Editorial On "Is Wii Next-Gen?" (answer: no)

[fearsomepirate]

Imagine a puzzler based on fluid dynamics, with a flow of liquid and airflows. On PS3 you could have an interface to direct water flows along a complex pathway system, orientating different platforms and tubes by turning them with the motion control.

If you're just redirecting flows by moving tubes and platforms, you probably don't need actual fluid dynamics to simulate the puzzle. If your puzzle is complex enough to where you actually need accurate simulation of a fluid flow in realtime, especially an interface between a compressible and incompressible fluid, I doubt that PS3 is anywhere near powerful to do that.

You'd better stick with your free-body mechanics and rocks tumbling down a cliff. The most complex fluids you'll be doing on PS3 is stuff that makes your jetski game feel a more realistic, or make your clouds look like they're billowing about realistically.

 

[nonamer]

I think Wii supporters need a reality check. People who advocate the "innovativeness" of the Wii are forgetting about the innovation in all games out there. All games, no matter how plain, tired, or overdone have some degree of innovation, even if it's your generic RPG or FPS. GTA3 was arguable the most successful game of the generation, and it did by sheer innovation, not be hype or rehashing a done strategy. And GTA4 will never come to the Wii. Why? Because by going off in its own direction, the Wii has effectively abandoned all conventional games and all innovation that comes with conventional games. Nintendo has effectively bet that the Wii-mote and its motion detection will enable as much innovative as every bit of innovation that all the games that will come out for the Xbox 360 and PS3 put together. This is impossible, and it's not even close to being reasonable. Hence it's doomed for last place or pretty close to last. It simply cannot compete because it lost far more than it gained by going low-power and fancy controller.

 

[pc999]

One of the common points I see raised in favor of the wii is that graphics aren't important to gameplay. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. Graphics and presentation are a huge factor for all kinds of games, and for many, it's hard to really go back and deal with the old standards.

That really depends on the person playing, I still play and enjoy old games (or even try some old ones that never played).

If you want to continue this line of reasoning, then maybe first person shooters should go back to 90 degree walls. Maybe RTSes should run at 640x480 (Hell, who needs to be able to select more than 9 units at a time anyway). Why should RPGs be fully voice acted when we can just have poorly translated clunky two-line dialog like "You spoony bard."

That are gameplay features.

When I look at the Wii, I see a system that's a departure from everything that's come before. It's a blatant omission that Nintendo is no longer in a position to compete. If you think they had to sacrifice graphics just to make a motion sensing controller, then maybe Nintendo has no business being in hardware. In fact, I suspect this will be there last home console and after the Wii, they will become a third-party developer on the other systems (while still maintaining their handheld business).

If they wanted a 400/600$ and below cost system, they could have a console as powerfull as the others.

I think Wii supporters need a reality check. People who advocate the "innovativeness" of the Wii are forgetting about the innovation in all games out there. All games, no matter how plain, tired, or overdone have some degree of innovation, even if it's your generic RPG or FPS. GTA3 was arguable the most successful game of the generation, and it did by sheer innovation, not be hype or rehashing a done strategy. And GTA4 will never come to the Wii. Why? Because by going off in its own direction, the Wii has effectively abandoned all conventional games and all innovation that comes with conventional games. Nintendo has effectively bet that the Wii-mote and its motion detection will enable as much innovative as every bit of innovation that all the games that will come out for the Xbox 360 and PS3 put together. This is impossible, and it's not even close to being reasonable. Hence it's doomed for last place or pretty close to last. It simply cannot compete because it lost far more than it gained by going low-power and fancy controller.

There is (will ever be?) anything as innovative as WiiTennis, that is a completely new paradigm like never before. For now I didnt see anything like that on a 360/PS3.

BTW and IMO WiiSports is a bad implementations of those ideas.

 

[thenefariousone]

There is (will ever be?) anything as innovative as WiiTennis, that is a completely new paradigm like never before. For now I didnt see anything like that on a 360/PS3.

BTW and IMO WiiSports is a bad implementations of those ideas.

Considering the fact that Rayman Raving Rabbids does everything WiiSports does and more, it's hard to consider WiiTennis innovative. At the end of the day, both games are collections of minigames. The only thing unique is the method of control, and even that isn't "innovative" if you've ever been to an arcade.

 

[ban25]

There is (will ever be?) anything as innovative as WiiTennis, that is a completely new paradigm like never before. For now I didnt see anything like that on a 360/PS3.

BTW and IMO WiiSports is a bad implementations of those ideas.

I play tennis for real several times a week and I'm pretty damn good at it. Any tennis video game is going to be pretty limited in terms of what you can do if only due to camera angle and the fact that you are hitting a ball diplayed on a flat 2D screen and not in real 3D space.

With the Wii, you could probably control shot selection, power, and spin with gestures mapped to the controller, just like how current tennis games use buttons. But since you're not holding a real racquet or hitting a real ball, you can't determine exactly how you hit it. Other things like changing from one hand to two hand grip (for a two handed backhand) isn't really possible due to the size of the controller and the fact that you are probably holding the analog stick with your other hand.

But it's interesting that you mention tennis, because this is one area where I think the Wii has taken a step back. In WiiSports, the strokes seem to be triggered by gestures (really no different than pressing a button) and you can't seem to control the position of your player. Anyone who plays tennis knows that the game is all about positioning your shots, and if the computer is just going to move you around the court automatically, then WiiSports Tennis has more in common with DDR than the actual sport of tennis.

 

[pc999]

Considering the fact that Rayman Raving Rabbids does everything WiiSports does and more, it's hard to consider WiiTennis innovative. At the end of the day, both games are collections of minigames. The only thing unique is the method of control, and even that isn't "innovative" if you've ever been to an arcade.

I meant the kind of game, anyway like I said is a bad or weak implementation of those ideas.
Cant comment on the arcade as I dont even think they exist here (in the latest years such market is really weak).

I play tennis for real several times a week and I'm pretty damn good at it. Any tennis video game is going to be pretty limited in terms of what you can do if only due to camera angle and the fact that you are hitting a ball diplayed on a flat 2D screen and not in real 3D space.

Of curse that will not ever be like real tennis (like playing a war game is not like going to war), the question is if this game based on the concept of tennis is innovative (and interesting/fun/good) or not. Meybe like they are today isnt the best option but why not make it a FPT that would give better control, I guess.

With the Wii, you could probably control shot selection, power, and spin with gestures mapped to the controller, just like how current tennis games use buttons. But since you're not holding a real racquet or hitting a real ball, you can't determine exactly how you hit it. Other things like changing from one hand to two hand grip (for a two handed backhand) isn't really possible due to the size of the controller and the fact that you are probably holding the analog stick with your other hand.

I think you had more control, but that dont matter because if the creators wanted you could have control of all of that. But lets even say that those games will still only be trigered by the motion (ie, no total control) butthey have 100 diferent choises that would still be impossible in a normal controler, give much, much more freedom and make that many of those how cant play todays games be able o play, because it works in a new paradigm.

But it's interesting that you mention tennis, because this is one area where I think the Wii has taken a step back. In WiiSports, the strokes seem to be triggered by gestures (really no different than pressing a button) and you can't seem to control the position of your player. Anyone who plays tennis knows that the game is all about positioning your shots, and if the computer is just going to move you around the court automatically, then WiiSports Tennis has more in common with DDR than the actual sport of tennis.

Like I said it is a weak implementation, anyway they are just demos/minigames, sonner or latter there will be real games that should be much better.

We, with games that had been dev in 1 year and very litle time to explore the controler or possible game designs/implemntations, already saw things that: 1) are impossible in others consoles, 2)significant improvements to old controls, 3)new ways to play old games (that is really important to hose how didnt like/ cant play with old controls, a true and very important innovation for them), and 4)lot of good ideas (even if in a weak implementation).

If that isnt innovation then what is?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

When I look at the Wii, I see a system that's a departure from everything that's come before. It's a blatant omission that Nintendo is no longer in a position to compete. If you think they had to sacrifice graphics just to make a motion sensing controller, then maybe Nintendo has no business being in hardware. In fact, I suspect this will be their last home console and after the Wii, they will become a third-party developer on the other systems (while still maintaining their handheld business).

I disagree, the question is, do we wan't three consoles that offers basically the same kind of gameplay? I know I don't. I do feel that Wii could never satisfy my gaming needs fully, I coulnd't live it's craphics and lack of power, but as a sidekick console it could be just what I need. At launch it's priced little bit too much for that, but it's understandable given the fact it'll sell those units anyway. I think Nintendos choice is not a bad one. I think they have themselves hinted that it's not direct competition to the others, not in a way they used to be anyway. Nintendo is differentiating itself from the competition and kind of playing their own game, they know that there'll be enough "dollars" to end up in their pockets too.

Nintendo has it's loyal fanbase and with Wii they have a decent change to attract some new gamers for it. The thing is making profit since day 1 and it's quaranteed to sell atleast 20 million units (I expect more) There really is NO REAL reason for them to stop making hardware. Given what happened during the last generation, I can see perfectly fine why Nintendo chose to take this route. As long as you make profit, good I might add, why stop?

 

[nonamer]

We, with games that had been dev in 1 year and very litle time to explore the controler or possible game designs/implemntations, already saw things that: 1) are impossible in others consoles, 2)significant improvements to old controls, 3)new ways to play old games (that is really important to hose how didnt like/ cant play with old controls, a true and very important innovation for them), and 4)lot of good ideas (even if in a weak implementation).

If that isnt innovation then what is?

It's innovation in the sense that new coke was an innovation, however not all innovation are desirable, especially not at the cost of even more innovation.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

If you want to continue this line of reasoning, then maybe first person shooters should go back to 90 degree walls. Maybe RTSes should run at 640x480 (Hell, who needs to be able to select more than 9 units at a time anyway). Why should RPGs be fully voice acted when we can just have poorly translated clunky two-line dialog like "You spoony bard."

Your overreacting. The power of the current consoles is enough to make nice looking games, no uberlooking games, but enough not to be very restricted in terms of power and what you cant or can do. So the increase in power isnt all that necessary anymore to a certain extend. For example: Half-life1, i love that game, the atmosphere is so much better than in most uberlooking games today that I dont mind the shitty gfx at all. For most games ubergfx arnt necaserry to get to the player, all they need is a good athmosphere (wich often laks).

When I look at the Wii, I see a system that's a departure from everything that's come before. It's a blatant omission that Nintendo is no longer in a position to compete. If you think they had to sacrifice graphics just to make a motion sensing controller, then maybe Nintendo has no business being in hardware. In fact, I suspect this will be their last home console and after the Wii, they will become a third-party developer on the other systems (while still maintaining their handheld business).

Your totally missing the point about what nintendo is doing. Nintendo didnt sacrifice gfx because they cant handle the development costs, they pulled away from gfx races because they know they wont stand a big change against xbox and ps3 who are also focussing on gfx. Instead nintendo is trying to make something that appeals to everybody, not just the current gamers. So they are making a console wich is cheap and has a controller wich isnt controller with alot of buttons. Because that is what is scaring alot of people about playing games, they cant handle all the buttons so nintendo is trying to make something wich is easy to use for everybody.

 

[fearsomepirate]

About Wii Tennis, in a recent interview with the programmers, one of them stated that while they have only a few different animations to display, the actual spin and velocity of the ball are computed based entirely off the controller input. In other words, the animation triggering is gesture-based, but the actual ball movement is not.

To be fair regarding system power, just looking at current games, we're no longer really hindered in terms of gameplay by things like view distance, the number of enemies onscreen, sufficient physics to make vehicles and the like behave intuitively, framerate, or having enough polygon/texture detail/pixels to tell what the heck you're looking at. Those things severely hindered PS1/N64 gaming to the point that very, very few of the games still feel even playable today.

There's obviously room to grow. Games with big, expansive levels and lots of bad guys in this generation don't have much terrain detail, which can affect gameplay when there's nowhere to take cover. Physics can improve a lot; environments in today's games were almost entirely static. In this and future console generations, it would be nice to see tanks busting through walls and knocking down small trees, high-caliber machine guns whittling away cover, and artillery blasting craters in the ground.

But that basic inability to make a 3D game with anything more than the most rudimentary action and environments has indeed been overcome by the closing console generation. I think 10 years from now, many current gen games will feel just as fun and playable as many of the games from the 16-bit era feel today.

 

[sfried]

I think Wii supporters need a reality check. People who advocate the "innovativeness" of the Wii are forgetting about the innovation in all games out there. All games, no matter how plain, tired, or overdone have some degree of innovation, even if it's your generic RPG or FPS. GTA3 was arguable the most successful game of the generation, and it did by sheer innovation, not be hype or rehashing a done strategy. And GTA4 will never come to the Wii. Why? Because by going off in its own direction, the Wii has effectively abandoned all conventional games and all innovation that comes with conventional games. Nintendo has effectively bet that the Wii-mote and its motion detection will enable as much innovative as every bit of innovation that all the games that will come out for the Xbox 360 and PS3 put together. This is impossible, and it's not even close to being reasonable. Hence it's doomed for last place or pretty close to last. It simply cannot compete because it lost far more than it gained by going low-power and fancy controller.

You are ignorant to say that conventional games will not be compatible with Wii. Zelda has already proved you can pull off a completely conventional game on the Wii. GTA4 on the Wii? Absolutely. Use your remote to simulate a bat and a rifle. Like the DS, not all Wii games will aim for small mini-games and simplistic latformers. Wii can have the potential to harbor new genres. Low power has never been an issue for the PS2, so why would the Wii, which has already been confirmed to be more powerful than a GC, to be last?

Let me also remind you that superior hardware and high development costs is NOT what made the PS a success. It was quite the opposite. And Nintendo was riding heavily on brand loyalty at the time of the N64, not even cncerned about the development problems that arise from its format. No we see the situations reversed and Sony being just as bureaucratic as Nintendo was. back then, and Nintendo trying to ditch every sign of it's old self (notice it's just Wii, and not Nintendo Wii). I think developers will flock to Wii because it has ideas. Ubisoft has already proven this. I'm sure the rest will follow.

And while horsepower does play a crucial factor into many of today's high end games, just how many developers utilize this gameplay wise? I don't see how affecting the physics of the clouds and the flow of water can change how a first person shooter plays: You still shoot, don't you? Developers have been obsessing to much over the fine details and have forgotten to look at the bigger picture: One that involves better interfacing and design. Nintendo has already given them one solution, it's up to developers to come out with the new titles. Sure, the Wii controller might not be the only solution, but in terms of game design, alot of new things can be done with it that would simply fall off it it were "mapped" to a regular controller.

And in the end, it's the developers who ultimately determin what makes a good game or not. Simply attributing it to one factor will not make a crappy game any better. And even Wii is not immune to that.

When I look at the Wii, I see a system that's a departure from everything that's come before. It's a blatant omission that Nintendo is no longer in a position to compete. If you think they had to sacrifice graphics just to make a motion sensing controller, then maybe Nintendo has no business being in hardware. In fact, I suspect this will be their last home console and after the Wii, they will become a third-party developer on the other systems (while still maintaining their handheld business).

That's wishful thinking. If Nintendo does fail, then they'll pull out COMPLETELY.

 

[nonamer]

You are ignorant to say that conventional games will not be compatible with Wii. Zelda has already proved you can pull off a completely conventional game on the Wii. GTA4 on the Wii? Absolutely. Use your remote to simulate a bat and a rifle. Like the DS, not all Wii games will aim for small mini-games and simplistic latformers. Wii can have the potential to harbor new genres. Low power has never been an issue for the PS2, so why would the Wii, which has already been confirmed to be more powerful than a GC, to be last?

GTA4 won't be on a Wii due to a lack of power, not the controls.

Let me also remind you that superior hardware and high development costs is NOT what made the PS a success. It was quite the opposite. And Nintendo was riding heavily on brand loyalty at the time of the N64, not even cncerned about the development problems that arise from its format. No we see the situations reversed and Sony being just as bureaucratic as Nintendo was. back then, and Nintendo trying to ditch every sign of it's old self (notice it's just Wii, and not Nintendo Wii). I think developers will flock to Wii because it has ideas. Ubisoft has already proven this. I'm sure the rest will follow.

The situation was reversed in the case of the PS2 and GC. Obviously, there's more to the innovation stuff than just ease of development. As I said previously, the loss of innovation across the board on most conventional games not on the Wii will vastly outweigh the innovation gained on the Wiimote. Any company that sees success on the Wii, great for them, but it's not going to stem the tide.

And while horsepower does play a crucial factor into many of today's high end games, just how many developers utilize this gameplay wise? I don't see how affecting the physics of the clouds and the flow of water can change how a first person shooter plays: You still shoot, don't you? Developers have been obsessing to much over the fine details and have forgotten to look at the bigger picture: One that involves better interfacing and design. Nintendo has already given them one solution, it's up to developers to come out with the new titles. Sure, the Wii controller might not be the only solution, but in terms of game design, alot of new things can be done with it that would simply fall off it it were "mapped" to a regular controller.

Some games I've seen like HL2, Cellfactor, and the upcoming Motorstorm do make good use of physics.

And in the end, it's the developers who ultimately determin what makes a good game or not. Simply attributing it to one factor will not make a crappy game any better. And even Wii is not immune to that.

If history is any guide, they are particularly vulnerable to this fact.

 

[fearsomepirate]

GTA4 won't be on a Wii due to a lack of power, not the controls.

Wait, I thought we were up to GTA6 now? I'm confused.

 

[djdev]

Wait, I thought we were up to GTA6 now? I'm confused.

Even though there have been multiple GTA games, they use the same renderware engine (GTA3, GTA:VC,GTA:SA). Since this next gen GTA is using an all new engine (RAGE: first used in Rockstar's Table Tennis) and will probabaly bring a host of improvements, additions, changes, it should notably be called GTA 4.

 

[sfried]

GTA4 won't be on a Wii due to a lack of power, not the controls.

The situation was reversed in the case of the PS2 and GC. Obviously, there's more to the innovation stuff than just ease of development. As I said previously, the loss of innovation across the board on most conventional games not on the Wii will vastly outweigh the innovation gained on the Wiimote. Any company that sees success on the Wii, great for them, but it's not going to stem the tide.

Some games I've seen like HL2, Cellfactor, and the upcoming Motorstorm do make good use of physics.

If history is any guide, they are particularly vulnerable to this fact.

If history is any indication, then I will see Wii getting 2nd place at least. But to me, there's alot of problems for the PS3, given it's higher cost and harder development.

Not to mention that, unlike the PS2, the PS3 won't have a year or so headstart. So developers may lose patience and just jump over to 360 instead, if not Wii for that matter (like what Sega is doing).

Besides, GTA4 can be remade for Wii hardware. What's essential is that it should be built from the ground up on the Wii rather than porting it. Regarding AI, yes, I belive Wii can handle that as well. It has enough power for that.

GI: Crytek is known to have made stunningly beautiful games, and while you can sort of experience them on lesser hardware, if you have the quad-SLI setup, and three gigs of RAM and a super fast processor it’s going to look incredible. With looking at what the Wii has under the hood, does that discourage you as a developer?

Yerli: No, not at all, because I think we can make great visuals by different means. Look at the PS2. Some PS2 games still look fabulous. And there are games that are just stylized perfectly. You can achieve anything with every hardware. I think it’s a matter of artistic direction, how you use the limitations. That ultimately is the experience you want to give. The experiences in Crysis drives the art direction. The experience of the frozen environments, the experience of interactivity, then we decide how we want it to come across visually. What do we need to do, how far do we need to go? With the Nintendo Wii the approach will be similar. We have this great controller, we have the limited power of the console, How we can make a confined space or large outdoor level, whatever, how can we make the best out of the controller that’s giving the experience that we want to give? Completely fluid interactivity – how can we do that? I think it would be a completely different approach, and it deserves to be as well. So, if it our decision to make Crysis for Wii, if and I don’t want to be quoted saying we’ll do it. But if – if we would do it, it would have to be a completely optimal version, but it would be great. (laughs)

In essence, it's how talented the developer is.

 

[thenefariousone]

How we can make a confined space or large outdoor level, whatever, how can we make the best out of the controller that’s giving the experience that we want to give?

Completely fluid interactivity – how can we do that? I think it would be a completely different approach, and it deserves to be as well. So, if it our decision to make Crysis for Wii, if and I don’t want to be quoted saying we’ll do it. But if – if we would do it, it would have to be a completely optimal version, but it would be great. (.



In essence, it's how talented the developer is.

True, but the statement provided doesn't support your case, if you look at what it actually says.

The developer essentially said the game would be possible if it was a completely different approach and an optimal version of the game done from ground up.

In other words: the system isn't powerful enough to handle a straight port. Hence the statement: "...we have the limited power of the console."

Naturally, anything can be remade for another system if done from the ground up and the developers have the (a)time and (b) budget to do so.

The real question is, why would the developers or their publishers invest the time and budget to do that, when the majority of their sales will come from the ps3 and xbox360?

 

[swaaye]

You guys need to also remember that we've "lost" a bunch of genres over the years too. Personally I think the "maturity" of gamers has dropped. If you look at what games were popular 15 years ago compared to today, there is a monsterous difference. I think that once graphics got good and simpler genres arrived and visually looked a lot more appealing, the "online" arrived (lol), and running games became cheaper/easier (on PCs anyway), that the maturity went downhill significantly. People want different games today. The complexity of games is at an all time low IMO.

Actually I think I have a PC bias here cuz PC games used to be extremely different than your console selection. Not anymore.

Basically the old genres are sorta still out there, but they have been totally eclipsed by what is popular today. Many current gamers don't even know or care about them. I think not only genres are being shoved aside, but now we're starting to see single player story-oriented experiences get buried too. MP is all the rage apparently (at least I see that in most of my friends and brother).

 

[pc999]

It's innovation in the sense that new coke was an innovation, however not all innovation are desirable, especially not at the cost of even more innovation.

Fromm all of them they chose the way that brings more innovation so I dont think it is at the cost of innovation, althought it could potentially be even more innovative with more power, but it still better than the other two.

About Wii Tennis, in a recent interview with the programmers, one of them stated that while they have only a few different animations to display, the actual spin and velocity of the ball are computed based entirely off the controller input. In other words, the animation triggering is gesture-based, but the actual ball movement is not.

That is very good news, I hope the AI can hold a challenge.

To be fair regarding system power, just looking at current games, we're no longer really hindered in terms of gameplay by things like view distance, the number of enemies onscreen, sufficient physics to make vehicles and the like behave intuitively, framerate, or having enough polygon/texture detail/pixels to tell what the heck you're looking at. Those things severely hindered PS1/N64 gaming to the point that very, very few of the games still feel even playable today.

There's obviously room to grow. Games with big, expansive levels and lots of bad guys in this generation don't have much terrain detail, which can affect gameplay when there's nowhere to take cover. Physics can improve a lot; environments in today's games were almost entirely static. In this and future console generations, it would be nice to see tanks busting through walls and knocking down small trees, high-caliber machine guns whittling away cover, and artillery blasting craters in the ground.

But that basic inability to make a 3D game with anything more than the most rudimentary action and environments has indeed been overcome by the closing console generation. I think 10 years from now, many current gen games will feel just as fun and playable as many of the games from the 16-bit era feel today.

Althought it is true that most innovation (already seen) from next gen it is derivative and in many cases it could have most of its (basics?all?) features on last gen (ie, AssasinsCreed is IMO one of the mosts* innovative next gen game yet we can see its roots more or less like, PoP meets Hitman in the Dark Ages, so maybe it is not that innovative) what they brings still worth and I will love to play them.


PS: here I am assuming such a game cant appear in Wii, althought in many I belive they could.


*other include Medal of Honor, crysis, Army of two and a few more AI intensive/persistent world based

GTA4 won't be on a Wii due to a lack of power, not the controls.

The game like it is in 360/PS3 no, but its gameplay, could it be possible?

As I said previously, the loss of innovation across the board on most conventional games not on the Wii will vastly outweigh the innovation gained on the Wiimote.

How do you know that conventional games on wii will not have innovation?
How do you know that Innovation on the Wii will be less important than the innovation on conventional games?

Any company that sees success on the Wii, great for them, but it's not going to stem the tide.

We all know that Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft and all of those that bringing lots and exclussive titles are so stupid in this industry, after all they are big companys because they are stupid .

Some games I've seen like HL2, Cellfactor, and the upcoming Motorstorm do make good use of physics.

I am so happy, two innovative (by specs) games on the PC in 3 years between a thousands of games and one is (almost) made to present the PPU. .

Besides, GTA4 can be remade for Wii hardware. What's essential is that it should be built from the ground up on the Wii rather than porting it. Regarding AI, yes, I belive Wii can handle that as well. It has enough power for that.

If it could handle (what I expect to be) next gen GTA then

Crytek

In essence, it's how talented the developer is.

I wonder if he meant a fully featured (persistent AI, world and physics seems to have a big impact on it) Wii Crysis game, if so then it is probably true for most next gen games.

It seems to be hard to bellive yet it should run on a any single core CPU, so maybe it isnt that intensive anyway (besides gfx exclussive features).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

The real question is, why would the developers or their publishers invest the time and budget to do that, when the majority of their sales will come from the ps3 and xbox360?

And how do you know ps3 and x360 will be the leading platforms? ps3 isnt even out yet and x360 is selling bad in japan and europe and is only selling decent in the usa.

The fact is you dont know wich console is going to be the leading platform yet. It might as well become wii with its low cost development and low cost hardware.

 

[iNoV]

There's also the possibility that the lesser hardware of wii could also inspire more creativity from developers.