By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Iwata Is Aware That People Believe That WiiU Is Underpowered And Says This Is A Misunderstanding

Mummelmann on 30 April 2013

"But he believes that once third-party developers start producing hit franchises on the Wii U then other developers will think again about developing for the platform"

Isn't that more or less exactly what was said about and hoped for with the Wii and never happened? Iwata needs to stop praying for someone to suddenly see the value he feels the console has and actually present it himself. He's sort of leaving the ball in their court, a bad idea at best.



Around the Network
Kaizar on 30 April 2013
Mummelmann said:
"But he believes that once third-party developers start producing hit franchises on the Wii U then other developers will think again about developing for the platform"

Isn't that more or less exactly what was said about and hoped for with the Wii and never happened? Iwata needs to stop praying for someone to suddenly see the value he feels the console has and actually present it himself. He's sort of leaving the ball in their court, a bad idea at best.

Its also what was said about the 3DS.

Besides the Wii U has a way more desirable controller then any other Console for Western Developers. And the Wii U already has plenty of Western 3rd Party Support.

I wouldn't count on Japanese 3rd Parties supporting that much, just like I don't count on Western 3rd Parties supporting the 3DS that much.

It seems that the Wii U will get the kind of 3rd party support from western Devs that the 3DS gets from Japanese Devs.



oniyide on 30 April 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:

oniyide said:

 Name the games, and i could probably show you something similar on 6th gen consoles.

Your second sentence makes no sense. I can name a few games that could not be done of PS2. YOu seem caught up on visuals which tell me that you really dont know what it goes into making a game. LEts that the last Elder Scrolls, wont run on PS2. YOu know why? Xbox couldnt even run Morrowind with HEAVY downgrading, an Xbox was more powerful than PS2, you think that PS2 could run Skyrim? Just Cause2, what about GTA4 or 5, Bioshock Infinite. How far do you downgrade until a game is no longer the SAME game? YOu also seem to ignore the multiplats between PS360 that are vastly different games.

The Wii COD games, (except for COD3) all push its RAM (which is bigger than any 6th gen console) and its CPU, which outperforms the Xbox's. Jett Rocket does more quantity and quality of multitexturing (while maintaining 60fps) than the 6th gen systems could handle.

And there's no definitive line where a game stops being "the same." It all depends on what sacrifices and differences people are subjectively prepared to accept.

so in one paragraph you say that Wii can handle games that 6th gen games couldnt handle but in another say that you can port anything to anything? which one is it? YOu cant have your cake and eat it too, Wii isnt special anything on it could be ported to 6th gen systems. IF we are going by your port theory. 

Wii has twice the ram of GC. PS3 has more 3 times the ram of Wii if they can get a game; COD made for PS3 to run on Wii(with alot of sacrifices) why would the GC be that much different? it makes no sense.

What I mean is, you can run a version of a game on a significantly less capable console, one that might run quite differently, you just can't run the SAME version. Like Wii can run Dead Rising, but not the same version as 360, and the PS3/360 can run a version of Crysis 3, but not the PC version.

Compressing COD (Except COD3, which was a PS2 port done by two guys, I kid you not) down to the Wii was already a very difficult task; halving it again when its already bursting at the seams presents a problem. 


fair enough but why not just take the WII engine for COD, lets face it, it is its own engine and do exactly what they usually do anyway. Hell they could just take the GE engine which itself is a modified COD Wii engine.

Take the COD Wii engine, (which, besides COD3, is the PS3/360/PC COD4 engine) or the GE engine, and port to GC, you mean? Those engines should run on GC alright, but you'd have to cope with a streaming world was hell to get down to the Wii's 88MB much less GC's 40MB, and an AI/animation workload that stresses Wii's CPU which is pretty much GC's at 150% speed.


Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.



curl-6 on 30 April 2013
oniyide said:

Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.

From one of the MW1 Wii devs on gaf: "we were able to stream higher-res assets off of the disc, but then you run into the problem of how the game knows what to stream in, and when to stream it such that you don't get texture pops, audio stutters, and things like that. So each level had to be retrofitted with triggers to tell the game what to stream in, and partitioned into chunks of coherent stream data. Then there had to be a balancing act to keep from exceeding the wii optical drive bandwidth. We had this same problem with all asset types, not just textures. Memory management tasks like this took up a huge amount of time, and had to be done individually for each SP and MP level."

COD4 has large levels not broken up by loading times, only sections at a time could be crammed into 88MB with the disc drive racing to stream in the next part as the player moved through it. Take that down to 40MB and the difference would be considerable.



oniyide on 03 May 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.

 

From one of the MW1 Wii devs on gaf: "we were able to stream higher-res assets off of the disc, but then you run into the problem of how the game knows what to stream in, and when to stream it such that you don't get texture pops, audio stutters, and things like that. So each level had to be retrofitted with triggers to tell the game what to stream in, and partitioned into chunks of coherent stream data. Then there had to be a balancing act to keep from exceeding the wii optical drive bandwidth. We had this same problem with all asset types, not just textures. Memory management tasks like this took up a huge amount of time, and had to be done individually for each SP and MP level."

COD4 has large levels not broken up by loading times, only sections at a time could be crammed into 88MB with the disc drive racing to stream in the next part as the player moved through it. Take that down to 40MB and the difference would be considerable.

 

you mean like the difference between the PS360/PC version and the Wii version? Yeah i know that was my whole point I never said it would be the same. THe game would probably have to load a hell of alot more. Just like stuff had to be removed for the Wii version of COD games.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 03 May 2013
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.

 

From one of the MW1 Wii devs on gaf: "we were able to stream higher-res assets off of the disc, but then you run into the problem of how the game knows what to stream in, and when to stream it such that you don't get texture pops, audio stutters, and things like that. So each level had to be retrofitted with triggers to tell the game what to stream in, and partitioned into chunks of coherent stream data. Then there had to be a balancing act to keep from exceeding the wii optical drive bandwidth. We had this same problem with all asset types, not just textures. Memory management tasks like this took up a huge amount of time, and had to be done individually for each SP and MP level."

COD4 has large levels not broken up by loading times, only sections at a time could be crammed into 88MB with the disc drive racing to stream in the next part as the player moved through it. Take that down to 40MB and the difference would be considerable.

 

you mean like the difference between the PS360/PC version and the Wii version? Yeah i know that was my whole point I never said it would be the same. THe game would probably have to load a hell of alot more. Just like stuff had to be removed for the Wii version of COD games.

So the Wii version of COD W@W, MW1, BO, and MW3 couldn't be done on GC, hence the Wii did do things GC couldn't, that was my whole point.



oniyide on 03 May 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.

 

From one of the MW1 Wii devs on gaf: "we were able to stream higher-res assets off of the disc, but then you run into the problem of how the game knows what to stream in, and when to stream it such that you don't get texture pops, audio stutters, and things like that. So each level had to be retrofitted with triggers to tell the game what to stream in, and partitioned into chunks of coherent stream data. Then there had to be a balancing act to keep from exceeding the wii optical drive bandwidth. We had this same problem with all asset types, not just textures. Memory management tasks like this took up a huge amount of time, and had to be done individually for each SP and MP level."

COD4 has large levels not broken up by loading times, only sections at a time could be crammed into 88MB with the disc drive racing to stream in the next part as the player moved through it. Take that down to 40MB and the difference would be considerable.

 

you mean like the difference between the PS360/PC version and the Wii version? Yeah i know that was my whole point I never said it would be the same. THe game would probably have to load a hell of alot more. Just like stuff had to be removed for the Wii version of COD games.

So the Wii version of COD W@W, MW1, BO, and MW3 couldn't be done on GC, hence the Wii did do things GC couldn't, that was my whole point.

It could be done, it just wont be the same version. You'll get the basic thing, just like you got the basic thing for Wii version of the game versus the PS360 version of the game. THe Wii version isnt the same as the PS360 version, I imagine the GC version wouldnt be the same as the Wii version, but similar.



curl-6 on 03 May 2013
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

Streaming world? LOL no, we are talkng about a FPS here, a very linear one at that, you are giving COD way too much credit. So GC would have no problem handling those. As they have done so in the past. They would just make more sacrifices just like they made to get alot of the HD games to run on Wii. No big difference. As you said you can port anythng to anything.

 

From one of the MW1 Wii devs on gaf: "we were able to stream higher-res assets off of the disc, but then you run into the problem of how the game knows what to stream in, and when to stream it such that you don't get texture pops, audio stutters, and things like that. So each level had to be retrofitted with triggers to tell the game what to stream in, and partitioned into chunks of coherent stream data. Then there had to be a balancing act to keep from exceeding the wii optical drive bandwidth. We had this same problem with all asset types, not just textures. Memory management tasks like this took up a huge amount of time, and had to be done individually for each SP and MP level."

COD4 has large levels not broken up by loading times, only sections at a time could be crammed into 88MB with the disc drive racing to stream in the next part as the player moved through it. Take that down to 40MB and the difference would be considerable.

 

you mean like the difference between the PS360/PC version and the Wii version? Yeah i know that was my whole point I never said it would be the same. THe game would probably have to load a hell of alot more. Just like stuff had to be removed for the Wii version of COD games.

So the Wii version of COD W@W, MW1, BO, and MW3 couldn't be done on GC, hence the Wii did do things GC couldn't, that was my whole point.

It could be done, it just wont be the same version. You'll get the basic thing, just like you got the basic thing for Wii version of the game versus the PS360 version of the game. THe Wii version isnt the same as the PS360 version, I imagine the GC version wouldnt be the same as the Wii version, but similar.

We're both basically saying the same thing from two different angles; that a version can be done, but it won't be the same.