WiiU isn't Next Gen?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i thought you were commenting on what bad news it is for a console to be  holding  emergency firesales early in its lifespan and just thought that i could show you an example in which it may not be such a  gloomy forecast  of the future.

i don't care one bit about the wiiu or how it does or whatever just that your point seemed to be the wiiu is in terrible trouble when we have an example in that link where the ps3 was on lifesupport 6 or 7 months into its lifespan but things turned out passable in the end.

airshocker

We're not even in the same ballpark as with what happened with the PS3. The PS3 can compete. The WiiU? I'm not seeing it.

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

Riverwolf007

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

airshocker

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

what you and i like does not make a bit of difference to what is going to be successful.

we are not the target audience anymore.

there will always be games that we enjoy and have fun with and whatnot but really what is important to us is not what is important in the business end any longer.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

airshocker

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"] Oh, that. If you go back even further though, random battles were also common in early American RPGs such as Wizardry and Ultima. American RPG's didn't start abandoning random encounters until the 90s. Up until then, random encounters were never a point of differentiation. Like I said, the definitions and meanings of those labels have changed quite a lot over the years.

Jag85

Like I said, the random encounters weren't considered a point of differentiation in the early 90s, and neither were the screen transitions. These were things American RPGs had also been doing for years but slowly began abandoning at the time.

Some of the bigger points of differentiation in the early 90s were things like the greater emphasis on storytelling and predefined characterization in games like Phantasy Star II and FFIV, or the Active Time Battle system in FFIV, or the action-oriented combat in games like Zelda (which was labelled a console RPG back then) and Secret of Mana. These were the kind of elements often associated with Japanese console RPG's in the early 90s.

I don't think that the #WiiU CPU and GPU are imbalanced in favor of the GPU. It depends how you measure. GPU chip is bigger. In modern CPUs, the math logic portions are rather small. In new PCs and servers, the CPUs may be big, but the logic is small. It's common for the surrounding SRAM cache memory in CPUs to be bigger. From that viewpoint, you wouldn't see them imbalanced. It's a memory-intensified design. I can't get into specifics, but I think it's rather powerful. As for the GPU, the tech is fairly mature and going in the same direction as competitors. Makers are used to prog. shaders. The experience of other companies and Nintendo with shaders means that the difficulty with them early on has decreased. - Genyo Takeda

from a translation of the investor meeting the other day I believe.

Fun fact, Shin-en's next Wii-U game will use tessellation. Can't wait to see what their wizardry can do.

Aren´t next gen games are supposed to take full advantage of quad-core processors. And WiiU features only a three-core processor. So how multi-plat games are supposed to be ported for WiiU? Without next gen games, WiiU is not a next gen console. Just simple logic.   

 Stop the Game and go on PSHome and Ask around

LegatoSkyheart

Lol god no

Aren´t next gen games are supposed to take full advantage of quad-core processors. And WiiU features only a three-core processor. So how multi-plat games are supposed to be ported for WiiU? Without next gen games, WiiU is not a next gen console. Just simple logic.   

jhonMalcovich

The WiiU has a somewhat future proof feature set. The console is not going to be as strong as the other two, but it may be posssible ot port games to the console even if the graphics of a game will have to be downgraded.

No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.StaticOnTV

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing gamesthat have only one party member (yourself)avoid this problem. But Final FantasyII has attempted to address this. In thisgame, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons.One fellow even betrays the rest of theparty! Others sacrifice themselves, dyingin various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumpedinto a volcanic crater with explosives tiedaround his waist - what a guy!) As thequest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she getssick - you get the idea. It's as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novelrather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games I mentioned above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised a few moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.Jag85

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing gamesthat have only one party member (yourself)avoid this problem. But Final FantasyII has attempted to address this. In thisgame, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons.One fellow even betrays the rest of theparty! Others sacrifice themselves, dyingin various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumpedinto a volcanic crater with explosives tiedaround his waistwhat a guy!) As thequest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she getssickyou get the idea. Its as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novelrather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

Naw the Wiiu is this gen with slightly better graphics.

PS4 and Xbox 720 will be next gen.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.StaticOnTV

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing gamesthat have only one party member (yourself)avoid this problem. But Final FantasyII has attempted to address this. In thisgame, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons.One fellow even betrays the rest of theparty! Others sacrifice themselves, dyingin various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumpedinto a volcanic crater with explosives tiedaround his waistwhat a guy!) As thequest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she getssickyou get the idea. Its as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novelrather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

I don't really consider the Wii U as next gen from what i've seen so far.

However I do see it as an xbox 360/PS3 v1.5 that I can play Nintendo games on. That's good enough for me. :)

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]
I didn't say there weren't any action RPG's on PC's, but there's no denying there was much less of them on the PC than there were on consoles. Back then, the action RPG was seen as a largely console genre. For example, even American PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, such as such as Computer Gaming World and Dragon, largely associated associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPG's rather than American computer RPG's. A few early 90's letters from American PC RPG fans printed in Dragon magazine even dismissed console RPG's as a whole as just "arcade" action games, giving the impression that action RPG's like Zelda and Secret of Mana were "representative" of console RPG's at the time, so much so that Sandy Peterson (the same reviewer and game designer I referred to above) had to point out that turn-based console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Lufia do exist as well, and that a few PC RPG's like Ultima VIII have also started to incorporate action RPG elements (though Ultima VIII was not well received). In other words, the action RPG genre was not widely accepted among PC RPG fans like it was among console RPG fans at the time.

Jag85

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] 1.You are talking about games before the NES now.

2.This is one person, there were tons of rpgs with more orgnized less predictable stories with depth, you are forgetting how popular PC gaming was. it was not until a ta later that PC gaming started SUPER bombing again, unless you played a lot of PC games, FFIV (and 7) would impress you.

3.No they were not, Action rpgs on the PC were completely different, the reason why people considered Zelda LTTP or Sword of MAna Action-Rpgs, were because they were still in the era where games with lots of text were usually instantly called Rpgs for no reason on consoles. That did not end until a tad bit later. Actual Action Rpgs do not play like Sword of Mana or ALTTP, and they both in many places since (though not as much the former) got those labels dropped.StaticOnTV

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

1. You have a very irrational sense of logic. You are the one who claimed those games are from before the NES, and so I corrected you by pointing out that at least two of them are from after the NES's release. The only person I see trying to cover up his mistake here is you.

2. I have no idea what you're trying to say here... I assume English isn't your first language? (Well, it's not mine either, for that matter.)

3. I referred to at least two major PC gaming magazines of the early 90s. The difference between me and you is that I have sources to back up everything I say, while you have nothing to back up anything you've said. And are you serious about that last sentence? You really expect me to prove that Secret of Mana is an action RPG? You are the one who first claimed Secret of Mana is not an "actual" action RPG, so the burden of proof lies on you to prove your claim.