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

Forums - Nintendo - It's time for third parties to make Wii their lead platform

HappySqurriel on 17 December 2008
sanadawarrior said:
HappySqurriel said:
sanadawarrior said:
Wiintendo said:

article:

Two companies with a shrewd approach to minimum system requirements are Blizzard and Valve. Now, I don't want to overload you with a flurry of numbers. But if you compare the minimum specs for Blizzard and Valve titles like World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, and Left 4 Dead with games like Crysis: Warhead, Call of Duty: World at War, and Fallout 3, you'll see that the former have designed their games to run on older, less-powerful machines. By doing so, they've made their games accessible to a wider audience.

 

Indeed lets compare the specs for World of Warcraft a 4 year old game, Half Life 2 Orange box a 4 year old game resold with its various expansions and add ons, and Left 4 Dead a new game built on the engine of a 4 year old game vs. games with current tech.

Fact is WoW and Half Life 2 made people replace hardware, wether it was a graphics card, more ram, or the whole computer when they came out. I know I replaced my laptop for WoW, despite my laptop running FFXI, which was my MMO at the time, pretty darn well. That does not sound like designed to run on older less powerful machines to me. WoW is not successful because of minimum system requirements, despite what many people would want you to think. If that where the case, wouldn't City of Heroes, Lineage II, RF Online, and a dozen other MMO's that share WoW's minimum specs be just as popular or heck, somewhat in the ballpark of WoW's numbers?

Lastly, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, both from Bliz, look like they are going to be breaking banks for system upgrades/new pcs when they come out.

*edit*Also, arent Fallout 3 & COD WaW currently outselling L4D?

 

Well, not really ...

World of Warcraft was far from being graphically impressive when it was first released, and would run quite well on a 3 year old PC in "unpopulated" areas. It was the popularity of World of Warcraft, and having 100+ people in a Zone, that caused people to upgrade their systems.

At the same time, even though Half Life 2 was released in 2004 it ran perfectly well on my system from 2002 which had a Geforce 4 in it. People did upgrade to play Half Life 2 because (unlike games like Crysis) scaled really well and the game was playable on modest hardware and took advantage of more powerful hardware.

Thats silly, of coarse an empty MMO runs great, it's supposed to have 100+ people in zones and such, thats the point. If you can't run that then you need to upgrade. As for graphicaly impressive, it looked better then most of its contemporaries such as FFXI, and SWG, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. As for Half Life 2, most people I knew had to upgrade old computers to play, so if your old rig got you running perfectly then thats great, but not what I saw.

 

So you're comparing its look to 2+ year old games rather than the game that was released in the same month (Everquest 2) which was dramatically more graphically impressive ...

Both games ran very well (including high density zones) on systems that were over 18 months old (and ran to some extent on 3 year old systems) which can hardly be considered to be high system requirements in terms of PC gaming; hell, Half-Life 2 was ported to the XBox which was very similar to a 4 year old gaming PC.

 

To make my point clearer

World of Warcraft

Minimum System Requirements

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® III 800 MHz or AMD Athlon 800 MHz
- 512 MB or more of RAM
- 32 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ 2 class card or above
- DirectX® 9.0c (included) and latest video drivers
- 6.0 GB available HD space
- 4x CD-ROM drive
- A 56k or better Internet connection
- For voice chat, an SSE enabled CPU is required.

Recommended Specifications

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
- 1024 MB RAM
- 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above
- Broadband Internet connection
- Two-button scroll-wheel mouse

Half Life 2

Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:

  • Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
  • OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
  • Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
  • Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
  • Memory: 256 MB RAM
  • Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive

So ... You had to have bought a system in 2001 or later in order to play these games ...



Around the Network
sanadawarrior on 17 December 2008
HappySqurriel said:
sanadawarrior said:
HappySqurriel said:
sanadawarrior said:
Wiintendo said:

article:

Two companies with a shrewd approach to minimum system requirements are Blizzard and Valve. Now, I don't want to overload you with a flurry of numbers. But if you compare the minimum specs for Blizzard and Valve titles like World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, and Left 4 Dead with games like Crysis: Warhead, Call of Duty: World at War, and Fallout 3, you'll see that the former have designed their games to run on older, less-powerful machines. By doing so, they've made their games accessible to a wider audience.

 

Indeed lets compare the specs for World of Warcraft a 4 year old game, Half Life 2 Orange box a 4 year old game resold with its various expansions and add ons, and Left 4 Dead a new game built on the engine of a 4 year old game vs. games with current tech.

Fact is WoW and Half Life 2 made people replace hardware, wether it was a graphics card, more ram, or the whole computer when they came out. I know I replaced my laptop for WoW, despite my laptop running FFXI, which was my MMO at the time, pretty darn well. That does not sound like designed to run on older less powerful machines to me. WoW is not successful because of minimum system requirements, despite what many people would want you to think. If that where the case, wouldn't City of Heroes, Lineage II, RF Online, and a dozen other MMO's that share WoW's minimum specs be just as popular or heck, somewhat in the ballpark of WoW's numbers?

Lastly, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, both from Bliz, look like they are going to be breaking banks for system upgrades/new pcs when they come out.

*edit*Also, arent Fallout 3 & COD WaW currently outselling L4D?

 

Well, not really ...

World of Warcraft was far from being graphically impressive when it was first released, and would run quite well on a 3 year old PC in "unpopulated" areas. It was the popularity of World of Warcraft, and having 100+ people in a Zone, that caused people to upgrade their systems.

At the same time, even though Half Life 2 was released in 2004 it ran perfectly well on my system from 2002 which had a Geforce 4 in it. People did upgrade to play Half Life 2 because (unlike games like Crysis) scaled really well and the game was playable on modest hardware and took advantage of more powerful hardware.

Thats silly, of coarse an empty MMO runs great, it's supposed to have 100+ people in zones and such, thats the point. If you can't run that then you need to upgrade. As for graphicaly impressive, it looked better then most of its contemporaries such as FFXI, and SWG, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. As for Half Life 2, most people I knew had to upgrade old computers to play, so if your old rig got you running perfectly then thats great, but not what I saw.

 

So you're comparing its look to 2+ year old games rather than the game that was released in the same month (Everquest 2) which was dramatically more graphically impressive ...

Both games ran very well (including high density zones) on systems that were over 18 months old (and ran to some extent on 3 year old systems) which can hardly be considered to be high system requirements in terms of PC gaming; hell, Half-Life 2 was ported to the XBox which was very similar to a 4 year old gaming PC.

 

To make my point clearer

World of Warcraft

Minimum System Requirements

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® III 800 MHz or AMD Athlon 800 MHz
- 512 MB or more of RAM
- 32 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ 2 class card or above
- DirectX® 9.0c (included) and latest video drivers
- 6.0 GB available HD space
- 4x CD-ROM drive
- A 56k or better Internet connection
- For voice chat, an SSE enabled CPU is required.

Recommended Specifications

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
- 1024 MB RAM
- 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above
- Broadband Internet connection
- Two-button scroll-wheel mouse

Half Life 2

Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:

  • Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
  • OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
  • Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
  • Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
  • Memory: 256 MB RAM
  • Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive

So ... You had to have bought a system in 2001 or later in order to play these games ...

Are you really giving me 10 fps eyeball bleeding inducing minimum requirements. Just because you can run a game doesn't mean it will run well.  Runing WoW at those settings was god awful, you would litteraly get 3-5 fps in IF and at most 20 in the wilds with no one around.  You know what though, if minimum specs is what we are going by then fine, I concede. The article is still full of it then since the minimum specs for both CoDWaW and Fallout 3 are rather tolerant to older PCs.

CoD WaW

* CPU: AMD 64 3200+ / Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz +
* Memory: 512MB (XP) or 1GB (Vista)
* HD Space: 8GB
* Graphical Card: Nvidia 6600GT/ATI Radeon 1600XT or higher (Shader 3.0 or better) with 256MB memory

Fallout 3

Windows XP/Vista

1GB System RAM (XP) / 2GB System RAM (Vista)

2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor

Direct X 9.0c compliant videocard with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better / ATI X850 or better)

 



BTFeather55 on 17 December 2008
HappySqurriel said:
sanadawarrior said:
HappySqurriel said:
sanadawarrior said:
Wiintendo said:

article:

Two companies with a shrewd approach to minimum system requirements are Blizzard and Valve. Now, I don't want to overload you with a flurry of numbers. But if you compare the minimum specs for Blizzard and Valve titles like World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, and Left 4 Dead with games like Crysis: Warhead, Call of Duty: World at War, and Fallout 3, you'll see that the former have designed their games to run on older, less-powerful machines. By doing so, they've made their games accessible to a wider audience.

 

Indeed lets compare the specs for World of Warcraft a 4 year old game, Half Life 2 Orange box a 4 year old game resold with its various expansions and add ons, and Left 4 Dead a new game built on the engine of a 4 year old game vs. games with current tech.

Fact is WoW and Half Life 2 made people replace hardware, wether it was a graphics card, more ram, or the whole computer when they came out. I know I replaced my laptop for WoW, despite my laptop running FFXI, which was my MMO at the time, pretty darn well. That does not sound like designed to run on older less powerful machines to me. WoW is not successful because of minimum system requirements, despite what many people would want you to think. If that where the case, wouldn't City of Heroes, Lineage II, RF Online, and a dozen other MMO's that share WoW's minimum specs be just as popular or heck, somewhat in the ballpark of WoW's numbers?

Lastly, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, both from Bliz, look like they are going to be breaking banks for system upgrades/new pcs when they come out.

*edit*Also, arent Fallout 3 & COD WaW currently outselling L4D?

 

Well, not really ...

World of Warcraft was far from being graphically impressive when it was first released, and would run quite well on a 3 year old PC in "unpopulated" areas. It was the popularity of World of Warcraft, and having 100+ people in a Zone, that caused people to upgrade their systems.

At the same time, even though Half Life 2 was released in 2004 it ran perfectly well on my system from 2002 which had a Geforce 4 in it. People did upgrade to play Half Life 2 because (unlike games like Crysis) scaled really well and the game was playable on modest hardware and took advantage of more powerful hardware.

Thats silly, of coarse an empty MMO runs great, it's supposed to have 100+ people in zones and such, thats the point. If you can't run that then you need to upgrade. As for graphicaly impressive, it looked better then most of its contemporaries such as FFXI, and SWG, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. As for Half Life 2, most people I knew had to upgrade old computers to play, so if your old rig got you running perfectly then thats great, but not what I saw.

 

So you're comparing its look to 2+ year old games rather than the game that was released in the same month (Everquest 2) which was dramatically more graphically impressive ...

Both games ran very well (including high density zones) on systems that were over 18 months old (and ran to some extent on 3 year old systems) which can hardly be considered to be high system requirements in terms of PC gaming; hell, Half-Life 2 was ported to the XBox which was very similar to a 4 year old gaming PC.

 

To make my point clearer

World of Warcraft

Minimum System Requirements

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® III 800 MHz or AMD Athlon 800 MHz
- 512 MB or more of RAM
- 32 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ 2 class card or above
- DirectX® 9.0c (included) and latest video drivers
- 6.0 GB available HD space
- 4x CD-ROM drive
- A 56k or better Internet connection
- For voice chat, an SSE enabled CPU is required.

Recommended Specifications

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

- Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
- 1024 MB RAM
- 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above
- Broadband Internet connection
- Two-button scroll-wheel mouse

Half Life 2

Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:

  • Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
  • OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
  • Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
  • Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
  • Memory: 256 MB RAM
  • Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive

So ... You had to have bought a system in 2001 or later in order to play these games ...

     The system that I bought in 2004 at Best Buy for $800.00 couldn't play those games.

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Metallicube on 17 December 2008

It just boggles my mind that Wii is NOT the lead platform for third parties after proving it's huge success and is poised to gather 50+% of the console marketshare, and after only just over two years on the market! The collective idiocy (or subbornness) of these third party devs just astounds me. This has to be the first time in gaming history that the lead platform isn't recieving the most/best third party support, especially with a console as dominating as the Wii. I fear the worst for this industry if devs keep subbornly pouring endless resources into their PS360 projects and losing millions in the process, while virtually ignoring the far more successful, far more profitable Wii. Seriously, am I the only one that sees a major problem here??



HappySqurriel on 17 December 2008
BTFeather55 said:

The system that I bought in 2004 at Best Buy for $800.00 couldn't play those games.

 

 

You were ripped off my friend.



Around the Network
Dgc1808 on 17 December 2008

They'll be releasing High Budget games for the Wii, but at first it will only be for testing. As in testing to see how much they would sell as apposed to PS360/PC development.



4 ≈ One

deathcape on 17 December 2008

dharh? are you okay?

what if Fallout 4 will be about as big as Fallout 3

only difference is toned down graphics..

what do YOU like the game for anyway?! for the looks?

horrid..you are a true casual..

any real gamer knows it's about the gameplay..


how come they can praise WoW, and Fallout 2 as great games wit such dated graphics?

because the games themselves are good..that's why


ridiculous..

you're a hardcore fanboy of HD instead of a hardcore fan of games



The Truth About Nintendo

The truth about Hardcore and Casual

Gearbox on 17 December 2008

dead spaces graphics are 2 powerful for the wii wii :) :P



deathcape on 17 December 2008

note to all HD fanboys:

this whole 3d party games to Wii is NOT about graphics

so what Gearbox? we don't want those graphics..we don't need it

the Wii is capabale of really great visuals....with some effects alot like HD

just because alot of 3d parties choose not to use it doesn't mean some of it isn't possible..

so the Wii is capable of more than enough..

as for the game itself?..I'm not sure..how long is it?

10 hours?

the Wii can handle that easily..



The Truth About Nintendo

The truth about Hardcore and Casual

dharh on 17 December 2008
deathcape said:
dharh? are you okay?

what if Fallout 4 will be about as big as Fallout 3

only difference is toned down graphics..

what do YOU like the game for anyway?! for the looks?

horrid..you are a true casual..

any real gamer knows it's about the gameplay..


how come they can praise WoW, and Fallout 2 as great games wit such dated graphics?

because the games themselves are good..that's why


ridiculous..

you're a hardcore fanboy of HD instead of a hardcore fan of games

 

I like games for their story first (which includes atmosphere and looks) and gameplay second. You assume everyone plays games for the 'fun' factor, but some of us   play games to be entertained. Theres a difference.

And I wouldn't want fallout 4 on the wii because of the wiimote. I seriously do not like that thing.

You don't know me at all, I play PS1/DS games far more than I play any other systems games.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.