Login | Signup

Dynasty Warriors Producer: Wii U Capable Of "Better Graphics" Than Xbox 360...

Author:
Jonathan Lester
Category:
News
Tags:
Dynasty Warriors, Nintendo, Wii U

Dynasty Warriors Producer: Wii U Capable Of "Better Graphics" Than Xbox 360...

... But Has 'Less CPU Power'

Dynasty Warriors producer Akihiro Suzuki reckons that the Wii U can produce markedly better visuals than the Xbox 360, despite having a "little bit less" under the bonnet in terms of CPU performance. Dealing with the potential performance hit is apparently a "challenge."

“One of the weaknesses of the Wii U compared to PS3 and Xbox 360 is the CPU power is a little bit less,” Suzuki told Eurogamer at TGS. “So for games in the Warriors series when you have a lot of enemies coming at you at once, the performance tends to be affected because of the CPU."

“Dealing with that is a challenge. While the visuals are great, as is being able to improve them, we had to deal with the lower CPU power and how we can get around that issue,"

However, Suzuki is also keen to stress that the Wii U is capable of pumping out higher quality graphics.

"From a visual standpoint, based on the performance of the Wii U, we knew the game had the capability of having much better graphics than games on PS3 and Xbox 360. Make no mistake, from a visual standpoint, it is able to produce better graphics. So our challenge was to make a higher quality graphics. We were able to meet that."

Nintendo are still keeping the CPU specs tightly under wraps, though its dedicated 1GB of RAM for games will doubtlessly help matters. You can read the somewhat redacted specifications in Carl's tech roundup.

Add a comment6 comments
RiKx  Sep. 21, 2012 at 14:32

Oh dear the 360 is also how old? And er sells for how much? And with what size HD?...

Late  Sep. 21, 2012 at 14:42

Awful thing to say, but I really hope the U doesn't sell well.

Nintendo have been given the impression in recent years that it's okay to give us underpowered and overpriced consoles so long as they have a gimmick. It's our fault for giving them that impression, mainly because we all bought a wii - despite knowing, even as we did so, that we'd end up regretting it.
Sold massive amounts, most of which are likely gathering dust. Hopefully we've learned our lesson and won't fall for their hype and all buy this new toy.


I still feel the temptation, though!...

AfxTwn  Sep. 22, 2012 at 10:23

Awful thing to say, but I really hope the U doesn't sell well.

Nintendo have been given the impression in recent years that it's okay to give us underpowered and overpriced consoles so long as they have a gimmick. It's our fault for giving them that impression, mainly because we all bought a wii - despite knowing, even as we did so, that we'd end up regretting it.
Sold massive amounts, most of which are likely gathering dust. Hopefully we've learned our lesson and won't fall for their hype and all buy this new toy.


I still feel the temptation, though!...


Why do you think of the Wii and it's successor as toys? I have a Wii and mine is gathering dust and I do agree that it is a bit gimmicky but it's no worse than other consoles and indeed both Microsoft and Sony have copied Nintendo and added gimmicks of their own.

I just don't understand why some people disregard the Wii as a toy when you could level pretty much the same arguement against any of the other consoles out there. What, are Sony and Microsoft only for "serious" gamers?

Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I also agree than the new Wii U is overpriced (as was the 3DS) and that the consumers have probably given Nintendo free reign to charge as much as they want because they know there's a core market out there. I think I'll be waiting at least 12 months till the inevitable price drop if not longer. It should have been priced at £200 max I think.

Late  Sep. 22, 2012 at 17:54

I think of all consoles as toys. Not sure whether I worded it badly or you just misread/misunderstood my comment...

I do, though, think of the wii as being more for the casual gamer. (That's not a controversial option, of course.)
If I were asked advice on what console to buy someone who isn't into gaming I'd probably recommend a Nintendo (though other issues not discussed here would need to be factored in - not least of which being budget).
They'd likely get more out of a wii than an xbox/ps3.

If a gamer were to buy only one console from the new/upcoming generation I definitely wouldn't advise them to get the U. Wouldn't be second choice, either.

Tis damning, isn't it, that the unknown quantities are both considered by many to be better options than the console that's been revealed...

AfxTwn  Sep. 22, 2012 at 18:31

Thanks for the clarification Late. I think that the Wii has unfairly suffered from being labelled as an ineferior product to it's two main rivals (mainly by so-called "serious/hardcore" gamers) and there's an element of snobbish-ness aimed at Nintendo.

For me the choice of whether to get a Wii or one of the others firstly depends on which control-scheme you prefer. Both Microsoft and Sony primarily rely on the tried and trusted joypad method whereas Nintendo went out and created a new motion controller which took long-time gamers by surprise and perhaps they didn't like the change from a tradiotional controller.

Plus Nintendo did heavily market the Wii at family gaming and tried to get people of all ages involved and have people playing together as more of a family unit/group, something which doesn't normally happen (I would imagine the majority of games are played solo or over the web via multiplayer which still essentially is a solo activity).

There was also a distinct lack of AAA titles from 3rd party developers which again singled the Wii out as not being a console for regular gamers. I feel though with the Wii U that may change as it looks like it will be more than capable of running AAA games and Nintendo seem to be encouraging more 3rd party development.

No doubt when the next-gen Microsoft and Sony consoles arrive (I'm guessing in about 2 years - probably a reveal at next year's E3 etc followed by a release the year after) they will be far more powerful and provide better graphics etc but I think that they will still mainly have shooters as the primary source of games and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much evolution with those genres.

I mainly do all my gaming on the PC now as it's cheaper than buying a new console and the games are a lot cheaper in general. Plus if I want some traditional joypad play then I can just hook up my 360 controller and get the best of both worlds. I like how I can play a wide variety of games without having to pledge my allegiance to one particular console manufacturer and I don't have to worry about paying extra just to play online multiplayer.

Overall I think the console market is pretty stagnated at the moment and apart from getting better graphics the industry doesn't seem to be innovating much and is too focussed on getting bigger and better hardware. Perhaps if the rumored Valve console comes along then that may shake things up a little as they've proved with Steam that the focus should be on the games themselves more than what platform you play them on.

Late  Sep. 24, 2012 at 09:57

I do think the wii's main problem was it's lack of power, rather than it's new control method. Multi-platform titles avoiding the wii - presumably because it couldn't handle them (if you made AAA game and brought it out on the ps3 and 360 but didn't want the coin from the millions of wii owners there's not many valid explanations). And if you're a console that doesn't have the AAA titles because you can't handle them then you can't be surprised that people don't respect you.

Shooters? If memory serves, one or two COD titles made it to the wii, but most didn't and those that did were chopped down "COD-lite". Conduit was okay, but plagued with people hacking god-mode.
Driving games? Aside from Mario Kart there's nothing of note. I didn't actually like that version of MK, but I know it was pretty popular.
Did the wii get Assassin's Creed? Can't remember - but my gut says no.
I could go on, but I'll move on instead...

I think the future is somewhere between console and pc. I very rarely play on my pc, and I'm aware that means I'm missing out on a lot - in terms of great exclusives, superior graphics, and cheap games. I don't have a steam account.
My main reason for swerving pc and sticking pretty much exclusively to my console is that I just don't know whether any particular game will work on my computer. I don't have any idea what graphics card I have, how much ram it has, whether it's compatible with certain versions of direct-x, what direct-x is, whether it can do fancy anti-aliasing and the other multitude of things that I need to know.
If I buy a game for the 360 I know it'll work because they're all the same. If it says "xbox360" on the box it'll work in my xbox360. If it says "pc" on the box there's a 50:50 chance it'll work.
Now I'm not saying diversity and choice is bad. It's great that people can choose whether to have a basic computer or pay extra for a top one. And it's only right that those with a top one get fancier games. I just wish I knew which games would work on my pc.

If we had a system where standard/generic machines and custom built pcs could both hook up to an online system and buy games that were guaranteed to work on your system then I think we'd have the ideal solution. Perhaps something that worked like the Android Marketplace (Google Play if you prefer) whereby games/apps that are compatible with your machine show up, and those that don't either aren't there or come with a warning that you might need to tweak some particular setting.

I think Steam is heading in that direction. If it is, then count me in.

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.