it takes very little effort to get everything to work. You license an engine and 80% of the work is already done for you. The only way games will be more expensive is if developers CHOOSE to spend more by pushing the engine to its limits

Get this, next generation hardware is going to be ..... WEAKER THAN CURRENT PC HARDWARE. If what you said was even remotely true, PC ports and PC games like Tera should cost 100 million to make.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#60TottentanzPosted 11/6/2012 3:53:33 PM(edited)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now give us the cost to make the first CryEngine for Crysis. Tell us how much R&D there was to make that engine. Then turn around and tell the people that this was likely offset by MS and how that game was part of a MS plan to get people to upgrade their Windows.

Why not tell people the cost of leasing that engine(hint, over a million)?

Edit note: I missed the part where you stated that 80% of the work is done when you lease an engine. LOL, yeah you have the tools, but do you even know how to use them? What about the art? Not all UE3 games look or feel the same for very important reasons, and not all of them are anywhere close to the Batman games.