onlysublime Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I heart Anandtech. They do reviews properly. And their analysis usually has much more detail than other places. Other places are always trying to release their articles or reviews as soon as possible to get first hits. I also love the work that Arstechnica does, at least their tech side, not so much their video game side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3vor Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I heart Anandtech. They do reviews properly. And their analysis usually has much more detail than other places. Other places are always trying to release their articles or reviews as soon as possible to get first hits. I also love the work that Arstechnica does, at least their tech side, not so much their video game side. Anandtech is awesome. If I need to look up benchmarks for video cards or whatever, that's my number 1 stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The game reviews over at IGN for some of the more "mature" titles that were part of the WiiU's were actually pretty good too. So that seems like a pretty decent sign. Although that is not saying much since this is IGN we are talking about. I think the biggest problem may be sells.. getting people to purchase their games. There are a couple I kinda have my eye on.. but just way to much on my backlog to play for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godslabrat Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 That's basically what keeps Nintendo fans having fun. We want more levels / music / characters and graphical enhancement to the games we're addicted to Yep. I can sit down and play Mario/Zelda/Metroid for a half hour, or three days straight. I always have fun. I have less and less time in my life to play garbage, so I gravitate to what I know. I'm sure that means I miss some gems elsewhere, but mainstream gaming and I have been diverging for some time now and I've come to accept that. So the CPU on the new Wii doesn't have the "right" numbers. Why do I care? It's still going to run every Wii-U game that's ever released for the system. That's the only real concern I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Dart Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So the CPU on the new Wii doesn't have the "right" numbers. Why do I care? It's still going to run every Wii-U game that's ever released for the system. That's the only real concern I have. Will it? Those framerate issues look pretty bad so far. Seeing Epic Mickey drop to half a frame per second when the player used a basic game function made my eyes bug out just a little, I think. I was hoping it could be attributed to poor programming of early titles, but if the specs are sub-last-gen, that's bad for the future. I'm still hoping these issues are just caused by sloppy ports, but if those numbers are correct... I hope you really really like New Super Mario Bros and Mario Kart: Again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godslabrat Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Will it? Those framerate issues look pretty bad so far. Seeing Epic Mickey drop to half a frame per second when the player used a basic game function made my eyes bug out just a little, I think. I was hoping it could be attributed to poor programming of early titles, but if the specs are sub-last-gen, that's bad for the future. I'm still hoping these issues are just caused by sloppy ports, but if those numbers are correct... I hope you really really like New Super Mario Bros and Mario Kart: Again Meh. I'm not going to worry about it. Ports to Nintendo systems have been sloppy for quite a while now. I'm more than a little annoyed by it, but it's just to be expected and doesn't point to any real flaw in the hardware itself. At the end of the day, most 3rd parties even admit that they don't consider it worthwhile to polish a Nintendo port... but that makes me lose respect for them, not the system. Oh well, I guess I just saved myself $50. I'm not saying you don't have a point, but looking back, I can't imagine any time when worrying about the specs of a console's CPU has had a meaningful impact on my game experience. Considering that, I'm comfortable playing wait-and-see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xg4bx Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Will it? Those framerate issues look pretty bad so far. Seeing Epic Mickey drop to half a frame per second when the player used a basic game function made my eyes bug out just a little, I think. I was hoping it could be attributed to poor programming of early titles, but if the specs are sub-last-gen, that's bad for the future. I'm still hoping these issues are just caused by sloppy ports, but if those numbers are correct... I hope you really really like New Super Mario Bros and Mario Kart: Again From what I understand, not only was a Wii U version of Epic Mickey a last minute decision but they gave a team with no U experience almost no time to get it done. Multiplats/ports that had effort put into them like Assassins Creed, Sonic All Stars or Mass Effect run beautifully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Dart Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Multiplats/ports that had effort put into them like Assassins Creed, Sonic All Stars or Mass Effect run beautifully. Eh, I've heard that the other ports have similar issues (but not to the same extent), and what I've seen of Mass Effect shows some sub-360 textures, probably to allow for the lesser bandwidth. I'm waiting to see what else comes out, but so far this hasn't been the 360+ that I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otaku Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 this may be but its not any more expensive than a 360 can run you comes with a very cool controller which will lead to some interesting and new gameplay. Focus here as always with nintendo is on gameplay and quality franchises. It'll do well and I look forward to having one old tech or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Ragan Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It's mostly apples and oranges. However, it's worth pointing out that Nintendo is using dated hardware as well. The Wii U is using the same processor as the Wii and GameCube, albeit cranked up to its maximum clock speed and given three cores. It does improve performance dramatically, but Wii U ports of high-profile releases STILL don't run as well as they do on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, and developers have complained about the system's lackluster capabilities. By 2014, the new Microsoft and Sony machines will be released, and Nintendo will be right back on square one with a console one generation (and some change...) behind the times. Nintendo should have kicked Broadway to the curb and stepped up to a more flexible processor. Keeping backward compatibility with the Wii doesn't really fly as an excuse, because there's very little worth playing on that system, and you just know later models of the Wii U won't play standard Wii games anyway (just as later Wiis can't play GameCube titles). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Links to articles of said developer's compalining about the Wii-U please? Edited December 28, 2012 by Shannon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPUWIZ Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 One quickly googled example... http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1687689/wii_u_has_a_horrible_slow_cpu_says_metro_last_light_dev.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gemintronic Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Of course, all this talk over hurtz and gigaflopples means zero to Nintendo. They always focus on THEM making a profit. 3rd parties are welcome to join in if they follow the rules. If not Nintendo will still make a pile of cash. I never liked this policy as it leads to fewer and lower quality games. Somehow Nintendo manages to make it work - for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Well if your new to full hd games its a big jump.. It dont suck that bad. The average gamer who had the wii last does not care of comparison. It's games. Why does a guy play classic games? 98.9% of the people gaming are not going to nerd around with all these wtf does that mean specs. Edited December 28, 2012 by Jinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelboy Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Well if your new to full hd games its a big jump.. It dont suck that bad. The average gamer who had the wii last does not care of comparison. It's games. Why does a guy play classic games? 98.9% of the people gaming are not going to nerd around with all these wtf does that mean specs. Perhaps not, but third-party devs are very sensitive to these kinds of details. Lackluster hardware is enough of a reason to refrain from supporting a system. Just look at the third-party "response" to the N64 and the Game Cube. Nintendo got its "unfriendly to third-parties" reputation during those years, and it's not because Nintendo was all that unfriendly, it was because the hardware was so behind current technology that third-parties said "no thanks, we'll just concentrate our efforts on Sony and Microsoft, because their consoles have the hardware specs we're looking for". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Perhaps not, but third-party devs are very sensitive to these kinds of details. Lackluster hardware is enough of a reason to refrain from supporting a system. Just look at the third-party "response" to the N64 and the Game Cube. Nintendo got its "unfriendly to third-parties" reputation during those years, and it's not because Nintendo was all that unfriendly, it was because the hardware was so behind current technology that third-parties said "no thanks, we'll just concentrate our efforts on Sony and Microsoft, because their consoles have the hardware specs we're looking for". I thought the gamecube had pretty decent specs for it time. Right now nintendo said with the wii u they have lots of 3rd party support. I think sony won the developers over back in the ps1 days and has been a struggle to get them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Well if your new to full hd games its a big jump.. I've been living under a rock for some time. What manner of magic are these "video games" of which you speak? Nintendo has had a lot of game systems that weren't the most powerful of their generation, but at least they were *in* the right generation. It's also cool if Nintendo has started making systems for developing nations, but they're priced way too high in that case. Edited December 28, 2012 by Reaperman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) I've been living under a rock for some time. What manner of magic are these "video games" of which you speak? Nintendo has had a lot of game systems that weren't the most powerful of their generation, but at least they were *in* the right generation. It's also cool if Nintendo has started making systems for developing nations, but they're priced way too high in that case. What I am saying is from thier current wii to the wii u.. Big difference in graphocs as in full hd?? I think its priced about right. Not a bargin tho. What is the cost on a ps3+ vita? vs cost on wii u. . Also wth is this wrong generation bs? It can run 1080 not?? Whats the specs for todays console?? They pump out consoles faster than ms and sony so they will have the next one a year or two after the xbox 720 ps 4. I dont have a ps 3 or xbox. brother has a couple of each and so I know about how thry work spent hours playing them. Worst thing is the controllers. I would rather play a fun nintendo game anyday.. I love pointing at things and moving to do shit. I guess I only game for 20-30 minutes at a time not a whole day f up on cod ps3. Some people are stuck on old ideas of gaming with standard controllers pressing buttons and looking at pretty graphics.. Wow may as well have a heart attack watching the titanic. Press x to win game..boring.. If I have to move a cursor with a anolouge stick its really lame when I coulda pointed and fired. Theres my troll answers for a troll thread.. Edited December 28, 2012 by Jinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Wow for a site that celebrates squeezing the most game out of outdated hardware we sure have a tough crowd here. I think the true reason for the above mentioned dev can be lack of time and personnel.. see the last quote. “We had an initial look at the Wii U, but given the size of the team and compared to where we were last time, just developing for the Playstation 3 is a significant addition.” Anywho this article pointed out in another thread pretty much says how I feel.. programmers these days should be required to program games on older outdated systems just so they can learn to focus more on creativity and game play. Making games that last more than 3-4 hours and not whether a character's facial stubb looks correct or he touches door frames when he walks by. http://www.philvaz.c...PS2.htm#PS2XBOX Anywho I love fantastic graphics and sound effects and sound tracks as much as the next guy. But that does not hinder the enjoyment i get out of playing a well designed game... even if it is running or not looking quite up to par. Edited December 28, 2012 by Shannon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toptenmaterial Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) I've said it before and I'll say it again: no matter how powerful or cutting edge a console is, it will eventually be had for $5 at a yard sale. Who gives a shit about the specs? If you want the cutting edge, pre-eminent super graphic experience, then shell out the $400-$2000 on an upgradable PC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. If you want a Wii on steroids that cranks out classic Nintendo goodness, then get a Wii U. I know I will! Edited December 29, 2012 by toptenmaterial 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Dart Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) Who gives a shit about the specs? The specs either allow or limit the games; you know that. $350 is a big chunk of money for a crippled system that can't do what a seven year old system can. Edited December 29, 2012 by Rex Dart 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) So far I am enjoying my Wii U, but I have mixed opinions about it. From technical issues like the system not recognizing my router (what a waste of time, trying to screw with that), to it taking forever to bounce between programs, to it losing connection to my controller when I'm only sitting five feet in front of it (and it not working again until physically unplugging the system), to some of the games not running as well as they should (why doesn't Sonic All-Star Transformed run at 60 frames per second?)--the whole experience has been underwhelming for me. Had the specs been better and some of the games been at least a slight improvement over what has already been available on the PS3 and 360, the other issues wouldn't bother me so much. As it stands now, it's $300 - $350 for a fancy controller that got old after about an hour, and Mario in HD. Now, don't get me wrong--I AM enjoying it with the handful of games I have (Sonic, Tank Tank, Nintendo Land and NSMB U). I am also glad that I have it. I think I am even more glad though that I didn't pay for it. Maybe I'm getting to that point in life where I just don't care anymore, but I have never felt that before when experiencing a new system. I just hope Nintendo can smooth out some of the issues with the thing, and I really hope the developers can tap the hardware properly so we can get some games that at least look marginally better than what came before (innovative uses for the controller wouldn't hurt, either). Although with the specs divulged, it's not looking as if that will be very likely. Edited December 29, 2012 by Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I thought the gamecube had pretty decent specs for it time. Right now nintendo said with the wii u they have lots of 3rd party support. I think sony won the developers over back in the ps1 days and has been a struggle to get them back. Exactly. I remember it being hailed as "superior" to the PS2, in some respects. It definitely seems comparable, to my layman's eye. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) Who gives a shit about the specs? If you want the cutting edge, pre-eminent super graphic experience, then shell out the $400-$2000 on an upgradable PC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. If you want a Wii on steroids that cranks out classic Nintendo goodness, then get a Wii U. I know I will! An Xbox 360 is a nice (cheap) happy medium, rather than $2000 PC. However, I have little doubt that I'll end up with a Wii U one day. All they have to do is queue up the Mario games and Nintendo exclusives (and the price drop(s)), and I'm there. For other stuff, Xbox 360. Edited December 29, 2012 by wood_jl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godslabrat Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Exactly. I remember it being hailed as "superior" to the PS2, in some respects. It definitely seems comparable, to my layman's eye. GameCube was mostly seen as being superior to the PS2 and either as good or slightly behind the original Xbox. The real weakness was the discs not holding as much as a standard DVD... But even that was a nonissue for devs willing to spring for multiple discs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.