Interview with Nintendo software engineer Takeshi Shimada (includes Wii GPU question)

[Farid]

Link to Gamasutra

We do not learn much out of this interview other than the emphasize made by Shimada on the need to get the "information," in the broad sense of the word, out to every dev teams inside Nintendo.
We also learn that Nintendo is always open to third party middleware solutions.

GS: We've gotten postmortems in our magazine from games in Japan, and quite often they will come upon some sort of pipeline revelation for them, which is usually something like "All developers should talk to each other, and we shouldn't keep the departments separate!" It's a little surprising because it seems so logical. There seems to be a kind of secrecy involved in structure. Is that a setback?

TS: I absolutely do feel that communication is very important. In my role at Nintendo, I end up emphasizing it quite a lot. In my case, I'm the leader of two teams that work on development tools that are used by all of the teams internally at Nintendo, as well as second and third parties. Of course it's important to make sure that each of these different teams can still use these tools the way that they were intended to, so that becomes something that my team has to ensure: that everyone can approach these tools in the same way.

That flow of thinking has been going on more or less since the days of the Nintendo 64 development tools. But because each team has a different way of working, communication is absolutely essential to find out what the needs of each team are and how they're actually using tools, so that I can coordinate my efforts and the efforts of my team to create something that is usable by everyone.

Despite that, I feel that long ago, there was a period where we would end up developing middleware that could not be used by all groups. Over time, we came to match different groups' workflow, to be able to provide middleware and tools that fit into their workflow very well. This was a very gradual process, as we came to understand how to do this. It took a lot of talk between internal teams to figure out what their needs were.

For my part, I found that I needed to be able to develop these tools very flexibly. There were constant demands for different needs for different teams that had to be taken into account, so it was very much an evolutionary process.

The interviewer seized his chance and asked about the Wii GPU...

GS: How different is the graphics chip in the Wii from the GameCube's chip, and why create a new one specifically for the Wii?

TS: Very generally speaking, people tend to expect somewhat of a linear progression in terms of the graphical and sound capability of machines like this, but the Wii really represents a departure in that way of thinking in this evolutionary line. One of the things that we have tended to consider in the development of this hardware is that we might consider producing games with lower processing needs, and so as we were thinking about that, that actually went into our hardware development. It wasn't so much that there was like a stall in progress between GameCube and Wii, but rather Wii is a totally different kind of system. We were just thinking of what the needs would be eventually in our development cycle. So, we approached it as a completely new platform with a very different scale.

When thinking about our graphics and audio pipeline on Wii, we needed totally new development tools. This time around, there are so many new features -- things like wireless, the way the remote works -- that it basically meant starting over with new dev tools as well.

...in vain.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

He totally evaided the question

 

[archangelmorph]

What a cop-out!!

His justification for the lack of "oomph" of the Wii GPU is laughable!!

What's to stop developers producing games with so-called "low processing needs" on much more capable hardware? (absolutely nothing and in many cases it can make your life easier)

If he would have attributed it to a focus on keeping costs down then I would have said fair enough but an excuse like that just comes across as strange...

 

[_xxx_]

What a cop-out!!

His justification for the lack of "oomph" of the Wii GPU is laughable!!

Please elaborate on that point.

I am a Wii fan and may sound biased, but IMO they were on the very right track.

I did not want another whizz-bang PC like XB360 and PS3. I wanted a toy, basically something I would almost call a "home appliance" and use just for senseless fun and relaxation - and that they achieved perfectly.

And the sales numbers give him a huge nod, so I'd say Wii is just not for you (you being more of a "hardcore" gamer obviously).

Please give me a single viable reason for Wii to have more "oomph" (except for pleasing the few hundred users here screaming for more power that is).

 

[DJ12]

Seems to me like he's implying the Wii GPU isn't even as powerful/capable as the one in the GC.

 

[Nesh]

Seems to me like he's implying the Wii GPU isn't even as powerful/capable as the one in the GC.

Judging from its visual offerings so far I would have been easilly convinced if someone told me thats the case.

 

[Teasy]

What a cop-out!!

His justification for the lack of "oomph" of the Wii GPU is laughable!!

What's to stop developers producing games with so-called "low processing needs" on much more capable hardware? (absolutely nothing and in many cases it can make your life easier)

If he would have attributed it to a focus on keeping costs down then I would have said fair enough but an excuse like that just comes across as strange...

How is that laughable? He's saying that Nintendo felt there focus in game making would not be on graphics. Had Nintendo decided that high end graphics would be there focus I'm sure Wii would have been a power house.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Seems to me like he's implying the Wii GPU isn't even as powerful/capable as the one in the GC.

Sooooo how would it be 100% GC backwardscompatible then? Besides, there isnt any point in actually spending time in making a slower chip than the GC for Wii. It would be cheaper/faster/easier to just take a GC and put it in a Wii case.

 

[archangelmorph]

Please give me a single viable reason for Wii to have more "oomph" (except for pleasing the few hundred users here screaming for more power that is).

I'm not saying it should.. I said if they want to justify their decision based on the idea that it's somehow easier for developers to develop games with "low-processing power needs" on inferior hardware than it is on more advanced hardware then don't expect me to buy it...

And in fact i'll give you a reason why they should.. Value... At the moment nintendo are rinsing consumers in sales for a piece of hardware that should have been priced at least another £50 cheaper (and definitely could have without Nintendo losing money per unit)..

How is that laughable? He's saying that Nintendo felt there focus in game making would not be on graphics. Had Nintendo decided that high end graphics would be there focus I'm sure Wii would have been a power house.

That's not what I was refering to and if you read my previous post properly you'd realise that.. Just stop... Take a deep breath and go back and see exactly what the focus of my previous post was refering to..

Geeez..

 

[Todd33]

Wow, what a non-answer. I guess if you read between the lines the Wii is not much of an advancement and he didn't want to be honest.

 

[RobertR1]

When given a choice to go after the general consumers or the tech whores, the general consumer path will always prove more profitable. Nintendo had no intention of playing the "my GPU is better than yours" with Sony and MS. Let those two battle it out for the hardcore enthusiasts and web dominance. Instead, they went after Average Joe and won him over. What's important to us, isn't important to him (Average Joe).

 

[Nesh]

When given a choice to go after the general consumers or the tech whores, the general consumer path will always prove more profitable. Nintendo had no intention of playing the "my GPU is better than yours" with Sony and MS. Let those two battle it out for the hardcore enthusiasts and web dominance. Instead, they went after Average Joe and won him over. What's important to us, isn't important to him (Average Joe).

They ve got the price advandage and the new controller thats why.

No matter how much they tried to convince people with their emphasis on gameplay if one of these two factors was missing it wouldnt have done as well. The average Joe would have been unimpressed

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Please elaborate on that point.

I am a Wii fan and may sound biased, but IMO they were on the very right track.

I did not want another whizz-bang PC like XB360 and PS3. I wanted a toy, basically something I would almost call a "home appliance" and use just for senseless fun and relaxation - and that they achieved perfectly.


Please give me a single viable reason for Wii to have more "oomph" (except for pleasing the few hundred users here screaming for more power that is).

There is absolutely nothing that says or implies that you cannot mix fun and gameplay with graphics. I dont buy the whole "gameplay is our main focus" thing from Nintendo. Gameplay is always the focus, and you can implement good gameplay and fun on any platform regardless of its power, its just up to developers making good games.

Nintendo needed something to differentiate themselves from MS and Sony, because it was quite obvious that if they had produced an Gamecube 2, Nintendo as a console producer would be dying. It got outsold by the Xbox and PS2 last generation, and there was nothing implying that a similarly priced console, with similar hardware would manage to compete vs MS and Sony.

They went a cheaper (some will even say smarter?) route with a new controller. Im not saying one or the other is the "correct" way to go, but the explanation he gives is certainly laughable.

One of the things that we have tended to consider in the development of this hardware is that we might consider producing games with lower processing needs

This is a completely ridiculous statement. Games with "lower processing needs", would run fine on better hardware. In fact, i dare you to show me one console developer who would not be happy about getting better, more powerful hardware on his hands (if it still had the same userbase etc). This is a bad lie, or bad PR at best. He could have just said the truth, "we wanted a cheap console that we could sell for a profit, therefore minimizing potential risk".

We dont need to hear about some BS statement about how the Wii was specifically designed for games that "need" slow hardware.

 

[assen]

Please give me a single viable reason for Wii to have more "oomph" (except for pleasing the few hundred users here screaming for more power that is).

More "oomph" would translate directly into easier and cheaper development - one advantage the Wii IMHO unfairly claims.

 

[oli2]

There is absolutely nothing that says or implies that you cannot mix fun and gameplay with graphics.

Perfectly correct. If you agree to the contrary too (graphics are in no way a prereqauisite to fun and gameplay), we 100% agree.

I dont buy the whole "gameplay is our main focus" thing from Nintendo. Gameplay is always the focus, and you can implement good gameplay and fun on any platform regardless of its power, its just up to developers making good games.

There is a world between "you can" and "you will".

Nintendo needed something to differentiate themselves from MS and Sony, because it was quite obvious that if they had produced an Gamecube 2, Nintendo as a console producer would be dying. It got outsold by the Xbox and PS2 last generation, and there was nothing implying that a similarly priced console, with similar hardware would manage to compete vs MS and Sony.

I think Nintendo played fairly well this point. Some have said that Nintendo could have put a more powerfull GPU inside the box for the exact same price, which is correct. Would they have made that, they could have been hit by viral marketing from M* and S* on the graphic department. With what they've done, that point is simply "not relevant". I don't speak there about my view or yours, but of what is generally accepted by the public or fora.

They went a cheaper (some will even say smarter?) route with a new controller. Im not saying one or the other is the "correct" way to go, but the explanation he gives is certainly laughable.

I don't feel interest in commenting every single phrase an architect may say... In a whole discussion, you will every time find a phrase that you can use to say "Contradiction !""stupidity", ...

This is a completely ridiculous statement. Games with "lower processing needs", would run fine on better hardware. In fact, i dare you to show me one console developer who would not be happy about getting better, more powerful hardware on his hands (if it still had the same userbase etc). This is a bad lie, or bad PR at best. He could have just said the truth, "we wanted a cheap console that we could sell for a profit, therefore minimizing potential risk".

We dont need to hear about some BS statement about how the Wii was specifically designed for games that "need" slow hardware.

There we come to your "real" point, no ? Let me ask you : weren't 95 % (if not more) of the games sold last gen absolutely not advanced graphic-wise, physics-wise, etc. ? Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%, while Microsoft and Sony keep on speaking to you about the other 5%...

 

[zed]

There is absolutely nothing that says or implies that you cannot mix fun and gameplay with graphics. I dont buy the whole "gameplay is our main focus" thing from Nintendo

this is 100% true in theory + i support the reasoning, the problem i believe is that ( cuttingedge graphics is hard + time consuming ) with a limited budget (time/money) if u spend 80% on the graphics etc then whats left over for gameplay etc. i can see this as a very big problem for sony/ms, ie u wanna outdo your competition, to stand out from the crowd visually + say to everyone 'buy me'.
now with the wii u can compete with other wii games graphically, true but even the best is gonna look like shit compared to the other consoles, so why bother! u are then forced to devote more time to other facets eg gameplay to try + differentiate yourself ( ie bugger the graphics just chuck in any passable crap ).
this is part of the reasoning why on these forums i said it was a bad idea for sony to let users access the RSX with the ps3 under linux, the cell is a wonderful beast to explore/exploit.

in saying that, about the interview TS gave a political nonanswer, he should of said the wii is crap plain + simple (but of course nintendo would of fired him then) but still no excuse it was a copout

 

[Shifty Geezer]

this is 100% true in theory + i support the reasoning, the problem i believe is that ( cuttingedge graphics is hard + time consuming )

For some obscure reason people seem to think the choice is only cutting edge graphics. There is also the option of better graphics. It doesn't take much more development effort to allow more polys per model, a bit of AA, and some shading effects. All it needs is a beefier GPU. This is evident in PC games, where the same game runs in better quality on better GPUs with no developer overhead. Nintendo didn't need to go the whole hog and chuck a meaty, development-hungry SM3.0 part in the Wii. And likewise in order to keep costs down they didn't need to stick to a doubled-up Flipper. It could even be argued that a standard SM2.0 part would be easier to develop for than a Flipper derivative, especially for most devs who didn't explore Flipper's intricacies. They could get more out of an SM2.0 part for less effort than the same effects from Flipper. Nintendo could have used something equivalent to a 9800, which targetted at SDTV res could be pretty awesome. As to 'why bother' - because it's better! It's about giving your customers more than the very minimum needed to make a sale.

Unless the Wii buying public think the same games with better graphics would be a bad thing, there's no argument at all that lower spec hardware is better for games. The reason for going with a much lower than technically efficient choice seems to be GC BC, perhaps development tool simplicity (port GC tech), and profitability. Though even that last point is questionable. How much would a 90nm 9800 cost relatvie to Hollywood? It'd be unlikely to break the bank!

 

[Cheezdoodles]

There we come to your "real" point, no ? Let me ask you : weren't 95 % (if not more) of the games sold last gen absolutely not advanced graphic-wise, physics-wise, etc. ? Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%, while Microsoft and Sony keep on speaking to you about the other 5%...

The 95% games of the games were not advanced graphics-wise, compared to the technology it was running on and the best looking games. They weren't bad looking because the developers were going for a "hey lets have awful graphics in here, gamers will luw it", they went that route because of budgets etc. With better hardware, developers can reach a higher graphical fidelity with less work. Works out great for everyone.

And to turn around this broken logic of you, let me ask you: weren't 95% (if not more) of the games sold last gen absolutely not worth buying? IMO, for me last generation, only the 90% (not all of them) rated games were worth buying and keeping, most of the 80-89% games were "remakes" of some other game.

 

[_xxx_]

More "oomph" would translate directly into easier and cheaper development

Well no, it's exactly the opposite. Just the assets for a HD-game cost more development than a whole Wii game on average.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well no, it's exactly the opposite. Just the assets for a HD-game cost more development than a whole Wii game on average.

Again, as my post above, neither is specifically true. If you have to create more textures and models for bigger, better graphics, it'll cost more. But you can also take the same level of assets as a Wii game and just improve them. You can add some shaders, AA, and increase the poly counts. This comes at negligable extra cost, and in creating shading effects, may be cheaper, because it's easier to extract shader effects from SM2 shaders than it is to get those same effects when doable from Flipper's design. We saw some good effects on GC, but they were very rare, presumably because they were tricky to do. Make those effects easy and you get the improvement across lots more titles at little greater effort than not using those effects at all.