Nintendo E3 2011 Press Conference - Wii U, Luigi's Mansion 2, Smash Bros. Wii U/3DS

It just still blows my mind to think about high-def games being played on a machine that matches the original Wii's aesthetic so thoroughly.

Since this thing is almost certainly going to be launched in white is there anything we can do to get it launched in black right up front? An actual, honest to goodness letter writing campaign as opposed to an online petition perhaps?
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']It just still blows my mind to think about high-def games being played on a machine that matches the original Wii's aesthetic so thoroughly.

Since this thing is almost certainly going to be launched in white is there anything we can do to get it launched in black right up front? An actual, honest to goodness letter writing campaign as opposed to an online petition perhaps?[/QUOTE]

They prototyped the kinect in white.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']It just still blows my mind to think about high-def games being played on a machine that matches the original Wii's aesthetic so thoroughly.

Since this thing is almost certainly going to be launched in white is there anything we can do to get it launched in black right up front? An actual, honest to goodness letter writing campaign as opposed to an online petition perhaps?[/QUOTE]

Decal girl will have you covered if you cant wait for a preferred color choice.
 
If its the case that all/most WiiU games have to be compatible with remote/streaming play via the tablet, that means that all of those games MUST scale to sub-HD resolutions correctly (i.e. text MUST be readable at the very least on the tablet). Having properly scalable fonts/gui is going to be a lot more work on the part of the developer, given that this is basically never done now.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If its the case that all/most WiiU games have to be compatible with remote/streaming play via the tablet, that means that all of those games MUST scale to sub-HD resolutions correctly (i.e. text MUST be readable at the very least on the tablet). Having properly scalable fonts/gui is going to be a lot more work on the part of the developer, given that this is basically never done now.[/QUOTE]

Pardon? Any developer not scaling well to VGA for a console has already failed to account for a large chunk of his audience, meaning those crazy folks still with standard def TVs in use by a console. The Wii U controller, looking to be WVGA, should already be accounted for in a developers toolbox.
 
While my experience is limited, pretty much every PS3/360 game I've ever played has had somewhere between impossible and very unpleasant to read text or other scaling issues. This is course relative to previous gen games where this wasnt an issue. Maybe I'm just too demanding.
 
I want a Wii U. It looks cool and innovative and I want one. Is it true you can only use one of the tablets per console? How does multiplayer work? Thanks friends.
 
[quote name='foltzie']Decal girl will have you covered if you cant wait for a preferred color choice.[/QUOTE]
To hell with that. If this thing is going to work with my existing Wii gear (all black) then I want the tablet in black. I don't want to have to double (er...triple) down again this gen for a new console and I don't want to wait two years for a black machine.

[quote name='62t']this is a very good read on Wii U's graphics

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-e3-nintendo[/QUOTE]

Best point was at the end. Nintendo needs another 'Wii Sports' to sell this thing. Let's hope so.

[quote name='HeSaveDave']I want a Wii U. It looks cool and innovative and I want one. Is it true you can only use one of the tablets per console? How does multiplayer work? Thanks friends.[/QUOTE]

The current rumour is that only one tablet can be used per console. It is unconfirmed if this is set in stone and Miyamato has said something along the lines of 'we're looking into it.' Personally I can't imagine that it would be too hard on the machine to stream something as simple as menus or minigames to multiple tablets but I'm guessing the cost of the tablet is going to be pretty prohibitive.

As far as multiplayer goes? Unconfirmed. There are a few videos out there of the tablet holder controlling like a bawse. That person gets the strongest unit or acts as a kind of game master. Really, it will vary from game to game. Wait and see.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']To hell with that. If this thing is going to work with my existing Wii gear (all black) then I want the tablet in black. I don't want to have to double (er...triple) down again this gen for a new console and I don't want to wait two years for a black machine.

[/QUOTE]

So you think some folks would hold of buying the Wii U if it doesnt launch in the color you want? That seems... unlikely...
 
[quote name='foltzie']So you think some folks would hold of buying the Wii U if it doesnt launch in the color you want? That seems... unlikely...[/QUOTE]
Uh...no.

I. Singular. Referring to me and myself alone. Used it three times in the passage you yourself quoted. At no point did I claim to speak for anyone else's buying preferences.
 
[quote name='62t']this is a very good read on Wii U's graphics

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-e3-nintendo[/QUOTE]

This is a very interesting article, thanks for providing the link. In particular look at this quote about the WiiU Zelda demo:

It's a good demo, but as Oli says, it's very difficult to see this as anything other than affirmation that Nintendo's technical vision of the next generation is to effectively match the rendering performance of what's in the marketplace already. Once again, the platform holder is relying on ingenious controller-based concepts rather than cutting-edge tech.
Click to expand...


So like the Wii, again they are trying for a "hook" rather than focusing on the actual console hardware itself. Personally I would rather see a more robust console with traditional controllers, than a weaker console with an expensive touchscreen tablet.

And the final paragraph of the article is very telling:

The flipside to the concept-first argument is that with next-gen hardware from Microsoft and Sony drawing closer, the technical elements of the Wii U are very important to gamers looking to outlay a sizeable amount of cash on a new console. Bearing in mind that the quality of its visuals are akin to a machine that is now approaching its sixth birthday, how long will it "last" until a true generational leap comes along? This is precisely the challenge facing 3DS right now as Sony prepares to launch PlayStation Vita.
Click to expand...


Seems like the Wii U announcement was a bit premature, and not enough real information was provided about the sytem itself. Most of the demo focused on the controller, not the console; not a good sign for whats to come.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If its the case that all/most WiiU games have to be compatible with remote/streaming play via the tablet,[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's any reason to believe this will be the case.
 
Ooooo Wii U

photo.PNG
 
So Iwata kind of admits the E3 presentation was muddled.

"We haven't made any kind of blunder, but I should have shown a single picture of the new console, then started talking about the controller," said Iwata.
Click to expand...

So you didn't blunder, and yet you didn't do the obvious thing that would have answered the question that everyone -- seriously, EVERYONE -- was asking? Whatever, son. There were moments in that presentation where I was getting a serious Phantom vibe.

Had they not presented the Wii U concept so poorly, it might have been received even better by the press.

As often as people make the goofy Apple/Nintendo comparison, this would've been a moment for Nintendo to take the comparison seriously and try to work a little Jobs up there. I'm no Apple acolyte, but when they announce a product, it's clear they've prepared for that announcement. Nintendo's announcement gave the impression that Iwata and Reggie had been out drinking the night before, remembered they had a presentation to give the next day, and stayed up until 6 AM in Reggie's room at the Super 8 putting slides together in Power Point.

R: Where's you'd put the USB stick with the JPEGs of the console?
I: [searches pockets, under beds] Ugh man, can't find it. It's at the bar? Trust me, I'll mention the console, besides we got pictures of the tablet thingy in there, right?
R: Cool. Hey, 10th slide's done! You know what that means!
Both: ROOT BEER SCHNAPPS! [each downs 3 shots in succession, slams glasses on table, then waves fingers overhead in cop siren mode]
Both: WIIU WIIU WIIU!
 
[quote name='dothog']So Iwata kind of admits the E3 presentation was muddled.



So you didn't blunder, and yet you didn't do the obvious thing that would have answered the question that everyone -- seriously, EVERYONE -- was asking? Whatever, son. There were moments in that presentation where I was getting a serious Phantom vibe.

Had they not presented the Wii U concept so poorly, it might have been received even better by the press.

As often as people make the goofy Apple/Nintendo comparison, this would've been a moment for Nintendo to take the comparison seriously and try to work a little Jobs up there. I'm no Apple acolyte, but when they announce a product, it's clear they've prepared for that announcement. Nintendo's announcement gave the impression that Iwata and Reggie had been out drinking the night before, remembered they had a presentation to give the next day, and stayed up until 6 AM in Reggie's room at the Super 8 putting slides together in Power Point.

R: Where's you'd put the USB stick with the JPEGs of the console?
I: [searches pockets, under beds] Ugh man, can't find it. It's at the bar? Trust me, I'll mention the console, besides we got pictures of the tablet thingy in there, right?
R: Cool. Hey, 10th slide's done! You know what that means!
Both: ROOT BEER SCHNAPPS! [each downs 3 shots in succession, slams glasses on table, then waves fingers overhead in cop siren mode]
Both: WIIU WIIU WIIU![/QUOTE]

Great article. I am really confused that Iwata could say:

"The console is not drastically different, and Wii U is about the controller. The console itself will be almost invisible."
Click to expand...


This pretty much means the console itself will be weak ("not drastically different"). Dude, it BETTER be drastically different, or your company is toast. The Wii was woefully underpowered, if the WiiU is barely upgraded over the original Wii, its done. :speaktothehand:
 
[quote name='chimpmeister']
This pretty much means the console itself will be weak ("not drastically different"). Dude, it BETTER be drastically different, or your company is toast. The Wii was woefully underpowered, if the WiiU is barely upgraded over the original Wii, its done. :speaktothehand:[/QUOTE]

I disagree. A lot of people are making this point, that somehow because Nintendo's giving the impression that they're catering to everyone (including the hardcore set), they've got to be on the bleeding edge graphically.

To nintendo, catering to the hardcore set means making overtures to 3rd parties to develop AAA titles for the WIIU -- this means early and easy access to development tools, staggering first party releases so that they don't conflict with big 3rd party releases, etc. And it sounds like they've done or are willing to do that.

Having said that, I still don't see the value in the WIIU announcement. If the aim was to address shareholder concerns about the nextgen, then shareholders aren't happy if the stock price is any indication (and it may not be, who knows). I still think they'd have been better off letting people run with stupid rumors and then making an announcement once they have the console pinned down (with real specs) and a few genuine (as in, built for and running on a WIIU) demos from third parties in place. They could've done it anytime or anywhere, there's nothing special about E3 anymore.
 
[quote name='dothog']So you didn't blunder, and yet you didn't do the obvious thing that would have answered the question that everyone -- seriously, EVERYONE -- was asking? Whatever, son. There were moments in that presentation where I was getting a serious Phantom vibe.[/quote]

I watched it finally the other night, and I wasn't all that confused. He did mention the console early on, and I got the idea when they came around to it that they were talking about the controller for the next console. Sure, he could have flashed a picture up there to spell things out, but I wasn't all that confused, particularly since I read all the rumors beforehand.

[quote name='chimpmeister']Seems like the Wii U announcement was a bit premature, and not enough real information was provided about the sytem itself. Most of the demo focused on the controller, not the console; not a good sign for whats to come.[/quote]

To be honest, I don't know if there is much you can do from the technical standpoint to really blow away people anymore. It is probably all fine tuning since in reality 720p is probably good enough for most gamers. I guess pushing more polys can make things "look" better.

But, I'm not really concerned about that. I'm more about good gameplay and good games, which is what has kept Nintendo afloat for so long.

[quote name='dothog']Having said that, I still don't see the value in the WIIU announcement. If the aim was to address shareholder concerns about the nextgen, then shareholders aren't happy if the stock price is any indication (and it may not be, who knows). I still think they'd have been better off letting people run with stupid rumors and then making an announcement once they have the console pinned down (with real specs) and a few genuine (as in, built for and running on a WIIU) demos from third parties in place. They could've done it anytime or anywhere, there's nothing special about E3 anymore.[/quote]

From my view, I think the message was to gamemakers more than anything about what they are planning. It was also delivered to the press to get them used to the idea.

People talk about, "what about Sony and Microsoft's next?", but I wonder when that is going to be. I don't know if greater power is good enough to get people to move up, and I have a feeling all the console makers know this. I can't see much graphic improvement that is going to get me to buy a console beyond this generation. Nintendo's direction has been looking into more novel ways of playing games, which managed to get them a foothold with people who normally wouldn't buy a console.

Again, I don't know if I'll buy this, but they certainly have made me curious. Moreso than any conversation about how powerful your hardware is.
 
Nintendo has been all about interface for a long time now. People should not be confused by their E3 presentation. They mentioned a new console and focused on the controller. If that's where they're putting their R&D and what they're betting on there really is no point in talking about the console much or it's specs. If they focused on specs, people would ridicule the hell out of them anyways talking about how low the specs are.
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']
To be honest, I don't know if there is much you can do from the technical standpoint to really blow away people anymore. It is probably all fine tuning since in reality 720p is probably good enough for most gamers. I guess pushing more polys can make things "look" better.[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned above, this is a common sentiment until we are actually shown next gen capabilities. All it takes is one trailer that blows people's minds for you to realize that maybe current gen isn't good enough.

Last gen was "good enough" for many people. Especially those in the xbox camp since they were technically the most powerful, had HD, 5.1, broadband and a built in hard drive. Then demo kiosks hit with CoD2, and you suddenly realize, "oh, wait a minute, it does get better."
 
[quote name='Corvin']As I mentioned above, this is a common sentiment until we are actually shown next gen capabilities. All it takes is one trailer that blows people's minds for you to realize that maybe current gen isn't good enough.

Last gen was "good enough" for many people. Especially those in the xbox camp since they were technically the most powerful, had HD, 5.1, broadband and a built in hard drive. Then demo kiosks hit with CoD2, and you suddenly realize, "oh, wait a minute, it does get better."[/QUOTE]

The difference this gen vs. last gen, is everyone's economic situation. Or just to be quite frank, people are happy with what they have. I don't see what more you can do that is going to make the gameplay much better. Graphically, you could do better, but at what price. There are a few generations of games to draw from this point, backlogs and older games, I think, will keep this gen from moving on to the next one.
Why do you think backward compatibility is always a topic on every new system refresh?
Personally, my pursuit in the next gen ended with the PS3.
The WOW factor has not been there in a long time. Sorry, but it is true. We have gotten used to this gen and the multitude of games that it has brought.
 
[quote name='Corvin']As I mentioned above, this is a common sentiment until we are actually shown next gen capabilities. All it takes is one trailer that blows people's minds for you to realize that maybe current gen isn't good enough.

Last gen was "good enough" for many people. Especially those in the xbox camp since they were technically the most powerful, had HD, 5.1, broadband and a built in hard drive. Then demo kiosks hit with CoD2, and you suddenly realize, "oh, wait a minute, it does get better."[/QUOTE]

That may have been the case, but really, this time, good enough will prevail. Given the responses that I have seen, this seems to be the common sentiment. I still believe we hit the plateau of console gaming. I just don't see anything in the horizon that is going to have that WOW factor.
I will pick the backlog of games and the 1000's of games that are on the shelf to play over moving to the next gen. It is a matter of money and investment. Most people's economic situation right now will play into this idea. Why buy a $300 new system, when I can just spend $10-$60 on a game and still get the same experience. I have many friends that believe this.
Gamers, are quite fatigued to having to buy a new system every 5 years. I think this is why people have reacted somewhat negative towards the WiiU. I think it was necessary for Nintendo to refresh their hardware, but it should have done this a couple of years ago. It is frustrating when you buy a new system, buy all the games you want for it, invest money into it, only to be replaced in a few years and you have to reinvest all your money again if you are to keep up with the gaming world.
I think all 3 console makers will be making consoles last much longer than previous gens. There really isn't any more they can do at this point unless they price themselves out of oblivion.
The focus seems to be different control schemes, adding screens to controllers, online games, and social gaming. Not graphical enhancements.
 
I honestly don't think it's the tech not getting better. I'm sure programmers and engineers agree that the 360/PS3's powers have not been sapped yet.

But I think the biggest issue is software development costs. If it doubles or triples their budget to have only better graphics, most companies would be slow to embrace it. A lot of companies were complaining about development costs at the start of this gen.

So I say again, after many people echoed my sentiments. Nintendo didn't give much to sway hardcore gamers or casual gamers.
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']I watched it finally the other night, and I wasn't all that confused. He did mention the console early on, and I got the idea when they came around to it that they were talking about the controller for the next console. Sure, he could have flashed a picture up there to spell things out, but I wasn't all that confused, particularly since I read all the rumors beforehand.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why people defend the presentation. If you watch it after the fact -- after you've read a press release, article, or two -- of course it's easier to follow. In the moment, it was confusing.

People in CAG chat during the presentation weren't saying things like "oh, they just decided to focus on the peripheral and not the console itself, haha, no biggie." We were saying things like "there's gotta be a console, what is it? show what it looks like FFS" -- those of us not rending our garments, rubbing ourselves in ash, and chanting "this is not life." (winkie!)

It was a huge misstep, it was done very poorly. It's indefensible. That video game blogs were ahead of Nintendo with images of the WIIU is evidence of this. We should have seen those IN THE E3 ANNOUNCEMENT. So what if they don't think it's as important as the controller? It's still a natural question that everyone was asking, that could have been easily anticipated had that presentation not come together the night before.

I'll get off Nintendo's jock for this. To me it's the only real takeaway of substance from E3 concerning Nintendo, that it's clear they're still not sure how to present and market the WIIU. They lacked confidence. That's my contribution to this here thread. I'll need to see real specs on the WIIU, with real games, before I pass judgment.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I honestly don't think it's the tech not getting better. I'm sure programmers and engineers agree that the 360/PS3's powers have not been sapped yet.

But I think the biggest issue is software development costs. If it doubles or triples their budget to have only better graphics, most companies would be slow to embrace it. A lot of companies were complaining about development costs at the start of this gen.

So I say again, after many people echoed my sentiments. Nintendo didn't give much to sway hardcore gamers or casual gamers.[/QUOTE]
This is really the truth right here. I know for a fact it's the development costs to make a game nowadays. The more shiner the graphics and things are becoming the more work that has to go into the game. Lets face it, a model from 10+ years ago will be way easier to put into 3D then today because of all the advance facial expressions and textures that have to go into it, and the advanced physics and AI need to be implemented. I am a developer myself so speaking from personal experience, I know it's one of the reasons games have been less creative in recent years, because it's too expensive to take risks nowadays.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']This is really the truth right here. I know for a fact it's the development costs to make a game nowadays. The more shiner the graphics and things are becoming the more work that has to go into the game. Lets face it, a model from 10+ years ago will be way easier to put into 3D then today because of all the advance facial expressions and textures that have to go into it, and the advanced physics and AI need to be implemented. I am a developer myself so speaking from personal experience, I know it's one of the reasons games have been less creative in recent years, because it's too expensive to take risks nowadays.[/QUOTE]

Bingo x2.

It's the entire reason we get sequel after sequel and companies like Activision bleed propoerties dry... development costs are ridiculous. It used to be that back in the PS1 days a developer could probably put out 10-15 titles for maybe one million dollars a piece, so there was some leeway and cushion if not every game hit big. Now there are games where ONE game has the budget of a movie, so the risk is much greater. If your $50 million dollar game flops, you have a serious problem.

It's why, as you guys pointed out, I don't think the industry is really chomping at the bit to increase power and, as a result, raise development costs again. There's very little financial incentive in it. Sure, spending a lot of money on something like Halo 5, Gears of War 4, and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 9000 is a no-brainer, since it's almost a guaranteed return. Where is, then, the incentive for a company to sink tens of millions of dollars into an original IP? How many companies in the past decade have literally closed down because of ONE failure?

Ultimately, it's a shame because I remember those PS1 days fondly. Sure, there was a lot more crap, but there were also a huge number of great original games that never would've gone into production had the industry been like it is now.
 
Possibly good news:
Someone is estimating the Wii U as being 50% more powerful than the PS3.

Bad news:
Cost associated with the console.
Skyward Sword won't be on Wii U.
 
[quote name='007']
It's why, as you guys pointed out, I don't think the industry is really chomping at the bit to increase power and, as a result, raise development costs again. There's very little financial incentive in it. Sure, spending a lot of money on something like Halo 5, Gears of War 4, and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 9000 is a no-brainer, since it's almost a guaranteed return. Where is, then, the incentive for a company to sink tens of millions of dollars into an original IP? How many companies in the past decade have literally closed down because of ONE failure? [/QUOTE]

If the leap to next gen isn't as great as the PS2-PS3 gen, wouldn't most of those costs be negated though? We'd simply be talking more processing power to handle better textures, more things on screen, 60fps, etc. Companies have already made the leap to HD so wouldn't the development costs be minimal by comparison?

Also wouldn't costs be comparable to developing a current PC game?
 
[quote name='elessar123']
Skyward Sword won't be on Wii U.[/QUOTE]
Huh? It's backwards compatible and supports wiimote + MP.

If you're looking for a WIIU-specific version of Skyward ala TP, the Wii, and TP's delayed release, SIT YOUR ASS DOWN AND SHUT UP.
 
[quote name='dothog']Huh? It's backwards compatible and supports wiimote + MP.

If you're looking for a WIIU-specific version of Skyward ala TP, the Wii, and TP's delayed release, SIT YOUR ASS DOWN AND SHUT UP.[/QUOTE]

What? That's the same as saying everything on the PS1 is on the PS3, just cause the PS3 can run PS1 games.
 
So you want them to withhold Skyward for the WIIU and do some last-minute tailoring for the WIIU controller?

You honestly didn't learn this lesson from TP?

/dumbfounded
 
[quote name='dothog']So you want them to withhold Skyward for the WIIU and do some last-minute tailoring for the WIIU controller?

You honestly didn't learn this lesson from TP?

/dumbfounded[/QUOTE]

When did I even say that? And TP did great, even though it was delayed. The point is, Zelda won't appear on the Wii U probably for a long time.
 
[quote name='elessar123']When did I even say that? And TP did great, even though it was delayed. The point is, Zelda won't appear on the Wii U probably for a long time.[/QUOTE]
Point taken.

My point is Skyward's coming out for the Wii the way it should be, and to delay it and re-jigger it for the WIIU would be colossally stupid given the lesson of TP.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I honestly don't think it's the tech not getting better. I'm sure programmers and engineers agree that the 360/PS3's powers have not been sapped yet.

[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Look at Dead Rising 2 on console vs PC or better yet look at Crysis 2 console vs PC. The 360/PS3 hardware is really dated at this point.
 
[quote name='62t']Disagree. Look at Dead Rising 2 on console vs PC or better yet look at Crysis 2 console vs PC. The 360/PS3 hardware is really dated at this point.[/QUOTE]

Re-read what you quoted of my saying =P
 
[quote name='62t']Disagree. Look at Dead Rising 2 on console vs PC or better yet look at Crysis 2 console vs PC. The 360/PS3 hardware is really dated at this point.[/QUOTE]

What he said is likely accurate...that engineers have yet to eek out every little bit of power in a 360 or PS3. Even with all that power, it still doesn't compare to a high end PC.

As far as this entire debate about the current console generation being "good enough", the moment you see a game that just couldn't be done this gen you'll instantly change your tune.
 
Wii was good enough for a couple of years. What's probably going to happen is that Microsoft and Sony will make Nintendo-like systems for 720 and PS4 and make profits from Day 1 because they'll make profits from Day 1.
 
[quote name='dothog']I don't see why people defend the presentation. If you watch it after the fact -- after you've read a press release, article, or two -- of course it's easier to follow. In the moment, it was confusing.

People in CAG chat during the presentation weren't saying things like "oh, they just decided to focus on the peripheral and not the console itself, haha, no biggie." We were saying things like "there's gotta be a console, what is it? show what it looks like FFS" -- those of us not rending our garments, rubbing ourselves in ash, and chanting "this is not life." (winkie!)

It was a huge misstep, it was done very poorly. It's indefensible. That video game blogs were ahead of Nintendo with images of the WIIU is evidence of this. We should have seen those IN THE E3 ANNOUNCEMENT. So what if they don't think it's as important as the controller? It's still a natural question that everyone was asking, that could have been easily anticipated had that presentation not come together the night before.

I'll get off Nintendo's jock for this. To me it's the only real takeaway of substance from E3 concerning Nintendo, that it's clear they're still not sure how to present and market the WIIU. They lacked confidence. That's my contribution to this here thread. I'll need to see real specs on the WIIU, with real games, before I pass judgment.[/QUOTE]

You don't know what you are talking about. People were whining about it just being a new controller. I said a number of times, "no look under the TV. There is the WiiU." But people were busy bitching. It obviously had rounded edges and was not a Wii. Sure, they didn't highlight the case's design (which is not even a final dev kit, much less a final consumer product), who cares? Then an hour after the conference, people started posting pics of the WiiU. I said, "Yeah, go back to the video presentation and you'll see it under the TV. Welcome to two hours ago..." But everyone just needed a reason to complain. Everyone knew going in that there would be a new console. It was announced at their year-end investor meeting. Everyone and their cat and dog were just looking for a reason to bitch at Nintendo. They would have found the reason no matter what happened in the presentation. Nintendo had a Catch-22 here and I think they handled it as best as could be expected.
 
Having actually done research on the PS3 hardware in grad school, I can tell you that the processor in the PS3 is nowhere near it's limit. The problem is the amount of data that can be passed to it. I forget the exact figures, but the bus in the PS3 can supply enough data to keep the 6 active cores 20% busy at max. This is not even taking into account problems with parallelism. If you want proof, there are plenty of peer reviewed papers on IEEE.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Having actually done research on the PS3 hardware in grad school, I can tell you that the processor in the PS3 is nowhere near it's limit. The problem is the amount of data that can be passed to it. I forget the exact figures, but the bus in the PS3 can supply enough data to keep the 6 active cores 20% busy at max. This is not even taking into account problems with parallelism. If you want proof, there are plenty of peer reviewed papers on IEEE.[/QUOTE]
Not only that but the PS3 isn't running a full blown OS like Windows. It has a stripped down experience so it probably doesn't even use much processor power. Same goes with the 360.

Then again, even if PC does have better graphics, I haven't seen the a PC game that says yes, this gameplay can't be done on 360 or PS3 which I think is the real problem. I think until the PS3 and 360 can be pushed to the limits, and it has been proven games can't be made with the same gameplay as PC, then we need to move on to newer tech.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']RAM is probably the PS3's biggest restriction.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, it's the bus. There's only like 1 or 2 buses to supply the cell processor with data. If they had a bus for each "core", then the speed probably would be limited by the RAM/parallelization, our the hdd, or something else.

The processor in the PS3 is a beast...
 
[quote name='elessar123']IIRC, it's the bus. There's only like 1 or 2 buses to supply the cell processor with data. If they had a bus for each "core", then the speed probably would be limited by the RAM/parallelization, our the hdd, or something else.

The processor in the PS3 is a beast...[/QUOTE]
Ouch that saddens me seeing something so powerful not being used to it's full potential.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']Ouch that saddens me seeing something so powerful not being used to it's full potential.[/QUOTE]

Yea, they did it (from rumors) to cut the cost and size. Each bus was more than 64bits wide, so it's partially understandable. Why they bothered going with so many cores is beyond me.

Part of the reason the the 360 kicks the PS3's butt most of the time is cause MS's three cores have way more bandwidth than Sony's cell. They use roughly the same RAM even, I think. Only reason I leaned toward PS3 was really the scratch resistance of BR.

Anyways, it's way off topics now, so I'm not saying much more on PS3/360 in this thread.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Last gen was "good enough" for many people. Especially those in the xbox camp since they were technically the most powerful, had HD, 5.1, broadband and a built in hard drive. Then demo kiosks hit with CoD2, and you suddenly realize, "oh, wait a minute, it does get better."[/QUOTE]

As someone who was on the previous generation until last year (when I bought a Wii), while there were a select amount of games I wanted to play, I didn't have an intense desire to upgrade for more graphics power. Really, the main thing that drove it was lack of new games for the old consoles.

[quote name='dothog']I don't see why people defend the presentation. If you watch it after the fact -- after you've read a press release, article, or two -- of course it's easier to follow. In the moment, it was confusing.

People in CAG chat during the presentation weren't saying things like "oh, they just decided to focus on the peripheral and not the console itself, haha, no biggie." We were saying things like "there's gotta be a console, what is it? show what it looks like FFS" -- those of us not rending our garments, rubbing ourselves in ash, and chanting "this is not life." (winkie!)[/quote]

You know, I followed along on here, since I couldn't watch the presentation live at work and what I got from here and what I got from the presentation was two different things. I could understand maybe being initially confused because they didn't say immediately that it was a new console, but any of us who have been reading the rumors thread would have recognized what they showed as the controller for the new console.

I'll get off Nintendo's jock for this. To me it's the only real takeaway of substance from E3 concerning Nintendo, that it's clear they're still not sure how to present and market the WIIU. They lacked confidence. That's my contribution to this here thread. I'll need to see real specs on the WIIU, with real games, before I pass judgment.
Click to expand...

I don't think they lack confidence. I just think things are in an early state and they showed what they had so far. Ubisoft pretty much admitted as much during the 3rd party roundtable. I think you (and many other people on this board) were expecting a console that was closer to the release date. I always thought that holiday 2012 was the target for this console, and the presentation confirms that in my mind. I will expect that they will have a presentation more to your liking next year.
 
I think they should've said during the Conference 'this is at least 10 months off, probably closer to 17.' They should've also shown off AT LEAST one game to get me pumped and go "OH SHIT! DAY 1!" I know Miyamoto mentioned Pikmin 3 for Wii U during the Zelda roundtable, but I highly doubt it'll be in the first 3 months of the system's launch.

Wii U will still have a very good third party lineup for launch next year if it launches in November just because of the current third party content coming out for it.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think they should've said during the Conference 'this is at least 10 months off, probably closer to 17.' They should've also shown off AT LEAST one game to get me pumped and go "OH SHIT! DAY 1!" I know Miyamoto mentioned Pikmin 3 for Wii U during the Zelda roundtable, but I highly doubt it'll be in the first 3 months of the system's launch.

Wii U will still have a very good third party lineup for launch next year if it launches in November just because of the current third party content coming out for it.[/QUOTE]

Why? Everyone already knew it wasn't gonna happen till at least Q3 of next year based on their commentary for the financial sector.

Also, they can't promise anything day 1 unless they're 100% sure. That'd be stupid. Yes, everything is laid out in a development schedule, but deadlines are missed all the time. If they promised (or even hinted) at any game that makes you (or others) go OH SHIT as a launch title, then they have to deliver it day 1. Would you delay the launch of a console because you committed to some game 12 months in advance when you didn't have to?

Underpromise and overdeliver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top