Vigil Games discusses how their experience has been with Nintendo for Wii U and compares development ease with the PS3/360.
Of course it is, it's a next gen console. Powerful yet easier to develop for, this is how it should be.
No, its current gen console the same way that Wii was designed with Xbox1 and PS2 in mind well after those consoles released. Nintendo is doing nothing refining already established levels of tech from the PS3 and 360, and throwing in the gimmick that is the WiiU controller besides. Why else do you think people became confused about the existence of the actual WiiU console?
Dude, consoles don't always follow the same pattern. Was the Cube last gen compared to the PS2 and Xbox no it wasn't. Was the N64 last gen compared to the PS1? Was the SNES last gen compared to the Megadrive? Not to mention we already have a pretty good idea about the power of the Wii U, it's GPU is a suspected 4850 which is about 3x more powerful then what's found inside the PS3.
How is a touchscreen on the controller a gimmick? Its pretty standard these days, with the DS already selling over 100 million, and the psp half way there. Tabs, computers, phones, and handhelds have have held touch screens as a standard. Personally I'm just happy to see that we now have a real controller cause I hated the Wiimote. Adding a touch screen is just icing on the cake.
iunno man... even if what you were saying were factual, that still doesn't negate the fact that we'll soon have Mario, Zelda, and lots of other popular Nintendo-only franchises in beautiful HD... that alone is worth me picking up a Wii U.
Bad troll, at least have some facts if you are gunna try purposefully bashing something the report is about. When no one knows what the console is capeable of, and big names that hated the Wii and were very vocal about it, all of a sudden showing support and interest like Valve, Crytek, Id, Epic etc. Them talking about how they can use their new engines on it, and with the 6 year gap between current consoles original launch and now, with budget processors and graphics cards of today being tones better than what's in PS3 and 360, you would have to be a troll to think there's a chance Wii U won't be better. The Wii was Nintendos first and only underpowered home console compared to the competition, and they got a lot of flack not only from the public but from the 3rd party's they are trying so hard to win over, they won't do that again.
touchpad is not a gimmick, but it can be done the neat way or the gimmicky way, WiiU's controller is made the gimmicky way
your right and again someone doesn't like what you say so you get called a troll
@Rush: Pretty sure the Wii was launched post PS2/Xbox1. Not that it really matters since Nintedno has never been at the console tech forefront. They were last with the N64 especially with using carts, and technically middle with the Gamecube and deliberate use of a derivative DVD tech. People disagreeing with me are probably creaming themselves at the thought of Nintendo characters in HD while ignoring the fact that there have been two HD consoles around for over four years now. That with some games you'll be required to use Wiimotes. That if you by a WiiU and don't own a Wii you'll have to buy old style Wiimotes. And honestly, do I really have to make a point of Nintendo premiering the damn thing with games which will have been out for a year or more on the 360 and PS3? That, more than likely, they will have been reworked - *gimmicked* - in one way or another to utilize the WiiU key - *gimmick* - feature, but will basically be the exact same games? Really? Really? @DA_SHREDDER: Its a tethered tab pad. Everything else you just listed is independent, directly runs its own software and just needs an internet connection. @maniacmayhem: As told to DA_SHREDDER above: those are independent and self reliant devises. The WiiU controller requires the WiiU console. Even the iPad is more its own device because it can store almost everything it can run. And I'm certain that its second screen will enhance some games on it, but say with the coming Aliens game, its likely just going to show the motion sensor. be a sub menu. Really, its just getting painful to hear most this or most that. Why FFS does it have to be "THE MOST POWERFUL!" when we all know for a fact that the PS4 and Next Box are going to be right behind it. Then all this crap will start again when it never - NEVER - should have started.
@godmars How is the controller a gimmick? Is the ipad, iphone, wp7, DS, Android devices, Vita a gimmick. Because they all seem to have touch screens. How is adding a second screen to your TV and possibly enhancing the gamer experience a gimmick? this gives developers so much extra to work with and yet its a gimmick. I would really like to know why you think that. Edit: by the way a lot of 3rd party developers have stated that they are starting to make some original games specifically for the WiiU. I dont think you should judge the Wiiu or call anything a gimmick until you actually get to see the specs and see the actual games. Nintendo premiered those games just to let the press know that yes we will be supporting all the major 3rd party games.it was to let the public know that this isnt the Wii.
touch screen on a controller is a gimmick! this isn't a phone or a tablet! if you have buttons theres no need for a touch screen since gamecube nintendo has been cheap on tech and high on prices
Godmars, you need to do more research before posting about information you barely know anything about.
Wow godmar is frustrated. I wonder why? Yes the hd system have been out for four years and how many games run at a decent framerate? And in true hd? None hardly. You know what is a gimmick is any thing that doesn't make the games better, like DVD play back Facebook integration, copycat motion controls for half ass games. I still can't believe Sony made a worst wii sports than nintendo lol. Oh yeah countless hype that is never realized. This has all lead to gamers being very unhappy at the end of this gen. Solid state drive have always been better except for price. Those carts loaded faster also. And ps always used the slowest cd and DVD drives for years. Even the cube loaded faster than the ps2. It's no use though. This guy is melting down because he knows the fud about the power isn't true, valve, epic, crytek, even id is eyeing it now. Those are the leaders in tech that push the pc. So they sort of matter more than some mad fanboys who are running out of stuff to claim for the ps3. I mean uncharted is the new Zelda. 2012 baby yeah get pumped for the wait!
But only a little better. Just like Wii's tech was last-gen. A GameCube with motion controls didn't make the Wii next-gen. The Wii-U(tech-wise) is a current gen console with a touch screen motion controller. Yet, it belongs in the next-gen(8th gen) category because of it's chronological release. Even if Nintendo released another system just months after the Wii-U's release, it'd be considered 9th gen(two generations ahead of 360 and PS3). But we know the leap in tech really won't be. It's just chronological order.
If the rumor GPU (AMD4890 or similar) inside the Wii-u turns out to be true, (we have no idea as of yet) then it is FAR more powerful than the GPU inside the PS3 or Xbox360. This series of GPU's have anywhere from 100-125GB/s of bandwidth... Now for example compare this to the PS3 overall bandwidth for the ENTIRE system including the CELL and the PS3's is 48-50GB/s... Then throw in the other rumor about the Wii-U HAVING 1.5gigs of memory and three times as much EDRAM on die as the Xbox360 and you have a VERY capable console that in specs alone, DESTROY the PS3 and Xbox360...NOW this is of course if the rumors are all true LOL
Just like the GameCube and Xbox were more powerful than the PS2. Same thing.
You can tell the console is being made for 3rd party devs in mind.
PS4/720 will be too
Impressive, I'd like to borrow your time machine one day. Neither company has discussed or even announced their next consoles. What's more baffling is the agrees, they can see into the future too? If all the harping on about Sony keeping with the cell arcatexture is to be believed then it will be just as difficult to program for their next console as their current console as sited by dev's. Tho one would hope they would try work around that, they should want dev's to have an easier time next time around.
Just like PS3 was..-_-
"If all the harping on about Sony keeping with the cell arcatexture is to be believed then it will be just as difficult to program for their next console as their current console as sited by dev's. Tho one would hope they would try work around that, they should want dev's to have an easier time next time around." lol arcatexture? You weren't even close, lol sorry to poke fun, just made me laugh, It's architecture. On topic, Sony having Cell and than re-using cell makes it harder to dev for? Um no it makes it easier, more SPU's just allows them more freedom.
@Tenko Lol the PS3 is just as easy to develop as the 360 is now. Third party devs were just stupid when the PS3 first launched. Now they understand the PS3's architecture and have no problem developing for it. Putting a more powerful Cell and more SPUs would be the best thing for Sony to do since devs know how to develop for it and it'll be FULLY backwards compatible with the PS3.
Man I hope Sony uses the cell again just so every one can make bad ports and the Sony faithful will have an unknow to argue about and claim it's better than a frigid power 7. If you want to claim that the power 7 is using cell tech then the wiiu already has your CPU in it right now how about them cookie. The cell is like the failed larrabee that got eclipsed by gpus just like the cell actually. It's just you can get the uninformed to believe any thing.
@PS360PCROCKS I was typing on my iPhone at work, so sue me, besides you still understood what I meant even if it was a bit screwed up haha @KingDustero That's funny, I could swear a dev talking about a yet to be released game they are developing on both Wii U and PS3 currently said it was easier to program for than the PS3, and much like the 360. If something is easier than another thing, the other thing must be harder by definition yes? And if you add more hard things together it either gets harder or stays in the same range of difficulty, it doesn't magically get easier. So I fail to see how sticking with the cell and beefing it up will make things easier, sure by now a lot of dev's have gotten used to it, but they had to get used to it and it took them longer thsn with other consoles, it wasn't easy, quite a few dev's have said that.
***You can tell the console is being made for 3rd party devs in mind.*** Because there are a ton of stories of how difficult it has been to develop on the Wii... /s This is expected. What makes third-parties successful isn't how easy it is to develop on the platform, it's the consumer base on the platform that is willing to buy their games in comparison to first party titles. Something Nintendo has had a lot of issues with since the SNES.
You could argue that, for Nintendo, that is what they initially wanted until the market changed making third parties a necessity to continue growing a platform. "That makes third-parties successful isn't how easy it is to develop on the platform," It sort of does, when resources are constrained and you aren't the top dog, guess what platform third parties will drop first? Both third parties and consumers are your customers when you are a platform holder.
***It sort of does, when resources are constrained and you aren't the top dog, guess what platform third parties will drop first?*** Yes, if you eliminate all of the more important elements to determining success (resources, consumer base/audience), which is what you just did, then you look at how easy it is to develop on the platform. And, even then, looking at how "difficult" it was to develop for the PS3, how did that turn out? As I said, third-party success isn't based on how easy it is to develop on the platform. If it was the easiest platform in the world and had none of the other elements, would it be a success? No. It would just be easier. And, if you look at how the PS3 has done with regards to increasing profits for third-parties, even though it's seen, by many, as the hardest thing to develop for out there, even if the Wii was as difficult it's unlikely any third-parties would have any issues moving their current gen games over to the new platform.
"Yes, if you eliminate all of the more important elements to determining success (resources, consumer base/audience)," Well resources kind of goes hand in hand with "difficulty to develop for". It might not be the only element, but it certainly is a significant. "which is what you just did," I think you misread my comment. I didn't ignore those two things, in fact I addressed one of them specifically and pointed out that it is important as well. "And, even then, looking at how "difficult" it was to develop for the PS3, how did that turn out?" It turned out with years of bad reputation for having inferior ports (irregardless of if it was albeit sometimes it was) for the PS3. More importantly, the reason why PS3 still got support was because it is generally cheap to port to the Xbox 360 if you start with the PS3. Remember the complaints when Xbox 360 was the lead? "And, if you look at how the PS3 has done with regards to increasing profits for third-parties, even though it's seen, by many, as the hardest thing to develop for out there" The success of the console depends on so many factors, including your business situation as well as what your competitor's state. This is well illustrated in the current generation. The difficult development for PS3 certainly didn't help it. What tide PS3 over was the strong brand name that many publishers/developers thought would dominate again so provided the initial support needed to get titles onto Sony's platform as well as the branding to sell their hardware to consumers. Creating an eco system that is worthwhile for third parties. Imagine Nintendo coming off the GC and trying to pull off what Sony did? or Xbox 360 after the original Xbox?
***I think you misread my comment. I didn't ignore those two things, in fact I addressed one of them specifically and pointed out that it is important as well. *** You didn't ignore them, you brought them up when they aren't a part of the discussion in the first place. And, you did it in a manner that actually proves my point. I made a statement that "how easy" a console is to develop for isn't a determining factor in the success of a third-party on a console. Note that we're talking about the success of a third-party here, not the console itself. You then followed up a disagreeing statement stating that it is a factor if certain other factors are also deficient. Sorry, but you don't argue the importance of one factor by ignoring other deficiencies or setting up "ideal" situations where it suddenly has some sort of importance. As I said, if you have the easiest to develop for platform out there, it doesn't matter if you don't have the desired audience to go with it. ***It turned out with years of bad reputation for having inferior ports (irregardless of if it was albeit sometimes it was) for the PS3.*** It also had, and still has, years of some of the best looking and performing games out there. But, that's not the point, is it? It's a shallow argument that only matters to online gamers like you and me. Third parties care about sales, and the PS3 has had way more than enough sales to make it a success. === Normally I think our arguments are going somewhere, but in this one I think you might have looked for an argument to be had where it just wasn't necessary. And your follow-up reply went into territory that just wasn't being discussed nor has truly any bearing on the success of third-parties (see "Bayonetta on PS3 vs 360" or "Ghostbusters on PS3 vs 360" as an example). The history of both the PS2 and PS3 prove my point on the necessity of an "easier to develop for platform" compared to the other factors. Both were notoriously different and thereby more difficulty to develop for, but both have seen a large increase in profit potential for third-party developers.
***You didn't ignore them, you brought them up when they aren't a part of the discussion in the first place.*** I thought you just said: ***Yes, if you eliminate all of the more important elements to determining success (resources, consumer base/audience),*** Did I misunderstand you? Maybe I took something out of context? I understood "eliminate" as "ignore" or "remove".... ***I made a statement that "how easy" a console is to develop for isn't a determining factor in the success of a third-party on a console.*** I'm saying it is, depending on where you are in the console lifecycle. If you are at the start, it could take away resources from development and even kill a product before it sees launch which is potentially a vicious cycle. ***Note that we're talking about the success of a third-party here, not the console itself.*** To me, you can't really have successful third party without successful platform. You can have a successful platform, without third party though. ***Sorry, but you don't argue the importance of one factor by ignoring other deficiencies or setting up "ideal" situations where it suddenly has some sort of importance.*** Sony was in an ideal situation: ***The history of both the PS2 and PS3 prove my point on the necessity of an "easier to develop for platform" compared to the other factors. Both were notoriously different and thereby more difficulty to develop for, but both have seen a large increase in profit potential for third-party developers.*** I'm going back to this statment right here that illustrates my point in reverse: ***As I said, third-party success isn't based on how easy it is to develop on the platform. If it was the easiest platform in the world and had none of the other elements, would it be a success? No. It would just be easier.*** If you had a large user base, but the system was extremely hard to develop for, would it be a success? Not necessarily, if said product after development didn't recoup the cost and actually turn a profit. For third parties, success would be profitability irregardless of how you achieve it. You could sell one copy make gazillion or sell gazillion copies and make no money. You have heard that very statement echoed by publishers/developers all the time. You need x amount of units to recoup your cost and turn a profit. If your development was easy, less resources are used and you can sell fewer copies, but still consider it a success. The higher your stake, the higher your profit needs to be to consider it a success. Profit = sales of said product - cost of resources needed Hence, they go hand in hand. The good news is as user base increases, the system doesn't get any harder to develop for. That is why difficult to develop (and hence resource need) for matters the most in the early stages of console life.
First of all the ability to meet your project dead line of a few years and during a volume month like say a holiday is very important when you are paying these guys 40-70k on avg and the higher ups getting way more. The longer it takes to prototype your game the longer it takes to get approved. no revenue is coming in then. Then if you miss your window because your team just can't get an important peice of your game working then your toast, well how come Sony do it and others can't? They are subsidized by the rest of Sony. Ms did this with epic and a few others also for the xbox in the beginning. The myth that games are not selling because of nintendo consulting was shattered this gen. Nintendo didn't even make core games if you ask hd owners. It's true the wii was sd lol. So what was the excuse now? Also the ds line proves that 3rd party can win they just need better games. Easier to develops means you can pull a nintendo and make 3 RPGs and not even try to sell them else where. The marketing team works with you and you have to make those dates or studios shut down or games get cancelled or take 5 years to make. Actualy part of the wii was hard to develop for the tev engine the fixed function shader engine. After using nvidias and Amdati tools you would have to creat the tool first then make the game which adds years to development time and half your team would be idiel. The big hold up with the cell was a better compliler and sdk tools period for the more advanced ideas. Now 3rd parties need a 3rd console to port games to. They also need more power. It's win win here for every one except fanboys.
***I thought you just said: *** Only in response to you bringing them up... ***Sony was in an ideal situation: *** Sony was in an ideal situation because they had the audience. You're proving my point. Technology and difficulty of it matters on the whole, but not when it comes to ensuring third-party success on your console. PS2 was harder to develop on than other consoles and the PC. But, they had the audience and did well. PS3 was harder to develop on than other consoles. But, they had the audience and they've done well. iPhone is harder to develop on than Androids, including needing OSX compatible Macs to run the SDK off of, but they've done tremendously well because they have the audience. When there is an audience there that matches their goal, businesses will jump through freaking hoops to get said audience to buy their product. If you want to talk about "how" technology affects profits, go right ahead. But that's not what this is about. This is about the means of success for third-parties on a console, and that all boils down to the audience. The Wii didn't have the same audience as the 360 and PS3, but the Wii U is aiming to pull them in by at least matching them on the technology front while maintaining their current market through their own IPs. This is why third parties are happy, because they can now develop for the same audience on all three consoles. Yeah, it's nice that the technology is just as easy as it is on the 360, but even if it was as hard as the PS3 they would still do it. For the exact same reasons they developed games on both the 360 and PS3, even though the 360 had a tremendous audiences with just one year advantage on the PS3, because the same audience is there as it is on the 360 and they want to reach all of their audience. And, yes, if the Wii U was harder to develop for than the PS3, third parties would still be jumping all over it. They want that audience and they don't want someone else to have it over them. Exact same way how I would spend the extra money to buy what it needed and learn to to develop on the iPhone before I considered app development on an Android device, which would be considerably cheaper and easier for me. ***Then if you miss your window because your team just can't get an important peice of your game working then your toast,*** And all of this would be streamlined prior to the alpha phase, in which what could and could not make it into the game would be determined based on current analysis of how long it's taken to implement the features. When you have a budget, you play by that budget, regardless of the difficulty of the individual system. If it's more difficult, less will make it in. Your budget designated how much makes it in, not the other way around. This is true for all systems. ***The big hold up with the cell was a better compliler and sdk tools period for the more advanced ideas.*** Incorrect. SDK tools were available prior to release and have been constantly updated through the ICE Team. There was no hold up in that regard. Third-parties initially approached the PS3 from a PC architecture mode and led to lower graphical quality and performance issues due to this. ***Easier to develops means you can pull a nintendo and make 3 RPGs and not even try to sell them else where.*** Far from. Easier means less of a learning curve, but it doesn't mean that code suddenly writes itself, there are less bugs, you don't have to account for unique peripherals, or that the rest of the process (graphic design, level design, writing, testing, etc.) suddenly gets easier as well.
I never contested that having users isn't important, simply that development is important as well and not to be dismissed. "Technology and difficulty of it matters on the whole, but not when it comes to ensuring third-party success on your console." "When there is an audience there that matches their goal, businesses will jump through freaking hoops to get said audience to buy their product." The determining factor is one and one only, profit! How you achieve said profit is comprised of many different things. One of them being development, the other audience. In smaller platforms and even console launches, it is the development cost. Just ask indie developers on Xbox Live Indie Games or publishers about their development costs for new platforms. They all cringe. It is a combination of factors, not one audience unless said audience in the equation makes up for everything else and in many cases it does. That I will agree to, which I think is your point, but it is not "ensuring" success.
***How you achieve said profit is comprised of many different things. One of them being development, the other audience.*** I think you are giving way too much power to ease of technology in the overall element of profit. An industry where people are paid salaries and worked like dogs to get the work done in the time that upper management wants. Where the trials and tribulations of technology are met with sweat and blood at costs per person that are but a minute fraction of the profit that the game will see if it is successful. And these people are abused to overcome these technical speed bumps in order to meet the desires of the audience in which the company has decided to make a game. We will have to agree to disagree on this.
***Where the trials and tribulations of technology are met with sweat and blood at costs per person that are but a minute fraction of the profit that the game will see if it is successful.*** True, but business aren't assuming success, but instead seek to minimize risk. That is the essence to managing businesses. ***And these people are abused to overcome these technical speed bumps in order to meet the desires of the audience in which the company has decided to make a game.*** Personally, I don't think treating people in that manner creates productive and loyal employees. However, they do have a choice to move into another company or industry. ***We will have to agree to disagree on this.*** I think we agree more than you might think. I'm just saying it all depends on the situation, development difficulty is another factor to consider and even then it is the level of difficulty. @LastDance Yes, walls of text! However, it is a good discussion with many good points.
Yea dont need another ps3 like incident. Ps3 rocks but because it was hard to develop on it had crap 3rd party support early on missing games and having worse versions. This is good, shows nin want to compete with the 360/ps3 with online exc. The wii couldnt run 3rd party games so all it got were watered down verions or none at all. Wii u is sounding great and i love the controller. MS and sony just now added motion and nin is moving on to the next thing. Glad we have a console maker who isnt afraid to take risks and think outside the box. It sound like it will be the most powerful console, i know ps4/720 will prob beat it but really a little more power is good enough for 5 more years imho. 1080p zelda, metoid, jrpgs, plus 3rd party games with online=WIN.
The 360 is the poster child for console development, nobody want to learn another cryptic architecture like Cell again. I expect games from nextgen consoles to be maxing the system on day one, not years like this gen and the PS3.
But uh...where does that put the 360 ? IMO maxing the console day one is not exactly a good thing. Sometimes i like to think the devs deliberately make a console game look less good than it could have and make the inevitable sequel or new IP look better. Just so they could reel customers in for more sales.
If consoles are maxed from day one then I'm moving to pc permanently. The reason why it was "hard to develop for" is because mostly every dev is coding it like a pc, which it is not. It's like using an axe to mow your lawn.
ia agree with both ..of you.....also 720 ps4 will be build for 3rd party devs is the only way to have a lots of support today
Where are the grammar Nazi's when you need them?
But you only got the fame and money to make a sequel from the supportive nature of the 360/PS3 owners...
so true, and i suspect thats where most people will buy it.
But just go look back at the comments of when Darksiders was released last year, 360/PS3 peeps pretty much ignored this game and slated it for being a ''GoW3'' clone.
Wasn't it criticised for being more of a Zelda clone? Not knocking you but 360/PS3 owners made Darksiders the name it is today, bashing or not.
Those same gamers are not loyal. Gamers go where the games are not where they claim loyalty. You are only creating entitlement for your self and it will be a let down like always. Remember xbox had no loyal fans and every one hated ms at the time because of windows yet here they are in 2nd beating out the current ps3 fan base.
The PS3 is still ahead of it's time. All this talk of PS4 makes me laugh we haven't even seen what the PS3 can really do yet.
Blind faith right there. I guess the people who actually develop games saying that the 360/PS3 are holding them back are wrong though, right?
Yeah "Buttclown" where are the developers that are all these developers that are saying that? Cause Every time Microsoft or Sony even HINT at a new console the developers throw a tantrum. That sounds like they don't want new hardware.
"Ubisoft 'extremely limited' by PS3 and 360" lmao it's on the front PAGE!
@buttclown You mean the same ones that say they know what's best for you with the Passes and "cut-content"? It's funny cause they feed you one thing and people are ok with it. Feed you with another and then people don't believe it. The irony in what you say buttclown as far as blind faith, is the same for you having flat out acceptance in what they say.
Haha, apparently I hit some nerves. As far as about MS or Sony making a new console, the only real thing they throw a tantrum about would be having to learn how to develop for the new hardware and that anything they make for the first year or two won't be as profitable as it will be 3 to 4 years into the life cycle. As far as me having blind faith, I don't know how you made the assumption that I have blind faith as I was making a point to the PS3 not being ahead of it's time but hey, you are obviously smarter than me so more power to ya.
@buttclown I actually develop and work on the consoles, along with the SDKs and Development Kits, so I can actually back up to what I say. A lot of the times when people say this stuff out to the public, people throw it WAY out of proportion. People think that when someone says they tapped out the power of the system, ANOTHER company shows them up, and then says THEY tapped it out. I'm surprised none of you have caught this within the past years...
Raphil it's just bragging but if you understand the limits of compilers, bandwidth etc then you can see them blowing smoke. I encourage more gamers to pick up development so they won't be so green and naive about tech. Sony needs to stop using the wrong chips for certain applications. The cell is a good blu ray chip period. That is the only way to tap it out. To mr co the tools where not in place making many games run slower than they should. If you have ever been indevelopment you would know it's mostly about fixing things that don't work the way they should. Put features in is easy yet debugging proves if it's possible. Also developer dont do harder or they all would port to pc server class chips and apples. Developers like standards and if you have every thing in place they every one hits the ground running. Nvidia and ati prove this since their chips are far more complex and can run code off the gpus now.
@lazertroy uncharted 3 looks only slighty better than uncharted 2 killzone 3 only looks slighty better than killzone 2 naughty do themeselves said they reached the limits of ps3 with uncharted 3 and the minor visual gap between uncharted 2 and uncharted 3 can back that up. what does that tell you ? the ps3 is maxed out stop being delusional. the 360 is also being maxed out by gears 3 and forza 4 take a look : http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... obviously one of the best on consoles @trounbyfire your the one talking out of your butt. do you really think the ps3 is an ominipotent machine ? lol what ever helps you sleep at night.
BS kz3 looks much better than KZ2 UC3 looks kind of better than uc2 and BTW KZ3 crushes uc3 in graphics and kz3 animation and sound are firts class as well. also UC2-3 uses the same engine and KZ2-3 does as well the difference KZ is made to be a graphics powerhouse UC isn't wait for a new engine before you talk out of your butt BTW when ever a dev says they are reaching the limit IT MEANS THE ENGINE no the system, the engine is pushing everything it can because thats the level it was programmed too. can't believe i have to say this... new engines are expensive and that's why you see sequels to pay of the investment made producing the engine, otherwise they would make new engines for each game and you would see a more notice gap
So if they are reaching the limit it means the engine? So what you are telling me that Dice is having problem with Battlefield 3 on consoles because they reached the limit of the brand new Frostbite 2 engine, and the PS3 or 360 has nothing to do with that?
time to move on mate. consoles 5 or 6y of age are outdated to me. i would not use mobile phone for 5-6y .let get new console with better graphics , more memory with better AI and so on.
What are you talking about. We've already seen plenty of things the PS3 can't do.
lol I love your comments. very classy I commend you for that. I'm a bit of a pc elitist myself gears 3 and uncharted 3 don't even look as good as battlefield 1 pc(not even 2 or 3) even bulletstorm and sdead space 2 pc destroy all console games in terms of graphics quality
Yawn. Developer of mediocre Zelda/GOW ripoff claims Wii U is easier to work with. Now I'm really impressed /s. Try making a good game this time instead of worrying about how much less or more easy it is. @ cgoodno. I respect your opinion but it really wasn't that good a game.It was a 5 out of ten a best.
IMHO, Darksiders is a great game. Now, they're not known like certain studios, but for a new franchise, I thought it was in the top ten new franchises of this generation.
Darksiders II is one of the games im interested to see on the Wii U. It might show how Zelda may play out too, since they're sort of similar games. Darksiders is like Zelda for the core gamers ;)
Zelda's not core? I'd love to see my mom beat Ocarina of Time =/
"No zelda is not "core". That means its for whiny nagging fanboys." "whiny nagging fanboys" kinda describes zelda fans initial reaction to WW...
I loved WW =) So sure, whatever floats your boat. Edit: They do indeed lol. So my comment counts for anyone who is just as "hardcore" =P O and lost a bubble =D hahah
I also do, but Zelda fans tend to b!tch a lot, hell I did too when I first saw SS, but my opinion of it has changed after seeing just how awesome it looks!
Duh, wasn't the PS3 the most difficult to develop for this gen? as long as can output great graphics for great games, everything is cool...