MohammadBadir said:
Barozi said:
First of all they never said that FB2 barely run on WiiU.
They said the results weren't too promising, which could mean a lot of things.
What obvious is however that it didn't run as great as on other platforms, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with putting more work into it and/or downgrading the games.
But as they said in article in the OP, it wouldn't be worth it for them, since the userbase is low, it would be too much work/investment for little (if any) profit, and they don't want their engine to look ugly.
FB3 is on top of that more scalable. You're mistakenly thinking that a new version automatically means that it's more demanding, which is not necessarily true or how is it possible that BF3 on PS360 looks better than BF:Bad Company on PS360 even though BF3 runs on FB2 and Bad Company on FB1 (while both having the same resolution and framerate) ?
Another example would be that CryEngine 3 is less demanding than CryEngine 2.
|
but isn't them deciding not to run FB3 on the Wii U because FB2 didn't have promising results a bit contradicting? XD
|
Not necessarily. They had FB2 on the platform (which costed time and money) with medium success and didn't try FB3 because it would've taken just as much work as FB2 initially and then some more to get it running in a state where it was actually usable for the game developers.
While I admit the twitter post sounds a bit contradicting, he didn't explicitly say that they didn't try it because FB2 ran like crap. "Results" could mean a lot of things and is most likely a combination of the aforementioned time/money/profit but of course also how well the engine is running.
Best explained in that interview already:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5487576
