"Devs just need more time to make use of the Wii U's hardware"

#21RJtheRedRanger(Topic Creator)Posted 11/29/2012 9:46:17 AM
From: MichaelDeAngelo | #020
RJtheRedRanger posted...
The quote in my topic title was referring to the argument people use when the Wii U's graphics are being lol'd at. People say the devs just need more time.

More time for what, and how much?


There's always the chance that I'm wrong, but this is the first time a home console relies on a GPGPU instead of a CPU. The developers need to grow accustomed to the new infrastructure to optimize the games.

I hope you're right.

How long will this 'getting used to' take?
---
http://i.imgur.com/YR45k.gif http://i.imgur.com/Btb9k.gif http://i.imgur.com/Fi885.gif http://i.imgur.com/fvHn9.gif http://i.imgur.com/x01Ry.jpg
#22googlerPosted 11/29/2012 9:46:31 AM
Its not an excuse because its style of hardware configuration has been around for over a decade (gpgpu), and it was kind of a bad choice when its coupled with the gpu they chose with the weaker CPU and low-grade RAM. I think a few first party games may look good but 3rd party will continue to be worse than the games on PS360 because...
a: they'd need to be built from the ground up for that kind of set up
b: lack luster 3rd party sales so far gives little incentive to port, let alone spending all those resources for a much more customized build for a game
c: while the concept of a gpgpu is sound, it all the depends on the circumstances its used in, and for gaming isn't exactly ideal. But even so, the results should have been much better than they were, which all points back to poor hardware.
#23dominatinggamerPosted 11/29/2012 9:47:45 AM
jesse7150 posted...
I like to be optimistic when for all we know we don't know. Or I could whine and be pissimistic.


I don't know if you spelled 'pessimistic' wrong on purpose or not but, I like your version either way.
---
With friends like you, who needs enemies?
#24Tuggboat1121Posted 11/29/2012 9:48:32 AM
RJtheRedRanger posted...
The quote in my topic title was referring to the argument people use when the Wii U's graphics are being lol'd at. People say the devs just need more time.

More time for what, and how much?


Look at launch 360 / PS3 games. Look at them now. If you don't think it takes time to fully utilize a systems hardware.. You're not very smart.
---
New England Patriots: 8-3
XBL: Clayton Bigsbe. PSN/Nintendo ID: ClaytonBigsbe
#25Banjo2553Posted 11/29/2012 9:49:44 AM(edited)
RJtheRedRanger posted...
What the f*** does this even mean? Is this really an excuse?


This happens with every console ever. New architecture comes along, devs do poorly on it at first (look at 360 launch titles), graphics become much better on that same hardware over the years because devs are learning it. Even today games are still looking better and better on PS3/360.
---
Come see my game collection: http://www.backloggery.com/bakonbitz
#26Xeeh_BitzPosted 11/29/2012 9:50:59 AM
jesse7150 posted...
there's more wiiU games than vita games already I think.

But really new systems need time for the install base to grow so it is worth it to make games and then figure out the strengths and weaknesses of a system and make the best games for it.


Vita games are irrelevant, we're discussing Wii U, not other systems
---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#27kissdadookiePosted 11/29/2012 9:52:07 AM
Shift Breaker posted...
The games made haven't been made optimal for the console. Compare graphics among launch game on the PS3/360 and games nowadays. The developers really brought out the best in the console and are really pushing it out now they've got the knack of the consoles. The Wii U is much the same. It may have around the same power as the other consoles released, but it's not the same. The developers need to get used to the console, as it were. There's a reason why most/all(?) the ports aren't of the same quality as the PS3/360 versions.


Problem is, the Wii U from a hardware standpoint, is still essentially a slight bump up from current PS360. So, let us say that they one day finally optimize it, you still end up with hardware running games which are basically a match to the best that came out for the PS360. What happens when devs start ramping up next gen development a year or two after the next Sony and MS boxes come out?

Let's put things into perspective shall we? The next PS is claimed by some devs whom have received the dev kits for the next PS that it's 1) a modified PC 2) the hardware is designed to run games natively at 1080P in 3D at 60 frames per second. A lot of you are probably going to yell and scream at me and try to claim one or both of the following:

1) NO THAT CAN'T BE TRUE! THE NEXT GEN IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY A NEGLIGIBLE BUMP UP IN POWER!
2) OH NO! ANOTHER SONY FAIL! THIS MACHINE IS GOING TO COST LIKE 600 AGAIN!

Let's put those claims into the boundaries of reality shall we? It's obvious if the machine is targeting 1080P in 3D at 60 frames per second for the games, it's NOT a negligible bump up in power. It's actually a big jump in power. Now, the pricing, no, even if the box does do 1080P in 3D at 60 frames per second, it can easily cost just $400 or so. Why? Because a budget gaming PC that YOU AND I can build RIGHT NOW with about $500-$600 worth of components including the power supply and casing for the PC, can do the 1080P in 3D at 60 frames per second with a lot of graphical fidelity. This is ACHIEVABLE right NOW for a VERY modest RETAIL price of $500-$600. Sony and MS will NOT be paying ANYWHERE near the price it would be for you and I to build such a machine, for Sony and MS, what they pay for all those parts will come in closer to $300ish for those components. So at a price point of $400, they would easily be able to break even or take a very negligible Wii U type loss in which one game purchase per system will bring it back up to profitability.

So, the big question is, yeah, devs can optimize fully for the Wii U one day, but how is the Wii U going to compete technology-wise with the next MS and Sony boxes? It's a HUGE leap in power between the Wii U and the next gen MS and Sony boxes and devs are most definitely going to focus mainly on MS and Sony boxes as well as PC as those three would have parity with each other.
#28Xeeh_BitzPosted 11/29/2012 9:54:35 AM
Comparing the Wii U to the Xbox 360's graphical growth via developers learning the system is illogical because the Xbox 360 was a good jump from the previous generation where as the Wii U simply is not.

It'll increase a bit but not nearly as much that the 360 obtained since it's launch, there is absolutely no way in hell you'll see that type of advancement in terms of graphics due to the Wii U simply not having the hardware to do it.
---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#29SkriblZzPosted 11/29/2012 9:56:03 AM
RJtheRedRanger posted...
The quote in my topic title was referring to the argument people use when the Wii U's graphics are being lol'd at. People say the devs just need more time.

More time for what, and how much?


Go play Quake 4 on the 360. Then play Bioshock or something two years or so afterwards. Takes time to utilize new hardware.
---
PSN: Skribz666 | Xbox Live: SkriblZz | Nintendo Network: SkriblZz
#30teknic1200Posted 11/29/2012 9:56:35 AM
RJtheRedRanger posted...
The quote in my topic title was referring to the argument people use when the Wii U's graphics are being lol'd at. People say the devs just need more time.

More time for what, and how much?


it's already better than my xbox, so even more better sounds great.

It's nice not being bombarded with commercials when I power on my console as well.

It's a shame your mom won't let you have a new console, but you don't need to take it out on us, it's quite rude.
---
Today is the Tomorrow you were promised Yesterday