Neoseeker : News : Wii U specs detailed with infographic
Sort by date: ascending descending
3 thumbs!
^
BlackLabel Jun 10, 12
It's still doesn't offer much.. An AMD High Definition GPU could be anything from an X1800 to a HD7970 and every card in between, all of them support 1920x1080.. I don't like how cagey they are being surrounding the actual specifics, if this was a Sony and Microsoft launch we'd have every figure down to the tiniest detail. Why would they be so secretive unless they have something to hide..
1 thumbs!
^
Wysiwyg Jun 10, 12
My best guess is that the final specifics are as of yet unconfirmed in hopes of knocking them up a few more notches before release. Either that or Nintendo are embarrassed of their consistent inferiority. I really like the controller though, might actually consider this when better games are announced.
1 thumbs!
^
Nagare Jun 10, 12
BlackLabel because they don't want everyone to know exactly what is in it yet. It makes sense to me to keep some things close to the chest when talking about your contender in the "next" gen game.
0 thumbs!
^
L-Trigga Jun 10, 12
They'll release the final specs with the cpu and the gpu listed soon most likely.
0 thumbs!
^
BlackScythe Jun 10, 12
I surely hope AMD high definition doesn't mean 7 year old hardware. However given their utter reluctance to give any information on the console it seems entirely possible given the rumors it's only on par with the PS3.
Mystic Aurora | Jun 10, 12
*** This comment was removed by its author. ***
0 thumbs!
^
BlackLabel Jun 10, 12
Having thought about this.. Could it be that the Wii U is actually quite a bit more powerful than PS3 and 360 but that the controller is actually leeching any advantage that gives them. I suggest it as Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 for a long time didn't offer split screen in games as it required a notable drop in visual fidelity. Now, the Wii U screen effectively has the console running split screen all the time. If that is the case and the screen is the reason that the Wii U is only just on par with PS3 and 360 then I don't think the screen is worth it.

Many people even those in the industry were looking for Wii U to bridge the gap between current gen and next gen and it's not going to do that, all because of a controller. I was reading Eurogamer's digital foundry article on the Wii U and they noted that while texture detail on Wii U was up on the PS3 and 360 versions, draw distance was lower and despite being 7 years newer was still only rendering at 720p30 with Anti Aliasing off.

If the controller is to blame then developers better start implementing it in vastly better ways than they are now, as right now things like the motion controlled Batterang are identical to what PS3 gamers were doing in Heavenly Sword on launch, the only difference is the addition of a screen. I get the feeling many of it's implementations will be things we were doing on our TV's and never once thought, "how much easier would this be if I had a TV in my controller" that to me is an issue..
0 thumbs!
^
BlackScythe Jun 10, 12
quote Mystic Aurora
I think this generation has been a fine example of how important power is. It's a help but not the deciding factor. It doesn't much matter what's under the hood so long as it's an improvement over the Wii and (here's the kicker) brings new experiences to the table. Graphics haven't influenced bringing new experiences since the jump from 2-D pixel art to 3-D polygons.

The only ways we have to go for innovation now are software and control. Nintendo's been an innovator in control for years. Note that the Kinect and Move weren't even on the books until they saw Nintendo's success with motion-based gameplay. Rest-assured the same will happen with the secondary screen.

If all you care about is graphics, then you shouldn't be paying attention to consoles. PC is your one and only system for graphics.
If you think all additional power does is graphics I'm going to wager you don't actually know anything about the technical side of video games.

More power translates into a lot of things like better environments, better AI, more stuff onscreen at once and more. There was someone who actually sparked a conversation on this that you might find interesting:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/63058977

Also claiming if we only care about graphics we should play PC is actually upsetting. PC games are still stuck at least 6-7 years in the past due to the fact that a literal 99% of games are designed for consoles then (usually badly) ported to PC. Skyrim for example because it wasn't optimised for PC if you run diagnostics it runs about 60-70% on your CPU while barely using your GPU (graphics card).

The current generations of consoles ARE holding back gaming and if Nintendo can barely do better than the current gen it's completely shameful as a gamer.

http://www.examiner.com/article/epic-games-next-gen-console-specs-are-not-powerful-enough
0 thumbs!
^
Nagare Jun 10, 12
BlackScythe, that's not true. PC games, even if they are "all" ported from consoles still tend to look better on a PC. They are not at all stuck 6-7 years in the past in terms of graphics and, with some exceptions, continue to look better. Not to mention the multitude of games that debut on PC or are available exclusively on PC...
0 thumbs!
^
BlackScythe Jun 10, 12
quote Nagare
BlackScythe, that's not true. PC games, even if they are "all" ported from consoles still tend to look better on a PC. They are not at all stuck 6-7 years in the past in terms of graphics and, with some exceptions, continue to look better. Not to mention the multitude of games that debut on PC or are available exclusively on PC...
Multitude? You mean Witcher 2? And strategy titles that can't run heavy on graphics?
0 thumbs!
^
Nagare Jun 10, 12
BlackScythe what do you mean? There are plenty of other gorgeous games on PC. I was just saying that PC games do not at all tend to look worse than console version...When games are ported some time (usually not too much) goes into graphics optimization and new texture packs.
0 thumbs!
^
BlackScythe Jun 10, 12
quote Nagare
BlackScythe what do you mean? There are plenty of other gorgeous games on PC. I was just saying that PC games do not at all tend to look worse than console version...When games are ported some time (usually not too much) goes into graphics optimization and new texture packs.
Oh oh! By badly ported I wasn't refering to graphics I was refering to things like controls, crashing, random slow downs, memory leaks and the like. That said, using Skyrim as an example again, while the game looks beautiful it's still very obviously being held back by consoles that is a fact. And we are getting way off the topic of this article.
0 thumbs!
^
Nagare Jun 10, 12
BlackScythe hellz yeah then XD. I'm kind of curious to see how all of the ports are going to run on the Wii U because that seems to be what a lot of their semi-headline titles were.
-1 thumbs!
^
james braselton Jun 10, 12
hi there waki-pedia says wii u has 8 gb internal flash storage i have a 8 gb sdhc rated at 20 mb/s in my nintendo 3ds
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
NVIDIA GeForce 337.50 Beta Driver Comparison XFX Type01 Bravo Mid-Tower Case Review Cooler Master JetFlo 120 Fan Review ROCCAT Ryos MK Glow Mechanical Keyboard Review Cooler Master HAF Stacker 915F & 915R Review Noctua NH-U12S & NH-U14S CPU Cooler Review
(0.1992/d/web2)