Almost four years on, were the Wii U tech demos BS ?

[ShyGuy]

A reminder -

The 'bird' demo -

The Zelda demo -

Do people think Wii U has reached those levels of visuals, has it surpassed them or were they actually running on more powerful hardware than ended up in retail consoles ?.

There were also rumours that the devkits were downgraded because of overheating.

 

[Gitaroo]

Nintendo and MS are just as guilty as Sony for releasing fake trailers and rarely get called out for. I don't remember Wii have a game that looks anywhere close to this

where they were supposedly all game cube games.

 

[BRiT]

No BS, just all the game developers are being extra lazy and doing sloppy ports from the Wii. Yup. Nintendo employees are lazy.

</sarcasm>

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Both were playable demos on the convention floor so no, they weren't bullshit.
Though there's probably a reason why there are only camera recording of the screens playing these demos.
I guess if these videos had been taken through a direct HDMI recorder, we would be a lot less impressed.

Regardless, we're entering a year where top-end smartphones and tablets will already be able to do this and more.

 

[ShyGuy]

Both were playable demos on the convention floor so no, they weren't bullshit.

Is changing the camera really considered "playable" though ? I'm not really doubting they were real time but rather what hardware was powering them because although I think there have been some great looking Wii U games nothing comes close to those tech demos over two years into the systems life.

Though there's probably a reason why there are only camera recording of the screens playing these demos.
I guess if these videos had been taken through a direct HDMI recorder, we would be a lot less impressed.

I disagree with that, all the videos we have of them are from streams or poor quality cameras which then went through horrid YT compression. They would have both been far more impressive if we had seen them in direct feed form.

Regardless, we're entering a year where top-end smartphones and tablets will already be able to do this and more.

Very interesting if true.

 

[Cyan]

Both were playable demos on the convention floor so no, they weren't bullshit.
Though there's probably a reason why there are only camera recording of the screens playing these demos.
I guess if these videos had been taken through a direct HDMI recorder, we would be a lot less impressed.

Regardless, we're entering a year where top-end smartphones and tablets will already be able to do this and more.

Is that so? If that's the case I wonder what's the point if you can't connect the phone to a proper HDTV.. Ah, and the battery.

Some WiiU games look fine, especially Mario Kart. But I am quite disappointed to be honest. Is the WiiU capable of a target render visual quality? :smile2: Or are we mainly seeing some shoddy development here?

 

[Cyan]

This reminds me to this article from 2005 titled "The mystery of Killzone":

http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/18/e3-2005-the-mystery-of-killzone

 

[Joel&Jack]

Well, Nintendo has always been known for promising a lot and then being unable to meet expectations. Since the moment we knew the WiiU wasn't even close to be as powerful as the 2005 Xbox 360 was (half the memory bandwidth -nearly 5 times less bandwidth if we include the 256 GB/s eDRam the Xbox 360 had in the equation-, a 1997 CPU that in a clock for clock basis performed between a Pentium 2 and a Pentium 3 but now in 3 cores and a bit oveclocked compared to what was available back then -XD- and a 160 ALUs GPU that of course can't even compare to the 240 ALUs GPU the Xbox 360 had) I knew it would be impossible for them to replicate those demos in real time.

I mean, come on, what can we expect from a company that in 2014 is still unable to make anything better than "let's save the princess" games while the competition is releasing masterpieces of the calibre of The Last of Us (to name just a single game)? I bet whatever you want that in the next Zelda game you'll have to save a princess, Link won't still talk in the whole game and there won't be more than a couple secondary characters with well developed personalities or tragic deaths. They have been doing that since forever, not being able to innovate or change the formula even for a bit (why don't they make a game where Link has a more complex morale, where he has to -let's say- do jobs for the bad guy in order to earn some money to later in the story discover that what he's doing will bring destruction all over the world and then try to put a stop on it?).

The same goes with Mario, saving the princess since 1986. The same thing one time after another, with the same stupid dialogues and the eternal "save the princess" goal. Haven't they realized that videogames are no longer a toy for the kids. That they are an art and that you need an interesting plot with interesting characters to make a quality product? Will they learn the lesson one day and stop publishing those games while the rest of the industry is pushing forward with over the top graphical experiences like the ones seen in The Order 1986 (although the game underdelivered, they at least tried and had they had a better character development and a more interesting plot the game would have been an atemporal masterpiece thanks to its incredible graphical quality), The Last of Us or Quantum Break on the Xbox One?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You are just trolling, but I'll bite.

To say that Nintendo can't make anything better than "save the princess" only makes you sound dumb. The majority of games Nintendo releases is at least good, most of them excellent. They've made only very few games that are less than good. I have a lot more confidence in Nintendo releasing a good game than 99% of the other devs. And rightfully so, looking at their track record.

No their games don't focus on story line, they don't have time. Most of their games are designed to be fun to play by both young and old. No Mario doesn't have a deep story, but is there really anyone that doesn't have fun when playing Mario? Nintendo's strength is that they make games that are simply fun to game. Deep story driven games simply isn't their thing just as CoD didn't have much of a story for the past 12 years. But that doesn't seem to bother you though...

Anyhow there is nothing stopping devs from making the kind of games you wan't for Wiiu. It's not Nintendo's responsibility to cover every genre.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Anyhow there is nothing stopping devs from making the kind of games you wan't for Wiiu. It's not Nintendo's responsibility to cover every genre.

It's pretty much their job to focus on particular genres and styles because that's their brand! To diversify too much would be to weaken that - look at the poll that picked Wii U for family friendliness.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That they are an art and that you need an interesting plot with interesting characters to make a quality product? Will they learn the lesson one day and stop publishing those games while the rest of the industry is pushing forward with over the top graphical experiences like the ones seen in The Order 1986 (although the game underdelivered, they at least tried and had they had a better character development and a more interesting plot the game would have been an atemporal masterpiece thanks to its incredible graphical quality), The Last of Us or Quantum Break on the Xbox One?

As per the other thread, Nintendo sell to lots of people. Just because you don't like their games, doesn't mean they have no value and Nintendo should change. Your interest in reducing diversity is counter-productive to the market. Why aren't you happy with accepting different consoles and software for different people? You need to learn to accept variety. Nintendo existing doesn't hurt you in any way, so why care to change them?

 

[liolio]

Wow forgot about those ones, that was quite the push-over actually I don't remember Sony or MSFT going this far (relatively to their systems specs) with this generation of product though I've been loosely following the news for a good while...

 

[Joel&Jack]

As per the other thread, Nintendo sell to lots of people. Just because you don't like their games, doesn't mean they have no value and Nintendo should change. Your interest in reducing diversity is counter-productive to the market. Why aren't you happy with accepting different consoles and software for different people? You need to learn to accept variety. Nintendo existing doesn't hurt you in any way, so why care to change them?

The problem is that any buck spent on Nintendo games is not spent on breathtaking, future-proof videogames that can drive the industry forward. Nintendo is just a non factor now, the industry has realized that it needs to evolve and that Nintendo's gimmicks are toxic for it, but don't you remember the Wii days?
Those days where a lot of serious videogame companies disappeared because their games couldn't sell well enough because the casuals were all buying those WiiFit-WiiTrainer-WiiputHereWhateverYouWant pseudo games?

Imagine an industry ruled by Nintendo, with gimmicks everywhere, 2004 graphical quality in 2014 (that's what they're delivering with their WiiU) and people thinking that videogame players are just a bunch of nerds without social life. Nope, I don't want that.

Now speaking of the demos, could it be that they weren't running on WiiU's? The bird demo for example, while still below some last gen games like Uncharted 3, God of War 3, Gears 3 or Halo 4 it's well above anything the WiiU has produced and showed (the most offensive comparison is with Zelda, decent looking in the demo that had to be reworked from the scratch in a cartoonish style because the console isn't able to pull what they showed in real time), so is it possible that they put some kind of PC doing the job while there was a WiiU in front to fool the spectators? XD

 

[fbomber]

The problem is that any buck spent on Nintendo games is not spent on breathtaking, future-proof videogames that can drive the industry forward. Nintendo is just a non factor now, the industry has realized that it needs to evolve and that Nintendo's gimmicks are toxic for it, but don't you remember the Wii days?
Those days where a lot of serious videogame companies disappeared because their games couldn't sell well enough because the casuals were all buying those WiiFit-WiiTrainer-WiiputHereWhateverYouWant pseudo games?

Imagine an industry ruled by Nintendo, with gimmicks everywhere, 2004 graphical quality in 2014 (that's what they're delivering with their WiiU) and people thinking that videogame players are just a bunch of nerds without social life. Nope, I don't want that.

Now speaking of the demos, could it be that they weren't running on WiiU's? The bird demo for example, while still below some last gen games like Uncharted 3, God of War 3, Gears 3 or Halo 4 it's well above anything the WiiU has produced and showed (the most offensive comparison is with Zelda, decent looking in the demo that had to be reworked from the scratch in a cartoonish style because the console isn't able to pull what they showed in real time), so is it possible that they put some kind of PC doing the job while there was a WiiU in front to fool the spectators? XD

By your standards, any buck spent on PS4 or Xbox One is not spent on breathtaking, future-proof high-end PCs that "can drive the gaming industry forward". Sorry, but that´s a bit silly.

 

[Joel&Jack]

By your standards, any buck spent on PS4 or Xbox One is not spent on breathtaking, future-proof high-end PCs that "can drive the gaming industry forward".

Videogames wouldn't be as big if it wasn't for the consoles, so as long as the consoles have decent hardware I'm happy with them. Of course, that's not Nintendo's case releasing a console in 2014 with a 1997 CPU in it.

 

[fbomber]

Videogames wouldn't be as big if it wasn't for the consoles, so as long as the consoles have decent hardware I'm happy with them. Of course, that's not Nintendo's case releasing a console in 2014 with a 1997 CPU in it.

Double standard. You chose an arbitrary baseline of performance which is "acceptable" that fits your bias.

Sarcasm: my dual Titan Black are being held back by PS4 and Xbox One weak hardware. So, these consoles are bad for the industry.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

What a load of gibberish.

The problem is that any buck spent on Nintendo games is not spent on breathtaking, future-proof videogames that can drive the industry forward.

You do know Nintendo games sell by the millions and consistently score very high on reviews? If those games were crap and everybody was only interested in games with the best graphics and a "strong" narrative do you think Nintendo would sell so many games?

Those days where a lot of serious videogame companies disappeared because their games couldn't sell well enough because the casuals were all buying those WiiFit-WiiTrainer-WiiputHereWhateverYouWant pseudo games?

Many of those developers went bankrupt because of the large amount of ps/xbox owners put such a big emphasis on graphics and developing those games was too expensive for most of them. But I'm sure you believe that somebody that buys nintendogs/wiifit is the same person that would buy Quantum Break... I'm guessing those are mostly different groups of customers.

Videogames wouldn't be as big if it wasn't for the consoles, so as long as the consoles have decent hardware I'm happy with them. Of course, that's not Nintendo's case releasing a console in 2014 with a 1997 CPU in it.

Right, here we have it. As long as it suits your agenda it's good enough. So why is ps4/xboxone hardware, which really isn't that fast, good enough while devs could make far more complex games if they took 16gb ram, titan and a i7 as the base specs but wiiu hardware isn't?

Making good games and introducing new concepts relies on a lot more than just power. Nintendo gameplay is still among the best, even with 1997 hardware...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thread closed as the product of a diseased mind.