Easier to develop for but the more detailed art assets take longer. Just like it will take them more time and effort to put more pixels in Drake's face and t-shirt. Zarx explained it much better.
Easier to develop for but the more detailed art assets take longer. Just like it will take them more time and effort to put more pixels in Drake's face and t-shirt. Zarx explained it much better.
curl-6 said:
Retro is struggling big time? Why, because their Wii U game isn't a technical marvel? |
It's not even that it's unimpressive, it's that it's in some areas, flat out bad. Retro has been known for incredible graphical prowess. Metroid Prime is still one of the most beautiful games ever (IMO) and they made that shit on the gamecube. This game looks almost identical graphically to Returns, which was beautiful for the Wii, but that was the wii....


Mensrea said:
|
It is disappointing that after every previous Retro game pushing its hardware, this one doesn't, but that doesn't mean they'e struggling, they may just be aiming for simple graphics.
for fuck sakes learning how to do something and actually doing it are two different things. so what he says is not unreasonable.
Just like riding a bike, took a while to learn as a kid (if you skipped the training wheels) and once you learned it was relatively easy.
| curl-6 said: There's been mixed messages about how easy Wii U is to develop for. Frozenbyte and Shin'en have called it "easy" and "accessible" while other devs like Criterion hav called it hard to work with. The main problem seems to be that's its very different from either the PS3/360 or the PS4/X1 architecturally, so you can't just easily transfer a game across and have it run well, and devs don't have experience with getting the most out of it.
You mean Wii U? Or was "Wii" on purpose? |
i honestly meant WiiU

bananaking21 said:
meaning pretty much his claims are true? |
I'm not a "PC" guy, and don't claim to be but, I THINK power PC is a lot harder to develop for than say, the PS4. It's no where near PS3 difficult, but still, the curve is a little higher. Shouldn't be that big of a deal though and plus, no matter how hard it is, it's going to be a LOT cheaper to make games for it than the other two. In a couple years, when it's doing a lot better and companies are struggling to fund these massive AAA games for the PS4/Xbone, I think we'll start to see some backsliding with regards to third parties because at the end of the day it's a business and businesses like money.
Easier than Wii? Which was exactly as its predecessor?
Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever
Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe
Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor
Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


pezus said:
Nintendo is why people are skeptical. As in, where were the games? |
On 3DS. 
pezus said:
Nintendo is why people are skeptical. As in, where were the games? |
He said the console is easy to develop for, not that Nintendo's internal teams immediately understood with no learning curve how to develop for it.
It's been stated several times before that Nintendo's studios had trouble adjusting to HD development in general, not Wii U development specifically. As I said, Wii U is 100% compatible with Unity, as plenty of indie teams are discovering. Thus, developing for Wii U is no more difficult than developing for Unity, an engine with a strong reputation of being easy to develop for. These dots are not hard to connect.
If you want to know where the games are, check the eShop this time next year. I daresay you'll find a few games.
As I recall, the Unity deal happened close to launch, and it's not as though every indie developer and their moms suddenly realized they should start making games for Wii U right at that moment. It has taken some time to get the word out -- but word is getting out.
Certainly the Wii U has had a bone-dry release schedule for the past 6 months, but there are plenty of factors to blame before we start haphazardly calling Miyamoto a liar and claiming that the console is inherently difficult to develop for despite decisive evidence to the contrary.
