Um, okay. Are you really trying to argue this way. You know what I wanted to say. A slow CPU isn't "horrible". The quote also implies its both slow and horrible whatever that may mean. It's a mere business decision after all. Making it sound like "this platform is not worthy for us" is just bad style and sounds arrogant to me.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Metro Last Light dev: 'Wii U has horrible, slow CPU' [Up: DICE dev comments]
- Thread starter PrivateRyan
- Start date
Good for you!
....graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive though. And I think you're attacking a strawman. I can't remember one thread or one poster that solely based his conclusions of a games enjoyment based solely on visuals and cared nothing of anything else, and I've been here for far too long.
But you arent the first one to use that (poor)argument so I'm not just going after you. It seems to be a growing trend within a subset of diehard Nintendo fanboys meant to counter those people that do feel visuals can enhance their experiences and are disappointed with Nintendo because of their lack of advancement in that area.
that1dude24
Member
yes? there isn't any physically preventing it.
the games would probably look rather drab, given the specifications they were tailored to meet, but with services like XBLIG, Ps minis/mobile, wiiware - essentially digital distibution in general (and on the pc) they can be released and priced accordingly.
The Power Of Snap
Member
Except the snes was capable of having genesis ports.
That's silly. Of course those games would be possible (and prettier to boot) on better hardware - that's my point. But guess what? They're DS exclusives. So in this case the reality is that, yes, playing Dragon Quest IX and Kirby Mass Attack is mutually exclusive from great hardware.
chertipros
Member
Can you not pretend that there are actually more nintendo defenders in this thread than people (rightfully saying I admit) expressing their disappointment with the specs?
CoffeeJanitor
Member
DQ is contingent on who's console is in the lead for the generation.
And I don't consider the DS/3DS to be behind the curb really, as most of the market flocks toward them. But while the Wii may have had the most total sales, the PC/PS3/360 userbase is larger overall.
that1dude24
Member
i thought you were going in a different direction than that.
that isn't exactly arguing gameplay/graphics are mutually exclusive, more that publisher-platform relations/restrictions (or publisher-audience expectations) can bar some games from certain hardware.
Um. Do you know what an opinion is?
Because a guy whose job it is to make high-performance, extremely attractive video games is someone who is extremely knowledgeable on the subject. If he says that it's a horrible, slow CPU, then his word can be taken as a statement of fact. On its release, Metro 2033 was the most capable graphics powerhouse in existence, unless I'm mistaken, and it remained that way until The Witcher 2.
I find your suggestion that Nintendo would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D a bit nuts, especially in light of a video game console known as the Nintendo Wii, which had a horrible, slow CPU.
And generally the graphical improvements were very obvious.
Poimandres
Member
I don't think this developer has an agenda at all! What makes you think that? They've been open about PS3/360 issues as well. Sounds like brutal honesty to me.
If anything, it's overly positive PR that is usually agenda driven. Of course developers making a game for the Wii U will be as positive as possible about the system! You could point to weaknesses in every console ever made. For example developers were praising the power of the PS3 in the early days, but it ultimately came out that it had bottleneck issues. It seems totally believable that in an effort to keep power consumption at a minimum (a goal Nintendo has been public about) the CPU might be slower/less powerful than the HD twins.
I'm sure the CPU is as powerful as it can be to keep the machine in line with Nintendos low power consumption mandate.
MisterHero
Super Member
Theoretically, modest production standards = less production costs = devs are more able to survive on less sales.
Helping developers survive is good for gamers. Of course, there are factors that allowed this gen to survive anyways like well-known companies getting bought/merged with others. If Sony didn't have non-Playstation money they would've sunk hard.
Gamers wouldn't appreciate the manufacturer of hardware they own going belly up. No more hardware support, 1st party support, or 3rd party licensing.
360 turned out better, but MS had losses in the initial months/years that Nintendo would never have settled for. Their game development would suffer.
Wanting to remain profitable is not greediness; it's a necessity. Currently, Nintendo is banking on software to profit for them. Combined with the current economy being bad for everyone, less money for them = less future content for gamers.
Both SNES and Genesis had the occasional struggle with arcade ports. Imagine where we'd be if Nintendo and Sega let 3DO and Neo-Geo dictate what they were supposed to make.The Power of Snap said:
lwilliams3
Member
There was a problem with face pace games, though. As for the Wii U, the game can be ported (obviously), but it will take some care to get it to run properly.
What I'm not understanding is why would the metro developers be kept in the dark like that??
So did Nintendo just do a bad job communicating with third party developers to the point they were led to believe specs that weren't true or indicative of likely final specs? Which led to developers like Metro's believing the console not to be up to snuff and costing them 3rd party support in the process? Or did Nintendo possibly indicate final specs and Metro's developer still came to such a conclusion?
Either way Metro's developer having this opinion(one shared by others already) indicates at least some issues Nintendo has either on the hardware side or with their communication with third parties.
Zombie James
Banned
A lot of developers also used custom hardware when needed, from the Super FX to C4. Hell, even launch games needed to use custom hardware to get the job done (like Pilotwings).
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Nintendo consoles haven't been about power in over a decade. Does a new thread need to be made every time a dev states the obvious? God damn.
TUROK
Member
It is when you're trying to port a CPU intensive game to it.
It's horrible for their purpose. Could they do it? Absolutely. Would it be a massive headache? Absolutely.
It's not about arrogance, it's about hardware that underperforms for specific purposes. The WiiU isn't a console that's meant for bite-sized, Android-like gaming, it's supposed to be Nintendo's forray into 360 and PS3 territory, yet it doesn't have the hardware to compete with them.
TAS
Member
The Wii CPU was an overclocked Gekko taken directly from GameCube. Completely different scenario this time around.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
Even though I don't doubt the validity of his statement, especially since it's been said several times before, his comments do basically say that they're too "lazy", resource strained, to work with the system's strengths to get the job done. Assassin's Creed III, though certainly not the best looking 360/PS3 game, runs with complete parity to the other versions and the fact that the other 3rd party launch titles don't do the same exposes the fact that not enough effort was put into those titles, crappy CPU or not.
At least they were honest. If they weren't going to be able to do the job right with the resources they had, then so be it. I rather they not bring out the product than it be terrible.
At least they were honest. If they weren't going to be able to do the job right with the resources they had, then so be it. I rather they not bring out the product than it be terrible.
Neff
Member
Corporations want to keep you happy so that you keep giving them money. It's essential for businesses that trade in luxuries such as entertainment.
Both SNES and Genesis had the occasional struggle with arcade ports. Imagine where we'd be if Nintendo and Sega let 3DO and Neo-Geo dictate where they were supposed to make.
I don't think Sega would have cared. They were blowing away the competition with their own arcade hardware.
Dreamcast was the first time they put their arcade hardware for console use. Amazing ports everywhere.
mentalfloss
Banned
Meh. Wii U games look and run just fine by most people's standards so all this tech talk is clearly a waste.
TUROK
Member
Because you're posting in a thread about it.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
Truthfully, all I expect out of the Wii U is to be able to run PS360 quality games with textures at least 25% better, 720p, and 4xMSAA. With any actual effort, this should be a perfectly achievable goal. It's still disheartening to hear that a dev would just give up on the system like this though.
mentalfloss
Banned
Generic apocalyptic fps.
It's good at what it does but you're better off with Fallout 3.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
C'mon guys. Let's not start shitting on the game just because the guy said what he feels...
I've read the book (Metro 2033) and its excellent, great atmosphere, writing and setting: world overrun by mutants, people have retreated into the underground tunnels. The story takes place in the Metro of Moscow and you follow a sort of Odyssey of a young guy, Artjom, who has formerly not left his "home" station. Didn't play the game but was somewhat disappointed when it turned out to be a shooter. Could be still very well worth checking out, especially if you like shooters with a certain atmosphere.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Well, yeah, that's kind of why people are disappointed.
Over a decade? DS didn't come out until '04 or '05, did it? Gamecube was very powerful.
That depends on the individual and their standards. Sure gameplay > graphics BUT visuals can create and cater to gameplay through immersion, larger more interactive worlds, etc. Bring the player into the environment via enhanced visuals.
More is more and less is not more. Its not about how many polygons you can put on-screen, no, but its how you arrange those extra poly's to enhance the experience.
More power is a must for the medium to progress.
Nintendo will do what it does but 3rd parties looking to expand the experience for the end-user will focus on hardware with more power. At least Nintendo has a strong 1st party.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Not to mention the DS was a logical step up in power. Nintendo's handhelds had been lagging their consoles by two gens at that point (and still do). The Wii was the first console to go for the low power deal.
Discomurf
Member
"It will be one of the best looking versions because they've got more Ram, they're late in the cycle, so they've got this really great processor,"
- Brian Martell, Gearbox Software.
Video Source
so who's right?
- Brian Martell, Gearbox Software.
Video Source
so who's right?
chertipros
Member
Poimandres
Member
Generic FPS? Really? Have you played the game?
Because saying "you're better off with Fallout 3" doesn't really work. The two games are worlds apart.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Show us this evidence, please.
HAMMEROFJUSTICE
Neo Member
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Don't worry about mentalfloss, he's been having a meltdown all over the shop over Wii U news for the past few days, poor kids taking things badly and flailing about like a three year old who didn't get a sweet at the shop.
It's possible that the "target specs", which no platform maker ever meets exactly, were all they had at the time of the project's cancellation that said the CPU would improve, because newer kits weren't yet in hand. They likely just decided they couldn't wait any longer and never took a 2nd look at any changes to the kits. Bail out on making a launch title too soon (albeit for necessary reasons in their case) and unless you're wasting time looking at new kit revisions instead of making the games you DIDN'T cancel, that opinion is not going to be based on the most current details.
We could have a Cell situation, where it IS powerful but requires new steps to draw optimal performance from it that the team isn't familiar with, as opposed to the much more documented 360 chip or any modern PC-grade CPU.
There's a LOT of possibilities. And since this fella at 4A decided not to expand upon his statement in any factually meaningful way, it leaves too much unsaid to take wholly at face value.
There is SOMETHING wrong with the CPU, but until someone talks at length about it, no one is gonna know what that is. Any follow-up reviews with Harada in his prior CPU comments should net some good details.
Ah ok.
I was just curious.
Doesnt seem like a big loss.
Although im sure this will just alienate more people.
Teletraan1
Banned
Gameplay is zero when the game doesn't get made for the system. I am curious why there is so much graphics talk in a CPU thread.
I'd like to give Wii-U the benefit of the doubt, but Gearbox has a pretty shitty track record when it comes to giving performance comments. They were one of the few developers who actually said the Wii would be able to run UE3. :lol