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

Forums - Nintendo - Could DMC4 be done on the Wii?

LordTheNightKnight on 01 March 2008

Kyros said:
I think we can stop this thread. Two things are obvious, the Wii is more powerful than the GC but it is much nearer to the last-gen competitors than to the 360/PS3. This can be seen in its specs and in the games that are available. Nobody with eyes can argue against that.

You can't base a system's power on the games available. You have to base it on the ones that specifically push a system. Only a couple games on the Wii really push the system. 

Now I don't mean pushing it to its limits. That takes a few years. But it does mean that we don't really have that many practical indications of the system's power yet.


This also answers the "Could DMC4 be ported" question. Of course it could but it would look much more like DMC3 than DMC4/PS3,360.

I'm calling the "much more" part. The PS2 doesn't have texture compression. The Wii not only can compress textures, it can run them at a higher resolution. It can aslo do more objects in a scene and at a larger draw distance.

If somebody buys the Wii because of its graphics or processing power or features he picked the wrong console anyway. Nintendo really did concentrate on different things this time. And they are successful beyond believe. Personally I don't understand it, but apparently I am not in the target group.


The Wii is not in a graphical league with the PS2. It has a lot more memory, and is a lot more powerful. You can deny it, but you'd be wrong.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
sc94597 on 01 March 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:

Kyros said:
I think we can stop this thread. Two things are obvious, the Wii is more powerful than the GC but it is much nearer to the last-gen competitors than to the 360/PS3. This can be seen in its specs and in the games that are available. Nobody with eyes can argue against that.

You can't base a system's power on the games available. You have to base it on the ones that specifically push a system. Only a couple games on the Wii really push the system.

Now I don't mean pushing it to its limits. That takes a few years. But it does mean that we don't really have that many practical indications of the system's power yet.


This also answers the "Could DMC4 be ported" question. Of course it could but it would look much more like DMC3 than DMC4/PS3,360.

I'm calling the "much more" part. The PS2 doesn't have texture compression. The Wii not only can compress textures, it can run them at a higher resolution. It can aslo do more objects in a scene and at a larger draw distance.

If somebody buys the Wii because of its graphics or processing power or features he picked the wrong console anyway. Nintendo really did concentrate on different things this time. And they are successful beyond believe. Personally I don't understand it, but apparently I am not in the target group.


The Wii is not in a graphical league with the PS2. It has a lot more memory, and is a lot more powerful. You can deny it, but you'd be wrong.


 Don't bother for som reason people think the wii is a dremcast in this thread.



Viper1 on 02 March 2008

To those adding Ghz figures together, please stop right now. You are making an infinitely grave mistake. Processing power does not scale linearly with the number of cores.

Ex: A 2 Ghz core + 2 Ghz core does not give you 4 Ghz of processing power.

IGN made a bad article a few years back adding the 3 X360 cores together to get 9.6 Ghz and have forever been black listed by anyone with any technical knowledge.


If you are unfamiliar with precisely what the tech numbers mean it is unwise to debate or compare them. The numbers at their face value have no value at all unless you can properly put them into context. This is not an insult or knock at any of you because you didn't know. Now you do.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

LordTheNightKnight on 02 March 2008
sc94597 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

Kyros said:
I think we can stop this thread. Two things are obvious, the Wii is more powerful than the GC but it is much nearer to the last-gen competitors than to the 360/PS3. This can be seen in its specs and in the games that are available. Nobody with eyes can argue against that.

You can't base a system's power on the games available. You have to base it on the ones that specifically push a system. Only a couple games on the Wii really push the system.

Now I don't mean pushing it to its limits. That takes a few years. But it does mean that we don't really have that many practical indications of the system's power yet.


This also answers the "Could DMC4 be ported" question. Of course it could but it would look much more like DMC3 than DMC4/PS3,360.

I'm calling the "much more" part. The PS2 doesn't have texture compression. The Wii not only can compress textures, it can run them at a higher resolution. It can aslo do more objects in a scene and at a larger draw distance.

If somebody buys the Wii because of its graphics or processing power or features he picked the wrong console anyway. Nintendo really did concentrate on different things this time. And they are successful beyond believe. Personally I don't understand it, but apparently I am not in the target group.


The Wii is not in a graphical league with the PS2. It has a lot more memory, and is a lot more powerful. You can deny it, but you'd be wrong.


Don't bother for som reason people think the wii is a dremcast in this thread.


They've thought that for a while. Yet I'm still not going to let their lies stand. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 02 March 2008
Viper1 said:
To those adding Ghz figures together, please stop right now. You are making an infinitely grave mistake. Processing power does not scale linearly with the number of cores.

Ex: A 2 Ghz core + 2 Ghz core does not give you 4 Ghz of processing power.

IGN made a bad article a few years back adding the 3 X360 cores together to get 9.6 Ghz and have forever been black listed by anyone with any technical knowledge.


If you are unfamiliar with precisely what the tech numbers mean it is unwise to debate or compare them. The numbers at their face value have no value at all unless you can properly put them into context. This is not an insult or knock at any of you because you didn't know. Now you do.

There is a similar thing with the EDRAM the PS2 and 360 use. People look at the respective 4MB and 10Mb size and think they are puny. They refuse to accept the high speed makes up for it. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Viper1 on 02 March 2008

Polygons are another big mess. Real world applications vs raw polygons.
Floating point operations are the new polygon problem it seems as well.

Even with clock rates, efficiency plays a huge role such as last generations 485 Mhz GC CPU being nearly as capable process wise as the 733 Mhz Xbox CPU all because of the efficiency of the Gekko. Copper vs aluminum......I'll take copper, please.

So on and so forth regarding a thousand different components, values and factors.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

LordTheNightKnight on 02 March 2008
Viper1 said:
Polygons are another big mess. Real world applications vs raw polygons.
Floating point operations are the new polygon problem it seems as well.

Even with clock rates, efficiency plays a huge role such as last generations 485 Mhz GC CPU being nearly as capable process wise as the 733 Mhz Xbox CPU all because of the efficiency of the Gekko. Copper vs aluminum......I'll take copper, please.

So on and so forth regarding a thousand different components, values and factors.

But it's too hard to think about that. They just want the easy numbers. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

fazz on 02 March 2008
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:
fazz said:
windbane said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
polishforlife said:
stuff...

In short, the Wii of course can't match the PS3 and 360. Yet its specs are not as far behind them as systems an actual generation behind.


If the system that more powerful than he GC and Xbox, then why do all the big Wii titles look like GC games? Galaxy is only marginally better than Sunshine, MP3 marginally better, Brawl the same, Zelda since it was just a port, etc.


And this is where I saw that: A) You never played Mario Sunshine, or B) I can't take you seriously anymore.

Seriously man, normal mapping, bump mapping, specular lights, specular reflections, fur simulation, bloom and 60 frames per second stable are are just marginally better?

/facepalm


Go to gametrailers.com and look at the comparison video of Sunshine and Galaxy. You can list all the features you want but those aren't translating into much better graphics.


Play both games at home on your TV. If you can't notice a significant difference between SMS and SMG, then you definitely need glasses (or if you already have glasses, it's time for new ones).


QFT RolStoppable.

and @windbane: It seems I will have to take option B) I can't take you seriously anymore, because you just don't know what you are talking about. Those features are the ones that make graphics much better in any game.

If what you say was the case, Gran Turismo 5 wouldn't have much better graphics compared to GT4 because it only has shader effects, higher framerate, better models and better textures (just like SMG)... but I'm sure you would not apply that criteria to your beloved Sony.



CAL4M1TY on 02 March 2008

People need to stop making these kinds of threads.

Wii won't get any decent ports of 360/PS3 games any time soon, almost ALL game developers thought the wii was trash when it was first announced, very few bothered to develop for it. That's why DMC4, RE5, GTA and any game that started development before and during last year that was made for the 360 or PS3 will not get a decent or even no wii port at all.

Only (good) games (multiplatform or otherwise) that are coming to the wii would have only started being developed (outside of Nintendo) midway through last year, that's when the wii started it's break through. That's why KH3 is always a possibility for the wii (even though I would hate to see it there), but DMC4, RE5, GTA4 and big name titles that were announced within the last year won't get a later wii release.

So we'll just have to live with PS2 ports for now, and would you really want a graphically tonned down Burnout, AC, DMC4 (not that it was a powerhouse) and RE5?



sc94597 on 02 March 2008
fazz said:
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:
fazz said:
windbane said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
polishforlife said:
stuff...

In short, the Wii of course can't match the PS3 and 360. Yet its specs are not as far behind them as systems an actual generation behind.


If the system that more powerful than he GC and Xbox, then why do all the big Wii titles look like GC games? Galaxy is only marginally better than Sunshine, MP3 marginally better, Brawl the same, Zelda since it was just a port, etc.


And this is where I saw that: A) You never played Mario Sunshine, or B) I can't take you seriously anymore.

Seriously man, normal mapping, bump mapping, specular lights, specular reflections, fur simulation, bloom and 60 frames per second stable are are just marginally better?

/facepalm


Go to gametrailers.com and look at the comparison video of Sunshine and Galaxy. You can list all the features you want but those aren't translating into much better graphics.


Play both games at home on your TV. If you can't notice a significant difference between SMS and SMG, then you definitely need glasses (or if you already have glasses, it's time for new ones).


QFT RolStoppable.

and @windbane: It seems I will have to take option B) I can't take you seriously anymore, because you just don't know what you are talking about. Those features are the ones that make graphics much better in any game.

If what you say was the case, Gran Turismo 5 wouldn't have much better graphics compared to GT4 because it only has shader effects, higher framerate, better models and better textures (just like SMG)... but I'm sure you would not apply that criteria to your beloved Sony.


 Listen to fazz. He knows wat he is talking about. 

I say the wii is right in the middle of  ps3  and 360 than last gen in power. 3times more oower thn xboxorginal and  times less than 360/ps3.