That depends entirely on what they itend to do with the hardware. There are games that could look better AND run better without changing much of assets. Some of you defending this weaker hardware is better approach makes my head hurt.
Interview with Nintendo software engineer Takeshi Shimada (includes Wii GPU question)
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
That depends entirely on what they itend to do with the hardware. There are games that could look better AND run better without changing much of assets. Some of you defending this weaker hardware is better approach makes my head hurt.
Virtually every Gamecube exclusive has good special effects clearly taking advantage of the available hardware. Everyone is totally fixated on self-shadowing, but it's hardly the only thing out there. I think that it's more about there being a rather limited set of effects that transferred well across all three platforms.
That said, this guy's answer was a total dodge. The question was a technical question, and he gave a non-answer. I'd prefer "We are not answering questions about the technical aspects of the Wii's GPU" to "Wii is a new kind of machine! Our API handles voice recognition!"
Exactly ... You almost get my point (just go a little further).
Try to answer properly, this is not GameFAQs. If you want to have a serious discussion, try to build up serious arguments.
My statement was that everything he said in there about the Wii GPU, is complete and utter BS in PR mode. Do you disagree with that? If you do, tell me why
I have a feeling that the primary reason for using a flipper mark 2 is dev tool simplicity, nintendo gets to save a ton of time and money by being able to reuse all their in house dev tools.
Beyond that, look how much stronger the wii's first year was made by gamecube ports. Most of its big games now, if not outright GC games ported to wii, at least have their development rooted in the gamecube.
Also, it allows companies to easily make ps2 to wii ports since they already have the tools needed to go from ps2 to gc.
Though I think going the microsoft root and just having a mini os and standard apis to ease the transition between generations is a much better idea.
Beyond that, look how much stronger the wii's first year was made by gamecube ports. Most of its big games now, if not outright GC games ported to wii, at least have their development rooted in the gamecube.
Also, it allows companies to easily make ps2 to wii ports since they already have the tools needed to go from ps2 to gc.
Though I think going the microsoft root and just having a mini os and standard apis to ease the transition between generations is a much better idea.
That sounds likely. I'm sure it also made the BC problem a whole lot easier to solve than it was for Sony or MS.
yes as ive mentioned before on these forums, this is what the wii-HD will do (available i think around Christmas 2008) basically it will let u run all wii games in hi-res with AA (prolly all games @ 1080p which the ps3 or xb360 cant, which would be great from a marketing point, 'the only nextgen console that is trueHD'.
it would of not been smart from a business sense to release it instead of the wii, now they can get 2 bites of the cherry.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
X360 would have problems, because in order to do that, all Wii games would have to support tiling.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
lol! I guess so...X360 would have problems, because in order to do that, all Wii games would have to support tiling.
But without AA, Xenos could probably render Wii level graphics at 1080i 120fps and combine the frames for a 1080p/60 output.
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Excuse me?So what youre telling me is that 2 next gen consoles which have native 1080p games cant run Wii games(theoretically) in 1080p w AA?
Besides, with your concept of WiiHD, it doesnt render the Wii games at 1080p w/ AA, it simply upscales it (which X360 already does with Xbox 1/X360 games
)Funny joke man.....funny joke
Don't compare the costs for producing a Wii game on the real Wii but the costs for producing a Wii game on a theoretical "oomphy" Wii. It's easier to make a renderer for a programmable GPU, not having to fake effects, but simply implementing them in the most straightforward way possible (what happend on the PC with the SM1.4 -> SM2.0 transition). It's easier to work in a higher-level language, made possible by a beefier CPU. It's much, much easier to work with more breathing room in terms of memory.
Actually, this is my worst complaint with the Wii as a developer: I can live with the Geforce2-level GPU - I've had worse, as the Black Knight says. I can live with the sub-GHz CPU - I've had worse. However, the measly amount of memory is the worst constraint, and it would have been the cheapest of the three to increase. Including only the current 64 MB of main RAM shows most clearly that Nintendo are cheapskates who hate all developers
I'm talking about producing a top-game for the XB360 or PS3 in comparison to Wii, the current reality that we have here. Wii games _are_ much cheaper and easier to produce than say, Halo3.
What kind of budget did Zelda have? Im pretty confident it would rival the costs of say Oblivion and Gears of War
Thanks for your unkind appreciation.
My argument, which you almost express yourself, is that 95% (if not more) of the games sold last gen were not bought because they "pushed the envelop".
You can definitly read this as a "protected mode PR", if you want. But PR from a system architect ...
My concern is that "jumping" on it as you do look more and more like a complain regarding what is happening in the market, now.
"Why PS3 adoption is so slow as this is a far more powerfull device ?" : all your wording screams that.
The whole 'low-power new-gameplay Wii vs. High-power old-(ignoring sixaxis and stuff) -gameplay PS3' question would have been answered if both launched at the same price. If PS3 was $250, would Wii still be outselling it? Or would people prefer the better visual quality of PS3 for their money?
Of course that didn't happen, and that's the difference between tech choices. However, sales of these machines doesn't correlate 100% with what people want in terms of hardware capabilities, and we'll probably never know what would have happened, other than at $250, PS3 would have seen as much shortage as Wii is experiencing.
I suggest you read the topic again, and see why i decided to comment on this PR. It was because a guy called "_xxx_" didn't understand why other people said the system architect evaded that question. I replied to his post, in a proper manner, giving out serious arguments and counter arguments, and explained why the guy totally evaded the question.
And then you start barging in here, making a post that claims "Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%", not only that, but not answering or giving a proper reply the the post your quoting in the first place. Not to mention that this ""Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%" is a totally ridiculous statement, because REGARDLESS of how ugly and mediocre your games are, more powerful hardware benefits every developer. Which i asked you to try to elaborate, and your reply to that was trying to find hidden agendas.
Why are you posting here? Are you doing some kind of damage control? It certainly seems so, don't go rushing out and calling my statement to be filled with some PS3 agenda. Your not even replying to the stuff at hand, AND your responding with meaningless one liners for most of the time.
This comment, implies that i'm dumb. I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer
But Nintendo keep claiming that you don't need to make Halo3s only, there's still market for other games. And something like Wii Sports, Wario or Excite Truck can be produced considerably cheaper with XNA - a high-level framework the like of which Wii, due to its, "very different" (in the words of their engineer) hardware can't reasonably support.
