News Article

Wii U Power Lacks a 'Generational Leap'

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Eurogamer gets technical

Debate about the technical capability of Wii U has been taking place ever since it was revealed at E3 2011, but we're now in a better position after seeing plenty of game footage at E3 2012. The Digital Foundry team at has been picking apart footage from the event and assessing the power that Wii U is potentially offering developers.

The general assessment is that Wii U, although based on more modern technology than Xbox 360 and PS3, only represents a relatively minor boost in graphical capability. Interestingly, a decent portion of the extra power in the system seems to be taken up running the GamePad screen's output, in a similar sense to some of the processor grunt of the 3DS system being used to produce stereoscopic 3D. More power but extra functionality means that not all of that processor capability can be invested in graphics that are significantly improved on Wii U's HD rivals. Below are some key points from the article.

However, the reality is that the picture is very much different for third-party publishers - and it is here that the Wii U appears to remain on shaky ground. E3 2012 demonstrated clearly that the current-gen HD era is coming to a close and, to remain relevant to third parties once Durango and Orbis appear, we really needed to see a significant step beyond what was revealed last year. But Nintendo's E3 showing effectively confirms that there is no unambiguous, generational leap in raw processing power here compared to the current HD consoles, and prior claims that the machine hosts twice the power of the Xbox 360 clearly ring hollow.

Instead, the assets released by Nintendo in particular are notable in how "lo-fi" they are: its own screenshots confirm that some of its most simplistic titles are running at basic 720p resolution with no kind of anti-aliasing whatsoever, just like its demos were a year ago. A closer look at the showcase titles Nintendo debuted at its E3 press conference also shows a puzzling lack of consistency in performance that we wouldn't expect to see in a console based on mature tech less than six months out from release, which we can only explain by the idea that the second screen is imposing more of a drain than we might have otherwise thought.

... However, to survive the upcoming transition from the current HD consoles to their enormously improved successors, Wii U needs enough grunt to at least part-way bridge the generational gap - and there was scant evidence at E3 that the raw power required to do this was on tap. If it is a matter of getting to know the hardware and coaxing out maximum performance, the question is whether the third parties are prepared to invest the required time and effort. Looking back, it took a long, long time for the average standard of PS3 multi-platform titles to match what was being achieved on Xbox 360 and some might argue that Wii U doesn't have the luxury of time on its side.

In the medium term we should expect to see a new range of "cross-gen" titles come to market - the likes of the Unreal Engine 3-powered Star Wars 1313 and Ubisoft's spectacular Watch Dogs are likely to be amongst their number. These titles are almost certain to arrive on the existing HD consoles, but Wii U versions for these and many other key 2013 titles remain unannounced and there was a palpable lack of more current games in the launch line-up.

If you want full-on analysis that assesses frame rates and v-sync, amongst other things, be sure to check out the full Digital Foundry article. Meanwhile, what do you think of these findings so far? Are you worried about the graphics that Wii U can produce short-term and long-term, or is it all about the gaming experience?


From the web

User Comments (159)



Knuckles said:

Graphics aren't everything, but I like them to look at least decent, which the Wii U does tenfold. HD is a nice leap in my opinion to the Wii's graphics
But this, who's to say that the PS4/720 aren't in the same power bracket as the Wii U? The new systems aren't out yet, and Eurogamer is already saying that Sony and Microsoft have better 6th Gen Consoles.



KaiserGX said:

Seeing as I never owned the other 2 consoles it will feel next gen to me.



Raylax said:

This, entirely. I suspect that once Durango and Orbis (I assume these are PS4/X-Box 3 codenames) appear, Wii U will occupy the same bracket as Wii did - one generation behind, getting the dummied-down ports because it lacks the grunt.



Corbs said:

After seeing Rayman Legends up close and personal, it's a big enough leap for me. God that game was gorgeous and silky smooth. It's Nintendo games in HD. Enuff said.



9th_Sage said:

It kind of disturbs me how focused on graphics people are. I guess people don't really care about how fun a game is any more. I'm sure this sounds morose, it just strikes me as something kind of wrong with the industry right now. Everyone is always so focused on the next shiny that they forget that really isn't the most important part of the game.



Alienfish said:

It definitely is true that somewhat of a limit has been reached as far as making games look better. Just take SW:TOR and Diablo 3 for example. They aren't exactly 'next-gen' and they're PC only games as it stands which is kind of a violation considering how PC is said to harbor the highest graphical standard in the gaming industry. Even if the next MS/Sony boxes are raw powerhouses I don't think it will matter much since I won't have much to complain about with the Wii U being as powerful as it is.



RevolverLink said:

It's all about the games of course, and the WiiU controller provides the opportunity for some new and really unique stuff, but to say that I'm not a little disappointed that Nintendo hasn't done more to "future proof" their next home console on the visual front would be untrue.

What's really going to have to set apart the WiiU from its competitors will be how well both developers and consumers embrace this console's unique capabilities - something that ended with mixed results for the Wii this gen.



DreamOn said:

Half the power half the price. Move more consoles sell more NSMB games. Nintendo will never obsess over graphical output. It likes a steady progression to keep familiarity between all it's generations of games whilst adding in new ways to play the same old stuff over again. When you're a Nintendo fan you really gotta see things nintendos way or be dissatisfied looking at just graphics of other consoles who's games will always boast use of the latest tech but in the end will never replicate nintendos game experiences with better graphics.



pkmnguy said:

I'm always annoyed when I hear someone say, "PS3 and XBOX are better than Wii because of their GRAPHICS" because the point of a gaming system is to have fun games. Wii has more creative and a larger variety of games than any of the three so who cares if the graphics aren't as great as the other three. Now, with the Wii U, which has awesome graphics AND lots of awesome games, even if the other 6th gen consoles have better graphics, they can't top the Wii U because of that alone.



ThomasBW84 said:

@Vintage I forget which way round it is but yes, Durango and Orbis are codenames for the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony.

I actually think developer costs could work in Wii U's favour. If studios find it hard to fund Xbox 360 and PS3 projects, I can't see why they'd be delighted to see over-the-top power houses from those companies in the next couple of years. Nintendo can say to developers, "produce great-looking games for a sensible price, come to Wii U".



DreamOn said:

"it's nintendo games in HD" good enough for me just like 3DS graphics are good enough though portable sony vita graphics exist.



Skogur said:

Meh, doesn't matter that much to me.
I'll be getting Wii U and I don't even have a TV that can display HD.



LztheQuack said:

A better question is how much more can "raw processing power" go and still be practical?



Burning_Spear said:

For me, it's fine. I think the graphics hounds would rather have the best-looking game possible, rather than a great-looking game with an extra screen. In two or three years, I think we'll be back where we are today: developers finding it more economical to combine resources on cross-releases for the Sony and Microsoft consoles, rather than targeting Nintendo's audience with one release. I'll happily keep playing my Nintendo console, but I think the difference will keep Wii U from being the console of the next five years.



MAB said:

All I really want is for developers to stop using the old worn out excuse of 'but the grafx suxxors thats why we cant make good games' and just make some decent bloody software for crying out loud. Nobody cares if the bricks in a wall or the grass and trees look super realistic or the hollywood blockbuster cutscenes go for 20 hours.



C7_ said:

A. He has a point, if WiiU is behind in power and not just graphical capability, then it will probably fall behind. It no doubt will anyway because it's going to be at least two years behind PS4/720, but it all depends on how much.

B. If it is just graphical power, it's already been pointed out that that isn't important. Yes, we all like nice graphics, but developers have to devote loads of time to them and the more advanced the hardware gets, the more they have to devote. It's only a matter of time before CoD has to take more than a year to make because it's supposed to look incredibly realistic. Minecraft has proven a game can have terrible graphics and still be a runaway success, and Nintendo has proven that without having terrible graphic.

C. It's going to be at least another two years before Sony/Microsoft comes out with their consoles, and when they do i can guarantee that they will take all of Nintendo's good ideas in making it right from the get go. WiiU won't fail because of its graphical power at that point; it will fail because it will be substantially inferior. At that point Nintendo can only hope that they both announce it at an absurd price-point



RevolverLink said:

@ThomasBW84 That is a good point. The WiiU very well could be an excellent, more cost-effective option for some of the more cash-strapped developers (especially those in Japan) but a big key for the WiiU's longevity, of course, will be whether those games actually end up selling.

The Wii, especially during the first half of its life, was itself a haven for unique 3rd-party games that simply wouldn't have been possible for developers to make on the much more expensive HD behemoths without sending them to the poor house. But most of those efforts, for various reasons, ended up falling by the wayside, so "core" 3rd party support dried up and we've been left in the familiar position of waiting months for the next interesting Nintendo-developed release because there just isn't anything else to play for it.

With the WiiU, Nintendo needs to find a way to get those games to more gamers and thus encourage those developers to stay on board for more than just one or two of development cycles.



ReleaseTheBears said:

I think people are going to be shocked how small of a leap Xbox and Playstation are going to take next-gen. Microsoft and Sony were taught this gen that you don't need competitive tech to make boatloads of cash and Sony's financial empire is on fire and can't take the kind of hit that the PS3 gave them last time. Also, the economy is compared to last time, they cannot release expensive new machines anymore or they will fail. See the Vita.



Haywired said:

But there isn't really any greater focus on graphics these days than there ever was (hell, Nintendo and SEGA used to call out each others' specs in their own advertising). It's all relative.



Aviator said:

Gaming is an experience.

Graphics add to that experience.

Let's do a little poll.

Two games. One has the same gameplay, same audio, same story, yet the graphics are different. One is bad, one is good.

I doubt that you would enjoy a game that aesthetically looks shocking over a game that looks pretty.

Graphics do matter.



yobucky said:

I really think it's an incredibly stupid thing to worry about because as it is now some of the games that are doing very well are casual games with bad graphics. I mean it takes very little graphical prowess to run Angry birds. A lot of these jaw-droppingly beautiful games don't sell very well and if graphics are seriously all that "hardcore" games care about then they are douches. To my mind that guy breaking his world record for playing donkey kong is much more of a hard core gamer than any of these 14 year olds who think that graphics are all that matter.

Sure an upgrade will be nice, but I hate that somehow this becomes the standard by which a console is judged, surely it should be the quality and enjoyment of the games rather than how many pixels they squeeze into it. And for goodness sake, if graphics are the be all end all, buy a decent PC.



OoOshii said:

Graphics aren't everything yeah.... But developers dont care. If the machine isnt powerful enough to produce the minimum graphics a 3rd party game requires.....then the WiiU is a flop. -____-



Hokori said:

Guys this is the best game ever, it's called sit down and it has the best graphics ever there for its the best game ever



KaiserGX said:

I doubt that you would enjoy a game that aesthetically looks shocking over a game that looks pretty.

Isn't it still the same game? Why wouldn't I enjoy it?



The_Fox said:

While graphics are part of it, there's more to the issue than that. Ever wonder why the Wii version of Modern Warfare 3 was missing the predator missile, AC130, osprey gunner, recon drone and reaper kiilstreaks? Or why there were hardly any zombies onscreen in the Wii version of Dead Rising? The Wii simply wasn't powerful enough to handle them. If the Wii U follows the same path then 3rd party support could really suffer.



Silver_August said:

Ok seriously, if Wii U games even look half as good as Uncharted or Gears of War games I think I'd be happy, are people THAT picky and greedy that by novermber year games as amazing as Arkhem City will look like dated garbage? Seriously! I'm more worried about how games on the system will play more then anything.



yobucky said:

@aviator, if the two games are identical in every area apart from graphics then sure it's nice to have a better looking game but if I had a cheaper console that could still play a game the same as a more expensive one, I honestly wouldn't care. I mean really? People still enjoyed playing games on the PS1 and PS2 and still swear some of those are the "best games ever" so does the fact the consoles are more powerful now mean automatically those classics are now crap? Not at all, and if you disagree with that then you really are nothing more than a magpie and not a gamer.

Besides the main reason I play on any console is for the nintendo made games so there would be no adequate comparison on the other consoles. For "hardcore" games rather use the PC



Yasume said:

Don't care about graphics, it's the gameplay that matters. I would buy the Wii U if it had GameCube graphics as long as it provides good quality gameplay.



Azooooz said:

Too bad people these days are caring about graphics more than the gamplay mechanics. There are some games even though they have great graphics, they have failed to make profits for its developers. Example: Dead Island (PC version).



19Robb92 said:

I'm looking at it positively. Pikmin 3 looks great, just as good as any late Ps3/360 title (and ad to that it's a long developed Wii game that got transfered later on). And it can only get better from there on, so I bet we'll be seeing some very good looking games once devs are a custom to the new hardware.

Also, the WiiU can support 2 GamePads. That will draw a LOT of power to stream all that information. Imagine a developer just utilizing the WiiU Pro controller and skipping the "second screen". That would make for some amazing looking titles.

It's gonna be very interesting to see how this system goes forward over the years.



LegendaryQ said:

I personally don't care about graphics, but I see the point: third party developers who develop multiplatform games are not going to produce a second version just for the Wii U, unless they think they can get a profit out of it. It takes a lot less effort to produce a port of something to similar hardware than to completely different hardware, and as such, less money spent.



Haywired said:

Me too, however what if you were asked to pay full price (of a new 3DS game) for those GameBoy games on VC? If you wouldn't be prepared to that would indicate that (like most video game consumers) you do correlate graphics with (at least some) importance and value.



KaiserGX said:

I payed full price for them when I payed for them back when they first came out. Which are ironically around the same price. I payed $60 dollars for Kirby 64 when the Gamecube had been out for about 3 years already.



Arthedain said:

Sure, graphics aren't everything. BUT sometimes I wish Nintendo kept up with the other consoles performance wise. I'm tired of getting other versions of games, versions that are worse than the original. And don't tell me to get another console, I'm not rich and I love Nintendos games too much to give up on them



KaiserGX said:

Of course I would, I would just not buy as many seeing as I don't have that much to spend. Also I might hold off on Mario Land 1. Some of these Gameboy games have very big value for me, such as Donkey Kong.

Me and a friend bought Draqon Quest 1 on NES for 50 dollars at a Swapmeet. Castlevania 3 for 40. They were in very good condition though with the original packaging.



FJOJR said:

New machine so developers aren't able to harness the complette power right now. These are just trailers and demos. Not even Nintendo has harnessed it all. Until a developer fesses up to the REAL specs than we are all just guessing for no reason.



Chris720 said:

Graphics make the game look nice and aesthetically pleasing to the eyes and also helps to immerse you into the video game. The problem I have with the HD graphics is... when will HD get to the point where it starts looking outdated?

Most of the launch games for PS3 still look incredibly stunning today and that was about 5 or so years ago now. I don't think the Wii U will have a problem graphic wise, I think the problem it will have is having enough power under the hood. The PS4 and Xbox 720 will probably kick the Wii U's butt in the power front, but will they be able to go above 1080p? Who knows...



KaiserGX said:

Though I wouldn't have payed for the games if they didn't come with the packaging... and worn... who knows if it would even run? Though on the 3DS I am able to get more for less, which is why I am giddy and bought a lot, lol.



Kirk said:

"Are you worried about the graphics that Wii U can produce short-term and long-term, or is it all about the gaming experience?"



I am indeed worried about the graphics and although I definitely place gameplay above graphics in the grand scheme of things it's never solely about the gaming experience.



KaiserGX said:

I am kinda scared now... a lot of old gaming systems are becoming self aware and using the internet...



19Robb92 said:

@Demonic "Most of the launch games for PS3 still look incredibly stunning today "

I disagree a lot with that. Just look at Uncharted 1, it looks outdated as hell. Especially compared to later installments. Environments and vegetation look awful compared to todays games.



Swiket said:

It's a very real possibility that the next Xbox won't be out until 2015 or later, meaning that developers will be working with 10+ year old hardware. Pretty sad.



NESguy94 said:

Graphics aren't everything, but, it would be nice if Nintendo would launch this with better processors so that they don't set themselves up to be in a position where they haves the weakest system. I would pay a few hundred extra dollars if Nintendo would make a few changes.

The battery life is also going to be really annoying. It seems that Nintendo would have listened to the fans that complained about the battery life on the 3DS and learned from their mistakes.

Nintendo needs to be willing to spend a little extra money on good parts for the Wii-U to give it a competitive edge.



Mandoble said:

@ThomasBW84, man, you should have a look to the editing tools available today, more power means less effort and not the opposite. Now it is harder to have a nice looking medium def texture than a nice looking high def one, when you have a model, power allows you to put many on the scene instead of just one, the same power that allows you to increase the horizon range from few meters to several kilometers. Ask yourself why the same game has way better textures, graphics, physics for PC than for PS3/XBoX and it is still cheaper, is that devs enjoy to work more for less money?



BrainBoxLtd said:

I'm sick of hearing about this fabled power gap the supposed XBOX 720/PS4 are going to create, especially when neither of them has even been announced yet. I'm dubious that Sony will even announce another console anytime soon since the PS3 is finally selling well.

Who exactly is going to spend the millions and millions required to take advantage of such advance hardware even if they do exist? A lot of studios and companies folded just in this last generation because of the HD jump. You really think they'll be racing to suffer that misfortune again? Especially when the current HD consoles, PC's, and soon Wii U will still all be viable platforms that sell games.

Notice how there's almost no third party exclusives anymore and third parties treat the PC, 360, and PS3 as one giant platform? They really can't afford to do otherwise. They probably can't even afford to even spend extra money on platform that's widely different, probably why the ignore the Wii.

PC's out paced the HD twins graphically not long after release. Crysis was released in 2007, and it showed there was a major difference in then top-line computers and the HD consoles. And in the years that follow the same company released Crysis 2 on the HD consoles, and the original, and announced the third one would also be on the HD consoles in 2013.

Just because a machine has more processing power doesn't make the graphics automatically better. It still costs a lot to actually render all those pretty images people love so much. Their really isn't much room left for graphics to grow on a technical level, at least not without a major increase in budgets, which I don't think many companies are in position to do, let along want to do.

When Nintendo released the Wii they figured graphics had already reached a point where there wasn't a lot of room left to go. They were half right. For the first few years the HD consoles had horrible sales and were constantly outsold by the PS2 and the GBA.

But after a a few years of financial strife and some foreclosures, third parties started treating both HD consoles and PC's as just one big platform as a way to save on costs, and they've been doing it ever since. The reason some third party companies are showing excitement over the WII U is because now they'll have another platform they can port the same game they already made onto.

If any companies wanted to display some major jump in graphics, they'd already done it on PC's. Crysis did exactly that five years ago, and nobody really cared. Since then PC's have gotten 7 core processors and graphics cards that could probably start fires, and the same company that advertised how advance PC's were in 2007 are now scaling their games down to work on the antiquated HD consoles.

The gold rush for the best graphics is largely over. Most companies nowadays are just settling on the Unreal 3 engine, or a single in-house engine, like Capcom's MT Framework. They really don't care to outdo each other graphically anymore, and I really don't think they're going to be if some new expensive hardware enters the market.

PC developers aren't, that's for sure, and they already have access to cutting edge hardware. Diablo III just came out and even its recommend system requirements are just a decent Dual Core Processor, 2GB of RAM, and what was top-line video cards in 2008 and 2009, which is pretty much the same requirements top-line PC games had in back in 2008 and 2009.

If there is any significant jump in hardware in the next few years, it'll probably just be used to run games at the same settings they're already made to run at on PC's. I wouldn't count on another graphical revolution anytime soon.



WaxxyOne said:

If Nintendo can allow the graphics to scale such that the graphics power can either be put 100% on the big screen or shared with the gamepad screen, then it could still allow those 3rd-party developers to port their games easily by ignoring the pad's screen entirely (e.g. just using it for something 2D like a HUD/inventory screen) so all the power can be utilitized rendering to the TV. But when you're rendering one HD image and a second that is equivalent to anamorphic widescreen SD you're going to obviously be slicing the console's power up.

The real question will be whether or not the 3rd-party developers will invest a little extra time in finding uses for that screen that can't be done on other consoles. If a few big games can boast the best experience on the Wii U version, it will allow the console to get a foothold that its rivals won't easily shake. Only time will tell.

That said, Nintendo's first-party titles have a great new platform to utilize, and I'm excited more by that fact than anything else.



Wheels2050 said:

Graphics are a useful, and highly visible, metric for the power of a system. It's something people can look at and use to make a reasonable comparison between systems.

No, graphics aren't everything. However, they ARE somewhat indicative of the overall power of the system - power that can be used for other things such as better AI, better physics, larger and less static environments (e.g. destructible terrain) etc. All of those lead to better game experiences.

If the Wii U isn't capable of displaying fantastic graphics then it's fair to say that it will have trouble handling cutting-edge routines that are somewhat hidden from the user. If that is truly the case, then I'd be a bit worried.

As for the gamepad resulting in poorer performance overall - I'd say that's inexcusable. If you're going to push that as the selling point of a new system, you should damn well make sure it works flawlessly.



nickcarney said:

It looks like I'll only be playing Nintendo games on the Wii U after a few years. Once the next PS and Xbox hit, I'll probably get one of them for the multi-platform games. That being said, they might not hit until 2014 and so just a few years after that Nintendo may be releasing their next next system and once again be at the top in terms of graphics.



shingi_70 said:

Why do people always bring up graphics when more power also effects other parts of a game.



rjejr said:

What will matter will be the difference in power between the WiiU and the 2 next gen systems, unless over the next 5 years we see a jump in tv specs which I seriously doubt. I really don't blame developers for not making their awesome looking HD games for the SD Wii. If the Xbox720/PS4 have the same 1080p output, even if they are more powerful systems overall, it should be easier to port the games to the WiiU even if they have to dumb them down a tad.



daznsaz said:

are they still judging generation jumps on graphics alone.the others wont be going for just graphic jumps one of them will probably make a gamepad but with a bright pink ball on top of it lol



Moshugan said:

It's already hard to port some games from PC to current consoles, so I don't know how the gap will only grow in the future. I want to believe in Nintendo, but it's getting harder still.
On a side note: What makes the Wii U Gamepad invaluable, is the future prospect of using it with your PC! (this, at least for me, means that I'll be buying the Wii U no matter how it fairs, just to get the controller.)



Evan_Raz said:

I don't understand what people mean by "generational leap". I mean, if the PS2 to the PS3 was such a big generational gap, PLEASE explain to me what they changed besides graphics, the controller, and online functionality. That's what the Wii U is doing and that's getting ripped to pieces.



Vampire-Jekyll said:

I haven't really experienced 'horrid' graphics since the 5th generation of console gaming (N64/PS/Saturn). Ever since the Dreamcast launched I've been perfectly content with the state of things. In fact, I actually found the graphical power of the Xbox360 to be repulsive, granted that was due to a lot of games at the time trying to look realistic, thus lacking color and being dull shades of brown or black. As long as the Wii U finally makes the HD jump, allowing me to play on my HDTV without any lag, I'll be satisfied, as graphics have never really been a game breaker and haven't really mattered for years.



DreamOn said:

Nintendo maximizes the visuals of its games whatever the limitations so as far as first party games go we know we all love what N does.



ajcismo said:

I am not obsessed by graphics, and have cared 10:1 more about the gameplay over pretty visuals for the past 30+ years of my gaming.



MasterGraveheart said:

Ugh... it's not the POWER that makes a next generation console. It's the fact that it's the NEXT IN THE LINE. Wii didn't make a significant power leap either, and it is still considered this generation. It competed succeeded the GameCube and is competing in the same market.

Wii U is getting the jump on the X-Box 360 and PS3's successors and will be competing against them for some time, yes, but the principal factor is that the Wii U is the successor of the Wii, which is all you need to be considered the next generation console. It's not meant to be a companion system to the Wii. It's the upgrade. This isn't a 32X or Sega CD we're talking about here, no offense to James Newton, of course.

All this Wii U hate is really starting to tick me off because it's erroneous, misinformed, and made primarily by companies and publishers who were too dumb to PAY ATTENTION to what Nintendo has revealed. I mean, good grief, these are supposed to be professionals?! Or were they just waiting on the games that they overlooked the technical aspects? If so, then that's just incredibly irresponsible of them.



NintyMan said:

Nintendo games in HD is good enough for me. The reason why the graphics gap between Nintendo and its competition can be a problem is not that random people will be biased about graphics but because 3rd parties might be unwilling to bring their games to Wii U. Right now they seem thrilled about it, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when the next Microsoft and Sony consoles come. They could stick with the more powerful players, but there's things that the Wii U can do that they couldn't with the other guys unless they decide to copycat Wii U.

Personally, I don't think graphics are the end-all, be-all. They matter, but not as much as good gameplay. You can have beautiful visuals, but the game still won't be good if the controls are messy.



bahooney said:

@Corbs Couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure anyone buying a Nintendo console is definitely in it for the exclusives. Any third party game that was multi plat I always got on my 360 anyway. I play Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, because there's nothing like them on earth!



komicturtle said:

Wow.. I don't understand why the folks of Eurogamer did not go out of their way to piece things together- the WiiU's POWER7 chip (CPU) is considered "2 generations ahead" of 360's Xenos, with it's GPU based on the R7XXX series. Obviously, the games showcased aren't going to be leaps and bounds. And even then, the leap isn't going to be tremendous like the leap from N64 to Gamecube. If you look at the games for X360 back in 2005 and even mid-2006, the look of games weren't even significantly different from the previous generation. Too see WiiU's games come up to par with 360/PS3 games is good enough.

The problem with WiiU's GPU, though, is that it's supposedly 3 generations behind modern PC tech. Then again, PC's have always been getting yearly upgrades so it's no surprise. And the fact that WiiU's tech is based off of 2010 and 2011 technology, that's pretty modern...



HereticPB said:

Pikmin 3 Looks Really Awesome - I'd put that up against many current HD games. But yes Nintendo dropped the ball with no details of games - The Wii U will be a rushed product much like the 3DS. Not many people are happy with the Wii U and Nintendo stock just dumped another amount of cash away from Nintendo



TheDreamingHawk said:

Power isn't everything. NSMBU looked gorgeous when watching it on a TV compared to playing the wii version. Sadly some ignorant 12-year olds will whine because the graphics aren't perfect. The only "Bad graphics" that could come out of this is if the background and sprites are poorly made, and none of the wii U titles show that.



Hardy83 said:

I think he explained it poorly.It comes down to money.Right now the Wii gets next to no third party games because the Wii needs special attention due to it's graphical differences. Attention costs money and no third party wants to spend that extra amount vs what they think they will make back.

The Wii U is on par with the 360 and PS3, so now it won't take much effort at all to port (especially if they skip the Pad controller for the traditional one) so it'll cost next to nothing to slap over a port, maximizing profit for the company.

Now what he mentions is down the line with the new Sony and MS systems come out, they'll be a difference again, and if that difference is too big, it'll again be in a position where it needs extra attention that third parties don't want to pay for.

Graphics aren't everything, but everything is about money.



fortius54 said:

You have to remember that this is early in the systems life cycle. I would bet that a launch game on the 360 or PS3 does not represent the full power of those systems either. Why do cridicts want to sink Nintendo?



edcomics said:

There are a lot of people who derive a great deal of pleasure from seeing wonderfully impressive graphics. There's a big difference between SD and HD. It's silly to pretend there's not. The best thing Nintendo has going for them is their IPs like Mario and Zelda. There's also the price, which means more parents will buy the cheaper gaming system for their kids. If you want to be blown away by a game, though, Nintendo rarely delivers. Skyward Sword, for example, is unfortunately very ugly on a modern television. Nintendo didn't think ahead graphically when they produced the Wii. The Wii U seems to be Nintendo playing catch-up, but surely they'll be left behind again.

People are saying "graphics aren't everything," but what else is new about these Wii U iterations of Rayman and Mario than the graphics? So far, the gamepad is only proving to be a gimmick. Nintendo seems only interested in doing just enough to stay afloat, without going the extra mile, and I feel it's insulting to loyal fans.



hYdeks said:

Graphics too a point do matter, but gameplay is WAAAAY more important than anything. I rather play Super Mario Bros NES over Duke Nukem Forever PC anyday, why? The gameplay is better

The Wii U is a huge leap up from the Wii, and is actually a good leap up from ps3. Look at Arkham City on PS3 screens off the city and everything to the pictures of the ones on Wii U, Wii U shows ALOT more details.

Honestly people, how much more graphically can consoles get? You want realism? Go outside -_-



Azooooz said:

History lesson: Why was Wii more succesful than PS3 or X360? Was it because of the graphics?

The answer is not because of graphics, Wii is successful because it introduced something new to the world, i.e Motion controlling.

Back in 2006, the HD feature was not very common in most people around the world. Since the appearance of the HD feature alongside with PS3, everyone was amazed and put this rule: Better Graphics mean Better Game.

I know a game that had utilized both beautiful and better gameplay. Super Smash Bros. Brawl. One of the most successful title in gaming history. This game proved that gameplay matters more than graphics even though it has beautiful visuals.

All in all: the only thing that makes the console successful is a new way to play games and the gameplay that makes people come back for more, and I believe that Wii U will prove this one day.



kyuubikid213 said:

@Mikau94 Don't forget that there is also an option to keep the controller plugged in as it charges... That means you don't have to stop playing to charge it (as with the Wii Remote) and you don't have to worry about being too far from a charging area (as with 3DS). Sucky battery life is fine by me on home consoles.



Bass_X0 said:

Graphics sell games before a potential buyer has had the chance to play the game. You're in a store looking at the back of the box, what do you see? The graphics. There's no indication to how much fun a game actually is on there. Publishers can hype up a game with the blurb but screenshots can't lie. The better looking games will attract more attention.

And you expect some games to be fun as standard. I have no doubt that the Wii U Zelda game will be fun and play well. But whats the point of putting it on the Wii U if the regular Wii can handle it no problem? May as well just release the Wii U Pad as a add-on for the Wii instead of releasing a new console if you are content with Wii quality graphics.



Hokori said:

@edcomics A lot of things are new that's like saying COD are all the same, and between u and mii SD and HD ARE the same I can't tell the difference on the actual screen, I can only tell it when it's online on my computer comparing SD and HD and if it's on the Internet there's a chance it's false or photoshopped to look weaker



The7thStep said:

I bought a PS3 thinking I needed HD graphics, played most of the 1st party titles and they looked great, however most of them are all the same and I haven't turned it on in months. I quickly found out it takes more than great graphics to make the game great. Graphics help by all means but they are not everything, the experience that you get from the game and what sticks with you should be all that matters.



grimbldoo said:

Since Nintendo's main games and all the games I tend to play are cartoon/anime oriented, amazing graphics won't be a problem as those games don't need to accent the dimples of a man's face is a depressing and gritty FPS, God, I hate the gritty realism of modern games, games were made to escape reality, not put you into a different one.




Hang on, we don't know yet how powerful the WiiU can get until its really pushed do we? As the devs get more experience and the 1080p starts to be used more things will be different. Essentially thou I don't care. Nintendo obviously aren't competing for visuals, just trying to get minimum standards at least.



mastersworddude said:

I agree with Alucard, whine about how graphics aren't everything all you want, but a consoles power isn't all about the graphics.
Without power it won't be able to run high intensity games, that need processing power.
So yes, in some cases you do need a powerful console to get the full experience of a game.



LittleKing said:

It's getting harder and harder to make significant leaps in power with every generation, imo, and less sensible. For those bawling over how much graphics matter, stop treating Wii U as if it's falling back to 8-bit graphics and Sony and Microsoft's new consoles will be twice as powerful as their previous ones. IMO, Orbis and Durango will be more powerful than Wii U, but we'll barely notice it.

Also, it's hard to judge any new console's graphical capabilities at the beginning of its life. As developer's become more accustomed to the hardware, their better equipped to whip out stunning looking games.


I sincerely doubt that developers will be screaming about how Wii U isn't powerful enough for them to implement all their amazing ideas. "Oh my God, Wii U is a little less powerful than PS4096! Scrap that epic FPS, this system can barely handle Bejeweled."



Mandoble said:

Problem is that all Nintendo fanboys simply cannot translate power into anything different than visuals, and then all of them are convinced that visuals are not needed at all. But then, when Nintendo gives to them something visually much better than the previous generation (when all of them were already singing the same song) you have them saying WOOOOOW! that new Pikmin looks amaaaaaazing, even months before of being able to experience its playability.



capitalism said:

This article is opinion and not fact so the title should reflect that. Anyone who has seen Zombie U or Assassins Creed 3 running on Wii U knows that it's a more powerful and graphically capable console than whats available right now. Is it 5X more powerful no, but I DO believe it's about 2X as powerful which is fine by me. And I find it funny how they think that this is all the Wii U can push when the system isn't even out yet and we all know it takes a couple a years for developers to utilize the systems full potential. Give me a break.



JustAnotherUser said:

I've never been found of "HD" games. Adding a blur filter and tinting the game doesn't make it HD. (I'm put a little bit off by Pikmin 3 because of the "out-of-focus effect." I'll still buy it though, it's going to be great! )I don't believe the article as you can clearly see anti-aliasing in the games on show.

But hey. If they're giving us better visuals I'm all for it. Just don't blur the game. ¬.¬ Personally I don't see the need for better visuals than the PS3. If I wanted my games to look exactly like real life, I would play a 3DO FMV game.



emiru69 said:

Graphics are not everything. If graphics were everything my Vita should be breaking sales records instead of collecting dust. Also there are several points to consider:
1) If you release your console with the best hardware possible increases the final price. In this moments of economic crisis at a global level releasing a console with a relative low price tag might be a good idea.
2) Developer cost increase. Developers like David Jaffe already complained about the increasing cost for developer for one generation to the next one. With the risk for the developers increasing we've seen more and more studios getting closed last year. Wii U looks challenging to develop for but I'm quite sure that will be cheaper than develop for the ps4/Orbis.



mamp said:

The only problem I find with the Wii U is price, if you don't wanna make it powerful that's fine but don't charge us too much either. Apparently Nintendo's having a problem with pricing because they don't want to make the Wii U too expensive but they don't want to sell it at a loss either but PS360 are selling at a really cheap price right now.



BrainBoxLtd said:

@Mandoble PC’s only? Yeah right. That’s what Crytek said about their big fancy new engine, and they ended up porting all their games to dated video game consoles because they needed to money.

@slapshot Wow, it’s “rumored” that the PS4 is “very powerful”. Yeah, that’ll shut me up.

Tell you what. Someone come get me when the glut of developers stop developing for the Wii U because the PS4 and XBOX 720 are so ungodly powerful that they can’t possibly down-port their games anymore.



Smooth27 said:

I know graphics dont matter too much to most people, however a lot of other specially the hardcore people do. Also i have being reading gameinformer, and their was a section of what devs seek in the next gen consoles and 85% of the devs wanted high end specs for better.... everything. I feel like nintendo is in this danger zone where unreal engine 3 is reaching its peek, and unreal engine 4 is about to spring to life and nintendo has to make a choice whether to stick with ue3, or ue4 which ue3 is about to be a thing in the past (last gen) in about a year or two. This then reeks of wii all over again where wii u is going to be just a great console, and concept but devs are going to choose ps4 and 720 for their power so all us wii u owner are stuck with only great 1st party games and missing out on the next best multiplatform game. With watered down ports or narrative stories if were lucky.



TheBaconator said:

So basically the Wii U is the equivalent to the DreamCast? Does this mean we get another Shenmue game now?



Smooth27 said:

It is about longitivity. Its like this i would much rather choose my 3DS over a gameboy advance, even DS. Not because those systems are no good, but 3DS is just a better system overall and brings more gameplay and graphics and experience to the table since its more powerful. I dont want to play awesome games on wii u for just 2 years and having to buy the next xbox because battlefield 4 or next call of duty is only on ps4 and 720, because it either wont exist on semi-last gen system or downgraded experience.
So please nintendo ante up the specs so that it supports ue4 and pretty much max out the specs. I feel that this wont happen simply because nintendo wants to cater casual so it has to be cheap in price. This i dont understand because they should just continue having the wii for that. Please nintendo i do not want a system that is going to be absolete in 2,3 years.



Smooth27 said:

i guess to avoid lengthy comments. It does lack a next gen leap i feel that is not last gen but neither next, which makes it more last gen when next consoles come out.



HawkeyeWii said:

I am 100% with you on this. I hate how so many people just focus on "Well Wii sucks because it's graphics suck" Not true! Wii has way more orignal games than Sony and Microsofts. Which is exactly why I always only buy the Nintendo consoles. I don't like having a system where more than 90% of the games are shooters, no thanks.



Alienfish said:

You know what? Screw this! I'm done arguing any point at all!!! All we can do right now is wait and see what Nintendo gives us.



CanisWolfred said:

To be fair, Pikmin was the only shocase game they had, and that is obviously just a supped up Wii game. We won't know how significantly more powerful it is until later on in its life.



TimboBaggins said:

I'm tired of the c@ck measuring contest. I shouldn't have to make apologies for liking Nintendo better. I challenge any xbox 360 or ps3 owner to list 10 must have games for their respective systems that are not FPS, or that do not involve guns in some way. Those consoles tend to focus on one type of game, and unfortunately it is my least favorite genre. Sidescrolling platformers don't require the graphics to be startlingly realistic, I think they will be just fine for me.



SPEtheridge said:

i doubt 1313 will be on existing consoles either that or it will be downgraded to run on them tbh i don't mind if the wii u is the same as current consoles as long as it gets some decent 3rd party support after the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony are out.



grumblebuzzz said:

I mean, really, how much better can the graphics get before they just become photo-realistic? I wish they'd just stop trying to improve this area and work on bringing more diversity to gaming.



Redfield_Lynch said:

I can understand where this is going and, for me there`s one outcome. People who love their current console will keep it, people with wii and all the ninty fans will upgrade. There's an idea about the importance of better graphics and more raw power that is important to keep... it`s the hardware builders, ati, nvidea, intel, etc, to whom this is important so that people are forced into buying new hardware. People are so blind that they really don't see the purpose behind it all... nintendo made the leap i was interested, hd output. To me this is enough, to a bunch of you guys, it's enough.

My only concern is the lack of 3rd party support, but as long as nintendo makes money and is sucesseful i'm happy



coolvw93 said:

wii still led in sales alot of the time over graphical powerhouses, graphics arent all that(though, it can get horrible) but the wii never had horrible graphics(well at least the games i played) its about the games it self. what will the other companies next gen show off? same controllers... again? this is the first time nintendo has actually kept a controller with their next gen console but also still have the tablet. we will see the truth when it becomes available to everyone.
how can you get better than HD 1080p? i mean, we have seen everything that is possible so far, what is the real future of videogames? something like TRON?



arrmixer said:

as the saying goes "mOney talks BS walks..". I really doubt there being much of a gap, if any, for the wii u and the supposive next gen console.....

After a certain point, especially when it comes down to econoimics, you are gonna get dimishing returns.....

Bad economy or not. I don't see developers, MIcrosoft, and Sony investing millions more $$ into another console with expensive hardware that only certain tv sets can fully take advantage.... that was a unique opportunity with the sd/hd conversion.

Now we are at the stage where next gen is "how much better?" Consoles do not follow Moore's law.....Consoles follow economic law....That all depends on how much of a gamble Billy and Sony want to make.....



Ernest_The_Crab said:

I wonder how many of the commentors here bothered to factor in money and business logically in here (logically being the important word here).

Let's take Sony for example. They are currently bleeding money out the wazoo due to their attempts to be cutting edge in hardware. It has become so bad, they had to call someone in to rein in their costs and take them out of the red.

Meanwhile, it has been predicted that Nintendo has more than enough assets (and cash) to be able to sit on their asses and twiddle their thumbs for a couple of decades. Frankly, they could royally screw up and still come out without any worries (of course their investors would be pissed though).

I seriously doubt there will be as big a jump as the HD jump, if only because the major players can't afford to do something that stupid again AND the fact that there isn't a new "standard" coming into place anytime soon to replace HD.



Wolfenstein83 said:

Well games like Pikmin 3 were intended for the Wii and got pushed onto the new system, maybe with a few graphical upgrades.
The game still looks great though, and considering the system hasn't even launched yet, it's too soon to start complaining about graphics.
Everything we saw was early stuff, launch day type of stuff.
Imagine if the whole fate of the Wii was based on the graphics of Wii Sports or Wii Play, although they were still fun to play.
Obviously much better looking games came out, so what are they worried about?
The same thing will happen with the Wii-U.
Things will start out kinda small, but down the line there will be something to really blow everyone away, although I am still impressed with what I have already seen.
I don't know what the big thing is about graphics being the bar by which some games are judged.
I think some developers put their expectations way too high, and even when they get what they want, they say they have a hard time developing for such graphically demanding games.
Then again, I am still entertained by 8-bit games, so as long as the graphics are adequate enough, and the gameplay is solid, I have no complaints.
The best graphics I have seen, are outside, in real life, beyond the door of my house.
Well inside the house too, but you know what I mean.
I think the obvious leap, when dealing with a Nintendo system, is not the graphics anyway, it's the new innovative ways to interact with the games.
It's funny though, we finally get an HD capable Nintendo console, and some still think that's not enough.



doctor_doak said:

I think publishers are waiting to see how well the console is received at launch, and how many units the likes of Arkham City, Assassins Creed 3, Darksiders 2, and Zombi shift. Will the audience be there??

Honestly, i'm not surprised.. its a new system with a novel control scheme coming from a company that's historically had a poor relationship with most major publishers. It's current console is SD and has an archaic on-line setup. So there is a bit of the unknown there from the publishers perspective.... Plus i'm sure that there are some publishers who are currently experimenting with ways the controller can be integrated into pre-existing titles, which takes time...perhaps for some its just too much of a hassle.

Whether the Wii U gets quality 3rd party support throughout its lifespan will probably depend more on whether Nintendo can show major publishers like Square Enix, Ubi, 2K, EA, etc.. it has an audience for its games and not simply Wii Fit, Mario & Zelda, etc..

They need to get the on-line aspect of the system on par with what microsoft & sony are doing as a minimum...but I also think the 3rd party ports are a bit of a testing ground, and if they don't sell well, then it could be a real nail in the coffin for quality 3rd party titles on the Wii U..

So if you want great 3rd party support on the WiiU, i'd suggest that buying games like Assassins Creed 3, Arkham City, Darksiders 2, Mass Effect 3, and Zombi for the WiiU at launch will go a long way to ensuring this.

I really don't think 3rd party support for the WiiU will suffer for technical deficiencies in graphical capability, but mainly for the aforementioned reasons...because I don't think the gap between the upcoming systems will present as big a barrier as this generation's did.



Sir_Deadly said:

@Knuckles 6th gen? Were coming into the Eight gen console!!!

I expect when the other systems come out they will be on par with the WIi U. Graphics wise the jump like the PS2 to the PS3 aren't going to happen. most games cant go over 720p so i am not worried. The hardware will be slightly new maybe by 1 or 2 years (Wii U going on 2009 hardware and the other 2 goin on 2010 or 2011 i assume) and i don't expect them to come out until 2014 or 2015 so Wii U will be in the bracket by itself for a couple of years.



MAB said:

1 game.... thats magnificent... WOW how many years did it take... now I'm speechless just let me sit down for a minute my head is spinning (passes out) #)



Aviator said:

  • God of War series
  • Demon/Dark Souls
  • Jak and Dakster
  • Ratchet and Clank
  • Final Fantasy XIII/-2
  • Twisted Metal
  • Birds of Steel
  • Sly Cooper
  • Heavy Rain
  • Infamous
  • Killzone
  • Resistance
  • Uncharted
  • Ico & Shadow of the Colossus
  • Starhawk
  • A bucketload of JRPGs

Shall I continue?



MegaAdam said:

The key is that neither Microsoft or Sony seem super excited about leaping to the next generation yet. Microsoft seems content to keep building its install base and trying to make Kinect and Live the center of the TV room, and PS3 is still struggling to keep profitability.

A new "next-gen" much much more powerful console can only be achieved by another $500-600 launch price, and as we've seen, the market rejects that. $300-$400 seems to be the sweet spot for what the public will realistically pay for a console, and you're not going to get a generational leap for that.



Colors said:

I love it when people receive evidence and facts and then try to shrug it off by saying something pretty much unrelated =D



MAB said:

Its not unrelated that is a list of games split between 2 consoles



accc said:

I honestly don't care how powerful the Wii U is. If a game has an attractive art style and the developers put a lot of effort into making it look good, then it will look good, regardless of how powerful the platform it's running on is. I'd prefer to see third party developers focus more on making their games run at 60 frames per second, since 60 fps doesn't just make games look better, it makes them PLAY better as well.



Traxx said:

No full 1020p support? No AntiAliasing? What kind of "bit better than current gen" console is that? I'm sick of graphics looking jaggy and muddy. Has nothing to do with being focused on visuals, I don't need amass of polys or bumbed map textures with perfect shader, I just don't want to see graphical distortions for one more generation, serious people. PC is looking better and better...



Aviator said:

Okay. Scratch Dark Souls, Final Fantasy and Birds of Steel from that list.

You now get 7 PS3 games and 8 Sony series.



MAB said:

Back to the main point when your list gets thrown into the great wall of shooters they don't stand a chance and vanish you need a pretty big list to tip those scales



luminalace said:

Sure more power is always better but when has power been a deciding factor in a console war? If the Wii U can handle Unreal Engine 4 and get the games that run on PS4/Xbox 720, then the system should do well! Also other than Call of Duty, which company can lay claim to 20+ million copy selling software?



crazyj2312 said:

I don't think the Wii U will trail too far. I don't think there's going to be as huge a gap as the PS2 is to the PS3. I don't see how far the graphics can go from where the are now so I think the PS4 will be more of a PS3.5 and the Wii U would be like the PS3



Skeletor said:

There's so much to say about this. I don't think any Nintendo system really bragged about being about powerful since the SNES. The 64 was to a point, but people flocked to CG cutscenes. They have tried to be outside the norm, though, making the games and systems differently and new in some cases. I haven't cared so much for graphics over the years as much as enjoyment. Still, though, I find it disconcerting that it may not have enough power for multiple controller pads. Albeit, even though I wanted support for two, and will have two, I doubt they'll both be utilized too often.
About the 720 resolution, I find this funny, because I have seen so many PS3 games that support a MAXIMUM of 720 over the years. This, coming from the company and system that trumpeted HD graphics and power being paramount. The titles that I saw at 720 weren't no bargain-bin affair, either. I recall one a couple of the Madden titles maxing out at 720, and I think even a COD title. I remember laughing about it, because 360 almost always had 1080, even though it was a "weaker" system of the two. The only request I have about the resolution and graphics, is that I can see what I'm doing. On COD World at War, I remember that I played it before I had the progressive scan cables, and the draw distance was terrible. Finally, I don't see a need for the graphics to be higher on the next gen consoles. I think it will just cause legal issues down the road, because the graphics are "too real," and cause some dis-associative behavior. Or, I'm getting old.



sebman30 said:

i wouldnt care if the wii u's graphics were slightly better or on par with current gen consoles because i always know me and my mates will have a more fun and a more lively experience playing co-op mario and super smash bros game than the bitching and complaining of cod zombies and now i will finish with a slogan nintendo should use

Nintendo - Creates Memories



MikeyMikeMike said:

Consider the difference in cost between the Wii when it came out, and the PS3 & 360 (don't forget those are often sold without a hard drive etc..). A lot of people aren't willing to invest hundreds of dollars on a console and if the Wii-U is affordable, more consoles will move which should make it a more profitable proposition for developers. The issue with the original Wii is that it was so far behind the others in graphical output that only high profile games had the time and money invested for graphical optimization. As a gamer I want developers to spend their time on design creativity, not figuring out which corners to cut to make a game look and run decently on an underpowered console. Hopefully the Wii-U strikes a happier medium.



Cyrso said:

I really agree with the article at Eurogamer here. I see some people here do not care about the power as long as the games look have a rich art style and look attractive. While I'll understand that of course, limiting developers is never good.
The Wii U will again have hardware limitations, compared to Microsoft's and Sony's next-gen systems. If will again be hard for developers to port those games to Wii U. Wii U will have no 3rd party support... And at the transition of current gen and next-gen, developers won't invest extra time and money to take advantage of Wii U's little bit of extra power. Only some of Nintendo's studios like Retro Studios will take advantage of the bit of extra power, but it won't make a huge difference anyways.

The Nintendo games will look good, but not outstanding. Look at Pikmin 3. 720p no AA, not a game with heavy AI, no tesselation etc. and no breathtaking graphics, but it looks okay.

And btw Nintendo hasn't that many studios to keep releasing games month after month... And to make things worse, Nintendo will use a big part of their resources for casual games...

In its current state, I don't see a bright future for the Wii U, but still I'm sure there will some amazing games (the 3rd party current-gen games coming out for Wii U can already be worth it, if you never played those games before) and the tablet controller has potential. And I'm sure Retro Studios will deliver an amazing game.



Cyrso said:

I just don't think Wii U will have a long life cycle... Like 3-4 years.

But maybe after Wii U, Nintendo will make an amazing successor that hasn't underpowered hardware combined with great first-party core games.



scouse said:

For me it's not about the graphics but you need the power from a new console, if it comes to playing a game that can display 30 enemies or one that con only display 15 then I will go with the higher spec machine. I do hope Ninty can pull it off as I like the idea behind the U.



JebbyDeringer said:

Well graphic are important, they may not be the #1 importance but they play a big factor. Take a game like Super Mario Galaxy, the graphics could be better but its hard to pick out any flaws and the game is a lot of fun there arent many games like it though. Some games need good graphics to help immerse you in the world. Sure ideally every game would be fun on its own merit but this is the real world.



alLabouTandroiD said:

So far i only see the Wii U appealing to the Wii / typical Nintendo audience. It's not so hard to imagine its third party titles could end up like these on the Wii after a year or so.



pukisoft said:

The games shown so far are using the controller screen for either visualization of the game or really heavy rendered visuals on par with the action happening on the T.V, which isn't small potatoes processing power wise. None of the other consoles are doing this, so the fact that the Wii u games look just as good is good indication. Sure it could have been more powerful, but I sure as hell won't give a crap when I'm playing the next version of metroid on HD.



Whopper744 said:

Nintendo will probably always be best to me, best new graphics or not. That being said, I'm tired of hearing people who apparently care more about the actual gameplay more than how it looks, complain about Nintendo being behind. For that reason, I really wonder why they don't really even try to look better (or in the Wii's cases, as good) as their competitors. Apparently it can effect want people want.



kyuubikid213 said:

If this is what people think of the Wii U (not many here on NL), I can't wait until the ungodly "Generational Leap" from PS3 to PS4 or 360 to 720.

"Incredible 2160p graphics!! Uncharted 5 and Halo 6! All the awesomeness you remember from last generation! What? Price? Well, will be... $750 for 720 and $999 for PS4... But wait! The games will only be $49 so we can offset the price as needed!!"

Just speculation...



Lew3107 said:

There's a major hole in this that very few people are acknowledging. Sure, PS4 and XBOX 720 can use lots more power, but what will it go to? Because it certainly won't be towards better graphics. Almost definitely, they will still be 1080p, because who has a TV that can support resolutions higher than that? And how many people will be willing to spend thousands of pounds to get a 1280p television just for a gaming experience? Because television broadcasters won't upscale their shows just because your TV can support it, surely. If Sony and Microsoft go down that route, they're certain to fail, so I'm expecting visuals of next-gen to be on level terms. Otherwise, you'll have a 1280p console with a 1080p TV which can't register the difference; it'll look exactly the same as previous consoles, if not worse!
Also, Sony is out of money. It can't afford such a generational leap as PS2 to PS3 again, especially since Vita failed, their economical situation has become worse. Expect Wii U graphics. Microsoft has the smallest fan base out of all the 3 companies, as the 360 bombed in Japan. If they want the market to expand, graphics can't be the main issue; if they Japanese aren't buying a 360 now, which is relatively good graphically and price wise, who says they'll get a 720, especially if the price is astronomical, just for a shinier image?! And, if my assumptions are correct, and the Wii U costs between £200-£350 at launch, anything higher than that won't be competitive, so specs cannot afford to be leaps and bounds better than what Nintendo will provide.
Anyhow, I'm not graphic crazy. The Pikmin 3, Trine 2 and Rayman Legends demos were beyond epic, and I would happily take those visuals for the whole course of the Wii U's lifespan. Eurogamer doesn't have the knowledge to comment on such matters, and the fact that graphics mean that much to them shows that they aren't really in it for the games.



Sean_Aaron said:

If the Wii U does mirror the Wii's initial appeal for developers not wanting to invest in new dev environments on unproven kit then that will be an advantage. Of course it remains to be seen whether they can win back third-party support or indeed the folks who buy big sellers like Call of Duty, et al. Frankly I'd rather Nintendo stick to the Wii formula just with a better quality online experience, but if the winds are changing then they should be prepared to bump up the specs midway through this generation if necessary.

In all honesty I think the worst thing that could happen is for Nintendo to make this machine cater solely to what passes for the majority of so-called "core" gamers. I absolutely do not want the X-Box Live experience replicated on a Nintendo console.



SteveW said:

Graphics really do not matter that much, I have a lot more fun on Wii with Tiger Woods than on Xbox 360 or PS3.

The graphics in Zelda Skyward Sword basically sucks when compared to similar games on other systems but did anyone here let it stop them from enjoying the game?

You guys need to realize one thing... ALL graphics suck eventually, even the Xbox 720 will pale in comparison eventually.



SteveW said:

Why Wii U will win... do we really need yet another system to play Call of Duty, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and all those other mostly over-hyped trendy geek games? seriously, I listen to PS3/360 fanboys rant for weeks on end about a new game and then 6 months later the fad is over and it now sucks because something better it out... how shallow...

Nintendo is different and offers unique experiences, others may try to copy but Nintendo makes some of the best games in the world and you have to buy Nintendo systems to play them.



AVahne said:

Uh huh, Bull.
Do they have the actual hardware? Are they just basing this on videos of demos that probably aren't using final devkits and that are also early in the life of Wii U?
And for those who expect the next Xbox and next PS to blow Wii U out of the water at launch, you're retarded.



CanisWolfred said:

@MadAussieBloke But you've completely missed the point of the conversation, Timbo was only asking for 10 must-have games that don't involve guns, and he didn't mention it had to be on one system. Instead, Aviator gave him 20 games. That's mighty impressive, regardless of how many shooters they have to go up against. (Which they're not going up against for Timbo, since Timbo doesn't care about shooters) Yes, the PS360 have a lot of shooters, but that does not make the non-shooters irrelevent, just as the Wii's inexplicable amount of Party games don't make the rest of the Wii's library irrelevent.



Nintendoro said:

Big chance is that we'll see Wii U only doing well for 5 years no more. I doubt Nintendo are planing long term (8-10 year) life cycle for Wii U. If so, it wont happen. PS4 and 720 are aiming very high. their next gen things will outlive ps3, 360 by much more. Sony and MS know what gamers need, Nintendo lives present day without planning far in the future (I mean no HDD not even DVD support in 2012 is ridiculous). Their Wii U is not even going to sell with a loss, which means they're cheap. Cheap means low quality and poor performance. I do believe Wii U is powerful system but only until we get to see what the real next gen PS and Xbox shows up. I was Nintendo fan for a while, but simply got tired of being disappointed every day. I still look forward towards Wii U if they can make some serious first party titles. If not I'll skip



SteveW said:

Nintendoro - That's what DVD players are for, no way I'd want to put wear and tear on my Wii U for watching movies when I can buy a DVD player for $50. Also, Nintendo said a HDD can be hooked to the USB port, I'd rather have that than an internal drive.

The Wii U is not going to sell at a loss because Nintendo is a smart company, they are a real game company and it is their core business, they can't pull money from other areas of their business and throw endless amounts of money towards it like Microsoft does with the Xbox... totally ridicilous.

Sony & Microsoft know what gamers need? seriously? what games have they been developing? none. Nintendo is the only real game company in the console race and if you think Microsoft & Sony are looking out for your best interest I really feel sorry for you.

Cheap does not mean low quality, did your Wii burn up 2 years after owning it? Nintendos hardware is quality made. Not sure I believe you were ever a Nintendo fan... when the "Real next gen PS and Xbox shows up" guess what? it will soon be outdated as well.



Moshugan said:

@adamical I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Microsoft and Sony platforms weren't released until the end of 2014. That would give Wii U two whole years to compete in the same power level as the current systems.



Sir_Deadly said:

@Cyrso Well given the history, Nintendo's console's only go up to 5 or six year. Soo it wouldn't surprise me if they made a new one 2 or 3 years after the other company's launch there new ones. Plus Sony said that the PS3 will have a good 10 year life span!



MeloMan said:

Good points based on analyzing pics and video, but it's all still just conjecture as history has shown us we NEVER really know how much power is hidden away in a Nintendo system. I'm pretty sure, given also Nintendo's latest track record, that this system is a PS360.5 with some hidden potential to "start off" the coming battle with PS4 and NeXtbox for a while, but again, it's the software that drives a system. If the library is solid, all this tech spec conjecture won't even matter a few years from now.



Zork2 said:

I think this lack of power is a serious error and the market will be much harsher on the Wii U. You have to look at how games are being developed. Raw horsepower is being used to reduce development costs, e.g.:

Can the Wii U run a game like this? Look at the GPU. I think the answer is no. And that's a serious problem because the multimillion dollar budgets of the last era are coming down. Too much risk, etc. So instead of reaching to build a richer and more immersive experience by throwing money and artists at the problem, companies are going to lean on the technology to deliver a better experience but at a much lower cost. You'll need the hardware to run that.



Sir_Deadly said:

@zork2 hmm, for something to look that good they would probably have to spend a whole lot more to make the console and sell the console for alot more money to make a profit. I don't think people would want to pay over $400 for a console. Besides games on consoles now-a-days cant even go over 720p. But maybe its more about supporting the engine that create's it and I still dont think the other 2 next gen console will be able to hold that engine.



SPEtheridge said:

Still think it needed a bit more power if indeed it is round about the 360/PS3 level i think it should have been a sort of a stop gap between current hardware and the next round of systems, lets see if they can surprise us with some great software, i'll be grabbing the system anyway i always do when it comes to Nintendo, the 1st party stuff is always great



SPEtheridge said:

@kyuubikid213 i think that there gonna be 1080p that resolution is a bit over kill sod all displays would support it yet n price there probs gonna go the way of mobile phones offsetting the price by having u contracted to its service like 3 years of XBOX live there kinda doing it now with the 360



Samholy said:

nintendo is mostly all about gameplay.
nintendo sealed games are most of the time masterpieces. they know how to make games, and they do it with genius minds. the problem is that im worried about third parties this time.big names like ubisoft,EA,Bethesda,rockstar,etc... always have the mind to improve their game visuals. always look the best, try to be the best, and try to surpass what has been done before.
Im sorry nintendo, but you still didnt catch that side of the market.

now sony also has their exclusive titles, and seriously, i dont wanna skip a god of war. i dont wanna skip a ratchet and clank. i dont wanna skip an Infamous.

see gow fo war 3? this is what i call graphic power and awesome gameplay. nintendo really needs this with zelda. skyward sword 0 impressed me. i didnt look specially good. and gameplay-wise, didnt meet my expectations. i dont believe that 10/10 here. twilight was much better in my opinion.



CaPPa said:

I don't understand why they question the idea of the Wii U being 2x the power of the Xbox 360 because the early games look as good or better and they are running on 2 screens at once. I'm pretty sure that if the 360 tried doing that then the games would look a lot worse.

As this is Nintendo's first foray into HD it also might mean that their early games may not be as visually impressive as some 3rd party games will be, as the most impressive looking Wii U games at E3 were the 3rd party ones (Batman, AC3, Rayman).

I'm not worried about Durango or Orbis, because if their rumoured specs are true (its been said that for GPUs that they have - Wii U HD4650, Durango HD6650, Orbis HD7650) then they are not really that huge a leap over the Wii U. I also doubt either will release next year or maybe not even in 2014, as a really advanced console would currently be too expensive and nobody wants to have a $400 - $500+ price point. By late 2014 or 2015 they be more affordable though and will be able to produce hardware that seriously eclipses Wii U. Of course by then Wii U will be well into its life and there'll be thoughts about the next Nintendo console.

The majority of Sony exclusives don't interest me as much as the Nintendo exclusives and given the choice of only one I'd take the big N's any day. That isn't to say that I don't enjoy my PS3, but it's 3rd party games and DCU Online that see the most play on it. When the Wii U releases I expect that I'll buy more games for that (1st and 3rd party), but my PS3 will still get some use as I'll be picking up The Last Of Us, Beyond and any 3rd party games that don't release on the Wii U. My 360 is finished though, I think that ME3 was probably my last game.

As for Skyward Sword, GOW3 and Twilight Princess; well I'll take substance over style, so Skyward Sword beats them both imo.



Dauntless said:

Its all up to MS and Sony. If they make the generational leap with the next systems then the WiiU will end up like the Wii with watered down ports. If MS and Sony don't make that generational leap then Nintendo will have an easier fight.



Drawdler said:

As long as they have around the same processing power, everything will be fine. That's the problem if they don't want just ports.
Of course, I'll buy Nintendo any day.



Urbanhispanic said:

While graphics are a selling point, they aren't the only thing that matters. Developers aren't making games for the sake of them being fun; they are making them to cater to different crowds and in those crowds, the majority of people would rather play games with shiny graphics while not having fun than vice versa.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...