aspro said:

GodModeEnabled said:

Consoles are FOR GAMING imo. The more you move away from that, the more pointless it is to have one when you can get a PC that will do those things better, faster, cheaper.

All the stupid shit they have on xbox now is superflous bullshit. Console is put game in play.

Nonsense and danderwash!

If I had unlimited bandwidth I'd disagree with you. In my reality consoles are still just for putting in games and playing.

But our time has passed GME. It's time to embrace the new world order and start tweeting with your controller.

The only thing I tweet is thunderous donkey farts out my backside.

GodModeEnabled said:

Oh yes it is. It is not subjectivley bad, it is objectivley bad. The game is a festering pile of broken dreams and weeping failure. Bad camera, bad controls, 3 enemy types the entire game, nonsense story, twin stick combat was shit, you have to wait five minutes every time you die for an angel whore to fly down and ressurect you, your gear breaks all the time forcing you to go back to town and repair it, the voice acting is bad, long loading screens, its everything is bad.

I championed this game back in the day. I was like "Boys, boys, boys.... this is muthafucking Eternal Darkness developers (one of my favorite games last gen) this will be hot!" I preordered it, hyped it online, argued with the haters, and then procedeed to get smacked in the face with the giant throbbing dick of reality. Oh this game DOES suck.

I am sorry, you can certainly LIKE the game, but it doesn't make it good. It just means you like a bad game. Debating it's quality is like debating what kind of hepatitis is your favorite.

Eternal Darkness is "objectively" mediocre at best.

Ravenprose said:

I am absolutely addicted to Theatrhythm: Final Fantasy. That is all.

I really want that game... at $10.

Ravenprose said:

aspro said:

GodModeEnabled said:

Archangel3371 said:

Sad to see this happen to Silicon Knights as I enjoyed Too Human and was really hoping for a sequel. I'm glad I have a physical copy in my collection. Perhaps I'll play it this weekend in remembrance and to try and get that final 5 GS Achievement.

What the fuck? You have the worst taste in games man. Too Human is one of the worst games I have ever played.

It may be one of the worst games you have ever played, but it's not that bad.

Didn't you run that game over with a lawn mower?

No. I ran it over with a tractor with a slasher attached, then shot it with a shot gun, then doused the remains with diesel and set it alight.

Dvader said:

RE2 is 15 years old today.

What a fucking game.

edgecrusher said:

Too Human would have been better had they stuck to the original plan of designing it as a Metal Gear Solid/ Deus Ex hybrid. They supposedly had this version of the game nearly complete when Nintendo bought them. Should have stuck to that & had Nintendo help them out with balance.

Microsoft is a great publisher to work with for developers WHO ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Nintendo is a great publisher for developers WHO NEED TO BE BABYSAT...like Silicon Knights. It takes a publisher who knows how to develop incredible games themselves to get the most out of certain smaller studios.

Certain larger studios too? (Rare.)

Well this is the final nail in the coffin for the know nothings bitching about Wii U's memory bandwidth speed

Eurogamer said:

In the case of Durango, the CPU is married up with 8GB of DDR3 memory, working in concert with 32MB of what is dubbed "ESRAM" - fast work RAM connected directly to the GPU. The two pools of memory operate in parallel, and while we haven't confirmed overall bandwidth, the leak's 170GB/s throughput certainly seems plausible. Also interesting about the RAM set-up is that the ESRAM isn't merely connected to the graphics core as is the case with the Xbox 360's 10MB of eDRAM - in Durango, it's hooked up to the northbridge (the interconnect between all major internal components), meaning it offers general access to other components in addition to the graphics core.

Durango uses the exact same method as Wii U in memory hierachy, uses the same slower DDR3 RAM with a super fast eDRAM/eSRAM bridge. The size is even the same, 32mb.

Given that Wii U will almost certainly target 720p rather than the higher resolution the other consoles probably will, the eDram will have more room to breathe with Wii U games too - albeit at a lower level of graphics, obviously.

In context for those who don't know what I'm talking about - Wii U does not have memory that is pissed over by 360/PS3s memory speed.

gamingeek said:

Well this is the final nail in the coffin for the know nothings bitching about Wii U's memory bandwidth speed

Eurogamer said:

In the case of Durango, the CPU is married up with 8GB of DDR3 memory, working in concert with 32MB of what is dubbed "ESRAM" - fast work RAM connected directly to the GPU. The two pools of memory operate in parallel, and while we haven't confirmed overall bandwidth, the leak's 170GB/s throughput certainly seems plausible. Also interesting about the RAM set-up is that the ESRAM isn't merely connected to the graphics core as is the case with the Xbox 360's 10MB of eDRAM - in Durango, it's hooked up to the northbridge (the interconnect between all major internal components), meaning it offers general access to other components in addition to the graphics core.

Durango uses the exact same method as Wii U in memory hierachy, uses the same slower DDR3 RAM with a super fast eDRAM/eSRAM bridge. The size is even the same, 32mb.

Given that Wii U will almost certainly target 720p rather than the higher resolution the other consoles probably will, the eDram will have more room to breathe with Wii U games too - albeit at a lower level of graphics, obviously.

In context for those who don't know what I'm talking about - Wii U does not have memory that is pissed over by 360/PS3s memory speed.

You mean ESRAM right?

Even with the higher level graphics cards in the Playstation & Xbox consoles, exclusive Wii U games that push the console (Zelda/Metroid, etc ) will look just as good as anything on the other consoles. Its not gonna be like Wii vs 360, that's for sure.

edgecrusher said:

You mean ESRAM right?

Even with the higher level graphics cards in the Playstation & Xbox consoles, exclusive Wii U games that push the console (Zelda/Metroid, etc ) will look just as good as anything on the other consoles. Its not gonna be like Wii vs 360, that's for sure.

Yeah, my post mentions ES/ED ram.

Estimates put the Durango graphics card at 800mhz, Wii U is 550mhz.

The PS4, Nextbox will be better than Wii U, a lot in some cases like 3X-5X more powerful, but it wont be anywhere near the gulf between Wii and 360. Anyhow, when I am talking about Wii U technical details I am mainly comparing it to 360/PS3 not the higher spec machines - because that is where the BS is coming from, people saying it's worse than 360.

Some devs said that Xbox was 3 times as powerful as PS2 and that the power difference between U and PS4 will be like between DC and Xbox, so the difference will be noticible but its not going to kill anyone to play good looking games on U.

Objectively, if the Wii U CPU is 1.5 X Xenos then you have the DSP which gives you 50% more CPU power as a MS engineer put it, it's decent (compared to current machines). The memory bandwidth may be constrained slightly but you probably wont notice in game, maybe loads may be slightly longer than you are used to. Still people out there are pretty ignorant or unreasonable with regards to showing better graphics etc. You need large hardware improvements to see blatantly obvious graphics improvement. For instance PS3's CPU was said to be 50% better than 360 yet you couldn't peg any game as blatantly surpassing 360 graphics or performance. So Wii Us CPU being 50% better is not going to be seen on screen either.

The RAM should eventually make a difference when games take advantage of it but by then we will have games using 5gb of Durango RAM or 3.5gb PS4 RAM so they wont be impressive in comparison.

Whenever I think of memory I'm reminded of the N64 expansion pak and Turok 2, have people tried that game with and without the memory expansion? The resolution vastly changes when you use it and having 1 GB for games compared to the free memory of something like under 400mb on PS3/360 can make a huge improvement and moreso if Nintendo frees up the OS RAM too.

But it won't neccesarily be seen overtly on screen as better graphics but will still be needed to run some parts of games for instance the N64 expansion pack:

A few games, including Rare's Donkey Kong 64 and Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask required it to run. Capcom's Resident Evil 2 used the Expansion Pak for making areas of the game and monsters more detailed. Perfect Dark had limited gameplay options when the Expansion Pak was not present. Supporting games usually offered higher video resolutions or higher textures and/or higher color depth. For example, the Nintendo 64 all-remade version of Quake II features higher color depth but not a higher resolution when using the Expansion Pak. It was used in StarCraft 64 to unlock levels from the popular Brood War add-on for the PC version of the game. Many games such as Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness and Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine optionally used the Expansion Pak to add a high resolution 640x480 display mode for games, while other games saw the benefit of a smoother frame rate.

The Wii U is like a beefed up more efficient  and modern 360/PS3. Objectively it has a more modern faster GPU a slightly better CPU (somewhat helped by an architecture that offloads tasks from the CPU) and a lot more RAM to play with. It is objectively better. PS4 and Durango will cream it but the "OMG it's worse than 360" BS is just rubbish.