Interesting... Yeah... I voice my opinions very loudly... That would be why A few others don't particularly like me... Lol xD...
I find it hilarious that it took Nintendo 7 years to graphics that are slightly better (from around the web), or on par with the xbox/ps3. It would be like going up to your friends with a new phone and saying "Hey guys! Look at my phone! Apparently its a bit better then all of yours!" Friends: "Dude, our phones are 7 years old. You are kidding, right?" -_- And in response to the depressing touch screen. Your kidding, right? Not even multitouch? It cost apple $16 ( http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2009/tc20090623_210230.htm ) to make a 3gs screen. Im sure Nintendo could put more quality into their stuff, cause im sure that the costs have gone way down, and it could cost them $16 for the whole screen (taking into account the larger screen, and old tech cost reductions). Once Nintendo releases current, up to date tech, i may be able to take their "gaming potential" seriously. I do own a DS Lite, but thats cause i love pokemon games! Nintendo makes great handheld systems, i have to admit that (even though i think this 3d stuff is kind of lame..), but when it comes to TV based consoles, it just feels like Nintendo keeps making cheap toys. They look cool on the outside, but they majorly lack good insides.
We still don't know how good the graphics are going to be. My friends dad told me that Assassin's Creed 3 runs 60 fps on the Wii U whereas the version for ps3 runs 30-35 and Xbox 25-30. So once developers learn how to use the Wii U they can make games that will probably blow current gen out of the water. Like Naughty Dog has done with the ps3. And as for the touchscreen, there is no need for a capacative screen. My Ps Vita has a capacative screen, however most games only use a single touch function. And it is also a controller, so we don't even have to necessarily use the touchscreen. It is cheaper to make a single touch screen as well. And as for Nintendo's "gaming potential" my top 5 games this gen are 1. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword 2. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots 3. Super Mario Galaxy 4. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 5. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves two Ps3 games and 3 Wii games. So obviously Nintendo does not have potential they are already a great developer.
Frames per second dont matter when the resolution output is restricted. A lot of people get 30 fps on Minecraft. I get 600+fps, but our graphics are the same. They can add more detail, but it is still restricted to 1080p. With screen resolutions rising, by the time that M$ and Sony enter their next console into this new generation, Nintendo will be lacking again. Your game list is a matter of opinion, so i think its best to leave stuff like that out. But, all those Nintendo titles are first party. The "good" Wii games were almost always first party. By "gaming potential", i was referring to the console. Nintendo makes good games, but the third party games for the Wii generally sucked (based off of reviews). Now, right now they will be able to make games across all three platforms relatively easily, but once M$ and Sony inject a new console, the Wii U will be lacking again, and game developers will have to make seperate games again. Also, there is worry about the Wii U's internal specs. Its GPU is better than the current gen Sony and M$ GPU's, but its CPU is clocked slower. There is worry that the lack in CPU will cause bottle-necking with the GPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottleneck). Thats like putting a 10000lb capacity trailer on a vehicle that can only tow 6000lbs. That good GPU is good up to a point, and then its wasted material. When i have a 128x128 texture pack on my MC client, and 900 mobs, it lags only slightly more than when i use a 4x4 texture pack. I look at my system performance and it shows that my CPU is screaming "Stop!" while my GPU is saying "Is that all you got?" The next gen Sony and M$ consoles are expected to be highly clocked quadcores, with future AMD and Nvidia cards. Developers will have access to a whole new range of power, and they will have to "dumb down" the titles for the Wii U graphically, or not be able to release them on the Wii U because of the lacking CPU. I expect to see a good amount of quality third party titles for the Wii U until the new M$ and Sony consoles come out, then the numbers will drop significantly as developers wont want to spend the extra time and resources to make their games worse (or create worse games) for a lacking console.
Saying that frames per second doesn't matter is like saying you don't need water to live. Let's look at this for a second. The best graphics in a console game right now is Uncharted 3. It runs an average of about 30 frames per second missing one or two frames on the rare occasion. If you go below 25 frames per second it starts to affect the gameplay. So if the Wii U ran Uncharted 3 it would most likely run it at somewhere around 60 frames per second. If you can run the Uncharted 3, the best looking console game on current, at 60 frames per second, you can run a game that is twice as graphically impressive at 30 frames per second without majorly affecting the gameplay. So the Wii U is perfectly capable of playing games twice as powerful as current gen, it may just take a while. Once again we go back to the Uncharted example. It takes a while to master each console. If you take a screenshot of the first game, the second game, and then the third game you get an idea of how as you develop for a console you learn to utilize its capabilities. As for 3rd party support Ubisoft has quite a few titles in the launch window right off the bat, whereas it looks like Activision, and others will be coming along quickly. And the problem is, is that this gen will be the last leap in graphics. We are really already pushing the limits of what can be done in a game. Yes, we can make things look more realistic, but only to a point because the limit may not be the technology, but the artists drawing them. We will never be able to make something 100% life-like because art wise it just can't be done.
Thats not how it works.. Not at all. They dont just "double" frame rates cause one system is supposedly better. For one thing, the bluray disc can hold more graphical data than a DVD. Also, "blu" lasers can read data faster. More graphical data+faster read speeds=better graphics. While the Wii U technically uses bluray technology, it isnt real bluray since they decided that the fans happiness wasnt worth the licensing fee. Oh nonono! A 16x16 texture has a total of 256 pixels in it. A 32x32 texture has 1024 pixels in it. The graphics are twice as good, but the detail (which determines fps) is 4 times better. For me, when i go from a 256x256 texture pack to a 512x512, i lose about 90% of my previous frame rate. In the "fps" world, you dont just get half the fps when you double the graphics. The Wii had lots of third party games. You have to look at quality. I have looked over the lists, and there are a lot of sports/fitness and arcade games. Also, there are a few previous games being ported. Thats not support, thats wanting to make money. They are supporting the system by making new, quality, games. They are just porting and putting small games in the systems lineup. Not true. A lot of the best textures (for many games, modded textures) are "texturized" photos. In the future, artists wont matter. People who put the photos together will. If you look at many PC game reviews, they test the games on displays at 1200p. Thats the near future of console graphics. People used to think that we couldnt perceive more than 30fps! Obviously, thats not true. We wont hit the graphical peak until there are are more ppi than the eye can see. More definition than real life. I have look around the web, and the world pretty sure that the Wii U CPU is going to be 3 cores @ 3.0ghz. Thats slower and it has more to deal with than the other consoles. It has to keep track of that ridiculous controller, which is expected to eat up a lot of the resources. Also, the graphics in the system are partially going to be used for the controller, which takes power away from that. The Wii U is expected to perform better in areas where the game has less "action" but better visuals. But when action starts happening, the CPU is expected to start choking. Once again, Nintendo has given us another visually appealing, but technically lacking console. They have made us a rebodied kit-car. They are telling the world "Hey! Look at our new 2013 Porsche!", but the technical world is saying "Uhhhhhhh... Thats just a fancy body over a 200x chevy..." -_-. Nintendo will hopefully be saying "Now, lets design a console that is up to date!" instead of their usual "Lets repackage technology from last generation and call it new! Bahahahahaha!" after the Wii U arrives.
Okay you do make some good points, however I think you are missing my point in graphical reasoning entirely. The main reason frame rates drop is because the system cannot run the graphics in any more frames per second, correct me if I'm wrong. Most games on current consoles, save Call of Duty since they have not updated their engine, run around 30 fps. If the Wii U can run games like Uncharted 3 at 60 fps, and 30 fps is generally acceptable for a framerate then we can in theory double the graphics of current gen with the Wii U without making the game unplayable.
Ok, lets agree on some stuff. 1) AC3 wont be the best graphics game out there, dedicated firms make the best visual games out there, not game factories. 2) We dont actually know anything about the graphics yet, and even when we do, we cant compare AC3 with U3, as they are different games with different environmental variables (entities and other variables). 3) The Wii U will have the best graphics of the consoles for a while, thats undeniable, but to produce twice as good of graphics, it will take along time to get there (if its even possible, we will see when they release some real details). And at that point, they would be porting games from the PS4/Xbox 720 or whatever since they would be on top of the hill then. So i suspect they would be making good looking games for the U, but wouldnt be making the best since they would be porting or just accepting the good level. Nintendo's first party developers generally know how to make good quality games in all categories besides graphics, so it will be interesting to see how they can work with non-gamecube tech lol
Well although Assassin's Creed III isn't the best looking game I think it is probably the best looking game to come out this fall. And yes it will take a while to get to the graphical capabilities of the Wii U. And Nintendo's games generally look better (excluding the Wii) then the other system's first party titles. Take the gamecube for example, it had Wind Waker, which was better looking then most if not all other games that gen.
Loved my gamecube. I really hope that they stay away from the arm flailing, as they will do better without it. As for AC3 being the best? http://www.amazon.com/Far-Cry-3-Xbo...97&sr=8-15&keywords=medal of honor warfighter Im not specifying any system, but i suspect that Far Cry 3 will do better. I mean, great graphics run in the series.
Why would I buy a system that has a graphical equivalent of a seven year old console? I will just save my money and buy a gaming PC. Even if I didn't want to go to the trouble of building a PC, I could just wait for the PS4/Xbox 720. At 2013 E3, Microsoft and Sony will show off their new systems that will blow the Wii U out of the water. Remember the days when Nintendo was the leader in graphics? The N64 changed everything and the Gamecube was known for having good graphics. What happened Nintendo? Nintendo ran out of ideas and doesn't know what to do. They just keep guessing and trying gimmicks while occasionally get lucky. They tried motion controls on the Wii and got really lucky. The tried 3D and didn't get so lucky; the 3DS only sold after Nintendo lowered the price so much that they started losing money on every system. In my book, that is a failure. Nintendo already stated that they are selling the Wii U at a loss because people don't want to pay for current gen graphics. The only reason Nintendo is still making consoles is they had a crapload of money in the bank, so it doesn't matter if they fail a couple of times. If Nintendo keeps failing they will have to got the route of Sega. Sure, graphics aren't everything but improvements in hardware are the only reason to buy new consoles.
