Grampy said: Squilliam said: I thought the whole idea of the Wii was low development costs! If you start designing engines etc then your budget could easily be greater than a HD console game on a paid for engine. You also have a time delay factor as well to consider. It is no harder and probably easier to develop for the Wii than the PS2. It's familiar now but developers universally said it was a bitch to develop for. The Wii is the growing market, the PS2 is yesterday’s news. Let them make games for the Wii and then port them over to the PS2. The Wii is the success story of the video game industry and the owners should not have to eat table scraps from the PS2. But if they want to do it that way, OK fine. For myself, having read this material, I WILL NEVER AGAIN SPEND ONE F**CKING CENT FOR A LOUSY PS2 PORT.

Haha agreed on the PS2 port thing, I hate them too, I also dislike the console for many reasons so I can understand your feelings. Last generation engines should be left where they are.

I would say they simply don't know what to do with the Wii, until some third party games start being successful they probably don't know what direction they're aiming for. This is new territory for them. They don't have much information to work from so I can understand some publishers and developers being conservative with how they approach the system.

Nintendo may have "disrupted" the market, but they also did the same for the people who develop software for the platform. They don't know their place yet in the 'new world order'.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I'm wrong twilight prince.I might start my updated analysis on the wiis graphics. I was planning on doing that. I just had to learn a few more things about producing graphics on consoles. I will probably be done with it by sunday.

Hold

Kytiara said: You know, for once instead of blaming the developers and calling them lazy, why don't you blame the people who actually make decisions such as the executives setting budgets and timelines... Sorry, but people constantly saying that its all the lazy developers fault pisses me off because often we (as I developer software) don't have that much say in what goes out in the final product. edit: Just a final point, the games that look good and play good, probably got way more budget and likely had less strict deadlines than those that play like crap or look the same...

Hold on there Pilgrim, I was using the term developer meaning the company, not the hard working guys in the trenches. I'm pretty sure that no actual designer or programmer ever wanted to do a half assed job. I'm perfectly aware that the blame goes to the brass hats and bean counters. Those are the ones that need an attitude readjustment. I've read on line that a lot of the people who actually do the games are interested in trying their hand at the Wii, and given the leadership and support they deserve and need, they'd probably do a damn good job.

sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: I've been saying since I joned vgchartz. I believe the wii is 3 times more powerful than the original xbox/gamecube, and 4-6 times more powerful than the ps2. I beleive it is 4-6 times less powerful than the ps360, about the same difference between the ps2 and wii is the wii and hd consoles. Devs are far too lazy. High voltage, and Tecmo/Grasshopper, and nintendo are the only ones seem to try to make good wii graphics. I love my Wii and all, but I do think you're overestimating its graphical prowess here. By a lot. That said, it's never been the graphics that bothers me about the Wii (shoot, I still play NES games once in a while). No, the part that concerns me is the reports I've heard that the memory is too low for developers to do things like having advanced AI and the like. Mind you, from all the PC and HD console games I've played, developers don't take advantage of the hardware to give us good AI anyhow, but it's always nice to dream of a game where the computer's strategy doesn't come down to "charge!" in every situation... Explain how I'm overestimating it. The wii has far more memory, faster memory, more efficent cpu/ gpu by alot, and texture compression that the original xbox didn't have. Since when did you need alot of memory for AI? I'm pretty sure that is mostly done by the cpu.

 True, the Wii has more of everything than even the X-Box, but I'm highly sceptical that it's three times more powerful than the X-Box was. In fact, from what I've read, it's better than the X-Box in some ways, and weaker in a select few areas. Here.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx

"Our second source echoed that assessment of the Wii's graphics chip, comparing its fixed-function design to that the Gamecube, saying that it was "basically pretty similar" to Nvidia's seven-year-old GeForce2. "A dev support guy from Nintendo said that the Wii chipset is 'Gamecube 1.5 with some added memory,'" our second source told us. "I figure if they say that, it must be true."

 

Our second source went on to explain that the "Gamecube 1.5" moniker, while accurate, doesn't mean that gamers won't see graphical improvements on the Wii. "There are three main differences which will result in graphics improvements. One, the increased memory clock speed, from 162 megahertz to 243 megahertz, means that it is easier to do enough pixels for 480p mode versus 480i. Two, the enhanced memory size of the Wii gives much more room for image-related operations such as anti-aliasing, motion blur, etc. The performance to these memory systems from the graphics chip is also improved. So full-screen effects and increased texture usage seem likely as a result.""

 

My conclusion: the Wii has enough stuff under the hood to get us the games, but it's hardly a graphical powerhouse. I'm perfectly fine with that: as I said, I still go back and play old games on a regular basis, so graphics take a big backseat in my book. And besides, as you yourself have shown, the Wii is quite capable of putting out the eye-candy when the developer wants it to. But it does us no good to overestimate its graphics. 

 

As for the AI issue, you may well be right. I'm simply echoing what I've heard from others, since my knowledge of how software works is sketchy at best. If you're correct, and if the Wii's CPU is good enough to give me the smart AI I crave, then I take back what I said about that. But I stand by my comment that damn few developers devote as much attention and energy to AI as they should, no matter what the platform.

 

Squilliam said: Grampy said: Squilliam said: I thought the whole idea of the Wii was low development costs! If you start designing engines etc then your budget could easily be greater than a HD console game on a paid for engine. You also have a time delay factor as well to consider. It is no harder and probably easier to develop for the Wii than the PS2. It's familiar now but developers universally said it was a bitch to develop for. The Wii is the growing market, the PS2 is yesterday’s news. Let them make games for the Wii and then port them over to the PS2. The Wii is the success story of the video game industry and the owners should not have to eat table scraps from the PS2. But if they want to do it that way, OK fine. For myself, having read this material, I WILL NEVER AGAIN SPEND ONE F**CKING CENT FOR A LOUSY PS2 PORT. Haha agreed on the PS2 port thing, I hate them too, I also dislike the console for many reasons so I can understand your feelings. Last generation engines should be left where they are. I would say they simply don't know what to do with the Wii, until some third party games start being successful they probably don't know what direction they're aiming for. This is new territory for them. They don't have much information to work from so I can understand some publishers and developers being conservative with how they approach the system. Nintendo may have "disrupted" the market, but they also did the same for the people who develop software for the platform. They don't know their place yet in the 'new world order'.

I'm no genius but I think I would take a good hard luck at the third party games that are million sellers, could be a clue.

Unless I've been completely missing all the related industry news stories, there aren't any publishers complaining about the limitations of developing games with strong visuals on the platform.

Why not? Because it really isn't a major concern, particularly not if it would mean a protracted development time for a given project. One of the more appealing aspects of developing for the Wii is reduced development times and budgets.

Of course, the vast majority of gamers who are particular about strong visuals aren't gaming solely on the Wii. That's not the major selling point of the Wii, it never has been and I'm willing to bet big money it never will be.

If solid middleware game engines start becoming common for the platform, great; I'm all for improved visuals on any given platform. But would that convince me to start buying games for the Wii over the PS3 or 360 on the basis of strong visuals? Of course not. They still won't compare.

I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables.

I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360.

As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here...

disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables. I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360. As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here...

This is true. 

With the Wii, the larger the display, the softer/blurrier the image gets.

Wii games will look better on a smaller, quality CRT than any larger flat panel display.  

noname2200 said: sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: I've been saying since I joned vgchartz. I believe the wii is 3 times more powerful than the original xbox/gamecube, and 4-6 times more powerful than the ps2. I beleive it is 4-6 times less powerful than the ps360, about the same difference between the ps2 and wii is the wii and hd consoles. Devs are far too lazy. High voltage, and Tecmo/Grasshopper, and nintendo are the only ones seem to try to make good wii graphics. I love my Wii and all, but I do think you're overestimating its graphical prowess here. By a lot. That said, it's never been the graphics that bothers me about the Wii (shoot, I still play NES games once in a while). No, the part that concerns me is the reports I've heard that the memory is too low for developers to do things like having advanced AI and the like. Mind you, from all the PC and HD console games I've played, developers don't take advantage of the hardware to give us good AI anyhow, but it's always nice to dream of a game where the computer's strategy doesn't come down to "charge!" in every situation... Explain how I'm overestimating it. The wii has far more memory, faster memory, more efficent cpu/ gpu by alot, and texture compression that the original xbox didn't have. Since when did you need alot of memory for AI? I'm pretty sure that is mostly done by the cpu.  True, the Wii has more of everything than even the X-Box, but I'm highly sceptical that it's three times more powerful than the X-Box was. In fact, from what I've read, it's better than the X-Box in some ways, and weaker in a select few areas. Here. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx "Our second source echoed that assessment of the Wii's graphics chip, comparing its fixed-function design to that the Gamecube, saying that it was "basically pretty similar" to Nvidia's seven-year-old GeForce2. "A dev support guy from Nintendo said that the Wii chipset is 'Gamecube 1.5 with some added memory,'" our second source told us. "I figure if they say that, it must be true."   Our second source went on to explain that the "Gamecube 1.5" moniker, while accurate, doesn't mean that gamers won't see graphical improvements on the Wii. "There are three main differences which will result in graphics improvements. One, the increased memory clock speed, from 162 megahertz to 243 megahertz, means that it is easier to do enough pixels for 480p mode versus 480i. Two, the enhanced memory size of the Wii gives much more room for image-related operations such as anti-aliasing, motion blur, etc. The performance to these memory systems from the graphics chip is also improved. So full-screen effects and increased texture usage seem likely as a result.""   My conclusion: the Wii has enough stuff under the hood to get us the games, but it's hardly a graphical powerhouse. I'm perfectly fine with that: as I said, I still go back and play old games on a regular basis, so graphics take a big backseat in my book. And besides, as you yourself have shown, the Wii is quite capable of putting out the eye-candy when the developer wants it to. But it does us no good to overestimate its graphics.    As for the AI issue, you may well be right. I'm simply echoing what I've heard from others, since my knowledge of how software works is sketchy at best. If you're correct, and if the Wii's CPU is good enough to give me the smart AI I crave, then I take back what I said about that. But I stand by my comment that damn few developers devote as much attention and energy to AI as they should, no matter what the platform.

Yeah , but if you read any of the quotes in the op you will know why the wii isn't weaker than the original xbox in some ways. Please read the op again if you haven't. If you don't understand then ask me to explain. It definately isn't a powerhouse, but 3 times more powerful isn't too much compared to what the ps360 are to the xbox. I shouldn't even say it in these linear terms. It shoudl be more on how much each area is better than each area of the xbox original. I will do that in my analysis.

 

disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma

 ...the hate is swelling in me now...