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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I flew too close to the 1TF sun and my Switch wings melted.

bonzobanana on 24 December 2016
Soundwave said:
bonzobanana said:
This thread is a little confusing as 'being easy to develop for' and 'hard to port to wii u' can both be true. The wii u is a console based on a highly documented gpu and cpu's with a huge amount of previous development time. There is nothing innovative or unknown about the wii u hardware. It's just a Radeon gpu and 3 old powerpc cpu's. Assuming development software is in a fit state there is no problem.

However if you are trying to port a game developed for more powerful hardware to the wii u then clearly you will run into huge problems because the hardware isn't easily capable of running it. Then the wii u becomes very hard to develop for because you are trying to achieve something the wii u can't do without massive optimisation.

We saw many games like Call of Duty Black Ops 2 that was rock solid 60fps on xbox 360 but dropped into the low 20's for frame rate on wii u. Many wii u games were delayed from release or abandoned because they were difficult to port to wii u because of the low performance level.

It's clear the wii u had a gpu of superior architecture than 360 and ps3 with a superior feature set, plus high memory bandwidth for the 32MB on the MCM board so despite its low gflops performance could easily punch above 360 and ps3 but was crippled by a terrible cpu arrangement that wasn't even close to the performance of 360 or ps3.

If your porting a game of low performance requirements the wii u will be easy but if your porting something that needs more cpu performance like many 360 and ps3 games it may suffer.

Yeah I think people are confusing two different things here. 

Every Nintendo console since the N64 has been easy to develop for. After the N64 Nintendo took great pains to design systems that were very easy to get games up and running and even apply effects to.

That doesn't mean the same thing as "so easy to port to, that two people can just fart out the port". Ports are going to be difficult even with an architecture developers know if there are technical limitations to the chip. 

Your replying to me but you are basically making the same points I have done. Was this meant to have been a response to a different comment?

Personally I think the only last gen console that can be described as difficult to develop for was the ps3. It's initial games looked easily inferior to 360 often with lower frame rates but then the final games making use  of all the cell processors, the huge blu-ray disc and full 7.1 sound were pretty amazing and didn't look like they were possible on 360 or wii u. Such was the gulf between early and final ps3 games it looked like a console of maybe 5x the performance at the end. If you look at the early 360 games from decent developers and final the gulf was much smaller and it seems smaller again for wii u. Not only that but the ps3 was providing a lot more 1080p and 3D games than the other formats with an amazing quality 7.1 less compressed soundtrack too.



Around the Network
Jumpin on 27 December 2016

There are two types of Nintendo fans. Those that want Nintendo to make a PlayStation, and then the real Nintendo fans.

You can usually differentiate the two based on whether or not they liked NES, Gameboy, DS, and Wii and are looking for Nintendo to make the next interesting console. Or if they were instead fans of GameCube and are looking for Nintendo to make a console that is just like the PS4, except shaped like a purple lunchbox, and an awkward Fisher-Price controller that they will claim is the best controller ever because, despite not being very functional, they like how it feels in their hands.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Soundwave on 27 December 2016
Jumpin said:

There are two types of Nintendo fans. Those that want Nintendo to make a PlayStation, and then the real Nintendo fans.

You can usually differentiate the two based on whether or not they liked NES, Gameboy, DS, and Wii and are looking for Nintendo to make the next interesting console. Or if they were instead fans of GameCube and are looking for Nintendo to make a console that is just like the PS4, except shaped like a purple lunchbox, and an awkward Fisher-Price controller that they will claim is the best controller ever because, despite not being very functional, they like how it feels in their hands.

I like NES, SNES, N64, DS, and 3DS as my favorite Nintendo systems. I don't really mind the Wii U either, it has problems but I think I enjoyed it more than the GameCube or Wii even. 

People want Nintendo to make a "Playstation", largely becuase Nintendo used to BE the Playstation. They were the main brand of the industry and the one that got all the third party support. So for some people going back to that is kind of a "Return of the King" scenario. 

I've given up on that a while ago though, Nintendo just doesn't have it them to compete in that way. Nintendo in terms of traditional consoles will likely never be market leader ever again, and I've kinda made my peace with that. They're just too weird/odd/eccentric and even when they have success they have the uncanny ability to shoot themselves in the foot, thusly ensuring that a company like Sony/MS will always overtake them eventually. 

If you're a Ninendo fan that remembers those days (NES/SNES era primarily) ... enjoy the memories and be happy you were around to experience that time. If you weren't ... well honestly, really what do you have to complain about, because largely Nintendo has never been the market leader for other than 4 out of the last 20 years (and counting), so this should all be normal to you. 

I'm at the point now after being a Ninendo for 25+ years where I just say "enjoy the games they make, try and divorce yourself emotionally as much as possible from the hardware/business side of things." Though sometimes they still drive me crazy.



Jumpin on 27 December 2016
Soundwave said:
Jumpin said:

There are two types of Nintendo fans. Those that want Nintendo to make a PlayStation, and then the real Nintendo fans.

You can usually differentiate the two based on whether or not they liked NES, Gameboy, DS, and Wii and are looking for Nintendo to make the next interesting console. Or if they were instead fans of GameCube and are looking for Nintendo to make a console that is just like the PS4, except shaped like a purple lunchbox, and an awkward Fisher-Price controller that they will claim is the best controller ever because, despite not being very functional, they like how it feels in their hands.

People want Nintendo to make a "Playstation", largely becuase Nintendo used to BE the Playstation. They were the main brand of the industry and the one that got all the third party support. So for some people going back to that is kind of a "Return of the King" scenario. 

I would agree with you on the rest, but this is where I think our agreement breaks. What I'm talking about is the core hardware and platform philosophy as opposed to market dominance. Although, I do think that the best executions of Nintendo's strategy will inevitably be dominant over any iterative strategy.

When it comes to the philosophy over the generations, Playstation has been very different from Nintendo. Playstation is about releasing a consistent piece of hardware with upgraded components generation over generation, and has a strong media component (For example: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays). Nintendo is about changing the way people play games generation over generation (For example: d-pad, scrolling, shoulder buttons, 3D, analog sticks, touch screen, motion controls).

I am not saying Nintendo is progressive, while Sony is conservative. I am saying that Nintendo's core philosophy is an attempt at keeping the way we play games fresh. Nintendo can be confusingly conservative sometimes, and it has really hurt them, and no time was this more clear than during the N64 and Gamecube stretch. Nintendo's core interface with the N64 involved analog sticks for 3D gaming, very progressive moves at the time. At the same time, Nintendo was highly conservative in how they maintained their feudal Second Party organization, AND cartridges, which automatically meant Playstation had FAR more space at a fraction of the cost when compared. N64, as a result, was a resounding failure, and the biggest self-inflicted blow Nintendo ever dealt themselves as a brand. Gamecube was just the aftermath, it wasn't interesting to many because it wasn't anything new. It was just a playstation, for kids, with a less capable controller, and a less capable medium.

On power: Neither Sony nor Nintendo started out as a "Lets make the most powerful console!" style company. Nintendo even start trying to dominate on the power scale until the N64 and Gamecube, and when they got trounced by the much less powerful Sony consoles. Sony didn't get there until the PS3, and Sony lost that generation too, spent most of it in 3rd place. Right now is the first generation where the most powerful console is going to win, and it has little to do with the power, and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo and Microsoft screwed up on interface causing the price of their consoles to be much higher than they otherwise could have been.

 

I suppose saying "true" Nintendo fans, as I did earlier, was probably incorrect. The fans that want an alternatively branded Playstation console (We'll call them group A) are still Nintendo fans, they're just a different sort. They don't care about Nintendo's philosophy, they care about Sony's philosophy, and how powerful the console is, they just want Nintendo to be the biggest and strongest Playstation-style console, they're fans of the Nintendo logo. The second group (group B) are more interested in how Nintendo is going to advance the industry, and aren't necessarily fans of the conservative approaches Nintendo sometimes takes (We liked the 3D and analog sticks on the N64, but disliked the cartridges and second party organization, even if we were fans of those second parties). Group B wants to see Nintendo successfully forge fresh new experiences that revolutionize the industry. Another core experience that Group B Nintendo fans love is the local multiplayer, experiencing games with our families is important, we grew up playing NES with our siblings, and we played Wii with our friends and our own children, and the same deal goes with DS. That's probably why Wii U was not popular among group B, while Wii was extremely popular.

In short, Group A is a fan of the Nintendo brand, while group B is a fan of what Nintendo does.
The reason why I implied, earlier, that Group A weren't real Nintendo fans is because, while they profess their love for Nintendo, they're not actually fans of what Nintendo does. Group A are fans of what Sony does, and wish Nintendo was making an alternative playstation instead of an NES, an SNES, a Gameboy, a Wii, a DS, or a Switch.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

AngryLittleAlchemist on 27 December 2016
Jumpin said:
Soundwave said:

People want Nintendo to make a "Playstation", largely becuase Nintendo used to BE the Playstation. They were the main brand of the industry and the one that got all the third party support. So for some people going back to that is kind of a "Return of the King" scenario. 

I would agree with you on the rest, but this is where I think our agreement breaks. What I'm talking about is the core hardware and platform philosophy as opposed to market dominance. Although, I do think that the best executions of Nintendo's strategy will inevitably be dominant over any iterative strategy.

When it comes to the philosophy over the generations, Playstation has been very different from Nintendo. Playstation is about releasing a consistent piece of hardware with upgraded components generation over generation, and has a strong media component (For example: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays). Nintendo is about changing the way people play games generation over generation (For example: d-pad, scrolling, shoulder buttons, 3D, analog sticks, touch screen, motion controls).

I am not saying Nintendo is progressive, while Sony is conservative. I am saying that Nintendo's core philosophy is an attempt at keeping the way we play games fresh. Nintendo can be confusingly conservative sometimes, and it has really hurt them, and no time was this more clear than during the N64 and Gamecube stretch. Nintendo's core interface with the N64 involved analog sticks for 3D gaming, very progressive moves at the time. At the same time, Nintendo was highly conservative in how they maintained their feudal Second Party organization, AND cartridges, which automatically meant Playstation had FAR more space at a fraction of the cost when compared. N64, as a result, was a resounding failure, and the biggest self-inflicted blow Nintendo ever dealt themselves as a brand. Gamecube was just the aftermath, it wasn't interesting to many because it wasn't anything new. It was just a playstation, for kids, with a less capable controller, and a less capable medium.

On power: Neither Sony nor Nintendo started out as a "Lets make the most powerful console!" style company. Nintendo even start trying to dominate on the power scale until the N64 and Gamecube, and when they got trounced by the much less powerful Sony consoles. Sony didn't get there until the PS3, and Sony lost that generation too, spent most of it in 3rd place. Right now is the first generation where the most powerful console is going to win, and it has little to do with the power, and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo and Microsoft screwed up on interface causing the price of their consoles to be much higher than they otherwise could have been.

 

I suppose saying "true" Nintendo fans, as I did earlier, was probably incorrect. The fans that want an alternatively branded Playstation console (We'll call them group A) are still Nintendo fans, they're just a different sort. They don't care about Nintendo's philosophy, they care about Sony's philosophy, and how powerful the console is, they just want Nintendo to be the biggest and strongest Playstation-style console, they're fans of the Nintendo logo. The second group (group B) are more interested in how Nintendo is going to advance the industry, and aren't necessarily fans of the conservative approaches Nintendo sometimes takes (We liked the 3D and analog sticks on the N64, but disliked the cartridges and second party organization, even if we were fans of those second parties). Group B wants to see Nintendo successfully forge fresh new experiences that revolutionize the industry. Another core experience that Group B Nintendo fans love is the local multiplayer, experiencing games with our families is important, we grew up playing NES with our siblings, and we played Wii with our friends and our own children, and the same deal goes with DS. That's probably why Wii U was not popular among group B, while Wii was extremely popular.

In short, Group A is a fan of the Nintendo brand, while group B is a fan of what Nintendo does.
The reason why I implied, earlier, that Group A weren't real Nintendo fans is because, while they profess their love for Nintendo, they're not actually fans of what Nintendo does. Group A are fans of what Sony does, and wish Nintendo was making an alternative playstation instead of an NES, an SNES, a Gameboy, a Wii, a DS, or a Switch.

You have a good way of trying to correct the idea that nintendo fans CAN want a console like the Playstation while still being fans, and then at the same time slight them like you did previously. You're wording is very passive in it's attempts to make those fans seem less legitimate.

You first tried to slight them by saying they weren't fans, then you tried to correct yourself to seem more fair and neutral by saying that they were fans. But then you went on to say that they just cared about the company logo....and that, is ridiculous. 

The NES to Gamecube all offered innovative experiences that many in Group A care about, and want to see succeeding more than ever. In other words, they want a future where Nintendo consoles are comparable to their competitors, but still offer innovative Nintendo experiences. Games. Isn't the whole point of a game console the games themselves? And what better way to make games more innovative than to make a console that supports games of all variety.  The wii wasn't that console, it was innovative because it forced 1st parties and occasionally 3rd parties to use a control scheme new to the gaming industry, a conrol scheme that by in large ONLY positively affected the Wii's marketing and thus sales, and not the actual gameplay experience itself. 

In other words, you can be a fan of Nintendo's philosophy, but not of the need to incorporate it into the consoles design. All Nintendo did with the Wii realistically is change the way you play their games, but did that really make the individual experiences any better?  Besides Metroid Prime Trilogy, Pikmin, and Zelda for hardcore gamers, I can't think of a single game who's value was exponentially increased using the Wii remote. Sure the pack in title Wii Sports was great, but many gamers don't find value in it.

 

 I do find myself genuinely excited for the Switch. It's simply the best "gimimck" Nintendo has ever had. But it's for one big reason = the only gimmick is the games.  Think about it, the ability to take your games on the go is something universally appealing, it has nothing to do with a specific control scheme. The ability to play all of Nintendo's first party offerings is something game centric. And if Nintendo Switch has compatibility with Nintendo's previous hardware offerings, than we can use the Joycons with a motion sensor, we can use a touch screen on the controller, we can use all these things that are important to the few titles that Nintendo heavily supported with these features during the Wii/U-DS era. 

 

Where the problems lie is mostly if the third party support will even be their. My guess is : yes. So for me, i'm personally more concerned about the storage device, online capabilities, etc.



Around the Network
SonytendoAmiibo on 27 December 2016
Jumpin said:
Soundwave said:

People want Nintendo to make a "Playstation", largely becuase Nintendo used to BE the Playstation. They were the main brand of the industry and the one that got all the third party support. So for some people going back to that is kind of a "Return of the King" scenario. 

I would agree with you on the rest, but this is where I think our agreement breaks. What I'm talking about is the core hardware and platform philosophy as opposed to market dominance. Although, I do think that the best executions of Nintendo's strategy will inevitably be dominant over any iterative strategy.

When it comes to the philosophy over the generations, Playstation has been very different from Nintendo. Playstation is about releasing a consistent piece of hardware with upgraded components generation over generation, and has a strong media component (For example: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays). Nintendo is about changing the way people play games generation over generation (For example: d-pad, scrolling, shoulder buttons, 3D, analog sticks, touch screen, motion controls).

I am not saying Nintendo is progressive, while Sony is conservative. I am saying that Nintendo's core philosophy is an attempt at keeping the way we play games fresh. Nintendo can be confusingly conservative sometimes, and it has really hurt them, and no time was this more clear than during the N64 and Gamecube stretch. Nintendo's core interface with the N64 involved analog sticks for 3D gaming, very progressive moves at the time. At the same time, Nintendo was highly conservative in how they maintained their feudal Second Party organization, AND cartridges, which automatically meant Playstation had FAR more space at a fraction of the cost when compared. N64, as a result, was a resounding failure, and the biggest self-inflicted blow Nintendo ever dealt themselves as a brand. Gamecube was just the aftermath, it wasn't interesting to many because it wasn't anything new. It was just a playstation, for kids, with a less capable controller, and a less capable medium.

On power: Neither Sony nor Nintendo started out as a "Lets make the most powerful console!" style company. Nintendo even start trying to dominate on the power scale until the N64 and Gamecube, and when they got trounced by the much less powerful Sony consoles. Sony didn't get there until the PS3, and Sony lost that generation too, spent most of it in 3rd place. Right now is the first generation where the most powerful console is going to win, and it has little to do with the power, and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo and Microsoft screwed up on interface causing the price of their consoles to be much higher than they otherwise could have been.

 

I suppose saying "true" Nintendo fans, as I did earlier, was probably incorrect. The fans that want an alternatively branded Playstation console (We'll call them group A) are still Nintendo fans, they're just a different sort. They don't care about Nintendo's philosophy, they care about Sony's philosophy, and how powerful the console is, they just want Nintendo to be the biggest and strongest Playstation-style console, they're fans of the Nintendo logo. The second group (group B) are more interested in how Nintendo is going to advance the industry, and aren't necessarily fans of the conservative approaches Nintendo sometimes takes (We liked the 3D and analog sticks on the N64, but disliked the cartridges and second party organization, even if we were fans of those second parties). Group B wants to see Nintendo successfully forge fresh new experiences that revolutionize the industry. Another core experience that Group B Nintendo fans love is the local multiplayer, experiencing games with our families is important, we grew up playing NES with our siblings, and we played Wii with our friends and our own children, and the same deal goes with DS. That's probably why Wii U was not popular among group B, while Wii was extremely popular.

In short, Group A is a fan of the Nintendo brand, while group B is a fan of what Nintendo does.
The reason why I implied, earlier, that Group A weren't real Nintendo fans is because, while they profess their love for Nintendo, they're not actually fans of what Nintendo does. Group A are fans of what Sony does, and wish Nintendo was making an alternative playstation instead of an NES, an SNES, a Gameboy, a Wii, a DS, or a Switch.

 

You left Nintendo fans group C out. It COMBINES group A and group B into the most passionate gamers the world has ever known. Life is never just black and white, except in your mind.

   

Hey! They got SONY on my amiibo! Wait a minute. Two great gaming tastes that game great together!

Switch FC: SW-0398-8858-1969

Pyro as Bill on 29 December 2016
Jumpin said:

There are two types of Nintendo fans. Those that want Nintendo to make a PlayStation, and then the real Nintendo fans.

You can usually differentiate the two based on whether or not they liked NES, Gameboy, DS, and Wii and are looking for Nintendo to make the next interesting console. Or if they were instead fans of GameCube and are looking for Nintendo to make a console that is just like the PS4, except shaped like a purple lunchbox, and an awkward Fisher-Price controller that they will claim is the best controller ever because, despite not being very functional, they like how it feels in their hands.

Only one type of Nintendo fan.

The rest are fifth columnists and should be treated as such.

The GCers and WiiUers need to be destroyed before they destroy Nintendo.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

mutantsushi on 29 December 2016

b



Pyro as Bill on 29 December 2016
mutantsushi said:

b

>Buy WiiU

>Nintendo fan

Choose one.

Buying a Wii-U is actually supporting Sony and Microsoft. I hope you can live with yourself.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

oniyide on 29 December 2016
Pyro as Bill said:
mutantsushi said:

b

>Buy WiiU

>Nintendo fan

Choose one.

Buying a Wii-U is actually supporting Sony and Microsoft. I hope you can live with yourself.

How you come to that conclusion?