It would be no ordeal. and Splatoon simply chose ink over particles :p

It would be interesting to see how they'd tackle bringing UC4 to the WiiU. The most difficult part (of what we've seen) would probably be how ND appear to have built parts of the environments around their new contextual animation system (now with real-time grimacing!™). I personally thought it was the most impressive part of the demo, and I have absolutely no idea how they'd re-work that for the WiiU without compromising its purpose.

Even more interesting than UC4 would be ACU. It's a less technically complex game overall, but those crowd simulations on a 1.24GHZ tri-core CPU... I kind of want to see it. The PS4 and X1 already had a hard enough time with it (even if it wasn't entirely their fault).

That's what i think too. We know the core idea could run on the WiiU (we've seen basic contextual animation systems in PS3 and 360 games, and the WiiU is more capable than both), but it's hard to know how far they could push it before environments would start needing to be redesigned. Of course, we don't know how much of UC4 is built around that idea. The environment we saw could just be one that's more focused on it (if that was the case porting would be easier).

AI might also be an issue (again because of the WiiU's CPU), but past that porting would mostly just be a matter of asset reduction and the replacement of particularly complex stuff (like the subsurface scattering you mentioned).

Do you get the feeling ACU (well, its engine) was designed for consoles that don't exist? It's easy to understand why GPUs have become the focus this gen (especially if Cerny is right about GPGPU), and Ubisoft appear to have anticipated some of that, but i get the impression they underestimated how low-key the PS4 and X1's CPU would be this gen.

On that note, i wonder how well ACU's crowds could be scaled onto the PS3? Assuming the Cell didn't simply suck the developers souls out first (that being its primary energy source over electricity).

Yeah, it's possible a few devs misjudged how beefy PS4/Xbone would be, particularly in the CPU department. Perhaps they expected something more along the lines of how strong PS3/360 were at launch. Games these days take a long time to make, so some of them probably began development before they had the specs.

Indeed. To Sony and MS's credit though, i think moving towards cheaper but more accessible hardware was the right move this gen. The progressively harsher development cycles of the 5th, 6th, and 7th gen has resulted in a pretty significant loss of creativity from many publishers (with them instead focusing on what they know works). I hope we see the industry use the potential simplicity of PS4/X1 development to justify taking more risks. We've already been seeing it happen on PC.

Anyway, sorry about going off on a tangent in your thread

Xbone has 5GB of RAM available for games, Wii U has 1GB. That alone would mean a ton of re-engineering.

I think the animation system is UC4 would have to be simplified; other than that, I think the primary downgrades would be screen and texture resolution, and the omission of subsurface scattering for skin. With the right amount of talent and resources applied, Wii U should be able to get what we've seen so far running at an Uncharted 3 level of fidelity.

ACU, on the other hand, would be much more problematic. I suspect there would be no option but to scale down the crowds; as you say, Xbone and PS4 were already struggling to do it, and Wii U's CPU is its weakest link. Of all the PS4/Xbone games out so far, ACU is probably the worse fit for Wii U's hardware.

RolStoppable said:

1. Okay.

2. Obviously only applies if a competitor also makes a handheld; the most prominent ones are Sega and Sony. The 3DS is definitely not a healthy platform, but that's no good reason for your trolling; you make it sound like differences in tie ratios of 0.01 and 0.03 are meaningful, nevermind that there is always the issue that Nintendo is the only console manufacturer who announces total hardware and software shipments, so VGC is on its own for other platforms. Regarding hardcore and core, there might be more to it, but it doesn't matter when we are talking about console sales. You've been arguing that Nintendo needs to get refusing customers on board (that's what the hardcore are, they are actively against Nintendo) because they buy so many games. That's why I mentioned core gamers, because they buy a lot of games too, yet aren't biased against Nintendo; they buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games.

Trolling? I'm showing you numbers that says that the 3DS (and to a lesser degree the GB) didn't have healthy software numbersm, that's not trolling. My original point with the PSP was to show you that you don't need a family friendly image in the portable market, which you at the very least had indicated that that were the case. Sure, the PSP only sold hald the numbers of the DS, but 80m units is pretty damn good, AND it has a similar attach rate to the GB, very much a family friendly handheld console. Alright then, just switch out every time I've used the word "hardcore" with "core gamer" and you get my point. Talk about nitpicking. Nintendo needs to attract the costumers that are ALWAYS either migrating between consoles, or at the very least are THINKING about doing so. That's the care gamer segment I'm talking about. The ones without brand loyalty, those who goes to where the best/most awesome/coolest games are. In that case, Nintendo doesn't even have to release an über powerful console; just something that can hold its own against the PS5 and XB2. PS2 was the weakest gen 6 console and DOMINATED, because games. THAT'S what I'm arguing for. Not a PS2 clone, but a console that has EVERYTHING. Nintendo have very rarely had EVERYTHING on it's consoles. And it's quite apparent that core gamers aren't buying Nintendo games for Nintendo systems right now. Exclude the need for (core) gamers to even bother buying a second console and Nintendo will dominate.

3. There isn't anything to address because it's all conjecture on your part. It's a part of the overarching argument that Nintendo has to go after the hardcore while the casual are a lost cause. Now you might say that on this point I haven't offered more than conjecture either, but the notable difference is that we have a very good idea about how the hardcore think. After all, they frequently post on forums, so it is very much possible to analyze their behavior.

Like I said in my response above; you're nitpicking. Go after the core gamers, those that don't spend hours upon hours on the Internet hating. That's probably the minority console buyers anyways (the hardcore that is). Hardcore gamers are a loud minority. The core gamers don't really care all that much; they probably look up some reviews and some news, but I doubt they ever bother posting anything on any forum. And in regards to casuals: guess what price they're used to when they game? None. They play F2P or buy a very cheap game on iOS/android. Do you really think THAT crowed would go out and buy a $250 piece of new hardware AND games that cost $40-60 when they're used to FREE games? That's a VERY large threshold you expect people to make.

4. Because the technology wasn't advanced robotics or anything like that, so entertainment (specifically video games) is the only viable option to find a buyer. What we know is that Nintendo decided to use the tech, so the people who were in favor of it won out. This is fact, so it's not farfetched that the people who were already looking into all sorts of technology for the fifth Nintendo home console would have come across the technology that was eventually used in the system.

There's four major things that needs to happen here: 1, they find the tech themselves; 2, the tech has not been sold and is up for grabs; 3, the execs over at Nintendo need to all agree that this is the tech they'll use; 4, they need to find the tech in time to be able to implement it in their next console (the future Wii). That's a whole lot of steps that needs to happen for this scenario to be plausible.

5. Well, then the game itself (Rayman Legends) is the problem, nothing else. Red Steel was a success (despite being a game that sucks), hence why the IP got a sequel (that one wasn't good either). No More Heroes was also a success (it was a low budget game), so it got a sequel too. ZombiU was already addressed in the last post. Bayonetta 2 is a Nintendo game. So what if Red Steel 2 and No More Heroes 2 didn't match the sales of their successful predecessors? Third party games fail on all platforms, it's just that the industry loves to run a narrative where everything is the fault of Nintendo and Nintendo fans. But in reality, there has not been a failure of the magnitude of BioShock Infinite (led to the closure of Irrational Games despite being a Game of the Year candidate) on Nintendo platforms, ever. But you didn't know about that because of the aforementioned narrative; nobody really batted an eye when that happened. And that's just one example; if you bother to do some research about studio closures of prominent developers over the course of the last decade, you'll find that almost none of them were due to games made for Nintendo platforms.

The majority of reviewers disagrees with you: 80 on metacritic is NOT bad/not good – despite your personal preference. I wouldn't say that selling 500k with an install base of 100m is THAT good. These numbers directly points to what I've been saying; there is NOT a healthy enviroment for 3^rd party games on Nintendo consoles, and that's partly because Nintendo doesn't even try to get a more mature/core gaming audience to their systems. Bayo isn't a Nintendo IP though, Sega owns the IP and they were kind enough to lend Nintendo it for one game. All Nintendo did was to give Platinum the money to make the game. BUT, it's things like THIS I argue Nintendo should do more of, and it's these kind of things that will garner Nintendo more success amongst core gamers. While game budgets have become very bloated, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Irrational Games shut down because BioShock Infinite wasn't profitable. I did a quick search about this, and it seems the game was profitable and wasn't the reason why the studio shut down. But if you have a link that says otherwise, please do share. You have a point that no studio have closed because they've made a Nintendo game, but game budgets are so huge nowadays that the games need to sell millions of copies (which is a dumb practice, but whatevs) to be successful, and VERY few 3^rd party games can manage to sell millions of copies on a Nintendo system. While it's a dumb thing to let gaming budgets become so huge that games need to sell 1m+ to even break even, that's how things are in the industry now, and Nintendo either needs to get with it or forget all about 3^rd party support.

6. Your alternative to the paid subscription model (subsidizing an ailing console business with money from smartphone games) doesn't change that hardcore gaming isn't a big money maker. There's no good reason to bother with it to begin with. Don't forget that the hardcore don't really care about the best quality, otherwise you would see more of them gaming on the PC where graphics and options (like mods) are usually better, plus online is free.

PC's are quite different than consoles and have nothing to do with wanting the best experience or something like that; PC's are a lot more expansive than consoles, and they're a lot harder to understand and maintain. Two important things to remember about PC gaming.

7. That's very selective memory which shows that you really have no point here. It works for the Nintendo 64, but for the GC Nintendo switched to optical media (please don't say that the discs were an issue, because most games in that generation didn't exceed 1.5GB) and made the system easier to program for than the PS2; so Nintendo listened and they lost even worse. The Wii, which you conveniently didn't mention at all, obviously ignored the calls of third parties for a $400+ console; Nintendo was back on top. With the Wii U, they abandoned their Wii success and returned to the dual analog controller standard which is completely nonsensical for a company that has been as successful as Nintendo. I wonder who wanted a dual analog controller...

I wonder who wanted that dumb touchscreen on the controller... (I don't find it dumb, mind you, but almost everyone else does) It seems to me you only have one console where Nintendo listen to 3^rd parties, and that is the GC. While Nintendo DID listen a lot to 3^rd parties it's not like it was a happy enviroment for them on the console: Nintendo demanded higher royalties than both MS and Sony, they didn't try to gain any sort of support for the system while MS actively tried to gain support, Nintendo were 18 months late to the party and made games that looked even MORE family friendly than their games had ever been. That's not trying to make a healthy enviroment for 3^rd parties. The success of the Wii was all about their controll gimmick and the fact that they managed to gain massive “casual” support, which quite quickly evaporated when Nintendo couldn't crank out enough new games. All we've seen from the casuals point to the fact that they're VERY fickle; jumping from the Wii to smartphones and then from smartphone games to smartphone games. It's a fickle audience that Nintendo can't bank on enticing two gens in a row, which is what you think they should.

"and the omission of subsurface scattering for skin. With the right amount of talent and resources applied, Wii U should be able to get what we've seen so far running at an Uncharted 3 level of fidelity."

Please, let's be serious, shall we? ps3 level of fidelity? we are talking about a console quite above ps3. as for the "subsurface scattering for skin", wii u would have no trouble doing that on cutscenes, after all, they are just cutscenes.

As for ACU, I don't see what's problematic about reducing the crowd that's already filler to begin with. I suppose any version of that game would be better with less people on the streets.