Question about the performance of Wii

[Shifty Geezer]

Is Heavy Rain out yet? Do we really know how much of the gameplay is actually dependent on minute facial animations?

Whether HR does or doesn't, the potential of the PS360 allows games that need that where Wii couldn't computer them.

Most of the other stuff I've experienced really does feel like it's more on the "eye candy" side of things, and that includes physics and animation.

At this point in time much of the potential is untapped and hypothetical. eg. The sixaxis can do many of Wii's minigames. The fact that there are no such games on PS3 doesn't go to show that Wii alone can handle them. The greater power of the PS360 could make different games that Wii couldn't handle, even if at this point in time devs are mostly sticking to the straight-and-narrow and just chucking out more of the same with a visual facelift, just as the Wiimote can do more than minigames, but devs aren't really pushing the envelope on that machine either. Conservative creators...

 

[Squeak]

That is. of course, assuming there were major bottlenecks before, correct?

Oh there were!
- The memory size for one.
- The cutdown clock of the Flipper, making TEV much less much less usable than it could have been.
- The bandwidth, although helped a lot by the CPU cache and 1TSRAM, restrained the systems overall flexibility.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Whether HR does or doesn't, the potential of the PS360 allows games that need that where Wii couldn't computer them.

Sure. You could say that about any game that keeps 89 MB of data in RAM or applies 9 texture layers in a single pass. You could also say that the potential of the Wii allows games that the PS2, Gamecube, or Xbox couldn't compute. My point is that so far, this doesn't seem to make a big deal from the standpoint of game fundamentals, just like the Neo-Geo's higher sprite resolution, richer colors and better animation did not make the games fundamentally different from what you could get on the SNES.

I never said anything about the Wii alone being able to do this or that. I'm sure you could play Wii baseball with a PS3 controller, albeit the form factor would make it even clunkier. Nor did I claim that the Wii can compute anything the PS3 can compute. I didn't say either of those things, mainly because I'm not stupid. What I actually said that the fundamentals of 3D gameplay were so refined that the additional power doesn't radically change things, I think the "feel" of a game all comes down the mechanics: jumping, aiming, steering, flying, dodging, flanking, hiding, punching, kicking, skidding, running, catching, etc. Last gen had those down to a science, while they were often quite crude in the 32-bit era. What are the gameplay fundamentals that can really be tremendously improved? As nearly as I can tell, actual content is the biggest gameplay leap, but the mechanics themselves have largely stayed the same. I don't think it's because developers are just playing it safe or not utilizing all the available power. I think it's because the fundamentals, which are the most obvious thing the gamer interacts with, don't have much left to refine or add. Wii offers some new ways to approach the fundamentals of control. It makes aiming, punching, etc actually different rather than prettier. It's currently crude and needs refinement, however, unlike adding bump maps or improving facial animation, it's a new take on the fundamentals rather than a surface improvement or iterative refinement.

You have not actually contested that statement, and I suggest that is a much more interesting thought than the straw men you are currently arguing with.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I didn't say either of those things, mainly because I'm not stupid.

As no-one called you stupid or implied it, why even make that remark in this thread?

What I actually said that the fundamentals of 3D gameplay were so refined that the additional power doesn't radically change things...
What are the gameplay fundamentals that can really be tremendously improved?...
It makes aiming, punching, etc actually different rather than prettier. It's currently crude and needs refinement, however, unlike adding bump maps or improving facial animation, it's a new take on the fundamentals rather than a surface improvement or iterative refinement.

You have not actually contested that statement, and I suggest that is a much more interesting thought than the straw men you are currently arguing with.

I haven't contested it because I don't disagree! Yes, Wii could be better used. I even had my 'straw men' say as much! I entered the thread challenging Squeak's view on the limited benefits of better hardware.

I certainly disagree with you that games have peaked and the only to progress them is input methods. You rattled off a nice list of features last gen had, but how many last-gen titles brought all that together to superb effect?

Had incredibly lifelike driving sims - so lifelike that they haven't been improved upon, and with incredible AI racers, in large, immersive open worlds?

action flight games with buttery smooth controls - and in large, immersive worlds against incredible AI?

immersive open worlds - with intelligent AI that 'lived and breathed' rather than am,bled pointlessly, and which grew and developed in response to your actions so you could shape the whole world?

... etc. I can say the same for all your points. Taken in isolation, selecting the best examples from every game, perhaps your points are matched. But no game could afford to bring them all together. Sacrifices were made across the board to fit the limits of the systems.

I don't think it's because developers are just playing it safe or not utilizing all the available power.

I completely disagree with this. We even hear from devs how publishers are very conservative! Costs are so high that experimentation is a serious gamble. Look at the Wii game market, how developers are cloning existing successes in the hopes of mirroring them. The result is lots of untouched potential in Wiimote, games that could be made but aren't being made, and lots of top titles barely benefit from Wiimote.

But this is a tired old discussion raised before. Look out how the increased power of previous machines allowed new games. Look at all the new genres that spawned on Amiga, impossible on earlier hardwares and only conceived because the developers had rooms to stretch the imagination. It's clear that a performance leap allows unique game experiences! Back then costs weren't prohibitively high, and people could experiment in creating God games, dungeon crawlers, puzzlers galore, etc. Back in the 80's single people could push envelopes publishers wouldn't touch, like the creation of Elite. That's not an option anymore, or at least wasn't until the roll-out of download and homebrew services.

The performance advantage can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but tarted up visuals, just as Wiimote can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but mindless minigames. There is loads of potential in these systems which no-one should ignore, regardless of what actually gets released! One only needs use one's own imagination to come up with ideas that are processor hungry or need a clever pointer/motion interface. If you're only going to gauge potential by what's released, Wiimote is only good for minigames and shooters just as much as this-gen is last-gen with tarted up visuals!

 

[sfried]

The performance advantage can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but tarted up visuals, just as Wiimote can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but mindless minigames. There is loads of potential in these systems which no-one should ignore, regardless of what actually gets released! One only needs use one's own imagination to come up with ideas that are processor hungry or need a clever pointer/motion interface. If you're only going to gauge potential by what's released, Wiimote is only good for minigames and shooters just as much as this-gen is last-gen with tarted up visuals!

I was actually going to say this. Many people here assume what's written on the spec-sheet is the maximum capabilities of the system. People were able to find neat hardware tricks back in the day for consoles such as the nes, to even the GBC. What's to say developers have pushed as much as they can? In fact, I'd go on to say not even the previous generation hardware was as exploited as it could be. Too many of these new publisher's bickering for higher specs made deveoplers less capable of improvising and finding tricks around limitations.

As in the case of the Wii, I think more developers are concentrating more on how to improve their control implementation, as with the case of various first-person shooters out there. If ever a Red Steel 2, for example, should be announced, you could bet they might have nicked the customization screens off other Wii FPSs and then some (if they are smart developers, of course). Graphical progression should come naturally when comparing these titles with first-gen, but as it stands, developers aren't prioritizing presentation on the Wii, which I think should be equally prioritized with the control scheme.

 

[Teasy]

As they say, seeing is believing. I would love to see developers get all this power out of a device, basically, 1.5x more powerful than the Gamecube.

Even the basic specs we know of show that Wii is at least twice as powerful as GC.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

But this is a tired old discussion raised before. Look out how the increased power of previous machines allowed new games. Look at all the new genres that spawned on Amiga, impossible on earlier hardwares and only conceived because the developers had rooms to stretch the imagination. It's clear that a performance leap allows unique game experiences! Back then costs weren't prohibitively high, and people could experiment in creating God games, dungeon crawlers, puzzlers galore, etc. Back in the 80's single people could push envelopes publishers wouldn't touch, like the creation of Elite. That's not an option anymore, or at least wasn't until the roll-out of download and homebrew services.

The performance advantage can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but tarted up visuals, just as Wiimote can't be fobbed off as providing nothing but mindless minigames. There is loads of potential in these systems which no-one should ignore, regardless of what actually gets released! One only needs use one's own imagination to come up with ideas that are processor hungry or need a clever pointer/motion interface. If you're only going to gauge potential by what's released, Wiimote is only good for minigames and shooters just as much as this-gen is last-gen with tarted up visuals!

Though I agree, its also not completly right what you say. Ofcourse hardware means improvement. But going from amiga to ps2 is something totally different than going from ps2 to ps3. Your going from something with very basic capabilities to something that can display large 3d worlds full of action. Ps2 to ps3 is just the same only bigger & better. The improvements just get less and less big.

I agree with fearsome that power alone wont improve games. As he said I think we are at a point where the game mechanics are very good and power alone wont be the thing that will make the ps2 generation different than the ps3 generation. For example, gta 4. Basically this is what the general consumer will see as the next gen game atm but in what way is it different from the previous gta games? its exactly the same game, only with better gfx etc. I dont think there is any next gen game out yet that as a game couldnt be done the same on the last generation (with the exeption of gfx etc ofcourse).

I do think there will need to be looked at different things other than horsepower to take games a step upwards again. Not that horsepower isnt important, but that alone wont do it.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Oh there were!
- The memory size for one.
- The cutdown clock of the Flipper, making TEV much less much less usable than it could have been.
- The bandwidth, although helped a lot by the CPU cache and 1TSRAM, restrained the systems overall flexibility.

What are the bottlenecks in the Wii?

Even the basic specs we know of show that Wii is at least twice as powerful as GC.

In the scheme of things, how powerful is that? Doesn't that make it a little better than 1/8 the power of the Xbox 360? Even the top gaming systems have some games natively running at a lowly 576p, right?

I guess I just don't see what some people hope to see from the Wii.

Though I agree, its also not completly right what you say. Ofcourse hardware means improvement. But going from amiga to ps2 is something totally different than going from ps2 to ps3. Your going from something with very basic capabilities to something that can display large 3d worlds full of action. Ps2 to ps3 is just the same only bigger & better. The improvements just get less and less big.

What's beyond 3D? 4D? There is audio improvement as well. We have gone from stereo to 5.1 lossy to 7.1 lossless audio.

I agree with fearsome that power alone wont improve games. As he said I think we are at a point where the game mechanics are very good and power alone wont be the thing that will make the ps2 generation different than the ps3 generation. For example, gta 4. Basically this is what the general consumer will see as the next gen game atm but in what way is it different from the previous gta games? its exactly the same game, only with better gfx etc. I dont think there is any next gen game out yet that as a game couldnt be done the same on the last generation (with the exeption of gfx etc ofcourse).

Power alone won't improve games, but power and imagination/creativity can. Personally, the more realistic the better (more immersive).

I don't think power alone has ever improved games. Most examples throughout history show power and imagination/creativity improves games.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

What's beyond 3D? 4D? There is audio improvement as well. We have gone from stereo to 5.1 lossy to 7.1 lossless audio.

I think its the same with sound as gfx. Having ''more'' doesnt automatically make it better. Sure 5.1 and 7.1 sound is nice (not that the majority of people use it, if you ask me 75+% just uses the stereo speakers on their tv but that is a different discussion) but what makes audio in games usefull is the quality, not if you use stereo or 7.1 sound. Personally I think audio in alot of current games is dissepointing. What use is 7.1 sound to me if the audio just isnt immersive?

Power alone won't improve games, but power and imagination/creativity can. Personally, the more realistic the better (more immersive).

I don't think power alone has ever improved games. Most examples throughout history show power and imagination/creativity improves games.

Thats probably true. On a side note, isnt imagination and creativity becoming alot harder because of costs? I dont have the idea alot of devs/pubs on ps3/x360 are really willing to let creativity let loose because of the costs involved. Couldnt this be some kind of downfall in the future? that costs are so high that there is just too much generic games and very little games that are different?

 

[MJP]

For example, gta 4. Basically this is what the general consumer will see as the next gen game atm but in what way is it different from the previous gta games? its exactly the same game, only with better gfx etc. I dont think there is any next gen game out yet that as a game couldnt be done the same on the last generation (with the exeption of gfx etc ofcourse).

Why is it that if the graphics are improved, the game is considered to be the exact same as before? IMO with GTAIV the overall experience is tremendously improved over previous entries in the series, and a big part of that is the effective use of the graphics capabilities offered by the 360 and PS3. There's also of course a whole slew of other subtle touches used by the game to create a world that (I feel) on a whole new level of immersiveness unseen by that franchise. It's sad for me to see them get overlooked so readily, as simply comparing it based on a checklist of gameplay features seems like an awfully shallow way of doing so.

 

[Squeak]

What are the bottlenecks in the Wii?

I don't think there are any major bottlenecks, it's just not as wide a pipe as the other two consoles. All in all it seems really well balanced.

I guess I just don't see what some people hope to see from the Wii.

Graphically/technically, we hope to see more of Games like Galaxy and Metroid III or better.
But games that "only" use GC assets, but with excellent art is perfectly acceptable.

Power alone won't improve games, but power and imagination/creativity can. Personally, the more realistic the better (more immersive).

People don't know what they really like. I wish that word, "immersive" would go away in the context of this kind of discussion. It's hollow and worthless. "Realistic" too.
"Believable" is much better.
Believability can be achieved with quite simple means.
There is a reason why stylization sticks around even though we have the means to make photos and render almost realistically. It's because it speaks directly to different filters and processing stages in our visual and spatial processing.
A lot of the time stylization is beneficial to "immersiveness". Ie. in the how much, and in what way, we relate to characters and objects.

 

[sfried]

I guess I just don't see what some people hope to see from the Wii.

What's beyond 3D?

Take a look at Lost Winds. Also...

Graphically/technically, we hope to see more of Games like Galaxy and Metroid III or better.
But games that "only" use GC assets, but with excellent art is perfectly acceptable.

People don't know what they really like. I wish that word, "immersive" would go away in the context of this kind of discussion. It's hollow and worthless. "Realistic" too.
"Believable" is much better.

In the end, what's beyond 3D is that actually creating presentations in graphics that make a difference gameplaywise. Upping the technology isn't going to help. What we need are skillfull developers and publishers who are willing to take risks with experimentation.

The reason PS2 was able to push its titles presentation wise is because of serious support from developers. If more developers spent time with the hardware like what High Voltage and and other close third-parties have done, then of course Wii would not have a problem holding its own visually in standard resolution, without having to sacrifice anything controlwise. It's all cleaver programing.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I'm more insterested in Wii 2 than Wii. The controller needs another button or two, and the software needs a couple years to mature. Once it's there, I think it will be a really fantastic experience, especially if it has significantly more non-shovelware 3rd party support. But honestly, I do like the idea of modest hardware keeping dev costs under control. I'm not nearly as wowed by new graphics as I used to be. It's not about "diminishing returns." I think it's more about what I said about the gameplay already being highly refined, and also, the new stuff doesn't look all that realistic to me...just higher res and more sparkles