Wii U graphics.

#61DynheartPosted 11/6/2012 3:01:10 PM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
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.


It's marketing/leasing/other little things as well. Console games this gen, and last gen...heck...has been for a long time, has always been more expensive than PC gaming (to purchase the actual games).

So go ahead, churn out the photo realistic graphics on a high powered PC. It will be released for $50 bucks (rarely $60). Where as console games have been $60-$65 this gen...on inferior tech. Their excuse? Manpower/tech needed to make it work.

So something is going on in those studio's. Whatever it is, with more power for next gen...it will be more expensive for consoles. Mark my words.
---
Currently suffering Final Fantasy XIII-2
#62DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 3:08:48 PM(edited)
@Totten
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/crytek-crysis-cost-22-million-next-engine-due-2012/

Crysis $22 million, makes Halo and CoD look like Atari games and costs much less to develop.

Pretty much a joke how much its costing developers to constantly push crap hardware.

Also a million to license an engine is nothing... They save so much from trying to make an engine.


@Dynehart

You completely missed the mark on everything.

Reasons why PC games WERE cheaper (not anymore)

1)PC sales sucked balls because of piracy and was on its way out, being replaced by MMOs
2)It raised its price as soon as it was moving units again
3)Consoles actually charge developers more for selling on the console and retail copies also cost way more than digital copies, which is what is allowing the explosion of indie development


Your point about market and other stuff I've ALREADY taken into account for my budgets. Halo was $30 mil to DEVELOP and an additional $30mil to market.

Porting games to PCs with much higher settings is also often cheaper than porting a game to PS3.

Whether it costs more money to develop is completely up to individual developers. More power just means that developers who don't want to spend tons of money will get a naturally superior product without putting in as much effort as it would be on weaker hardware. Free aliasing, easy to achieve stable frames, higher resolutions, more of the pre-licensed engines features working without much optimization and so on.

Basically if the next gen hardware is way stronger, than it may cost developers 20 million to push a game on the Wii U and still not have it look as good as a 10 million game on another console.
---
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
#63DynheartPosted 11/6/2012 3:10:49 PM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/crytek-crysis-cost-22-million-next-engine-due-2012/

Crysis $22 million, makes Halo and CoD look like Atari games and costs much less to develop.

Pretty much a joke how much its costing developers to constantly push crap hardware.

@Dynehart

You completely missed the mark on everything.

Reasons why PC games WERE cheaper (not anymore)

1)PC sales sucked balls because of piracy and was on its way out, being replaced by MMOs
2)It raised its price as soon as it was moving units again
3)Consoles actually charge developers more for selling on the console and retail copies also cost way more than digital copies, which is what is allowing the explosion of indie development


Your point about market and other stuff I've ALREADY taken into account for my budgets. Halo was $30 mil to DEVELOP and an additional $30mil to market.

Porting games to PCs with much higher settings is also often cheaper than porting a game to PS3.

Whether it costs more money to develop is completely up to individual developers. More power just means that developers who don't want to spend tons of money will get a naturally superior product without putting in as much effort as it would be on weaker hardware. Free aliasing, easy to achieve stable frames, higher resolutions, more of the pre-licensed engines features working without much optimization and so on.

Basically if the next gen hardware is way stronger, than it may cost developers 20 million to push a game on the Wii U and still not have it look as good as a 10 million game on another console.


I'm just going to stop. I have read all your posts in this thread. It's basically this:

I'm right.
You're wrong.

You wont read what I have to say. You're already in the right. No point in debating.
---
Currently suffering Final Fantasy XIII-2
#64DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 3:48:21 PM
lol seems like a lot of people use that cop out these days. I gave you clear examples, you just choose to ignore them and reduce my argument because your too lazy to read it.

Maybe I imply that I am right because

a)Retail games DO cost more than DD games
b)PC games HAVE been on the decline and are now mostly $60
c)Games on consoles DO cost more despite being visually inferior, whether its proven by ports or exclusives

Oh and ignore the fact that you thought that the Halo budget included marketing when that was a separate $30 million.

Of course you completely hate to have to acknowledge any of these realities so you make some silly statement and pretend that you are above such discussions because you do not have the capacity to participate in them.
---
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
#65AmmonitidaPosted 11/6/2012 3:53:27 PM
knightimex posted...
Name an Xbox 360 game that's better looking than this:
http://videos.videopress.com/8UI8Vaqj/pg_nd_w101_j_hd_hd.mp4

No jaggies, 60fps,no muddy textures, graphical quality on par or better.

I'll be waiting, definitely not going to hold my breath.


Those graphics are CELL SHADED, so of course they're going to look a little cleaner than current gen graphics using traditional rendering techniques. Even the old Wind Waker game looks very crisp and clean by today's standards. That's because cell shaded engines, in keeping with the cartoony look, don't employ as many textures, and this means less texture distortion and jaggies. In other words, cell shading can help mask hardware limitations.

With that said, I can think of MANY 360 games that still look tons better than "Wonderful", even without cell shading. Forza 3 and Horizon are just two examples. For cell-shaded games, check out Double Dragon Neon. Looks every bit as good as "Wonderful".
#66Shamrock99Posted 11/6/2012 5:20:51 PM
1) Dreamcast launch: SoulCalibur is far beyond anything Saturn/PS1/N64 could ever do.
2) Saturn launch: Panzer Dragoon is far beyond anything Genesis/SNES/NEO-GEO could ever do.
3) Genesis launch: Altered Beast is far beyond anything SMS/NES could ever do.

It was the 360 launch that had troubles showing how advanced the "next gen" would end up being...the early games were merely HD facelifts of Xbox/PS2/GCN titles.

Now, Wii U is following suit and showing NOTHING at launch that is "far beyond" what the last gen could do. It will take time, but Wii U will eventually show off its power. Then PS4 and 720 will crush it with crazy tech right out of the gate. Or maybe they'll go the Nintendo route and only do a slight graphical upgrade for their next gen offerings...?
---
http://i.imgur.com/Fx1qb.gif http://tinyurl.com/cbrjfhk http://i.imgur.com/WdBGe.gif
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#67DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 5:24:38 PM
360 launched with Condemned and Kameo... it was way better than anything on the PS2 or Xbox.
---
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
#68Shamrock99Posted 11/6/2012 5:31:56 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
360 launched with Condemned and Kameo... it was way better than anything on the PS2 or Xbox.

I've seen GCN and Xbox games with graphics on that level...examples being Resident Evil 4, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, and Ninja Gaiden Black.

Meanwhile...
- Star Fox on SNES isn't even close to Panzer Dragoon on Saturn
- Tekken 3 on PS1 isn't even close to SoulCalibur on Dreamcast
- Battletoads on NES isn't even close to Altered Beast on Genesis
---
http://i.imgur.com/Fx1qb.gif http://tinyurl.com/cbrjfhk http://i.imgur.com/WdBGe.gif
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#69DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 9:21:28 PM
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/659/659056/condemned-criminal-origins-20051017070110916.jpg

vs

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/resident-evil-4-screenshot-cultists.jpg

and

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/519/519130/the-chronicles-of-riddick-escape-from-butcher-bay-20040526030620081.jpg

Really?
---
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
#70Shamrock99Posted 11/6/2012 10:19:52 PM(edited)
^^ I can play the high quality screen shot vs. low quality screen shot game too!

RIDDICK:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/919755_20040525_screen002.jpg

VS.

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/250/926309_20050908_screen009.jpg

or

NINJA GAIDEN BLACK:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/137/928401_20050518_screen004.jpg

VS.

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/292/reviews/926309_20051020_screen004.jpg



Really. Not only is the Condemned screen shot you posted much higher resolution than the screen shots you picked for RE4 and Riddick, but the game itself was designed for and natively runs in HD resolutions (720p). Meanwhile, RE4 and Riddick were designed for and run in 480p - we're talking Wii resolution vs. 360 resolution here!

If you were to take the Condemned graphics engine and design it to run natively at 480p, then compare it to other 480 resolution games like Riddick, RE4, or Ninja Gaiden Black, you'd see that without the resolution jump the graphics are actually quite close!

Again, if RE4 was created to run at a native 720p and Condemned was designed to run natively at 480p, you would see that these games, although running on hardware drastically different in power from each other, look quite the same in quality:

RE4:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2011/207/625524_20110727_screen003.jpg

VS

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/320/reviews/926309_20051117_screen029.jpg

Without the resolution jump in game or screen shot, you'd be hard pressed to find a big difference in polygon count and texture mapping quality.
---
http://i.imgur.com/Fx1qb.gif http://tinyurl.com/cbrjfhk http://i.imgur.com/WdBGe.gif
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat