WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

It could be usefull for multiplatform titles,I guess, take for example BIA3 (I am talking in this game because they are using UE3 and Gearbox is also working on Wii) if they could make the game also for Wii wouldnt be easier to just use the basic models (ie without normal apping and such) and cut all the extra shading tech and such but still making the game possoble on the wii without need of remaking the game in other engine? It should have its advantages, because there is companys doing it.

And yes IMO if MP3 had some of the tech of UE3 (eg good physics, self shadowing, motion blur, per pixel lighting...) the game would look much better making it overall a better game.

Like already had been said NDAs are usual, but something like a UE2Wii (a la UE2X) would be great.

Why would D3 engine be better?

He mentioned Intel Integrated graphics because in the question before this one he talked about how bad they are.

 

so IOW they'd have to basically redo all their assets while at the same time paying the performance hit of a heavy engine? not sure that's a win.

nothing of the things you enlisted is exclusive to UE3, you know that. the fact that a wii title does not have those does not mean they could not be implemented on this plafrom, it means retro made their tradeoffs and decided they wanted to spend they CPU and GPU cycles elsewhere. or do you believe UE3 gives all those for free?

 

I actually just ran a GMA 950 through 3DMark2001SE this morning. It scored right at the level of a Radeon 8500, winning in some spots and losing in others. It ripped up the 8500 on the pixel shader test, oddly enough (not the adv pixel shader test, they were equal there).

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9052293
(it's actually a Conroe E6300 @ 2.1 GHz)

So, while it's not all that, it's not horrid useless crap.

 

So it performs on par with 2001 era hardware, I'd say the bar has been raised since then.
BTW, in games, GMA900 (not sure about 950) performs much worse than a geforce 3.

 

i'm not sure these parallels are quite appropriate for this thread. gma has totally different advantages and drawbacks to flipper. some of them include genertions-of-features differencies, and some, absolutely different design decisions, and last but not least - total absence of whole corresponding units. for those who are really curious to learn about the gma, i suggest you check the several threads in 3d hw tech forum (here's one)

 

I just realized that by overclocking the FSB I'm overclocking the GMA 950. Note the fillrate, around 1700 MP/s. The theoretical max of a GMA 950 should be 1600 MP/s, considering it's 400 MHz clock and 4 pipes. At 450 MHz (1.5 x 300 MHz FSB), it should have a max of 1800 MP/s. lol

 

I cant tell but if there is people doing it then it should have some advantages (at the very least in some cases), dont you agree?
Also if it can run a heavy engine isnt a good news for better featured light engines, ie, instead of runing a (relatevely) bad version of UE3 run a great version of UE2 (more stable, better fremerate...)?

Sorry I misunderstud you, personally I think that if a dev is talented enought and will not get the game compromissed in others areas then it will probably the best thing is having a in house engine once it is probably the best way of getting the engine really tailored to the game they want.

 

No problem. Yeah I strongly suspect the only changes (from a performance standpoint) are higher clockspeeds and more memory. The CPU probably also has a larger, 512 KB L2 cache, and the GPU could have some improvements, but I am not expecting anything substantial (we are still seeing GC/Flipper trademarks like 24bpp dithering and it's unlikely they made major changes that could have broken backwards compatibility).

As I said earlier, the biggest bottleneck for the gamecube was memory, and by increasing the A-RAM to 64 MB and improving bandwidth, developers will be able to do more with the system even with no other changes.

In my opinion, everything seen so far suggests only higher clocks and more memory. Developer comments echo this, and until hard evidence to the contrary surfaces, I am not going to expect any miracles.

 

It's not a higher clock, at least the cpu and considering other things I know I would say the same about GPU. A developer saying it' a new architecture should be enough of hint that it's not just clock or when someone flat out says it's not a higher clock but owell. The Wii is definetly based from the GC but it seems nintendo swapped out the everything for improved designs of the components of the original configuration at this point guessing or estimating is useles. Even more if your basing your impression on the Wii abilities via screenshots vs movies you're really missing a lot of makes WIi better than GC, as well as in general for most next gen games.

 

When people don't have any real information, they talk out of their butts. That's how forums work.

In other news, Raving Rabbids is being done with the Jade engine (no surprise, really).
http://blogs.ign.com/raymanravingrabbids

 

You're too quick to make assumptions. And it's not even fair to benchmark the thing given the different architecture and libraries of Hollywood.

 

Could it be a possiblity that some of the Wii titles we are seeing
were once Cube titles that were in development a some time or
another? And are know resurfacing as publishers try to put SKUs
out for the Wii?

To me that seems quite plausible and would also account for
a few of the less than "meh" looking efforts. How difficult would
it be to take a unfinished Cube port of Far Cry (which I recall being
in development at one time) or Dynasty/Samurai Warriors, get it
running on the Wii?

 

I think 99% of what has been shown is just that, shoot even that Zelda title is a cube game. Once developers get familiar with the system you will see better graphics. Just look at Mario Galaxy...or shoot imagine RE4 multiplied by 2.

 

I don't know exactly what are the capabilities of the Wii (graphic wise).
There is only one thing that wonders me : be the wii a "overclocked" GC, or even a little more, i don't understand long term plans of Nintendo.
In 2 or 3 years (maybe before), games on this platform will clearly look outdated (especially if you compare to X360, PS3, PC), even in the eye of the newbies (understand "normal" people). How will big N deal with that in the long term of a 6 years cycle ?

Understand me : i think short and mid-term strategy (2-3 years) around Wii is excellent. I just don't have a clue of what should happen between 3-6 years range, in Big N 's view.

 

Maybe they don't share MS and Sony's visio of 8 year cycles and will bring out a Turbo-Wii in 3 years?

 

I'd like to see these developer comments. Because I don't think a single developer has ever said that Wii is unchanged from GameCube other then the higher clock and more memory.

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/733/733921p2.html

 

The metaphor of bolting on a turbocharger tells us almost nothing except that the Flipper's architecture hasn't been completely discarded. It does not mean that there have been no modifications at all. The metaphor is clearly just to illustrate that the current chipset used the old one as a base rather than starting from scratch. How hard is that to understand?

People try to read way, way, way too much into metaphors. Like when Mark Rein said "It's no Intel integrated graphics," people really went to town trying to decide which chipset he was talking about and what architecturally was specifically better...when any rational person knows he was just saying "It's no steaming pile of crap, but it's certainly not cutting-edge, either."

Stop trying to read detailed technical statements into or out of metaphors and marketing speak.

 

Where in any of those comments does it mention no changes other then clock speed and memory? Last time I checked "turbo-charged" wasn't an exact dictionary term for "add 50% clock speed and some ram".

 

I think you guys get little too worked up about this
No offense to anybody, but based on the footage of different Wii games it's very hard for me not to think that it's just Gamecube with higher clocks. And when I factor in that power never was "the thing" for Wii, rather than the new control method and the ability to create games cheaper than for the competition, also to me it seems that Wii is logical continuation to DS strategy which also doesn't rely on power. I mean to me there is not too much things pointing out to expect anything else about Wii than that it is Gamecube with some very minor modifications.

It's about the controller!