Karak
Member
Of course it does...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Epic Reveals Samaritan Processing Requirements: 10x 360 at 1080p, (4.4x 360 at 720p)
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Of course it does...
iamshadowlark
Banned
Look 8 posts up.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
You mean Sony claimed the ps3 was at 2TFLOPs, and 360 was said to be half that? Such a figure would so far out it's not even funny:
- RSX is 400GFLOPs combined shaders and fixed-function.
- Cell is 25.5GFLOP x 9 (1x PPE + 8x SPEs (even though one is out, but let's pretend it wasn't)) = 230GFLOPs.
Krauser Kat
Member
pitcairn is the not going to be 90watts. the 78xx series is more likely going to land in the 140-150 MAx wattage ranges. Performance will probably be just around 6950.
So you kinda sorta knew what you were talking about but did not understand the topic at hand correctly. Gotcha.
Dude you are flat wrong. PGR3 and Kameo were amazing at the time. You forget so quickly, WE remember.
(might as well answer on the new page...)
Yeah thanks forgot that, but this wouldn't be a major performance consumption increase in a traditional shooter with only few character I think.
Indeed, PGR3 was nowhere near any racer of the last gen. Blew my mind when I played it for the first time few weeks prior 360 launch.
Karak
Member
It is a measurable difference and doesn't negate the other things going on as well. NEVER trust a demo tech piece as anything remotely real world in what's going on in the back end.
Karak
Member
It was indeed.
Then again I remember Gun
Which was NOT good looking and barelybarely better than an xbox game.) But ya Kameo was mind blowing...sweet memories. Such memories.I think the WOW factor early on was purely from resolution. Looking back at them now, they're pretty meh looking.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Thats not with every fixed-function op. Think rasterisation, texturing, FP blends etc. Its PR bullshit I know but its technically still true.
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/050517e.pdf
Well, Samaritan is rendered with a widely used engine, and IA apart, the demo shows pretty much all you could find in a real game... But I reckon being skeptical about tech demos is generally a safe bet.
PGR3 is still holding pretty well. It has aged, but the wow effect was more because of insane lighting and realistic rendering. Game was subHD btw.
Well yeah that was 7 years ago. I dont think it was just resolution. At the time i had a PC at 1080p with SLI 8800gtx's and was still very very happy with the 360. It was a 50/50 split between pc and 360 for play time. Now its like 95/5 between pc/360&ps3.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
And look where that market leader is now and what games library it ended up with. That's not gonna happen again where a last-gen tech console gets #1. And we should definitely hope it doesn't because the library was by far the worst out of the 3.
Indeed and i think it still looks great even by todays standards
I love the water especially, i wish they stropped making Sports games and resume on Kameo 2 and that adventure that were canned
That's what i'm going to say Wii has first place in sales, but the worst third party library...
Despiste Nintendo's games the librabry is horrible and the best AAA titles don't have a version for Wii.
So a last-gen tech is not the way...
Ugh. The Wii has subsided in part because of the upswing of kinect and in part because of the decline in output by nintendo within the last SINGLE year. For 5/6 or over 80% of the gen, the Wii outsold its competition by a very wide margin, sold more 3rd party software than either competing platform, and made more money for nintendo than likely either of their competitors combined.
A lack of modern shaders and HD support truncated 3rd party support but that has little if anything to do with why the Wii lost steam considering 3rd parties weren't a major factor in its upswing in the first place.
But look who I'm talking to. It's not like you're going to listen to logic and reason. Also, the Wii has an amazing library of games regardless of whether they're to your tastes or not.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
That's wonderful. I'm glad that Nintendo made lots of money, but I disagree with the bolded. I think it had a significant effect the later part of this gen.
So you're saying 3rd party support played a major factor in the popularity of the wii for 5 of the last 6 years? Really. Please do go on.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
"I think it had a significant effect the later part of this gen."
In other words, I think Wii would still be selling tons right now if it could run AAA third-party games. Wii U could have been a Fall 2013 console instead of Fall 2012.
Don't confuse subjective opinion with fact.
You do realize that the tech inside the Wii was almost as old as Sony's controller design, right? All 3 of the next gen systems, despite any gulf in power, will have similar enough architecture. "Last gen tech" won't mean anything in that regard. It's not like Nintendo is overclocking Hollywood again and throwing in another customized G3 CPU and calling it a day. There are no more fixed function shaders/strange newfangled or oldfangled architectures going into these systems.
Even if, in some bizarre world where sense doesn't matter, Sony overclocks the Cell and throws in a few more SPUs and calls it a day... it's not going to be "last gen" in the same sense that the Wii was.
Heavy said:
Wii had a normal (actually, slightly longer than normal) console cycle which is amazing considering how old its hardware really is. The overabundance of bleeding at the start is what caused a longer generation for the other consoles. They're *still* not at "mass market" (read: PS2 after 6 years) pricing 7 years in. It would actually be better for everyone if we went back to normal-length cycles.
That's a possibility, but it's also a tangential argument because that's not what made the Wii successful in the first place. We're talking about a console that actually exists and using real data and facts from a gen that actually happened. That the Wii might be doing better right now if it was a better machine for 3rd party ports is not directly related to the fact that it's decline can be attributed primarily to a lack of software from nintendo. Again, the wii's actual REAL decline in the real world has nothing to do with a lack of power in the wii. Nintendo stopped putting out software and the wii declined. This is what happened.
For the record, I agree that if nintendo could have put out a more powerful console at $250, they should have, but I'd rather not speak in hypotheticals.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Don't go there, man. I know you're a Nintendo guy Stevie but be real. The Wii clearly had a vastly inferior games line-up compared to the other two. The Mario Galaxies and Zeldas don't make up for the 9821053 third-party AAA games it missed out on.
I could have the opinion that a piece of cardboard tastes better than chocolate cake but it holds no merit. You can't just go "it's my opinion, so there!".
That's a good point but not entirely true. Nintendo could have easily taken a bigger loss on the hardware considering the tech they put out for $249.99.
tkscz
Member
I disagree, Kameo didn't look that much better than Conker Live and reloaded. As for PGR 3, wouldn't know, didn't play it as I wasn't interested (and still am not) in racing sims. Other examples were FEAR, Perfect Dark Zero, Splinter Cell: double agent, and Call of Duty 3. Hell, for me, the first Gears of War was pretty unimpressive.
It was indeed.
Then again I remember Gun
Sad thing is I knew someone who worked on the 360 version of GUN and they put A LOT of work into that version just for everyone to shit on it because it was an xbox port.
No it was not purely based on resolution. How can someone even claim that?
Textures, shaders, poly counts, etc. all received a major boost with those games.
If I'm understanding you correctly, no their original claimed specs are nowhere near true.
So what you're saying is you're blind?
Eh, I don't really hold that claim too dearly. I just remember I was impressed in the first year and then went back to those launch games only a year later and they didn't look nearly as good as I remembered. *shrugs*
Barack Lesnar
Banned
You don't think the Wii would still be selling at a blistering rate if it could run GTA, BF3, Assassin's Creed and all these other huge franchises? It probably would've been #1 this past X-mas.
Here's my thinking: The Wii still would've sold gangbusters if it was $299 at launch and could run HD ports instead of $249. Remember MS launched the arcade unit at $299 and that was 12 months earlier so it was doable. That extra 50 bucks wouldn't have made a difference in sales to potential consumers because the Wii was the hottest, must-have item on the market. What it WOULD have done is extend the life cycle of the console even further, as well as leading to continued Nintendo first-party support instead of the current state you're referring to.
Yeah, it would cost Nintendo profits but I'm not an investor in the company and who knows maybe that extra tech extends the life 1-2 years, which could have offset the initial losses at launch. Maybe even give them a better image and mind-share heading into next-gen.
I was respecting your opinion until you said gears wasnt impressive. I just cant see your point of view there. Conker did look great and it can in spots look almost as good as kameo but if you played both games in their entirety on a proper HD display the difference is pretty obvious to me.
Your standards changing has nothing to do with the boost given with launch games.
We didn't have any racers last gen with cube-mapped, 100k poly cars for example. =p
Karak
Member
Please pass on to him that I LOVED the game despite that. Loved it and actually a group of use still play it 1 time a year. Thomas Jane in a game...I am there!
That's assuming Nintendo knew they would earn tons of money with their new hardware before actually launch it.
EDIT: removed a few lines no longer relevant.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong but the arcade Xbox SKU was $299 and this was a full 12 months prior to the Wii's launch.
Oh sure, it's possible. I do believe the wii would be in a better place right now if it were more powerful. But like I said, that's not the same thing as saying it declined from where it was because it's not more powerful. The reason for decline =/= lack of power.
I also find it very disingenuous when people say something along the likes of "well look at where they are now!" as if to imply the wii was a major blunder. It's like people were waiting on pins and needles, hoping, praying for the day the wii's sales would dip so they could say I told you so. Well it took 5 years and a mountain of profits and overall generational dominance, but it's finally in decline.
While better foresight on nintendo's part on the length of this gen would have been nice, I'm not sure how much I can blame them for that. While the Wii U is definitely an ill-timed successor, I'm sure it's at least partly because nintendo didn't want to launch too far in advance of their competition. Had this gen followed a more regular console cycle, they could have likely circumvented the decline altogether (yes I know I'm speaking of hypotheticals).
No no you are perfectly right, hence my edit. Still, 300$ came with a huge cost for MS, so 250$ seems like an immense risk. And that's considering the 400$ unit sold far more and MS still lost lots of money.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Remember it's not just about the current sales drop-off, you have to look at the future and the negative image and stigma associated with the Wii and its library that's clearly influenced the perception of their next console, Wii U, judging by the mostly 'meh' response from the reveal. It's not a healthy way to enter next-gen.
Yeah, that's true for the hardcore gaf zealot, but I think up to the end of 2010, the casual consumer was mostly happy with the wii. You're right though that they were always going to have a problem with negative stigma, both from 3rd parties and the hardcore gamer. The 2011 dry spell only exacerbated that issue.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Its absolutely true, even if they are unusable to the programmer.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Well, the figure I cited is basically NV's PR ALU figures for RSX (as also seen on wikipedia) and does include 'fixed-function' overhead for the tex-addressing (but IIRC not for the tex/rop blending, as those ALUs are sub-single-precision, and thus not on par with the rest of the pipeline - mixing precisions is not a good practice in citing FLOPs). RSX' 'programmable shader' FLOPs would be (48×4×2+8×5×2)×550MHz = 255GFLOPs. As per the cull/clip/trisetup/rasterizer ALUs - even NV's PR don't quote those (pun intended). Such a figure would not merely be blatant PR, it would be blatantly-blatant PR. Hey, wait, that does sound like Sony : )
tkscz
Member
For me the art of Gears was so bland that it left me unimpressed.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Yeah?
So?
He asked why anyone would adopt such a "weak" console. I thought it was hilarious after this past generation. Very simple man. No need to go acting like an ass.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Yeah GAF reaction is something to go by. People thought wiiu footage looked worse then ps360 games. Turns out the games shown were ps360 footage. GAF does not equal the general gaming public.
lol he's over it by now. Though I don't talk to him as much since he started working for a certain studio =/
lol No, no it's not. There is no possible way RSX is 1.8TFLOPS (for example), none what so ever. Both the PS3 and 360 reveals were filled with bullshit and anyone that knew what they were talking about back then knew it.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Really? That's what you got out of my post?
Karak
Member
Well if you ever do. Because it was still one of my favorite 360 games.