Wii U Project Cars Discussion

[Mike_grpA]

That's all well and good and hooray for SMS for trying. Nobody is saying they shouldn't of tried, but they new long before release that it had issues that couldn't be overcome. SMS should of been honest and said so then instead of letting the community continue to believe there would be a Wii U version when SMS new it wasn't coming. While that might not be a lie in some peoples book, it sure was misleading.

They didn't know it wasn't coming though. If you read the SMS forum you'd know this. When they got to the point where they weren't getting any more performance out of the system, they flat out told the public about it. They spent time and resources on optimising the code for the Wii U, and got a maximum of 23fps @720p. AFAIK Nintendo demands a minimum of 30fps and 720p, so there wasn't much more they could do at that point. Ian said in the forum that they were waiting to find out about Nintendo's future plans regarding hardware, and if no new Nintendo hardware would be coming any time soon, they would look into other options, like cutting the game down. If it's been officially cancelled, it would be due to them not wanting to release such an inferior product, as to get the game to work, they'd need to run practically completely different physics, and reduced, or no weather.

 

[Pseudopod]

Not really. I imagine SMS did their best to get a sophisticated piece code to run properly on a primitive machine. Kudos to them for trying while many developers seem to have essentially abandoned the WiiU already.

Bit of a stretch to call it primitive. I wouldn't call PS360 that either, and they're weaker.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Bit of a stretch to call it primitive. I wouldn't call PS360 that either, and they're weaker.

To be fair, primitive =/= weak. I'd call push rod engines primitive, due to the age of that engine design, but there are a lot of bloody strong ones that's for sure lol. The Wii U can trace it's CPU architecture to the Gamecube, 14 year old architecture. In computer technology terms it's a dinosaur.

 

[Pseudopod]

A modern PC can trace its architecture back to the 90s, but I don't see people calling them primitive. I could trace them even further back, but I chose to stop there because I don't think 486 CPUs have some of the required registers and features to run modern windows code.

WiiU uses a sort of powerPC CPU, which predates the gamecube as well. It's sort of the same thing as with x86 and PCs. A CPU can retain backwards compatibility with older code without having to be a dinosaur. You can add new functions to the processor without removing those required by old programs.

 

[DrJustice]

A modern PC can trace its architecture back to the 90s,

I'd go as far as claiming 1978 - the launch year of the 8086

 

[Pseudopod]

Yes of course, but I did say why I stopped in the 90s .

 

[DrJustice]

^ Yes you did, but the kids need to know that code from 1978 will run on their PCs (and PS4s and XB1s). It puts things in perspective

BTW, I bought my first computer a couple of years after that. Nothing with an 8086 mind you, as those machines cost about as much as a new car at the time....

 

[Mike_grpA]

The point is that the Wii U's hardware is only slightly more capable than the 360 or PS3. It would have been the most powerful console if it was released about 7 years earlier. As it stands, it's woefully underpowered against it's competition.

http://hothardware.com/news/hackers-discover-wii-us-clock-speed-processor-design

 

[Wolfe]

The Wii U is what it is, and what it was built to be. Frankly, judging its hardware harshly against the PS4/XBone is akin to comparing a WRC car to a pair of Formula 1 cars. The PS4 and XBone are almost brandname "closed-box" gaming PCs. The Wii U is a bespoke gaming device based upon a dual- and touchscreen interface, closer to a member of the DS family than a PC. It's got all the power it needs for that concept; the failure is Nintendo's inability to capitalize on the concept as effectively as they had hoped, and there are other reasons for that.

This is also what casts the blame on SMS. The hardware is a fixed target (duh), and we all know the project began with the engine behind Shift 2 Unleashed. No one asked SMS to shoehorn a physics model that had advanced beyond the initial scope of the game onto one of the three console platforms they had initially targeted.

If SMS had launched under their original plan (perhaps starting development 2-3 years earlier), they would not have faced the same difficulties bringing the Wii U version to fruition. If not for the game's troubled development, maybe they would have been on top of things to either cancel the Wii U version or split it off as a "different" game last year, rather than stumbling into that decision when it was already too late.

 

[Mike_grpA]

The Wii U is what it is, and what it was built to be. Frankly, judging its hardware harshly against the PS4/XBone is akin to comparing a WRC car to a pair of Formula 1 cars. The PS4 and XBone are almost brandname "closed-box" gaming PCs. The Wii U is a bespoke gaming device based upon a dual- and touchscreen interface, closer to a member of the DS family than a PC. It's got all the power it needs for that concept; the failure is Nintendo's inability to capitalize on the concept as effectively as they had hoped, and there are other reasons for that.

This is also what casts the blame on SMS. The hardware is a fixed target (duh), and we all know the project began with the engine behind Shift 2 Unleashed. No one asked SMS to shoehorn a physics model that had advanced beyond the initial scope of the game onto one of the three console platforms they had initially targeted.

If SMS had launched under their original plan (perhaps starting development 2-3 years earlier), they would not have faced the same difficulties bringing the Wii U version to fruition. If not for the game's troubled development, maybe they would have been on top of things to either cancel the Wii U version or split it off as a "different" game last year, rather than stumbling into that decision when it was already too late.

Comparing the Wii U against the PS4 and X1 is perfectly valid. They all belong to the same generation of consoles, and it's nobody else's fault that the Nintendo console is weaker. It's nothing like comparing a WRC car to a F1 car, because those are two completely different categories of motorsport. It is more like judging a Manor-Marrusia F1 car against a Mercedes and Ferrari F1 car. Except for the fact that Manor didn't have the money to bring anything other than a weak, previous gen car to the current season, and Nintendo certainly had more than enough money to build a decent console.

SMS did start with Shift2's engine, and if they kept it that simple, it would be out on Wii U as we speak. The problem with that is it would be a terribly simple game to try to sell to PC, PS4 and X1 gamers, and would be nothing like what they were hoping to achieve. As far as no one asking SMS to build a better physics engine, I'm pretty sure WMD members would have. It was their choice to drop last gen hardware and Wii U in order to Focus on current gen only, so that the game could have better graphics, and far more advanced simulation.

The only thing they did wrong as far as I can see was not dropping the Wii U development along with the last gen consoles. They obviously wanted a version of their game on every system, but the Wii U is simply last gen hardware, so it was never going to work with the direction they were taking.

If SMS had launched the game under their initial plan, it would be a ftp PC only game, probably even more advanced than it currently is, with micro transactions and no hope of a console launch at all.

 

[Wolfe]

Comparing the Wii U against the PS4 and X1 is perfectly valid. They all belong to the same generation of consoles, and it's nobody else's fault that the Nintendo console is weaker. It's nothing like comparing a WRC car to a F1 car, because those are two completely different categories of motorsport.

The Wii U is a different category of console. Outliers are nothing new in the history of consoles. Anyone who hasn't lived under a rock for the past ten years knows Nintendo has explicitly defied the Playstation/Xbox mold, for better or worse. The Wii U could have been a more powerful box with the conventional Wii U Pro controller that plays games like GTAV and Destiny, but that's not its raison d'être.

As enthusiastic as I was for this game on this platform, the Wii U was never intended for exhibitionist powerhouse games with glitzy visuals or beefy physics. It wasn't made for the fools who believe games are measured solely by polygon counts, shaders, and texture resolutions. It never strove for parity with the PS4 or XBone. Like it or not, it plays Wii U games, not PS4/XBone multiplats (no, I don't just mean first party Nintendo games). I didn't buy one to play PS4/XBone multiplats. PCARS was an exception, and one I can live without for now.

SMS did start with Shift2's engine, and if they kept it that simple, it would be out on Wii U as we speak. The problem with that is it would be a terribly simple game to try to sell to PC, PS4 and X1 gamers, and would be nothing like what they were hoping to achieve. As far as no one asking SMS to build a better physics engine, I'm pretty sure WMD members would have.

You've missed the point. I said nothing about selling a S2U-like game to PC, PS4, or XBone gamers, nor did I claim that no one wanted better physics.

You agree that a game akin to S2U would be a better fit for the Wii U than the game PCARS turned out to be. If SMS had the foresight to recognize this, they should have developed the Wii U version from that foundation in the first place, with the Brush Tire Model and any other necessary compromises (while continuing with the PC/PS4/XBone versions as they are). Instead, they tried to push the Seta Tire Model onto a platform they had targeted before the STM was developed (the Wii U), after pushing forward with the STM to take advantage of power the Wii U never had. No one asked for that.

SMS got ahead of themselves and were unwilling to backpedal from a vision for the Wii U version that they couldn't pull off, and that's on them.

 

[Benny44]

The Wii U is a different category of console. Outliers are nothing new in the history of consoles. Anyone who hasn't lived under a rock for the past ten years knows Nintendo has explicitly defied the Playstation/Xbox mold, for better or worse. The Wii U could have been a more powerful box with the conventional Wii U Pro controller that plays games like GTAV and Destiny, but that's not its raison d'être.

As enthusiastic as I was for this game on this platform, the Wii U was never intended for exhibitionist powerhouse games with glitzy visuals or beefy physics. It wasn't made for the fools who believe games are measured solely by polygon counts, shaders, and texture resolutions. It never strove for parity with the PS4 or XBone. Like it or not, it plays Wii U games, not PS4/XBone multiplats (no, I don't just mean first party Nintendo games). I didn't buy one to play PS4/XBone multiplats. PCARS was an exception, and one I can live without for now.

You've missed the point. I said nothing about selling a S2U-like game to PC, PS4, or XBone gamers, nor did I claim that no one wanted better physics.

You agree that a game akin to S2U would be a better fit for the Wii U than the game PCARS turned out to be. If SMS had the foresight to recognize this, they should have developed the Wii U version from that foundation in the first place, with the Brush Tire Model and any other necessary compromises (while continuing with the PC/PS4/XBone versions as they are). Instead, they tried to push the Seta Tire Model onto a platform they had targeted before the STM was developed (the Wii U), after pushing forward with the STM to take advantage of power the Wii U never had. No one asked for that.

SMS got ahead of themselves and were unwilling to backpedal from a vision for the Wii U version that they couldn't pull off, and that's on them.

Well said...you articulated it better than I could have. Having said that, I'm looking forward to a couple of racers coming up on WiiU, even if they are quite the opposite of simulations....the F-Zero-esque game, Fast racing Neo and 90's arcade racer, which is pretty self explanatory

 

[Mike_grpA]

The Wii U is a different category of console. Outliers are nothing new in the history of consoles. Anyone who hasn't lived under a rock for the past ten years knows Nintendo has explicitly defied the Playstation/Xbox mold, for better or worse. The Wii U could have been a more powerful box with the conventional Wii U Pro controller that plays games like GTAV and Destiny, but that's not its raison d'être.

As enthusiastic as I was for this game on this platform, the Wii U was never intended for exhibitionist powerhouse games with glitzy visuals or beefy physics. It wasn't made for the fools who believe games are measured solely by polygon counts, shaders, and texture resolutions. It never strove for parity with the PS4 or XBone. Like it or not, it plays Wii U games, not PS4/XBone multiplats (no, I don't just mean first party Nintendo games). I didn't buy one to play PS4/XBone multiplats. PCARS was an exception, and one I can live without for now.

You've missed the point. I said nothing about selling a S2U-like game to PC, PS4, or XBone gamers, nor did I claim that no one wanted better physics.

You agree that a game akin to S2U would be a better fit for the Wii U than the game PCARS turned out to be. If SMS had the foresight to recognize this, they should have developed the Wii U version from that foundation in the first place, with the Brush Tire Model and any other necessary compromises (while continuing with the PC/PS4/XBone versions as they are). Instead, they tried to push the Seta Tire Model onto a platform they had targeted before the STM was developed (the Wii U), after pushing forward with the STM to take advantage of power the Wii U never had. No one asked for that.

SMS got ahead of themselves and were unwilling to backpedal from a vision for the Wii U version that they couldn't pull off, and that's on them.

Ok so for one, you can't just outright claim that because a console is significantly weaker than it's competition, and the fact that it has recieved incredibly poor support from third party devs, that it's suddenly not in the same race as the other two. It's in direct competition with the X1 and PS4. It doesn't matter that it's using old hardware and relying on a tablet instead of a controller to try and lure people into thinking it's new. Nintendo went after the casual market with the first Wii, which was a huge success for them in hardware sales. They tried to do it again with the Wii U, and it's failed, because by now everyone knows how basic the first one was, and the casuals don't update their machines, because they never bought it to play all the games, they bought it for the gimmick.

As far as the Wii U not being made for fools that think visuals make a game, this is just sheer ignorance on your part. The Wii U was made using old tech to make it as cheap as possible, while allowing easy backwards compatibility. Pcars is as good as it is solely because of the realism of it's physics, which obviously wouldn't be possible without the power of the new systems. So how foolish we must all be who have bought consoles that are actually powerful enough to play current gen games... I have played a large number of current gen games that are great, and not just because of their graphics. I can't say the same of the Wii U games I've played.

The fact of the matter is, if you're not interested in the next versions of Nintendo's own games, there is absolutely no reason to buy a Nintendo console. People don't buy Nintendo because they're doing things differently, they buy Nintendo because they love Nintendo's games, and Nintendo will keep making the same games for them. That's why Wii U has sold so poorly, because it's only really hardcore Nintendo fans buying it. That and parents buying it for their kids no doubt, as it has a lot more kid friendly games.

SMS didn't want to spend resources making two entirely different games. Pcars was only ever meant to be one game, so when that game became too complex for some platforms, they unfortunately had to be dropped. I still maintain that their only fault was not dropping Wii U with PS3 and X360, because it's no more capable than those machines.

 

[Wolfe]

Ok so for one, you can't just outright claim that because a console is significantly weaker than it's competition, and the fact that it has recieved incredibly poor support from third party devs, that it's suddenly not in the same race as the other two. It's in direct competition with the X1 and PS4.

It's not my claim to make, or a retcon to cover the Wii U's fate. Nintendo has been perfectly clear about their "blue ocean" strategy since before the Wii U launched. Of course the Wii U competes for market share, but not by doing what Sony/Microsoft are doing. That includes competing on hardware specs, regardless of the wisdom of it.

As far as the Wii U not being made for fools that think visuals make a game, this is just sheer ignorance on your part...Pcars is as good as it is solely because of the realism of it's physics, which obviously wouldn't be possible without the power of the new systems. So how foolish we must all be who have bought consoles that are actually powerful enough to play current gen games...

Okay...? You're reading something between the lines that isn't meant to be there.

1. If you value cutting-edge graphics, the Wii U isn't for you -- that should be obvious. Expecting otherwise when Nintendo has made it clear that they don't care -- that is ignorant.
2. Physics are great, and PCARS grew into something that is too much for the Wii U, that's true. That doesn't make the Wii U a poor console, it only means that PCARS won't be a Wii U game, and the Wii U probably won't get a racing sim like PCARS.
3. No one is foolish for enjoying games on any platform. I was not attacking Playstation/Xbox fans, I was defining the Wii U's target audience -- see point #1.

SMS didn't want to spend resources making two entirely different games. Pcars was only ever meant to be one game, so when that game became too complex for some platforms, they unfortunately had to be dropped. I still maintain that their only fault was not dropping Wii U with PS3 and X360...

We're essentially in agreement here, and it was SMS's decision to make.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Okay...? You're reading something between the lines that isn't meant to be there.

1. If you value cutting-edge graphics, the Wii U isn't for you -- that should be obvious. Expecting otherwise when Nintendo has made it clear that they don't care -- that is ignorant.
2. Physics are great, and PCARS grew into something that is too much for the Wii U, that's true. That doesn't make the Wii U a poor console, it only means that PCARS won't be a Wii U game, and the Wii U probably won't get a racing sim like PCARS.
3. No one is foolish for enjoying games on any platform. I was not attacking Playstation/Xbox fans, I was defining the Wii U's target audience -- see point #1.

1. I value gameplay over anything else in a game, and the more powerful a system is, the more freedom developers have to make the game they want to make. A great example of that is Pcars becoming too advanced to work on Wii U. If they made a version that would work on that system, it would be basically Shift 2.5, which would suck in a big way compared to Pcars.

2. No, what SMS has achieved with Pcars doesn't define what the Wii U is as a console, the Wii U having weak hardware not capable of playing current gen games makes it a poor console. It's massively inferior to it's competition, and that is what makes it a poor console, and I think the sales have reflected that.

3. Saying " It wasn't made for the fools who believe games are measured solely by polygon counts, shaders, and texture resolutions" implies that people who buy the Wii U's competition are "fools who believe games are measured solely by polygon counts, shaders, and texture resolutions". Which, as I said, is ignorant. The extra power the other consoles have over the Wii U (of which there is quite a lot) allows much more than better graphics. So by saying the Wii U wasn't designed for (paraphrasing) fools who only care about graphics, you're implying that the system has something the others can't achieve, and trying to elevate yourself, as an owner of the Wii U, above those of us who bought a system for "fools that only care about graphics". I've played all of the current systems, and I can guarantee that the Wii U games I played are the shallowest gameplay wise.

 

[Benny44]

@Wolfe it is pointless to argue with this guy. He obviously doesn't like the WiiU, and has had bad experiences playing it. I'm not interested in console wars - I'm interested in having fun when I play. I had an XBone for a month, and it gathered dust the last 3 weeks of that month. My WiiU, on the other hand, was played frequently, and turned on practically every day by my wife or I. I think one thing that may make people dismiss the WiiU is that the focus is not on online games. However, I think it would be very hard to argue that it has the best multiplayer (I'm talking about actual friends/significant other in the same room, not online multiplayer). What it comes down to is personal preference, and I chose the WiiU. It's not that I hate the other 2 - they definitely have their reasons for playing, and I will own a PS4 someday. But for me, with both my wife and I enjoying games, there was no question which console to get.
As far as graphics making a difference, I would rather play a stellar NES game than a terrible PS4 game. Obviously, graphics/memory count, but if they are not used right, it doesn't matter

 

[Mike_grpA]

@Wolfe it is pointless to argue with this guy. He obviously doesn't like the WiiU, and has had bad experiences playing it. I'm not interested in console wars - I'm interested in having fun when I play. I had an XBone for a month, and it gathered dust the last 3 weeks of that month. My WiiU, on the other hand, was played frequently, and turned on practically every day by my wife or I. I think one thing that may make people dismiss the WiiU is that the focus is not on online games. However, I think it would be very hard to argue that it has the best multiplayer (I'm talking about actual friends/significant other in the same room, not online multiplayer). What it comes down to is personal preference, and I chose the WiiU. It's not that I hate the other 2 - they definitely have their reasons for playing, and I will own a PS4 someday. But for me, with both my wife and I enjoying games, there was no question which console to get.
As far as graphics making a difference, I would rather play a stellar NES game than a terrible PS4 game. Obviously, graphics/memory count, but if they are not used right, it doesn't matter

Obviously you like Nintendo's own franchises, which is great for you, because the Wii U will cater to that. There's nothing wrong with liking Nintendo's games, and as I said, that's the only reason to buy a Wii U. The discussion wasn't about "console wars", it was about the Wii U not being powerful enough to play Pcars, which led to Wolfe claiming it isn't meant to be powerful, because it isn't aimed at fools who think graphics are important. This is obviously implying that people who buy other consoles than the Wii U are just fools who like good graphics. I addressed that by saying that a more powerful machine is capable of a hell of a lot more than better graphics.

I don't play my games online, so I don't agree that the one thing that makes people dismiss the Wii U is it's poor online support. I think the main reasons are it's tiny list of games, despite being released a full year before it's competitors, it's focus on kid friendly games, it's lack of third party support, and it's weak specs. I was turned off after having played one at a mates place. I found it no better than a Wii. It just seemed like a Wii with a tablet instead of a remote for a controller. More like a DS than a console.

I'd probably buy one more my son if I had the money, maybe when I find a cheap second hand one I will, because I remember loving Nintendo's games when I was a kid.

 

[Benny44]

You are really paraphrasing poorly what @Wolfe said. You don't like the WiiU, and you are trying to impose your views on everyone else, even though most don't want to to hear them. Anytime anyone says anything about SMS not handling this the best way, you jump to their defense. I don't think for one minute Nintendo has done everything perfectly, all I'm saying is I personally prefer thier games. If more third party devs took advantage of the tablet controller and actually used innovation instead of power, I think it would be a much bigger selling console. There is not many games that do this, although a few indie games certainly have done a good job. As for making a cheap system to cut costs, do you really think that the gamepad is cheap? Maybe thier hardware isn't the best in the console, but I'm willing to bet that controller comes close to making up the cost. So no, they didn't 'cheap out', they actually tried to be different. Until you've played a few different games, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge

 

[Pseudopod]

When you say you found it no better than a Wii, do you mean in terms of graphics?

In either case, lack of 3rd party support and weak specs is one and the same issue. WiiU doesn't get multiplatform releases because they'd have to make too many changes to the WiiU version. I personally don't like the padlet controller. It's big and clunky, usually only has gimmicky uses, and also has a battery life of three seconds. I use the pro controller whenever possible.

It's a shame, really. The padlet and the required hardware in the WiiU probably makes up a pretty decent chunk of the manufacturing costs. Without it, it could either have been more powerful, or cheaper, both which would have helped market penetration.

 

[Mike_grpA]

You are really paraphrasing poorly what @Wolfe said. You don't like the WiiU, and you are trying to impose your views on everyone else, even though most don't want to to hear them. Anytime anyone says anything about SMS not handling this the best way, you jump to their defense. I don't think for one minute Nintendo has done everything perfectly, all I'm saying is I personally prefer thier games. If more third party devs took advantage of the tablet controller and actually used innovation instead of power, I think it would be a much bigger selling console. There is not many games that do this, although a few indie games certainly have done a good job. As for making a cheap system to cut costs, do you really think that the gamepad is cheap? Maybe thier hardware isn't the best in the console, but I'm willing to bet that controller comes close to making up the cost. So no, they didn't 'cheap out', they actually tried to be different. Until you've played a few different games, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge

I'm not paraphrasing poorly at all. I even quoted him directly first. To say one Nintendo didn't make the Wii U for fools that think graphics are the most important part of a game is to imply that people who buy the other systems are indeed fools who think graphics are the most important part of a game. Otherwise, why say that at all? None of the three console makers built their games for people who think graphics are the be all and end all. The better specs of the X1 and PS4 allow more freedom for the devs, not just better graphics.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone, and I don't care what you want to hear, you can always not read my posts buddy. This is a Project CARS sub-forum, and you and a bunch of other people have ripped on the developer of that game for not supporting the console you chose to buy. Where you have made false claims I have corrected you, and I have also offered another side of the discussion other than "Nintendo is awesome and do nothing wrong and SMS suck because they didn't make a game for Wii U".

The tablet would in no way be expensive to produce, and it's not exactly revolutionary. Tablets have had games on them long before the Wii U came out. It's quite clearly a gimmick designed to lure casual gamers into buying the system, because the exact same tactic worked for the first Wii.

I have played a few games. They weren't very good. If they were, I would have bought one, considering I played a Wii U before I had played an X1 or PS4.

When you say you found it no better than a Wii, do you mean in terms of graphics?

In either case, lack of 3rd party support and weak specs is one and the same issue. WiiU doesn't get multiplatform releases because they'd have to make too many changes to the WiiU version. I personally don't like the padlet controller. It's big and clunky, usually only has gimmicky uses, and also has a battery life of three seconds. I use the pro controller whenever possible.

It's a shame, really. The padlet and the required hardware in the WiiU probably makes up a pretty decent chunk of the manufacturing costs. Without it, it could either have been more powerful, or cheaper, both which would have helped market penetration.

No, the graphics probably was better than the Wii, but it's hard to tell with cartoony games, as they are very simply graphically anyway, by design. I found the games I played themselves no better. To elaborate, I found the games tended to use the controller in very gimmicky ways, like the Wii did, and it kinda made the experience mostly annoying for me. My friend didn't have the pro controller, so I can't comment on if the games would be better to play with that.

 

[Benny44]

When you say you found it no better than a Wii, do you mean in terms of graphics?

In either case, lack of 3rd party support and weak specs is one and the same issue. WiiU doesn't get multiplatform releases because they'd have to make too many changes to the WiiU version. I personally don't like the padlet controller. It's big and clunky, usually only has gimmicky uses, and also has a battery life of three seconds. I use the pro controller whenever possible.

It's a shame, really. The padlet and the required hardware in the WiiU probably makes up a pretty decent chunk of the manufacturing costs. Without it, it could either have been more powerful, or cheaper, both which would have helped market penetration.

I somewhat agree with you. The gamepad hasn't gone over well. At first I thought it would be uncomfortable, but I find it surprisingly comfortable after using it for longer periods. Ultimately for me though I actually prefer the pro controller (my wife steals the gamepad anyway...she loves it). Personally, I don't see it as gimmicky. I think it could be a different way to play and most 3rd party devs are not willing to spend time on it, probably more because of it's low sales than it's specs. It is miles ahead of the Wii. If you play a Wii game on it, then play a WiiU game, there is absolutely no comparison in terms of how it looks

 

[Mike_grpA]

I somewhat agree with you. The gamepad hasn't gone over well. At first I thought it would be uncomfortable, but I find it surprisingly comfortable after using it for longer periods. Ultimately for me though I actually prefer the pro controller (my wife steals the gamepad anyway...she loves it). Personally, I don't see it as gimmicky. I think it could be a different way to play and most 3rd party devs are not willing to spend time on it, probably more because of it's low sales than it's specs. It is miles ahead of the Wii. If you play a Wii game on it, then play a WiiU game, there is absolutely no comparison in terms of how it looks

So first you claimed it was so good because it was different, due to the tablet controller, and now you say you play it with a normal controller anyway. Then after saying graphics aren't important, going so far as to say you'd rather a good SNES game to a poor PS4 game, you're now saying there's no comparison between the graphics of Wii and Wii U games. That is very confusing.

I played two Mario games and Nintendoland at my friend's place. Nintendoland has terrible graphics, and looks pretty much like that Wii Sports game on Wii. It was just a load of gimmicky mini games basically, so that wasn't for me. My friend put on the 3d mario game, which, although I didn't take the time to get into it, wasn't a bad game. It felt like reuniting with an old friend, because it felt like a progression of Mario64, which I loved back in the N64 days. Still, hardly revolutionary, just a nice platformer. Then I played the Super Mario Bros game, which felt a little bit too old for a new console. Just felt like they couldn't be bothered doing anything different, so they rehashed a SNES game, and considering how many times they've done those side-scrolling Mario games, I was a little surprised by how enthusiastic my mate was about it. Didn't think much of that one.

The only thing it's got going for it is for fans of Nintendo's games, it has those. Other than that it's an underpowered console with a gimmicky controller that has few games outside of Nintendos circle. That is why I said it would probably be better for Nintendo to focus on handheld gaming and release their own games on all consoles.

 

[Pseudopod]

Idk, I find it easy to tell even when the games are cartoony. Sharpness, clarity and framerate makes a big difference. The leap from Wii to WiiU is most likely greater than PS2->PS3.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Idk, I find it easy to tell even when the games are cartoony. Sharpness, clarity and framerate makes a big difference. The leap from Wii to WiiU is most likely greater than PS2->PS3.

Ok I don't find it that easy, due to cartoony games always having simple textures, and not needing tiny complex details. Certainly framerate and lighting would be the biggest changes. With that said, I don't agree that Wii to Wii U would be a bigger leap than PS2 to PS3. I only say this because the Wii U isn't a big leap in tech over the Wii, and they are both by far the weakest consoles of their gen. The PS2 was the weakest console of it's gen, and the PS3 was arguably the strongest (obviously the architecture made it very hard to get the most out of what the system could do, but generally the better exclusives had more going on and better graphics than 360 exclusives). The last time Nintendo made a big leap in hardware was N64 to GCN. The Gamecube was capable of far more complex graphics than the PS2.

 

[Benny44]

I didn't think I was confusing at all. You are the one that just said the WiiU had basically the same graphical power as a Wii....I was correcting you....one is HD, one isn't. Quite a big difference. I never said I cared nothing about power, I just don't think it is the most important thing...obviously you do. As far as the controller, IF a game doesn't use the gamepad touchscreen as an integral part of the gameplay, then yes, I'd prefer to use the pro controller. FYI, my fav controller is made by playstation. I am certainly not a blind Nintendo fan.
What drives me crazy about your posts is that you will not let anyone say anything about SMS even though it was supposed to be made for WiiU BEFORE they said it would be for PS4 and Xbox One. You can argue all you want, but WiiU was listed on their site, they did interviews about it and said what their expectations of it were. It's on them, not Nintendo. Again, not saying Nintendo's perfect, and things happen during development. I understand this. But you have to put some of the blame on SMS. As @Wolfe said, the WiiU hardware didn't change, it is obviously constant. SMS changed and they are the only reason a game they clearly said was coming out on WiiU did not come out

 

[Pseudopod]

Ok I don't find it that easy, due to cartoony games always having simple textures, and not needing tiny complex details. Certainly framerate and lighting would be the biggest changes. With that said, I don't agree that Wii to Wii U would be a bigger leap than PS2 to PS3. I only say this because the Wii U isn't a big leap in tech over the Wii, and they are both by far the weakest consoles of their gen. The PS2 was the weakest console of it's gen, and the PS3 was arguably the strongest (obviously the architecture made it very hard to get the most out of what the system could do, but generally the better exclusives had more going on and better graphics than 360 exclusives). The last time Nintendo made a big leap in hardware was N64 to GCN. The Gamecube was capable of far more complex graphics than the PS2.

PS3 had a stronger cpu that was harder to utilize, compared to 360. However, PS3's GPU was inferior to 360's in every way, and PS3 also lacked unified memory which helped game development significantly. I'm saying this as someone who had only a PS3 for most of the previous generation and didn't get a 360 until after getting a ps4. PS3 delivered a worse experience for the majority of games compared to 360. I bought it mainly because of a few exclusives.

Gamecube was a bit ahead of PS2, but it wasn't an extreme leap. The first Xbox, however,that was a complete powerhouse. I'd say gamecube wasn't as much ahead of PS2 as WiiU is ahead of PS3, but it's hard to compare anyway when there are so few games that run on both PS3 and WiiU. Benchmarks would have to be done with basically just Bayonetta and ME3, and because porting quality can vary a lot, that's a very small sample size.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I didn't think I was confusing at all. You are the one that just said the WiiU had basically the same graphical power as a Wii....I was correcting you....one is HD, one isn't. Quite a big difference. I never said I cared nothing about power, I just don't think it is the most important thing...obviously you do. As far as the controller, IF a game doesn't use the gamepad touchscreen as an integral part of the gameplay, then yes, I'd prefer to use the pro controller. FYI, my fav controller is made by playstation. I am certainly not a blind Nintendo fan.
What drives me crazy about your posts is that you will not let anyone say anything about SMS even though it was supposed to be made for WiiU BEFORE they said it would be for PS4 and Xbox One. You can argue all you want, but WiiU was listed on their site, they did interviews about it and said what their expectations of it were. It's on them, not Nintendo. Again, not saying Nintendo's perfect, and things happen during development. I understand this. But you have to put some of the blame on SMS. As @Wolfe said, the WiiU hardware didn't change, it is obviously constant. SMS changed and they are the only reason a game they clearly said was coming out on WiiU did not come out

Power is important if you want your games to get bigger and more complex, but to each his own.

I will let you say whatever you want mate, everyone is entitled to their opinions. The only time's I have said anything contrary to your posts is when you've flat out said stuff that is factually incorrect. The game was listed as being developed for Wii U before PS4 and X1, that is true, but as I've told you a few times now, it was voted to drop that system along with PS3 and X360. SMS chose not to drop it, which was obviously a mistake, as their game became far too much for the Wii U. I have put the blame on SMS for not dropping the Wii U when they should have. I've said that numerous times. People got their hopes up with unrealistic expectations because of SMS not giving up earlier.

Again, they NEVER said the game was coming out on Wii U, they said it was in development for the Wii U. Too many times have people claimed it was promised or guaranteed or that it was funded as a Wii U game. This is all BS spread by Nintendo fanboy websites.

If Nintendo had a console powerful enough for games as complex as Pcars, it would have a lot more games, and third party devs would be keen on making games for it. Currently, not only is the system too weak, but Nintendo themselves don't help third parties or try to make the Wii U development any easier. They could do a lot more to help bring a wider variety of games to their system.

 

[Mike_grpA]

PS3 had a stronger cpu that was harder to utilize, compared to 360. However, PS3's GPU was inferior to 360's in every way, and PS3 also lacked unified memory which helped game development significantly. I'm saying this as someone who had only a PS3 for most of the previous generation and didn't get a 360 until after getting a ps4. PS3 delivered a worse experience for the majority of games compared to 360. I bought it mainly because of a few exclusives.

Gamecube was a bit ahead of PS2, but it wasn't an extreme leap. The first Xbox, however,that was a complete powerhouse. I'd say gamecube wasn't as much ahead of PS2 as WiiU is ahead of PS3, but it's hard to compare anyway when there are so few games that run on both PS3 and WiiU. Benchmarks would have to be done with basically just Bayonetta and ME3, and because porting quality can vary a lot, that's a very small sample size.

Yeah multiplats were always better on 360, but the PS3 exclusives showed how good games could be on the system when done by a dev that made the effort. I also agree with the first Xbox being a beast of it's gen. I don't think the PS2 and GCN were so close though, I think the games on GCN far exceeded what the PS2 could do. I have no facts to back that up admittedly, but I had a PS2, while my two flatmates at the time had a GCN and an XBox. I meant that the biggest leap was from N64 to GCN. I was amazed when I first saw screens of GCN, while the 64 I had was suddenly looking very dated lol.

Edit: Believe it or not, when I was living with those guys, even though we had all three current systems at the time, the most played system was by far my old N64. Solely because of drunken sessions of two player Starcraft 64 lol.

 

[Benny44]

So posting it on your own website is not saying it's coming out for it? Interesting.

 

[Mike_grpA]

So posting it on your own website is not saying it's coming out for it? Interesting.

They didn't post that it was definitely coming out, it was listed in the platforms that the game was being developed for. Just like the PS3 and X360 were, but they dropped those too.