No Wii U Price, Launch Date At E3

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

One last thing, It doesn;t even look all that. Yes, it has some good moments like the Tank level, but it was pretty underwhelming overall. If people think Crysis is the best looking game out there then thye clearly haven't played most current gen games. Rage, Crysis 2, Killzone 3, Uncharted 3 and God of War 3 all look better.

gamerdude375

Rage, Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 certainly don't look better then Crysis at max settings on PC, especially in terms of the big open environments Crysis has at it's details....that's vanilla Crysis....modded Crysis and there isn't even any competition. Period.

By your logic, GTA4 and Just Cause 2 are the best looking games out there because they are 100X bigger than the big open enviornments of Crysis.

Having big open enviornments dont mean jack s*** if the game looks mediocre 50% of the time. Killzone and Uncharted destroy Crysis in terms of lighting, animation, detail and character polygons. Who cares if Crysis has semi open world enviornments?

Why not look at 2006, when the console actually hit its stride?

And the Winner is... Gears of War.Grammaton-Cleric

You and I both know that in 2006, there weren't any notable exclusive shooter releases on PC to make a comparison, most of the exclusive PC highlights that year were on within the strategy genre....and genre that isn't overly reliant on graphics. If anything, Oblivion is a better direct comparison, in which a high end PC hardware from the later half of 2005 / first half of 2006 bested the 360 in terms of visual output capability.

We can keep going in circles, since in 2007 the graphics crown was once again on the PC platform....and really hasn't been bested from a purely technical standpoint since then.

It's not surprising that the XB360 didn't take the award home in 2005 given that the system had only been out a few months and none of the launch games (with the exception of Condemned) utilized the hardware to even a fraction of its potential. By 2006 it was receiving some of the best-looking games available on any platform.Grammaton-Cleric

So this doesn't happen on PC?

...or in the case of this topic, you think this won't happen on Wii?

If that real time Zelda HD demo is an indication of the types of visuals the Wii U can produce within it's first year....you don't think that will improve and get much better over time.

There aren't many games out there that utilize current PC hardware fully and efffective, and even then, its produced the best looking graphics and visuals from a technical standpoint from 2007 onward. PC already has a single GPU card that already run what is supposed to represent "next-gen" two or three years from now.

The thing is, it's getting more and more costly to take advantage of high end hardware. What Wii is producing for what is rumored to be a $300 console coming out this year so far seems fine to me.

1)It;s a GTX 570. Made by EVGA.

2) I can max out everything else at 60 FPS at 1080p. Including Witcher 2. Except for Crysis, because it's an unoptimized pos.

3) Nice try.

S0lidSnake

Then there is something wrong with your GPU or System...or how you acquired your game...since all benchmarks indicate a GTX 570 easily achieving beyond 30fps on Crysis at 1080p with High Settings & AA enabled.

By your logic, GTA4 and Just Cause 2 are the best looking games out there because they are 100X bigger than the big open enviornments of Crysis.

Having big open enviornments dont mean jack s*** if the game looks mediocre 50% of the time. Killzone and Uncharted destroy Crysis in terms of lighting, animation, detail and character polygons. Who cares if Crysis has semi open world enviornments?

S0lidSnake

You're kidding yourself if you think Killzone 2 or 3 outdoes Crysis maxed out.....especially in the areas of lighting and detail.

....and going back to Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen....you're out of your mind for even suggesting it's better the Crysis graphically. Then again, that's to be expected from one claiming that Killzone 2 and 3 have better lighting and detail.

Inser Zelda GIF here

S0lidSnake

Firstly, the footage looks great. However, it does not surpass what have already been shown this gen. Uncharted 3 is already above and beyond this footage. That is not to say that Wii U games need to surpass this gen in order to look good. In addition to that this was a demo and judging from Nintendo's history demos are worthless since it does not accurately and has not accurately demonstrated what the system capabilities were in the past and I don't expect it do be any different now.

[QUOTE="TFX-"]I covered the Wii-U's Price point on the April 13th edition of TFX found here:
Nintendo's Wii U Priced At $300 - TFX Weekly Wrap-Up: 04.13.12 You can skip to the 1:38 minute mark to see why I believe you can still expect it to be right around the $300 range, even if they don't make it official at E3.Grammaton-Cleric

One of the reasons I worry that the Wii U might be underpowered is because at a launch price of 300 dollars that would indicate the hardware might be on the cheaper end of the spectrum given the (rumored) cost of the controller.

Any word on the price of additional controllers?

This is further cemented by the current fact that it can only support one tablet controller. And lets not ignore the supposed size of the system. The thing is margninally larger than the Wii. There is no way on this earth you can create a system that small with specs greater than the PS3 and the 360 at a price margin that is $300 or less and still make a profit.

You're kidding yourself if you think Killzone 2 or 3 outdoes Crysis maxed out.....especially in the areas of lighting and detail.

....and going back to Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen....you're out of your mind for even suggesting it's better the Crysis graphically. Then again, that's to be expected from one claiming that Killzone 2 and 3 have better lighting and detail.

gamerdude375

No. He is actually right especially with regards to Killzone 3 which is graphical masterpiece. Crysis is grossly overrated for its graphics. For the time it was released it was amazing without a doubt but since then it has been surpassed over and over. The game still runs like ass on modern systems but not because its better but because its not well optimized and Crysis 2 is a perfect example of a better looking game with better performance.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="TFX-"]I covered the Wii-U's Price point on the April 13th edition of TFX found here:
Nintendo's Wii U Priced At $300 - TFX Weekly Wrap-Up: 04.13.12 You can skip to the 1:38 minute mark to see why I believe you can still expect it to be right around the $300 range, even if they don't make it official at E3.Pedro

One of the reasons I worry that the Wii U might be underpowered is because at a launch price of 300 dollars that would indicate the hardware might be on the cheaper end of the spectrum given the (rumored) cost of the controller.

Any word on the price of additional controllers?

This is further cemented by the current fact that it can only support one tablet controller. And lets not ignore the supposed size of the system. The thing is margninally larger than the Wii. There is no way on this earth you can create a system that small with specs greater than the PS3 and the 360 at a price margin that is $300 or less and still make a profit.

Vita games come VERY close to PS3 quality graphics, and it's a handheld and sells for $250. Technology improves, it gets smaller. If the iPad2 can have a quadcore processor with a GPU that can handle 2.5K resolution then Wii U can be smaller than a fat PS3 and still produce slightly better graphics.

The only thing that would screw over Nintendo cost-wise would be the tablet, but they know what they are doing. The screen is just a SD screen. Nintendo knows how to produce cheap hardware. They can easily manage a $300 console with a IBM Power PC processor and 2008 GPU variant.

Vita games come VERY close to PS3 quality graphics, and it's a handheld and sells for $250. Technology improves, it gets smaller. If the iPad2 can have a quadcore processor with a GPU that can handle 2.5K resolution then Wii U can be smaller than a fat PS3 and still produce slightly better graphics.

The only thing that would screw over Nintendo cost-wise would be the tablet, but they know what they are doing. The screen is just a SD screen. Nintendo knows how to produce cheap hardware. They can easily manage a $300 console with a IBM Power PC processor and 2008 GPU variant.

S0lidSnake

Resolution, resolution and resolution. Lets not ignore the FACT that resolution is in the Vita's favor and not because its mystically equal to the processing power of the PS3. I work with the Ipad, Ipad2 and Ipad3 3d applications. While they make strong claims to higher rez, they are still solidly grounded in older technology limiting what can be done on these systems especially when it comes to advance shaders, deferred rendering, texture quality, frame rate at high resolution and polygon count. And lets not ignore the other fact that the ipad starts at $500. To believe that Nintendo can have a system that is marginally larger than the Wii, with capabilities that match or exceed the PS3 or 360, with the inclusion of a touch screen controller at the same price as a PS Vita and still be profitable with each unit is nothing short of insanity.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Inser Zelda GIF here

Pedro

Firstly, the footage looks great. However, it does not surpass what have already been shown this gen. Uncharted 3 is already above and beyond this footage. That is not to say that Wii U games need to surpass this gen in order to look good. In addition to that this was a demo and judging from Nintendo's history demos are worthless since it does not accurately and has not accurately demonstrated what the system capabilities were in the past and I don't expect it do be any different now.

You guys seem to follow this industry and Nintendo for a lot longer than I have so I will take your word that we cant trust their tech demos. I personally think something like this easily possible with a slightly more powerful GPU and CPU than what the PS3 has. And no, I disagree that Uncharted 3 looks better this demo. I'd say it comes very close, but the fluidity of the animation, the realtime reflection off of the entire floor and walls, the cloth physics on Zelda and of course the lighting is definitely better than what we saw in Uncharted. There is a reason why we dont ever see rooms that big with reflective surfaces and tons of light sources, current gen hardware simply cant handle it.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Vita games come VERY close to PS3 quality graphics, and it's a handheld and sells for $250. Technology improves, it gets smaller. If the iPad2 can have a quadcore processor with a GPU that can handle 2.5K resolution then Wii U can be smaller than a fat PS3 and still produce slightly better graphics.

The only thing that would screw over Nintendo cost-wise would be the tablet, but they know what they are doing. The screen is just a SD screen. Nintendo knows how to produce cheap hardware. They can easily manage a $300 console with a IBM Power PC processor and 2008 GPU variant.

Pedro

Resolution, resolution and resolution. Lets not ignore the FACT that resolution is in the Vita's favor and not because its mystically equal to the processing power of the PS3. I work with the Ipad, Ipad2 and Ipad3 3d applications. While they make strong claims to higher rez, they are still solidly grounded in older technology limiting what can be done on these systems especially when it comes to advance shaders, deferred rendering, texture quality, frame rate at high resolution and polygon count. And lets not ignore the other fact that the ipad starts at $500. To believe that Nintendo can have a system that is marginally larger than the Wii, with capabilities that match or exceed the PS3 or 360, with the inclusion of a touch screen controller at the same price as a PS Vita and still be profitable with each unit is nothing short of insanity.

Ok, yes, I forgot about Vita's resolution. I will give you that.

I never said the Wii U would be profitable. Nintendo seems to be taking a loss with each 3DS sold, they might be willing take a small loss on the $300 console. We just dont know. Let me ask you this, how expensive do you think the next PS or Xbox would be? Do you think they would retail at over $400? I dont think so. I dont think either Sony or MS is going to make the same mistake of releasing a $500 console again. So if they can release a $400 console with a current GPU with adequate ram and a decent processor then why cant Nintendo sell a PS3.5 Wii U for $300?

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Vita games come VERY close to PS3 quality graphics, and it's a handheld and sells for $250. Technology improves, it gets smaller. If the iPad2 can have a quadcore processor with a GPU that can handle 2.5K resolution then Wii U can be smaller than a fat PS3 and still produce slightly better graphics.

The only thing that would screw over Nintendo cost-wise would be the tablet, but they know what they are doing. The screen is just a SD screen. Nintendo knows how to produce cheap hardware. They can easily manage a $300 console with a IBM Power PC processor and 2008 GPU variant.

S0lidSnake

Resolution, resolution and resolution. Lets not ignore the FACT that resolution is in the Vita's favor and not because its mystically equal to the processing power of the PS3. I work with the Ipad, Ipad2 and Ipad3 3d applications. While they make strong claims to higher rez, they are still solidly grounded in older technology limiting what can be done on these systems especially when it comes to advance shaders, deferred rendering, texture quality, frame rate at high resolution and polygon count. And lets not ignore the other fact that the ipad starts at $500. To believe that Nintendo can have a system that is marginally larger than the Wii, with capabilities that match or exceed the PS3 or 360, with the inclusion of a touch screen controller at the same price as a PS Vita and still be profitable with each unit is nothing short of insanity.

Ok, yes, I forgot about Vita's resolution. I will give you that.

I never said the Wii U would be profitable. Nintendo seems to be taking a loss with each 3DS sold, they might be willing take a small loss on the $300 console. We just dont know. Let me ask you this, how expensive do you think the next PS or Xbox would be? Do you think they would retail at over $400? I dont think so. I dont think either Sony or MS is going to make the same mistake of releasing a $500 console again. So if they can release a $400 console with a current GPU with adequate ram and a decent processor then why cant Nintendo sell a PS3.5 Wii U for $300?

Nintendo just cares about profit on hardware since day 1. I'm curious about the price of that controller, imagine if you want to play with 3 other people or just one. I'm sure most people eventually buy a 2nd controller right?

And no, I disagree that Uncharted 3 looks better this demo. I'd say it comes very close, but the fluidity of the animation, the realtime reflection off of the entire floor and walls, the cloth physics on Zelda and of course the lighting is definitely better than what we saw in Uncharted. There is a reason why we dont ever see rooms that big with reflective surfaces and tons of light sources, current gen hardware simply cant handle it.

S0lidSnake

You are free to disagree. However, consider this when looking at the demo of Zelda

• Its an enclose room. Meaning that there is nothing beyond the walls of the room, allowing for more focus and overall better performance if this was an actual level.
• The reflections on the floor is not that expensive. It was most likely using planar reflection which is one projection of the entire room entire room.
• The lighting used for the fairies and other light sources cast no shadows making them cheaper to render. In fact the scene most likely has one shadow casting light and there is stupendously high chance that the static shadows are pre baked and the only dynamic shadows are Link and the spider.

The tech used in Uncharted 3 is nothing short of impressive on several accounts. The scope of the game surpasses this Zelda demo both on a technical stand point and level of detail. While I was not impressed by the game itself the graphical fidelity and the things they were able to accomplish is nothing to scuff at. If there is one thing they have mastered is creating great looking games with high level of detail.

Ok, yes, I forgot about Vita's resolution. I will give you that.

I never said the Wii U would be profitable. Nintendo seems to be taking a loss with each 3DS sold, they might be willing take a small loss on the $300 console. We just dont know. Let me ask you this, how expensive do you think the next PS or Xbox would be? Do you think they would retail at over $400? I dont think so. I dont think either Sony or MS is going to make the same mistake of releasing a $500 console again. So if they can release a $400 console with a current GPU with adequate ram and a decent processor then why cant Nintendo sell a PS3.5 Wii U for $300?

S0lidSnake

I have a hard time believing that the next batch of consoles is going to offer a graphical leap that is jaw dropping. They would however tease with fake demos and false claims of real time or in game graphics but they simply cannot accomplish the expected graphically leap at the competitive price point of $300 or even $400. Highend graphics is not only costly but energy hungry and significant heat generators. I very interested in seeing how Sony and MS is going to attract gamers to their next gen system.

Personally, console gaming is under fire. The entire process has become very PC like in execution. There is regular updates, system bricking, patches, installations, compatibility issues and too many options. If there is one thing Nintendo got right is having only one flavor of console and an easy to use system. The over diversification of consoles is blatantly diluting the gaming experience. We can pretend that it isn't but the reality is that its happening. I am not certain of the direction console gaming is going to take. In my mind it can take a turn for a great fall or take a direction in which gaming is not the main priority.

why are you guys comparing raw techincal graphics of games that have completely different art styles? Last I checked Uncharted always aimed more for realism than zelda.

What matter is how pleasing it is to the eye.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

1)It;s a GTX 570. Made by EVGA.

2) I can max out everything else at 60 FPS at 1080p. Including Witcher 2. Except for Crysis, because it's an unoptimized pos.

3) Nice try.

gamerdude375

Then there is something wrong with your GPU or System...or how you acquired your game...since all benchmarks indicate a GTX 570 easily achieving beyond 30fps on Crysis at 1080p with High Settings & AA enabled.

By your logic, GTA4 and Just Cause 2 are the best looking games out there because they are 100X bigger than the big open enviornments of Crysis.

Having big open enviornments dont mean jack s*** if the game looks mediocre 50% of the time. Killzone and Uncharted destroy Crysis in terms of lighting, animation, detail and character polygons. Who cares if Crysis has semi open world enviornments?

S0lidSnake

You're kidding yourself if you think Killzone 2 or 3 outdoes Crysis maxed out.....especially in the areas of lighting and detail.

....and going back to Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen....you're out of your mind for even suggesting it's better the Crysis graphically. Then again, that's to be expected from one claiming that Killzone 2 and 3 have better lighting and detail.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

1)It;s a GTX 570. Made by EVGA.

2) I can max out everything else at 60 FPS at 1080p. Including Witcher 2. Except for Crysis, because it's an unoptimized pos.

3) Nice try.

gamerdude375

Then there is something wrong with your GPU or System...or how you acquired your game...since all benchmarks indicate a GTX 570 easily achieving beyond 30fps on Crysis at 1080p with High Settings & AA enabled.

By your logic, GTA4 and Just Cause 2 are the best looking games out there because they are 100X bigger than the big open enviornments of Crysis.

Having big open enviornments dont mean jack s*** if the game looks mediocre 50% of the time. Killzone and Uncharted destroy Crysis in terms of lighting, animation, detail and character polygons. Who cares if Crysis has semi open world enviornments?

S0lidSnake

You're kidding yourself if you think Killzone 2 or 3 outdoes Crysis maxed out.....especially in the areas of lighting and detail.

....and going back to Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen....you're out of your mind for even suggesting it's better the Crysis graphically. Then again, that's to be expected from one claiming that Killzone 2 and 3 have better lighting and detail.

I saw notexturepop-in during my ten hours of Rage. You must be talking about the console versions, either that or you picked up on the ATI drivers fiasco at launch and ran with it. Regardless, It looks stunning, thetexturesare a bit low res when viewed upclose, but i'm sure ifJohn Carmackwent the Crytek way and included high res textures even if it comprimised the framerate, he easily could have. But alas, Carmack has some integrity and didn't want to release a game that could go down to 12 fps on the 360 like Crytek did with Crysis 2. Carmack released a beautiful game running smoothly at 60 fps on both consoles, and even on PC at the highest settings with high res textures and 16XAA.

You keep saying there is something wrong with my system and now there is something wrong with how I 'acquired' the game? I bought it off Steam. is that good enough for you? And I HAVE seen the same benchmarks... when I was trying to figure out how the f*** my beast of a system couldn't handle a game from 2007, and guess what? It's almost impossible finding Crysis benchmarks for the new GPUs because people have simply given up and now use Warhead to do the benchmarks. That's how unoptimized Crysis is.

Also, the cool thing about owning a PC that can run everything at full, I can take screengrabs and easily refute any ridiculous argument people make online. For instance this:

"Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen"

Yeah, poorest graphics of all time.....

Then there is Crysis. Stunning look landscapes, but mediocre as it gets when you look at things right infront of you. For the record, this is only with 2xAA because anything over that and the game's framerate takes a massive hit.

.

But here is another shot which looks stunning. And the game does look stunning, it's one of the best looking games I've ever played, but let's not pretend that it hasn't been topped.

Because it has been topped by this.

And this.

And of course this:

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Ok, yes, I forgot about Vita's resolution. I will give you that.

I never said the Wii U would be profitable. Nintendo seems to be taking a loss with each 3DS sold, they might be willing take a small loss on the $300 console. We just dont know. Let me ask you this, how expensive do you think the next PS or Xbox would be? Do you think they would retail at over $400? I dont think so. I dont think either Sony or MS is going to make the same mistake of releasing a $500 console again. So if they can release a $400 console with a current GPU with adequate ram and a decent processor then why cant Nintendo sell a PS3.5 Wii U for $300?

Pedro

I have a hard time believing that the next batch of consoles is going to offer a graphical leap that is jaw dropping. They would however tease with fake demos and false claims of real time or in game graphics but they simply cannot accomplish the expected graphically leap at the competitive price point of $300 or even $400. Highend graphics is not only costly but energy hungry and significant heat generators. I very interested in seeing how Sony and MS is going to attract gamers to their next gen system.

Personally, console gaming is under fire. The entire process has become very PC like in execution. There is regular updates, system bricking, patches, installations, compatibility issues and too many options. If there is one thing Nintendo got right is having only one flavor of console and an easy to use system. The over diversification of consoles is blatantly diluting the gaming experience. We can pretend that it isn't but the reality is that its happening. I am not certain of the direction console gaming is going to take. In my mind it can take a turn for a great fall or take a direction in which gaming is not the main priority.

Mark Rein of Epic games recently was gloating about how amazing Unreal Engine 4 looks. He said it looks even better than The Smaritan UE3 demo which looked next gen to me. I'd be suprised if at the end of next gen, we dont see something as fluent or at least as detailed as the CGi in TinTin. Looking back at the UE3 demo and even the BS CGi PS3 demos, did we really think we would get something as CGi-ish as Uncharted 3? The prerendered cutscenes in U3 look almost CGi to me. Next gen that's likely going to be the norm. Of course, Wii U wont be a part of it. But I expect Nintendo's first party efforts looking as good as Uncharted's cutscenes. It will take a while, just like how it took 3 games for Naughty Dog to fully master the PS3, but Nintendo will get there.

I dont think it will be enough to get the third party devs onboard though, so Nintendo will lose on that front for sure.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

And no, I disagree that Uncharted 3 looks better this demo. I'd say it comes very close, but the fluidity of the animation, the realtime reflection off of the entire floor and walls, the cloth physics on Zelda and of course the lighting is definitely better than what we saw in Uncharted. There is a reason why we dont ever see rooms that big with reflective surfaces and tons of light sources, current gen hardware simply cant handle it.

Pedro

You are free to disagree. However, consider this when looking at the demo of Zelda

• Its an enclose room. Meaning that there is nothing beyond the walls of the room, allowing for more focus and overall better performance if this was an actual level.
• The reflections on the floor is not that expensive. It was most likely using planar reflection which is one projection of the entire room entire room.
• The lighting used for the fairies and other light sources cast no shadows making them cheaper to render. In fact the scene most likely has one shadow casting light and there is stupendously high chance that the static shadows are pre baked and the only dynamic shadows are Link and the spider.

All valid points, but isn't this exactly what gamerdude is arguing? You are talking about minor technical details that look good on paper, but dont neccessarily make a big difference on screen. You think in Uncharted's indoor sections, Nauhgty Dog also renders whats beyond the walls of the rooms? Of course not, yet no indoor section in Uncharted looks even remotely as good as the Zelda demo. Who really cares if the lights dont cast shadows when the overall image quality looks that good? Console games cheat all the time when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware. I dont think Naughty Dog said to themselves 'Hey we need to have a perfect shadowing, even if it means our indoor sections look drab and boring.'

Now killzone 3 is a different story, they have like a million light sources in that factory level. It was insane. But then again, they didnt have the power left to even do the fake reflective floor like the Zelda demo.

So what?

Firstly, that footage isn't even confirmed as real. Given Nintendo's history, they love to show tech demos that often have little to no bearing on what the actual game will look like.

Secondly, while it looks good, there's nothing in that footage that couldn't be accomplished on current gen machines.

Sorry, but I'm done getting all weak in the knees over some Zelda footage.

Show me something that eclipses current gen hardware.

Grammaton-Cleric

I just did. :(

And like gamerdude pointed out, it's in realtime. It's 100% confirmed to be running on the Wii U.

And tech demos are just that, tech demos. They are supposed to showcase the full potential of the hardware. When Kojima showed that MGS tech demo, the final game ended up looking almost as good if not better. Also, if what you think is true and the Wii U is less powerful than the current gen consoles, and tech demos have no bearing on what the actual game will look like then why does Zelda tech demo look better than ANY tech demo Sony or MS showed at the beginning of last gen? (CGi trailers notwithstanding)

Not sure if you know this, but this thing is rumored to be running on a 2008 GPU and a IBM 4 core Power PC. Trust me, it's more powerful than the PS3 and 360. It's no next gen console, but it's not worse than the current gen consoles. Third parties will ignore it and wont bother learning its ins and outs, and i expect lots of shoddy ports. AC3 will probably run even worse on the Wii U, but overtime Nintendo's first party devs will be making games that look at least as good as the tech demo if not better.

I saw notexturepop-in during my ten hours of Rage. You must be talking about the console versions, either that or you picked up on the ATI drivers fiasco at launch and ran with it. Regardless, It looks stunning, thetexturesare a bit low res when viewed upclose, but i'm sure ifJohn Carmackwent the Crytek way and included high res textures even if it comprimised the framerate, he easily could have.S0lidSnake

It was the console version....but I also played it on a PC. I didn't get to the 10 hour mark because I personally found it mediocre, but even with my time with it I experience texture pop-in...on both platforms.

As for acting as if I making up the issue of Rage having well known texture pop-in problems, I refer you to this.

Because it has been topped by this.

And this.

S0lidSnake

I'm not going to re-install a game just to run it and go the the trouble of making a video just get into an online pissing match with you. But for comparison sake, I'm going to quickly post this gif, which I quickly grabbed to make a comparison with the ones you posted above:

As amazing as Uncharted 3 looks and God of War 3 (I never said they didn't)....from a graphics and technical standpoint, there is more happening in Crysis when it's maxed out on PC hardware then there is on any game on console....since 2007 till today.

Also, with games like Uncharted 3....again, as amazing as they look...sometimes what's happening on screen is visual tricks...for example, that Uncharted 3 screen you posted appears to show a game with a big expansive environment you can just ride off into, and I wouldn't be surprised if you chose that scene specifically for that reason....I have Uncharted 3...and you know that's not so.
In fact, I remember that scene, it's very carefully crafted set peice with scripted events that gives the illusion of a wide open detailed environment, when in fact we know that's really not the case...it's actually a confined linear path you take....more on that latter.

Let me tell you about another things that's great about PC in addition to the ones you mentioned....with the mod community, a game can be kept up to date and it's visuals enhanced beyond the original release.

The above pic is Crysis maxed out circa 2007 / 2008.

....I'm also simply refer to the videos I originally posted as to what Crysis was able to look like on PC in 2010 and 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivoSi2VvqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgw9DlIK8DY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGgZfiSKoow

Are you really going to tell me that Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 beats those videos, again, from a purely technical standpoint?

Now, going back to what I was saying before before about creating a carefully crafted illusion....such as that Uncharted 3 pic which seems to show this hugh expansive canyon environment being rendered....when it's actually a linear and confined path.

If anything, you're actually proving my point with Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and God of War III....in that the reason why those games match or from a subjective standpoint exceed Crysis overall in terms of visual presentation has more to do with the artistic design and carefully crafted level presentation.....not in terms of pure technical prowess of the hardware or it's capabilities.

Look at last gen, Resident Evil 4 was one of the best looking games of 2005, it was even nominated for best graphics....running on Gamecube....are you really going to tell me RE4 had more going on in terms of technical capability then say....many Unreal Engine 2 games on PC or Xbox, like say like Brothers in Arms....even though overall it can be easily argued that RE4 had the better overall visual presentation than Brothers in Arms....even so BIA:RtH30 was the more profiecient game in terms of technical features.

This goes back to my point about the Wii U....we've already seen the Zelda HD demo....why can't games on the Wii U do what Uncharted 3 on PS3 does in your pic, and present the impression of the player an in a grander environment without actually fully producing it on the hardware in a way that the hardware couldn't handle.

...and as was brought up by someone else, Nintendo's art style of their games are completely different form the art style of Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3....as how Killzone 3 has a less "realistic" looking look then the one Crysis goes for, which is a benefit to Killzone 3.

With the kind of art style Nintendo goes for, I don't see why they couldn't make visually splended looking games in the coming years...especially with the demo being an indication.

Hell....Wind Waker still holds up today due to it's art style....and if running on a PC emulator in HD resolutions it looks like a living cartoon, beyond the visual presentation of later games on more advanced hardware.
I don't see why the Wii U with far greater specs and combined with that kind of artistic approach couldn't produce games that are pleasing to the eye well into the timeframe of the next console cycle.

As for graphics....I'm not the one who said that I would find Wii U disappointing simple based on if it didn't exceed the current HD twins...fact is, if all one cares about is hardware specs that's exceeds the HD twins, it's been available for over 5 years.

All valid points, but isn't this exactly what gamerdude is arguing? You are talking about minor technical details that look good on paper, but dont neccessarily make a big difference on screen. You think in Uncharted's indoor sections, Nauhgty Dog also renders whats beyond the walls of the rooms? Of course not, yet no indoor section in Uncharted looks even remotely as good as the Zelda demo. Who really cares if the lights dont cast shadows when the overall image quality looks that good? Console games cheat all the time when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware. I dont think Naughty Dog said to themselves 'Hey we need to have a perfect shadowing, even if it means our indoor sections look drab and boring.'

Now killzone 3 is a different story, they have like a million light sources in that factory level. It was insane. But then again, they didnt have the power left to even do the fake reflective floor like the Zelda demo.

S0lidSnake

I was replying to your statement in which you clearly stated that what was seen in the demo CANNOT be done with current gen systems. I was showing you why it can and the reasons being the limited functionality of the lights and the methods used to accomplish the look and feel.

"There is a reason why we dont ever see rooms that big with reflective surfaces and tons of light sources, current gen hardware simply cant handle it."

Lets deviate from the points we are discussing otherwise we would just be arguing aimlessly without a common ground of understanding.

As amazing as Uncharted 3 looks and God of War 3 (I never said they didn't)....from a graphics and technical standpoint, there is more happening in Crysis when it's maxed out on PC hardware then there is on any game on console....since 2007 till today.

Also, with games like Uncharted 3....again, as amazing as they look...sometimes what's happening on screen is visual tricks...for example, that Uncharted 3 screen you posted appears to show a game with a big expansive environment you can just ride off into, and I wouldn't be surprised if you chose that scene specifically for that reason....I have Uncharted 3...and you know that's not so.
In fact, I remember that scene, it's very carefully crafted set peice with scripted events that gives the illusion of a wide open detailed environment, when in fact we know that's really not the case...it's actually a confined linear path you take....more on that latter.

Let me tell you about another things that's great about PC in addition to the ones you mentioned....with the mod community, a game can be kept up to date and it's visuals enhanced beyond the original release.

The above pic is Crysis maxed out circa 2007 / 2008.

....I'm also simply refer to the videos I originally posted as to what Crysis was able to look like on PC in 2010 and 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivoSi2VvqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgw9DlIK8DY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGgZfiSKoow

Are you really going to tell me that Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 beats those videos, again, from a purely technical standpoint?

Now, going back to what I was saying before before about creating a carefully crafted illusion....such as that Uncharted 3 pic which seems to show this hugh expansive canyon environment being rendered....when it's actually a linear and confined path.

If anything, you're actually proving my point with Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and God of War III....in that the reason why those games match or from a subjective standpoint exceed Crysis overall in terms of visual presentation has more to do with the artistic design and carefully crafted level presentation.....not in terms of pure technical prowess of the hardware or it's capabilities.

Look at last gen, Resident Evil 4 was one of the best looking games of 2005, it was even nominated for best graphics....running on Gamecube....are you really going to tell me RE4 had more going on in terms of technical capability then say....many Unreal Engine 2 games on PC or Xbox, like say like Brothers in Arms....even though overall it can be easily argued that RE4 had the better overall visual presentation than Brothers in Arms....even so BIA:RtH30 was the more profiecient game in terms of technical features.

This goes back to my point about the Wii U....we've already seen the Zelda HD demo....why can't games on the Wii U do what Uncharted 3 on PS3 does in your pic, and present the impression of the player an in a grander environment without actually fully producing it on the hardware in a way that the hardware couldn't handle.

...and as was brought up by someone else, Nintendo's art style of their games are completely different form the art style of Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3....as how Killzone 3 has a less "realistic" looking look then the one Crysis goes for, which is a benefit to Killzone 3.

With the kind of art style Nintendo goes for, I don't see why they couldn't make visually splended looking games in the coming years...especially with the demo being an indication.

Hell....Wind Waker still holds up today due to it's art style....and if running on a PC emulator in HD resolutions it looks like a living cartoon, beyond the visual presentation of later games on more advanced hardware.
I don't see why the Wii U with far greater specs and combined with that kind of artistic approach couldn't produce games that are pleasing to the eye well into the timeframe of the next console cycle.

As for graphics....I'm not the one who said that I would find Wii U disappointing simple based on if it didn't exceed the current HD twins...fact is, if all one cares about is hardware specs that's exceeds the HD twins, it's been available for over 5 years.

gamerdude375

Firstly let me make this clear. All games use tricks. If you don't then your game would not be able to run. These tricks are better know as optimization techniques. CryEngine 3 does a significantly better job of doing this than older versions allowing it to create games that not only looks exceptional but runs great. Crysis looked amazing and depended on simply dumping as much as they can into the scene which in then end made it a game that is problematic to run and not because its ahead of its time. Their new engine can run the old game flawlessly and improve on the overall quality with the introduction of their new lighting technology. In addition to that the gif that you are using is not a correct representation of the game. The game simply does NOT look like that. I see people posting this gif and similar shots but the game does look like those shots. These shots were shown prior to the release of the game but the final game did not as good as the original teaser. And in case you are wondering. I have the game. I have run it at max and I have actively used the CryEngine on several projects.

Mods are just that mods. Most of the folks who create mods have no respect for art design and optimization. They have this belief that slapping on a his rez texture automatically makes the game better while tanking the overall perforamce by including textures that are usually 4 times the size of the original and occupies 4 times the amount of memory, however you don't get 4 times the increase in visual quality.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

All valid points, but isn't this exactly what gamerdude is arguing? You are talking about minor technical details that look good on paper, but dont neccessarily make a big difference on screen. You think in Uncharted's indoor sections, Nauhgty Dog also renders whats beyond the walls of the rooms? Of course not, yet no indoor section in Uncharted looks even remotely as good as the Zelda demo. Who really cares if the lights dont cast shadows when the overall image quality looks that good? Console games cheat all the time when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware. I dont think Naughty Dog said to themselves 'Hey we need to have a perfect shadowing, even if it means our indoor sections look drab and boring.'

Now killzone 3 is a different story, they have like a million light sources in that factory level. It was insane. But then again, they didnt have the power left to even do the fake reflective floor like the Zelda demo.

Pedro

I was replying to your statement in which you clearly stated that what was seen in the demo CANNOT be done with current gen systems. I was showing you why it can and the reasons being the limited functionality of the lights and the methods used to accomplish the look and feel.

"There is a reason why we dont ever see rooms that big with reflective surfaces and tons of light sources, current gen hardware simply cant handle it."

Lets deviate from the points we are discussing otherwise we would just be arguing aimlessly without a common ground of understanding.

It's okay. My mistake, i read your post wrong.

These tricks are better know as optimization techniques. Pedro

Optimization is when you're running all the data and engine as efficiently possible. For example....Crysis Warhead was more optimized then Crysis...it was producing the same type of environments at the the same level of detail, but ran better on hardware.

That's not what I was referring to when I said Uncharted 3 uses "tricks"....I gave an example of what I meant when I said "tricks"....such as that Uncharted 3 shot portraying a vast wide open space, when it reality is a confined and linear path that's essentially moving along as if on rails, made of various scripted events. This is different then actually rending that environment at that level of detail in a way that Drake could actually proceed to the location off in the far distance.

In addition to that the gif that you are using is not a correct representation of the game. The game simply does NOT look like that. I see people posting this gif and similar shots but the game does look like those shots. These shots were shown prior to the release of the game but the final game did not as good as the original teaser. Pedro

What do you mean it doesn't look like that? Sure it does. Here, some random user vids showcasing the jungle exactly as that gif does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54R0k-OBtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMHgBplll8Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XAS-n4z8g

....these are the final game.

I'm not going to re-install a game just to run it and go the the trouble of making a video just get into an online pissing match with you. But for comparison sake, I'm going to quickly post this gif, which I quickly grabbed to make a comparison with the ones you posted above:

As amazing as Uncharted 3 looks and God of War 3 (I never said they didn't)....from a graphics and technical standpoint, there is more happening in Crysis when it's maxed out on PC hardware then there is on any game on console....since 2007 till today.

Also, with games like Uncharted 3....again, as amazing as they look...sometimes what's happening on screen is visual tricks...for example, that Uncharted 3 screen you posted appears to show a game with a big expansive environment you can just ride off into, and I wouldn't be surprised if you chose that scene specifically for that reason....I have Uncharted 3...and you know that's not so.
In fact, I remember that scene, it's very carefully crafted set peice with scripted events that gives the illusion of a wide open detailed environment, when in fact we know that's really not the case...it's actually a confined linear path you take....more on that latter.

Let me tell you about another things that's great about PC in addition to the ones you mentioned....with the mod community, a game can be kept up to date and it's visuals enhanced beyond the original release.

The above pic is Crysis maxed out circa 2007 / 2008.

....I'm also simply refer to the videos I originally posted as to what Crysis was able to look like on PC in 2010 and 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivoSi2VvqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgw9DlIK8DY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGgZfiSKoow

Are you really going to tell me that Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 beats those videos, again, from a purely technical standpoint?

Now, going back to what I was saying before before about creating a carefully crafted illusion....such as that Uncharted 3 pic which seems to show this hugh expansive canyon environment being rendered....when it's actually a linear and confined path.

If anything, you're actually proving my point with Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and God of War III....in that the reason why those games match or from a subjective standpoint exceed Crysis overall in terms of visual presentation has more to do with the artistic design and carefully crafted level presentation.....not in terms of pure technical prowess of the hardware or it's capabilities.

Look at last gen, Resident Evil 4 was one of the best looking games of 2005, it was even nominated for best graphics....running on Gamecube....are you really going to tell me RE4 had more going on in terms of technical capability then say....many Unreal Engine 2 games on PC or Xbox, like say like Brothers in Arms....even though overall it can be easily argued that RE4 had the better overall visual presentation than Brothers in Arms....even so BIA:RtH30 was the more profiecient game in terms of technical features.

This goes back to my point about the Wii U....we've already seen the Zelda HD demo....why can't games on the Wii U do what Uncharted 3 on PS3 does in your pic, and present the impression of the player an in a grander environment without actually fully producing it on the hardware in a way that the hardware couldn't handle.

...and as was brought up by someone else, Nintendo's art style of their games are completely different form the art style of Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3....as how Killzone 3 has a less "realistic" looking look then the one Crysis goes for, which is a benefit to Killzone 3.

With the kind of art style Nintendo goes for, I don't see why they couldn't make visually splended looking games in the coming years...especially with the demo being an indication.

Hell....Wind Waker still holds up today due to it's art style....and if running on a PC emulator in HD resolutions it looks like a living cartoon, beyond the visual presentation of later games on more advanced hardware.
I don't see why the Wii U with far greater specs and combined with that kind of artistic approach couldn't produce games that are pleasing to the eye well into the timeframe of the next console cycle.

As for graphics....I'm not the one who said that I would find Wii U disappointing simple based on if it didn't exceed the current HD twins...fact is, if all one cares about is hardware specs that's exceeds the HD twins, it's been available for over 5 years.

gamerdude375

No no no no. I am with you on that the WIi U will be more than capable of playing games that look as good as and if not better than Uncharted 3. And i believe that because console devs DO fake lots of effects and use 'visual tricks' like you said, and Nintendo's first party is going to take advantage of all those things. Hell, like Pedro pointed out, they already have with the Zelda tech demo.

Where I differ from you is when you bring up Crysis, and call it the best looking game on any console or PC. And no, i didn't pick the Uncharted gif for a particular reason. Google Uncharted 3 gifs and that's one of the search results, same with the Killzone 3 gif. I have nothing to hide, these games look fabulous and that's Uncharted's best looking level. I am not foolish enough to think that they didn't use any visual tricks to make it one of the most amazing looking levels anyone has ever seen. Yes, it's a chase sequence. Yes, the mountains in the distance cant be climbed, but who gives a f***? The game looks fantastic. You say Crysis is better from a technical standpoint, but I dont remember being able to climb any mountains in Crysis either. They all sit there in the distance looking pretty.

And a big lol at the gif you posted. It's modded and not vanilla Crysis and you know it. Same with the links, yes, they look fantastic but they are not the true representation of Crysis from 2007. Hell, some of those mods were released last year. The Crysis i played didn't look like that. Hell, it has very minimal motion blur, and it's for a reason. It cant handle that much motion blur. And a 2007 GPU certainly couldn't handle it at 1080p. Let's not kid ourselves here, modding is nice and all that but adding fancy effects and changing textures will always effect the framerate. If Crytek wanted to add that kind of motion blur in the game, they would have, but they didn't because they knew it would kill the framerate. Even the much optimized Warhead didn't look like the GIF you posted, and that much optimized 2008 game only gives a 40 fps with AA and 50 fps with no AA at 1080p. And even then playing with a mouse was a jerky experience, but I will admit playing Warhead with a controller was a very smooth experience. Crysis 2 with a controller is one of the sexiest looking games I have ever played.In one of your vids, the guys is running a dual GPU setup, and he's just running around in an empty world, there is no shooting or fighting going on. Crysis 2 ran fine on consoles until you started shooting, the same is true for Crysis on PC. Everything is smooth as butter and the moment you start shooting or get shot at, the framerate goes to s***. Hardly a sign of the most technologically advnaced game of all time.

Lastly, i see you have changed your argument to 'Crysis is more technically advanced' than Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 or even Crysis 2 PC. It's a safe argument that you dont believe i'd argue and i wont. Because I simply dont know the list of Crysis' technically achievement. I couldn't tell you if the MLAA in God of War 3 is better than the AA solution in Crysis. Because again, im not a programmer. There are dozens of effects in both games, and we simply cant say for sure who does what better.All we know is what we see, and looking at the games side by side, Uncharted, KZ, and God of War look better. You've conceded that already so I will take it.

I am ok with visual trickery and illusions so games like Uncharted dont bother me. What bothers me is the s***ty sub 20 framerate of the console version of Crysis 2, jerky mouse movement of Crysis 1, huge framedrops in the big battle scenes of Warhead like the opening sequence at the beach. Playing Killzone 3 with a buttery smooth framerate was good enough for me, even though it never went over 30 fps.

What do you mean it doesn't look like that? Sure it does. Here, some random user vids showcasing the jungle exactly as that gif does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54R0k-OBtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMHgBplll8Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XAS-n4z8g

....these are the final game.

gamerdude375

lol no they are not. The first and third are modded to hell and back, and run like s***. The first one especially runs at like 10 fps. I could count the particles from the explosion. :lol:

The second one is the true representation of the game, and yes it looks fantastic. It's also running on an i7 and a GTX 580, so a $400 CPU and a $500 GPU, both from 2011.

The last one runs more smooth, but it doesn't show any shooting and A.I at work. Trust me, the game WILL drop to unplayable levels when s*** hits the fan. It's just how Crysis works.

And a 2007 GPU certainly couldn't handle it at 1080p. S0lidSnake

...PS3 and 360 doesn't render it's games at 1080p....in fact, many are at sub-HD resolutions.

What I can't believe can't handle Crysis at high settings at 1080p and achieve 30fps is a graphics card you said you paid $350 in 2011....especially when benchmarks for cards released as far back as 2009 seem capable of handling that.
Unless graphics cards are getting worse for more money....something doesn't add up.

ALastly, i see you have changed your argument to 'Crysis is more technically advanced' than Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 or even Crysis 2 PC. It's a safe argument that you dont believe i'd argue and i wont. Because I simply dont know the list of Crysis' technically achievement. I couldn't tell you if the MLAA in God of War 3 is better than the AA solution in Crysis. Because again, im not a programmer. There are dozens of effects in both games, and we simply cant say for sure who does what better.All we know is what we see, and looking at the games side by side, Uncharted, KZ, and God of War look better. You've conceded that already so I will take it.

S0lidSnake

It's more than than just AA.

Crysis is producing tons of foilage, as well as many other details and reactive objects in the environment....that Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3 just doesn't. Killzone 2 and 3 landscapes are mostly snowey or war torn environments....much of Uncharted 3's outdoor areas takes place in confined city paths or arid desert-like locations....hardly comparably to a dense jungle where tons of foilage is being rendered...a barren environment is far less taxing on hardware then a dense one.....and yes, I know Uncharted 3 has a jungle level as well, but again, it set on a pretty confined path, and hardly as dense and interactive as the enviroment that Crysis produced.

PS3 and 360 just wouldn't be able to handle Crysis as it is on PC on high settings while actually rendering at HD resolutions, even vanilla Crysis from 2007 or Crysis Warhead from 2008.
A PC with hardware from 2007 like an 8800 series could handle Uncharted 3, or The Witcher 2 360, or Crysis 360 if they were run at exactly at the detail and rendering resolution as they are on those consoles, it could be done, quite easily.....but if it was directly translated as so, that would look like crud on PC.

Naughty Dog and Guerilla didn't find some magic button that makes the PS3 GPU as powerful as a current PC GPU....or even as powerful as an 8800 series from 2007.....their games look as great as they do and are considered top quality visual experiences because of artistic design and decisions, not because PS3 hardware magically equals the horsepower of a PC from 2011...or even from 2007.

....and going back how this originally started, someone asked to be shown something that bests what current consoles do in terms of pure graphics, I posted videos of modded Crysis (and I even said it was modded Crysis)....and my point was, if one only cares about graphics and pure horsepower, we've had hardware that has the horsepower and is capable of producing effects and details that are well beyond the HD twins, and may in fact as well be along the lines or even beyond the GPU horsepower of what next-gen hardware will contain.

...to put is simply, if cost effectiveness or game design doesn't interest a person, and they only care about pure horsepower...then the platform that is well and above the others in terms of raw horsepower and hardware capabilities is the PC.

In fact, not long ago, CVG posted an article from a magazine of what an "insider" claimed should be representative of "next-gen", which got some console users all excited....you know what those two screens are?....modded Crysis and the AMD Ladybug realtime demo....both from 2010.

So here we are with people knocking the Wii U and an impressive demo claiming that it's sub-standard for what is to be expected from a console in 2012.....meanwhile, screens grabbed from something done on PC two years ago gets certain people and publications all excited about the "next-gen" possibilities of hardware that's supposed to launch in 2013 or 2014.

I am ok with visual trickery and illusions so games like Uncharted dont bother me. What bothers me is the s***ty sub 20 framerate of the console version of Crysis 2, jerky mouse movement of Crysis 1, huge framedrops in the big battle scenes of Warhead like the opening sequence at the beach. Playing Killzone 3 with a buttery smooth framerate was good enough for me, even though it never went over 30 fps.

S0lidSnake

I never said visual trickery was bad....in fact, quite the opposite.

I pointed out how Wii (and Gamecube) managed to produce some nice looking games, that side by side, looked as good or better in the final overall result, then games on other more powerful hardware.....and that by using visual tricks, there shouldn't be a reason that Wii U can't produce some good looking games that are more then satisfactory from a visual presentation standpoint going forward.....will they be equal the absolute most advanced features on other hardware platforms, no....but depending on the game design, they will certainly be more then satisfactory and certainly won't be a deal breaker in a quality gaming experience.

The second one is the true representation of the game, and yes it looks fantastic. It's also running on an i7 and a GTX 580, so a $400 CPU and a $500 GPU, both from 2011.S0lidSnake

The video was uploaded in 2010....how can he be running on hardware from 2011....unless he's has a Delorean with a flux capacitor or a Chron-O-John.

The last one runs more smooth, but it doesn't show any shooting and A.I at work. Trust me, the game WILL drop to unplayable levels when s*** hits the fan. It's just how Crysis works.

S0lidSnake

He gets into a firefight in the video.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

The second one is the true representation of the game, and yes it looks fantastic. It's also running on an i7 and a GTX 580, so a $400 CPU and a $500 GPU, both from 2011.gamerdude375

The video was uploaded in 2010....how can he be running on hardware from 2011....unless he's has a Delorean with a flux capacitor or a Chron-O-John.

The last one runs more smooth, but it doesn't show any shooting and A.I at work. Trust me, the game WILL drop to unplayable levels when s*** hits the fan. It's just how Crysis works.

S0lidSnake

He gets into a firefight in the video.

And it runs like s***.

And 2010, 2011 what's the difference? They are both insanely costly.

more specific launch plans, including a firm release date, price and even launch line-up, were not announced until just months before the portable debuted.

IGN

I was under the impression that E3 is going to be just months before the system is debuting.

I can't see how Nintendo not revealing the price or giving a launch date is a good thing. It makes me think that this is probably going to be higher priced than ideal (more than $300).

I pointed out how Wii (and Gamecube) managed to produce some nice looking games, that side by side, looked as good or better in the final overall result, then games on other more powerful hardware.....gamerdude375

I'm pretty sure that they did the same thing with the Gamecube and the Wii.