Inq: Nintendo faked Wii demonstration - claim
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
The hw isn't finalized yet, Prince911 (Ubi-Soft employee) said on the IGN Insider WGB that Ubi had about 2 weeks to get RS up & running on the latest dev-kit version.
Clearly, it was unoptimized. Near final dev-kits (90-95%) aren't even being released until June. (for 3rd parties) I was also surprised to find out while there at E3 that even many Wii developers had no idea about the FHC's speaker function. But Nintendo knew that the FHC's learning curve was going to be quite steep, & require extensive time consuming research & programming to create an optimal control scheme. This simply wouldn't have been possible on the 360 & PS3 architectures, imo. So instead of having to learn a brand new/complex architecture, let the studios hone, develop, & implement their various control inputs on the GC. (very wise if acheiving familiarity with an unintroduced & unorthodox controller is your #1 priority, & the Wii's architecture is not a huge departure from its predecessor)
Anyhow, a Retro guy I had the pleasure to talk to was echoing these same sentiments, saying much of what was shown even in their Corruption demo simply wasn't possible on the GC. The demo hadn't begun to sratch the surface of what Corruption was. It's getting annoying as well as incorrect to keep referring to the Wii as simply an overclocked GC.
Clearly, it was unoptimized. Near final dev-kits (90-95%) aren't even being released until June. (for 3rd parties) I was also surprised to find out while there at E3 that even many Wii developers had no idea about the FHC's speaker function. But Nintendo knew that the FHC's learning curve was going to be quite steep, & require extensive time consuming research & programming to create an optimal control scheme. This simply wouldn't have been possible on the 360 & PS3 architectures, imo. So instead of having to learn a brand new/complex architecture, let the studios hone, develop, & implement their various control inputs on the GC. (very wise if acheiving familiarity with an unintroduced & unorthodox controller is your #1 priority, & the Wii's architecture is not a huge departure from its predecessor)
Anyhow, a Retro guy I had the pleasure to talk to was echoing these same sentiments, saying much of what was shown even in their Corruption demo simply wasn't possible on the GC. The demo hadn't begun to sratch the surface of what Corruption was. It's getting annoying as well as incorrect to keep referring to the Wii as simply an overclocked GC.
mckmas8808
Legend
Li Mu Bai said:
People can only go by what they see game wise. To me MP3 doesn't look that much better than MP2. But at the sametime I really really understand that these games and the hardware isn't near finish so I'm giving them time to hone the system.
It just seems like some people are expecting near 360 level of graphics.
NANOTEC said:
Either the tech has some serious leakage concerns, the added WiFi and flash drive add a lot to the power consumption, or the hardware is legitimately far more powerful than gamecube.
Well, right now Wii isn't really beating the best of Xbox or even Gamecube, and there's even some cross over between the best of xbox and the worst to mid range on the 360.
, that explain even better the Madden guy comments.mckmas8808
Legend
Teasy said:
Interesting. I wonder if they will actually make a game on the Wii.
mckmas8808 said:
Which is completely illogical, since this completely contradicts Nintendo's current philosophy of offering new gameplay experiences via the FHC vs bleeding edge technology. People must understand that all 3rd party titles were primarily developed upon the GC without the luxury of the 2nd-3rd generation development kits, as I stated earlier. MP:Corruption development began shortly after Echoes & Retro was instrumental in insisting on including the nunchuck attachment for FPA/FPSer genre. So obviously, some will look the part of lower-end GC titles while others certainly will not. Excite Truck, SSB:Brawl, SM:Galaxy, Project H.A.M.M.E.R. (which was still very early) vs. Tony Hawk's: DJ, Red Steel, etc. there will be obvious visual discrepancies. (1st & 2nd party offerings vs. 3rd) Though some will impress, wait until you see FF:CCII & Sonic completed. Red Steel should as well.
Also take into account that many of these studios saw the GC as a quick PS2 code port only console, if even that. Very few ever developed their projects from the ground-up utilizing the GC's architecture exclusively & its TEV capabilities. If EMBM, (DOT3 in cascading stages, displacement maps) per-pixel lighting, soft-shadowing, etc. were attainable with only 24mb of main system ram, well you can see where the Wii will be headed once developers start familiarizing themselves & actually begin trying to exploit the console's abilities much in the way that Aonuma's LOZ division, Capcom, Rare, F5, GDS, & AV did with RL, RS3, RE4, FF:CC, F-Zero GX, SFA, LOZ:TP, etc. did last generation.
Also, please stop taking Iwata's comments out of context. He was comparing the LOZ:TP to the 360's launch lineup of PDZ, Kameo, etc. And when viewed in its entirety, (once you see TP in its completed state, 80% currently) I sincerely believe that you would agree with him as I do, esp. targetting SDTV & pro-scan resolutions. pc999, I've heard that the Hollywood cpu is a very, very efficient piece of work. I believe Nintendo is upping their initial specs, although I am unsure by how much though I've been told that they will supercede those listed by IGN. (but I wouldn't expect anything drastic obviously)
Last edited by a moderator:
Ooh-videogames
Regular
Li Mu Bai said:
Which may explain Nintendo decision to not announce the price of Wii, I'm hoping for a memory increase. What can be tweaked on a GPU performance wise, besides clock rates?
Ooh-videogames said:
Look at what ATI did with the 9700 -->X800-->X1900 which are all based on the same architeture or even the 6800-->7900 with more TMUs and ALUs (new ones). They probably can do a Hollywood as diferent from flipper as those from the original.
Things like more edram, multiple TEVs, new colors formats, new compressions..., if I am not incorrect as long as they keep the original instructions and it does not affect any other component they can change/add/expand it.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060520-6877.html
I remember reading some of the original article on this subject. Like the original article Hannibal again claims that Broadway was to be the new laptop offering from IBM/Apple before the switch to Intel.
I remember reading some of the original article on this subject. Like the original article Hannibal again claims that Broadway was to be the new laptop offering from IBM/Apple before the switch to Intel.
Teasy said:
I wonder if it was planned to be lower or higher IPC than the G5. I'd imagine a high clock G5 (close to 3ghz) would offer similar performance to the triple cored x360 cpu, probably higher than most devs are getting out of it right now actually. Still, if it wasn't higher IPC than the G5, it'd be a pretty poor performer at under 2ghz. Anyhow, I thought anandtech reported that Broadway was Power3 based?
Teasy said:
ERP already said this isnt true, also from what we now Broadway is way behind core/core duo which are better than the P4/PD ence capable of high end gaming like crysys (or Apple ony use Core Duo?) so unless Intel is a much better performer and does have better performance/price/power I cant see this being very real.
I was thinking that as well, about ERP's comments on the original article. However looking back he didn't actually say that it wasn't true. He said that in his opinion (to paraphrase) "Hannibal is often wrong and he's probably just recycling info from forums". It didn't sound like ERP actually knew for sure either way, he was just basically saying that he generally doesn't trust Hannibal.
I'm not sure where Core Duo comes into this by the way. The rumour is that the Broadway core was to be used in Apples Laptops before the move to Intel.
No idea if its true myself, but if it is I was thinking how it might compare to Apple's previous best Laptop chip (surely it would have to be superior). What was Apple/IBM's last Laptop chip before the move to Intel?
I'm not sure where Core Duo comes into this by the way. The rumour is that the Broadway core was to be used in Apples Laptops before the move to Intel.
No idea if its true myself, but if it is I was thinking how it might compare to Apple's previous best Laptop chip (surely it would have to be superior). What was Apple/IBM's last Laptop chip before the move to Intel?
Last edited by a moderator:
The first time that the PowerPC G5 was mentioned was in the year 2001 with a rumour of a 58 milion transistors CPU, just the same transistors than the final version by IBM.
The only differences between IBM and Motorola/Freescale is the VMX Unit, M/F never licensed it to the PowerPC consortium and IBM has a delay of 1 year only for this problem.
I have no doubt that an OOE PPE exist as a complete development for be used against the Pentium M but it was refused by Apple and Jobs lied about the possibility of a new PowerPC in the notebooks.
I believe in "Hannibal".
The only differences between IBM and Motorola/Freescale is the VMX Unit, M/F never licensed it to the PowerPC consortium and IBM has a delay of 1 year only for this problem.
I have no doubt that an OOE PPE exist as a complete development for be used against the Pentium M but it was refused by Apple and Jobs lied about the possibility of a new PowerPC in the notebooks.
I believe in "Hannibal".
