Viper1 said: dib8rman said: I've read people saying the PS2 had 60 million polys and that the GC had 12 million. Don't want you to think I'm running from this so, just give me a sec to google it. (I can't remember my source as I read the article just after the Wii's specs were announced.)   The article I read was a direct comparison, but heres basically GC, I'll get Xbox and edit as soon as I find it.   link:  http://tinyurl.com/4a4osq link 2: http://tinyurl.com/4p3vlc   Link 2 is the xbox one   The PS2 was capable of 75 million raw polygons.  This means a blank polygon with no textures, no effects, no game A.I. or game code, etc...  Actual in game polygon performance for the PS2 has peaked at just over 10-12 million.  Nintendo never gave their raw polygon performance only a suspected range of 6-12 million in an actual game.  That was toppled at launch when Factor 5 had the GC pushing 15 million.

Interesting links dib8rman.

I knew that gamecube was better than PS2 but had no clue it was so close to the xbox in real time performance. It all depends on developers anyways. Ninja Gaiden, Resident evil 4 and Doom 3 and few other key games blew anything else away on all 3 platforms and they were released between all 3 platforms so...

coolestguyever said: I betcha naughty dog won't make games for wii either, neither will insomniac, or bungie! why does epic matter so much

Epic doesn't matter more than bungie or naughty dog, or any other company that doesn't make Wii games. but by making dick comments about it, they draw attention to them selves more.

Threads like this crack me up. Anytime someone says something remotely negative about the Wii, the Kyoto Defense Corps comes in and calls the person/company/toadstool an idiot.

Personally, I think he has a point. Out of all the people I know who purchased consoles over the years, more people have lost interest in the Wii than any other I have seen. Hell, it happened to me in 2007, though I just bought another one because there were enough games out for it that the console regained my interest. I know one guy who never even opened his and I know plenty of others who simply stopped playing theirs after a time.

Anyway, Epic is just fine not making Wii games. That's their choice and I doubt they're suffering for it. They did a good job of converting from a PC-only developer to becoming Microsoft's slutty mistress with Gears 1 & 2, receiving a boatload of money in the process. Then, on the side they decided to start giving Sony handjobs in the parking lot and probably received a bunch of money to make UT3 a timed exclusive. At the very least, they received help from Sony to get UE3 running on the PS3, which will make the engine more profitable and viable for them in the future.

On top of that, they've taken UE3 and convinced extremely high profile developers to use it for their games (Mistwalker, BioWare, 2KGames). Somehow, I doubt they're crying themselves to sleep at night worrying that they might not be tapping the Wii market. If anything, they've shown how to dominate the high-definition market better than anyone else thus far.

@rocketpig

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Just because the people you know have stopped playing or never started playing their Wii does not mean that they are representative of the majority, or even of a significant number of people. I would think, if interest had truly dropped off in any meaningful way for the Wii, that we would see sales of Wii software plummet accordingly. Especially for titles which appeal largely to new users, such as Wii Play.

rocketpig said: Threads like this crack me up. Anytime someone says something remotely negative about the Wii, the Kyoto Defense Corps comes in and calls the person/company/toadstool an idiot. Personally, I think he has a point. Out of all the people I know who purchased consoles over the years, more people have lost interest in the Wii than any other I have seen. Hell, it happened to me in 2007, though I just bought another one because there were enough games out for it that the console regained my interest. I know one guy who never even opened his and I know plenty of others who simply stopped playing theirs after a time. Anyway, Epic is just fine not making Wii games. That's their choice and I doubt they're suffering for it. They did a good job of converting from a PC-only developer to becoming Microsoft's slutty mistress with Gears 1 & 2, receiving a boatload of money in the process. Then, on the side they decided to start giving Sony handjobs in the parking lot and probably received a bunch of money to make UT3 a timed exclusive. At the very least, they received help from Sony to get UE3 running on the PS3, which will make the engine more profitable and viable for them in the future. On top of that, they've taken UE3 and convinced extremely high profile developers to use it for their games (Mistwalker, BioWare, 2KGames). Somehow, I doubt they're crying themselves to sleep at night worrying that they might not be tapping the Wii market. If anything, they've shown how to dominate the high-definition market better than anyone else thus far.

 easily the best post in the thread. 

The GC's main problem was it's memory, otherwise it's chipset's architecture was widely ingenious in comparison the Xbox’s.

A friend and I were looking at the more recent consoles and realized the Wii is essentially the GC but backwards. (Dealing with how it’s chips are used in relation to memory.)

Actually I don’t recall which game but the most polys the Xbox ever pushed out before it was canned is about 16 million at 60fps or 30… I can’t remember, like I said this was a while ago.

The GC did 20 million at 60 fps I believe, I’m almost certain that was the case, but the developer claimed going over would kill the Xbox, I would imagine he meant frame rate drop.

Technically the GC with more memory could from how it was described do more than 20 million, but their wasn’t enough space to buffer the textures and that was a major problem Factor 5 couldn’t get around.

I’d imagine considering the model of the PowerPC on the Wii being more inclined on raw power and design and it’s intricate usage of drms could mean the Wii could handle 40~60 million polygons at 60 fps.

The issue would deal with how to use the shaders and mapping… but I’d figure that 60 million polys would be Wii games in 2010/2011 with proper coloring and scaling.

The difference in 2011 to current (which isn’t a fair comparison so don’t take it seriously) PS3 titles in the caliber of Rainbow 6 or Oblivion would be negligible, depending again heavily on the mapping.

For the record I believe PS3 is currently able to push 200 million polygons in as you said real time.


As for Epic ~ their not dumb but they are retarded, some things are better said in other ways - not politically correct but just another way. That way he could cover his arse - but then again it might not need covering.

PC isn't the money so he moved to console which if and when that turns out not to be the money he'll find something else. He's smart because he has to make money, so he bashes the system regardless of personal view points, honestly a CEO with time to play games is rare.

At the same time hes retarded because all he's doing is yelling at the 'core' gamer group. "Don't go over there, bad things are over there, stay here please!!! No! don't even look over their, it's nothing special."

Which isn't going out of the scope that he's already targeting, thus his mainstream is shrinking.

Regardless of who he's permiting to use the UE3 it wont matter if they don't have enough people buying them.

Unless UE3 is the end all engine, which I VERY VERY HIGHLY DOUBT, the PS3 can look much much better than that. 

Sky Render said: @rocketpig The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Just because the people you know have stopped playing or never started playing their Wii does not mean that they are representative of the majority, or even of a significant number of people. I would think, if interest had truly dropped off in any meaningful way for the Wii, that we would see sales of Wii software plummet accordingly. Especially for titles which appeal largely to new users, such as Wii Play.

I prefaced my comment with "Out of all the people I know..." vs. the original quote of "Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on." from Epic.

Gee, it sounds like both of us are speaking anecdotally. I'm not saying everyone loses interest in the Wii nor am I knocking the console in any way, I'm merely pointing out that in my experiences, people seem to lose interest in the console rather quickly. It's not a big deal and in a market that the Wii expanded into so quickly, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising.

Kasz216 said: ToastyJaguar said: bdbdbd said: ToastyJaguar said: Who brought the Red Steal game for the Wii? That uses Epics engine. So stop complaining lol There just not creating any new middleware for use on the Wii because their previous engines can easily be used on the Wii by other developers. So Epic does make money off the Wii in other ways.   From Wikipedia The associate producer of Red Steel Jean-Baptiste Duval, said in an interview with Australian video game magazine Hyper that the game runs on a modified Unreal Engine 2.5. He said that much of the Ubisoft staff had worked on the engine and knew its strengths and weaknesses. The graphics of the game have been designed to achieve a defining artistic style rather than photorealism.   The thing is, that UE 2.5 isn't the most optimal engine for Wii (as the wiki article said: modified) and i have hard time to believe that Epic would be really making money with Wii by having two games use its engine. Or can someone tell me how common Unreal Engine is in Wii games? Redsteel propably wasn't the best example of showing the systems power (although, it was one of the best looking launch games), so maybe a Wii specific engine would be preferred by the developers. Ok this is going to be my last post on this topic. Epic are always making improvements on their game engine, right now that is the Unreal 3 engine and Unreal 4 is being researched by Tim Sweeney the CEO of Epic. They invest huge sums of cash into creating next gen game engines and i'm not saying the Wii isn't next gen but what Epic are creating now is not possible to be implemented on the Wii, if it could, then they would. Alot of effort is put into creating the Unreal 3 engine, they are not going to go back to the Unreal 2 engine and optimise it for the Wii because there is little money to be had, the real money for them is in next gen titles like Gears of War 2. So a lot of people are complaining about the virus comment, it is his view, respect that, other people at Epic will no doubt have other views of the Wii and they probably love it. What i'm trying to say is, if your going to have a go at Epic for not creating games on the Wii, then you may aswell have a go at Nintendo for making their console's hardware unable to run the Unreal 3 engine. See what i'm getting at? There you have it. Don't hate me for it though...   Well you've got the right idea... but the wrong application of it. Their real money isn't in next gen games like gears of war 2. It's in next gen games NOT like gears of war 2. Their real money is in games that they don't make. That use the unreal engine. Which a much greater number of PS360 developers are going to use then Wii developers do to the Wii's ease of use and lower costs. The unreal engine's main bonus is that it's cheaper to liscense then create your own. Therefore the demand on such middleware is going to be much higher on a system that has 4 times the development costs. They could make a game on the Wii, and it is going to profit a lot more then say... Unreal Tournament, however it isn't going to be a demo of the unreal engine which is their main product. They have to keep looking "ahead" technology wise so they are sure they always have one of the better engines to liscense.

I quoted this one because of what Kasz said, although my reply is aimed for Toasty.

I'm not disagreeing you, Epic can manage well without developing for Wii, and known as a middleware company, they do need to focus for next generation. It's not taking long when the next generation consoles games are started for developement, which is when the tools need to be ready, in order to maintain position in the market. Financially in short term it would be better for Epic to make Wii engine, but in long term, focusing on UE4 and later UE5 is much better decision. That's where the money is made for them and that's what i was after.
So, i don't think that the UE2 will be common engine on Wii, unless Epic would make "UE2.8" or something similar, but even if they would, they may face fierce competition, and the time spent to that engine would be off from developing the future engines.
As someone listed how many games use UE3, there would be a lot more if Wii wouldn't have taken the spot and in the other hand, if Epic would have guessed Wiis popularity, we would have seen "UE2.8".

Double

BTW, did it occur to a single person in this thread that when the Wii replacement hits, it will probably be on par with the PS3 or 360?

Meaning that UE3 will run on it from launch... Why on Earth would Epic devote those kinds of resources to make a Wii engine when in 3-4 years, they'll have the Wii 2 market drop right into their lap?