bgassassin
Member
butter_stick said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
Dreamwriter
Member
Missing traditional pixel/fragment shaders and thus unable to do the effects the original games depended on without extensive rewriting.butter_stick said:
Only if they fixed it to be fun to play rather than so easy as to be boring (until you beat it).BurntPork said:
butter_stick
Banned
The correct answer was "depressed".
MisterHero
Super Member
I've always wondered why companies couldn't even consider improving on their PS2 and/or other last gen console efforts and building on those for Wii.
For example, Namco could deliver a SoulCalibur IV game on PSP but not Wii. It got SC Legends, but there's no reason a Fighting title couldn't have come over, especially since SCII sold the most on Gamecube.
I could understand Tekken 5/DR because of how they wanted to sell it (Network title), but still.
Not port-begging, but I think sometimes even "game engines not working" is not enough of an excuse to not develop for Wii. People like to joke about how Wii is not much more than Gamecube but the Gamecube was capable of some damn good games (RE4, Metroid Prime). It was even capable of supporting Online RPGs like Phantasy Star Online.
And even in the minimalist sense of the word, Wii improved upon GC with graphics and processing increases, adding some storage and having built-in Online capability, and even a more-than-tripled(or quadrupled?) leading userbase.
But the generation is what it is. I hope the Wii U turns out better for Nintendo and 3rd-Parties.
For example, Namco could deliver a SoulCalibur IV game on PSP but not Wii. It got SC Legends, but there's no reason a Fighting title couldn't have come over, especially since SCII sold the most on Gamecube.
I could understand Tekken 5/DR because of how they wanted to sell it (Network title), but still.
Not port-begging, but I think sometimes even "game engines not working" is not enough of an excuse to not develop for Wii. People like to joke about how Wii is not much more than Gamecube but the Gamecube was capable of some damn good games (RE4, Metroid Prime). It was even capable of supporting Online RPGs like Phantasy Star Online.
And even in the minimalist sense of the word, Wii improved upon GC with graphics and processing increases, adding some storage and having built-in Online capability, and even a more-than-tripled(or quadrupled?) leading userbase.
But the generation is what it is. I hope the Wii U turns out better for Nintendo and 3rd-Parties.
butter_stick
Banned
Wii's problem was the perception of the audience (and their actions) as much as it was being underpowered.
A lot of it was built upon the self fulfilling prophecy of "core games don't sell on the wii."
If my memory serves me correctly, the only arguably AAA third party game that was exclusive to the wii that was marketed well was MH:tri, and that sold pretty well. There are other high caliber 3rd party games, but I think MH:tri was certainly the biggest.
If my memory serves me correctly, the only arguably AAA third party game that was exclusive to the wii that was marketed well was MH:tri, and that sold pretty well. There are other high caliber 3rd party games, but I think MH:tri was certainly the biggest.
MisterHero said:
That's what I always wondered, there were a lot of engines.. not as powerful as the 360/Ps3 ones, that could have worked.
But guess, it was also the Wii being tasked with C/D level teams, and no one wanted to make a real major franchise game.
Why else do we have a Castlevania fighter, and a Soul Calibur beat em up.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
bgassassin said:
...this is the best GIF ever.
Aside from the Cilian Murphy "Can't deal with it," of course.
butter_stick
Banned
The most popular games on the platform continuing to be Nintendo titles, lots of third party bombas, no perceived appetite for the kind of games that sold on PS360.Vinci said:
Before you get all defensive I'm not talking about your average GAF Wii owner. I'm aware there were some third party successes on Wii. But the way the system was percieved by third parties in the West is pretty established at this point.
butter_stick
Banned
I'm stating why the console wasn't too hot when it came to getting support. I'm not saying its "fair". Publishers see Nintendo as more cannibalising than they see MS or Sony.Deguello said:
Jorok Goldblade
Member
Deguello said:
When they hold back for third parties to have some room to establish a presence, they don't show up and hardware sales suffer. See 3DS.
ShockingAlberto
Member
There was clearly a gateway there to do more, but third parties figured once they get the basic idea down, they could iterate on that forever.butter_stick said:
Do you know why there's not a NSMB Wii 2 with just different levels and nothing else? Because, while a lot of people would buy it, not nearly as many would.
So, knowing that, ask yourself why there's a Darkside Chronicles when UC sold well. Shockingly well, at that.
The market was different, in that they weren't going to buy iterative sequels terribly often, but they weren't the slack-jawed retards who will only buy games Nintendo tells them to that many third parties and forum posters alike believed they are.
I haven't been paying attention, how are Kinect's iterative sequels doing?
EloquentM said:
Not really, not in this case. Even if PS360 were considerably less powerful than they are, the Wii would have been underpowered in comparison.
Consider this scenario:
Sega releases the Dreamcast. Nintendo, in answer releases N64 with the Ram-expansion and an overclocked CPU, along with a new, novel input device. Because that's exactly happened with the Wii/PS360 generation. The Wii was a desperation tactic for Nintendo that worked, imo. Let's not pretend though that the Wii is in any way a generational leap from the Gamecube in terms of processing power. Because it is in no way, shape or form is.
StreetsAhead
Member
agrajag said:
You must have a unique definition of the word desperation. Good on you. Gold star.
butter_stick said:
I think what I'm having an issue with is you saying that this is a deliberate "action" taken by Nintendo. Like what else is Nintendo supposed to put on their system? Tax software?
If publishers are seriously chiding Nintendo for making games that are so popular and this is seen by them as a deliberate "action" against them, then the dynamics of Nintendo's relationship with third parties must refocus onto the publishers and why they are being so unreasonable, paranoid, and outright childishly jealous.
This strikes a chord with me because I remember being asked by some classmates to deliberately do worse on a test because our teacher graded on a curve. I told them "no way" and they kinda turned cold towards me. So I ended up with like a 99 along with another person, meaning that if I went along with it, I'd have a worse grade, have nothing to show for it, and have surly classmates who still held a grudge against me.
Asking somebody to sabotage themselves so you "have a chance" even when you're not dealing in full faith is completely illogical and unfair, and if this is legitimately what they wanted then the problem lies with this industry's attitude, not Nintendo.
ShockingAlberto
Member
The thing about the B and C teams making Wii games is that they often ran in to road blocks because the developers didn't have any idea what they were doing and not solely because they were fresh-outta-college kids.
The old guard that did make PS2, GC, and XBox games, people who would be familiar with the Wii architecture, moved on to making 360 and PS3 games. So the Wii projects were passed on to people who cut their teeth on UE3 and didn't know or didn't care how to handle a Wii project. Some a lot of stuff got shelved because the publishers couldn't afford to take their main teams off to make a Wii game and the other teams just couldn't do one period.
The old guard that did make PS2, GC, and XBox games, people who would be familiar with the Wii architecture, moved on to making 360 and PS3 games. So the Wii projects were passed on to people who cut their teeth on UE3 and didn't know or didn't care how to handle a Wii project. Some a lot of stuff got shelved because the publishers couldn't afford to take their main teams off to make a Wii game and the other teams just couldn't do one period.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
This is actually one area that I think the videogame industry is failing a whole generation of new recruits.ShockingAlberto said:
Teaching them the basics before throwing them into the deep sea.
If you can't make a 1,500 poly model look "good" you shouldn't be working on a 40,000 poly model.
butter_stick
Banned
When did I say it was a deliberate action taken by Nintendo?Deguello said:
ShockingAlberto said:
You know part of me wants to be all reasonable and understanding about this and on normal days I would be, but it really grinds my gears that third parties think there's some big secret as to how Nintendo dominates their own platforms so much. On Wii is was exacerbated more, not by Nintendo making supremely earth-shattering titles (although they did do that), but by third parties having such horrible reputations by the middle that the only company you could get a game from and not be burned with a piece of shit was Nintendo.
Which is funny because apparently Nintendo has to fight against perceptions and reputations, yet for the most part third parties don't feel the need to address the perception that they make really bad shoivelware, which is so far perceived by the largest console userbase. Nintendo's the only game company allowed to have a reputation, I guess.
Here. Unless you meant the actions of the audience?
They were making money with GC, sure. But a more important statistic is how much money were they making with GC compared to their previous systems? And it's undeniable that they were losing market share, and quick. CG sold even worse than N64.
Nintendo pulled out of the power warfare and took a gamble by releasing a cheap system which was basically a repackaged CG with a gimmick (I'm using the term loosely, not in a bad way) that they did not know would have caught on for certain. Kind of like they did with R.O.B.
Nintendo pulled out of the power warfare and took a gamble by releasing a cheap system which was basically a repackaged CG with a gimmick (I'm using the term loosely, not in a bad way) that they did not know would have caught on for certain. Kind of like they did with R.O.B.
The wii wasn't as much of a gamble as the DS was though. They even admitted that up front, saying if the DS failed, they were really in BIG trouble. I think they knew that if the wii ultimately flopped, they would be able to stay afloat as a result of their frugal hardware specifications and the profitability of their portables.
guek said:
I think both systems were gambles, but good point.
I mean, they're not idiots and not just throwing shit at the wall. But I think doing something *completely different* after sticking to same ol' (look at the evolution of gameboy: almost 10 years until we got color!) smells a little bit of desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
No, he got it largely right. Do you think the ipad is more powerful than the wii and on par with the ps360? Explain EU3's presence on it then.ClovingSteam said:
This passing gen developers across the globe were at the finish of a paradigm shift in their development pipelines. Such shifts normally happen as a cumulative reaction of the industry to technological advancements. The wii came as the odd one, despite of what Nintendo thought about familiarity of the devs with the tech. The wii hosted technologies from a 'streamlined console generation', and as such, it was left behind by the next 'paradigm shift gen' of graphics technologies that came after. Heck, the 3DS is often put in the same technology bin as the wii, and yet the 3DS is a product of a much more mature understanding of the graphics pipelines that the wii is (in the context of today). Thus 3DS gets the developer's current pipelines (capcom's framework, etc), and the wii does not.
The situation with the WiiU is nothing like the wii. The WiiU can be as underpowered as a friggin tablet and it sill will not get the treatment that the wii received by the devs (bar dev relation snafus). Just because WiiU comes as a proper specimen of this coming streamlined generation. And the same development pipelines will run across wiiU, ps4 and loop.
ClovingSteam said:
Good thing you guys dont run video game companies.
Due to Nintendo's normal, or reasonable, steps in tech upgrades for their console they basically rescued the video game industry this gen. MS and Sony basically broke it by overpowering their machines. Those are the facts.
Wii is not as powerful compared to the HD twins. But its not underpowered. Its designed to be the way it is.
agrajag said:
What are you talking about?
Didnt the GC launch at $199 and the Wii at $249?
How did Nintendo launch a "cheap" system?
And you have here many people already complaining if Nintendo would
launch anything more than $299 with the expensive tablet controller.
So then what do they expect to be in the box?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
It was cheap for them to produce, but they got to sell it for more than they probably anticipated thanks to the competition giving them a wiiiiide price gap. I absolutely read the situation as them planning on selling it at $200 just like their last few systems, but when it was clear the only other competition at $300 or below would be the "Retard Pack", they felt safe to bundle in Wii Sports at the additional cost.MDX said:
BlackNMild2k1
Member
Tech-wise, the Wii was underpowered.
going by previous generational leaps, the Wii was more of a small step forward than a hop and certainly not a leap.
Tech-wise PS360 was overpowered.
going by previous generational leaps, it looks like those 2 got a running start and overshot the bullseye.
It's been mentioned before, but this next gen could be that correctional effort to get things back on track. Nintendo takes the moderate leap with Wii U putting them slightly behind the sweet spot for next gen while Sony & MS take modest hop forward to put them either right in the sweet spot or just beyond it, but leaving all 3 in the same general vicinity.
I really doubt most people, on this forum even, will be able to tell the difference between the Wii U, Loop & PS4 versions of the same game unless they were labeled. It will be just like during E3 when everyone was laughing at how lastgen the Wii U games looked before they realized that they were PS360 versions of the games.
going by previous generational leaps, the Wii was more of a small step forward than a hop and certainly not a leap.
Tech-wise PS360 was overpowered.
going by previous generational leaps, it looks like those 2 got a running start and overshot the bullseye.
It's been mentioned before, but this next gen could be that correctional effort to get things back on track. Nintendo takes the moderate leap with Wii U putting them slightly behind the sweet spot for next gen while Sony & MS take modest hop forward to put them either right in the sweet spot or just beyond it, but leaving all 3 in the same general vicinity.
I really doubt most people, on this forum even, will be able to tell the difference between the Wii U, Loop & PS4 versions of the same game unless they were labeled. It will be just like during E3 when everyone was laughing at how lastgen the Wii U games looked before they realized that they were PS360 versions of the games.
JosephManderley
Member
As much as I love the Wii, I always felt it could have been more. If it had just a little more power, it could have blown the 360/PS3 out of the water completely. (although for years it pretty much did anyway..)
If the Wii U can fix this problem, by being close enough in terms of power to be visually comparable, then with a decent price point and Nintendo first-party games it really can't fail.
If the Wii U can fix this problem, by being close enough in terms of power to be visually comparable, then with a decent price point and Nintendo first-party games it really can't fail.
Naked Prime
Member
If the WiiU can run Battlefield 3 (or Witcher 2) at 1080P, 60FPS and texture detail almost on par with the PC version at launch, imagine how it will perform later on in its life-cycle. Additionally, I hope that Nintendo signs with Valve to power their online & digital distribution. EA would be better for Nintendo, but Valve better for gamers/consumers IMO.
While there maybe something to these next Xbox rumors, MS's true appeal lies in Xbox Live and its related services. And would likely do just as well in a machine with a quad core and 1 GPU much less hex-core and a dual GPU setup. But we'll see.
While there maybe something to these next Xbox rumors, MS's true appeal lies in Xbox Live and its related services. And would likely do just as well in a machine with a quad core and 1 GPU much less hex-core and a dual GPU setup. But we'll see.
Wii was underpowered, sure, but third parties didn't bother (and Nintendo did not moneyhat them, thinking "core" support would come just by virtue of huge HW sales). Besides that, 99% of publishers thought the Wii would have been a *massive* flop, and decided to bet on PS360 winning the next-gen war.
I think this can't be denied.
Were lots and lots of PS360 3rd party, "core" games difficult or completely impossible to downport to Wii from a purely technical point of view? I can't say for sure since I'm not a game programming expert, but I'm confident the answer is yes.
Yet I can't really believe that, with decent budget and a talented team, games like Resident Evil 5 (it's just an example) couldn't be adapted, someway. Especially when I see that Capcom *did* bother to put MT Framework on the Wii, too (albeit a "Lite" version).
Unfortunately, it was a chicken and egg scenario, and in the end we got lots and lots of "tests" to check whether there was a core audience to sell games to or not. Problem is, core gamers are usually not very patient, and by the time third parties finally realized Wii was not going to be a fad, the platform was already basically in Gamecube mode, with Nintendo alone keeping a more-than-decent pace of core releases, so any non-Nintendo fan had long switched to PS360.
That's how I see it, and also the reason why I think having the WiiU a modern architecture that allows game companies to share assets with other platforms is important, but not as important as convincing publishers to actually support it.
I think this can't be denied.
Were lots and lots of PS360 3rd party, "core" games difficult or completely impossible to downport to Wii from a purely technical point of view? I can't say for sure since I'm not a game programming expert, but I'm confident the answer is yes.
Yet I can't really believe that, with decent budget and a talented team, games like Resident Evil 5 (it's just an example) couldn't be adapted, someway. Especially when I see that Capcom *did* bother to put MT Framework on the Wii, too (albeit a "Lite" version).
Unfortunately, it was a chicken and egg scenario, and in the end we got lots and lots of "tests" to check whether there was a core audience to sell games to or not. Problem is, core gamers are usually not very patient, and by the time third parties finally realized Wii was not going to be a fad, the platform was already basically in Gamecube mode, with Nintendo alone keeping a more-than-decent pace of core releases, so any non-Nintendo fan had long switched to PS360.
That's how I see it, and also the reason why I think having the WiiU a modern architecture that allows game companies to share assets with other platforms is important, but not as important as convincing publishers to actually support it.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
There was lite version? *googles*Turrican3 said:
Why, yes! And I even have some of the games made with it! Ok, I stand corrected from my previous post then. That said, the 3ds still remains the more modern architecture of the two ; )
radioheadrule83
Banned
The main games that would have been difficult to port down were the ones doing incredibly CPU intensive stuff, like the procedural animation and combat in Assassin's Creed or Batman Arkham Asylum. However, if you look at the Force Unleashed for example, the HD version was chock full of procedural animation and environmental destruction, and yet the Wii version was actually really well done and really underrated. That was an excellent port job. It all depends on the skill of the team, and the will of the publisher to see something done. Resident Evil 5 definitely could have been adapted in some form -- Darkside Chronicles and Dead Space Extraction showed that good looking gritty engines were possible on Wii, it's just such a shame publishers like EA and Capcom decided to make low budget rail shooters with them instead -- as good as those games are, they are no replacement for the alternative.
ShockingAlberto
Member
How is this even a discussion? For the games the industry wanted to make, the Wii did not have enough power to run them. There. End of story.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that they should have wanted to make different games, but at the end of the day, they didn't. They chose to make games that would not play on the Wii. Ergo, by all logic, the standard at which the industry was at was not met by the Wii. So, underpowered.
By this same logic, you could consider the PC overpowered. But publishers don't like that not because it's too powerful, but because the margins are thinner.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that they should have wanted to make different games, but at the end of the day, they didn't. They chose to make games that would not play on the Wii. Ergo, by all logic, the standard at which the industry was at was not met by the Wii. So, underpowered.
By this same logic, you could consider the PC overpowered. But publishers don't like that not because it's too powerful, but because the margins are thinner.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
By that logic SSFIV3D should not have existed. SSFIV is your typical ps360-gen fighter, but it was downported (rather successfully at that) to the 3DS, which by no means is more powerful than the wii. Likewise with RE:M/R which are largely RE5-derived products.ShockingAlberto said:
You cannot pin everything on power. Technology incompatibilities *and* power deficiencies were what collectively bogged down the wii. A downport to the wii required both downscaling of complexity *and* new development pipelines (read: bran-new or nearly-so assets). That is costly.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Battlefield is already running on current machines. If we're getting a machine with even 2-3x the speed and RAM of those and it can't handle higher resolution, frame rate, and texture resolution, someone isn't trying. That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing expected from Dreamcast versions of N64 games, or Xbox versions of PS2 games.BurntPork said:
- Status