Metro: Last Light Developer Dumps on Wii U
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So to translate: We don't like the Nintendo system because when we saw preliminary specs that put it slightly slower then the systems we were developing for. We just stopped looking at it even though those specs have changed, and are not only on par, but actually better then (in output potential) then the system we are developing for, and IT'S JUST HARD"
OT:
OT:
no it is not equal to last gen systems it actually exceeds them in both processor, and graphics (which are large bottle necks for both of those systems), so in essence it is a next gen console because it is better then the best of the current generation (depending on which of those you believe it to be). So please stop listening to these "experts" who don't understand what they are talking about that are calling the Wii-U equivalent to current gen systems.Xan Krieger said:
A lot of this is the fact that the Wii U is new, and will take developers a little more effort to learn.
But also it does have its foibles, although it has more memory than either the 360 or PS3, memory access is quite slow except to the eDRAM, which is only 32MB, so some things are harder to do with it than they are with other consoles where main RAM can be used for them (noticably, Batman: Arkham City has lower quality shadows, and some games lack antialiasing).
In time, Wii U versions of things may well be better than both of the previous generation HD consoles, but not yet. (Mass Effect 3, for instance, runs at a consistently lower framerate than the Xbox 360 version).
But also it does have its foibles, although it has more memory than either the 360 or PS3, memory access is quite slow except to the eDRAM, which is only 32MB, so some things are harder to do with it than they are with other consoles where main RAM can be used for them (noticably, Batman: Arkham City has lower quality shadows, and some games lack antialiasing).
In time, Wii U versions of things may well be better than both of the previous generation HD consoles, but not yet. (Mass Effect 3, for instance, runs at a consistently lower framerate than the Xbox 360 version).
Your link says Cinematic are for the Wii U, and that it's mostly equivalent to Xbox 360 in actual gameplay, with some minor issues. That doesn't sound like the 360 wins... If anything, it says it's a tie with 360 and WiiU, and the PS3 in last.Eri said:
Also, take a look at this:
Make sure your on 1080p though, cause then the differences really stand out. The WiiU version of Black Ops 2 appears to be the best looking version of the game.
If the Wii U follows the trend most PCs follow then it will probably have a CPU worse than last gen consoles, it'll just have more of them.Darmy647 said:
3Ghz dual cores were pretty standard a few years back. Right now 2.5Ghz quad cores seem pretty common.
Except it being a console and therefore having to be cheap it'll probably be at 2Ghz or even lower.
Having more cores works great for multithreading. But some things you can't multithread, sometimes you can't start doing thing #2 until thing #1 is finished. And is such a case having worse CPUs but more of them doesn't help at all, it'll only go slower.
The Wii U's specs aren't fully known yet I believe so I don't know if this is actually the case, but it would be a very valid argument for not even looking at the platform.
Did you not read your own link?Eri said:
Choice quotes.
Even the parts that show it to have issues is explained away in the last bit.
Learn to read yo.
Meh, on the BLOPS2 video only the textures looked better for me (most noticeble at the end in the clothes of the soldiers), the rest were just different colors (I dont get why the gun is green in the Xbox/PS3 version lol).Mr.Mattress said:
The thing is are people buying WiiU's just to play games they can already play but that look slightly better? Pay a whole system just for that? This seems to be the kind of tech that should have been released at least 2 years after the launch of the PS3 or something
Fun fact: A Consoles Graphics improve dramatically over time. Here's an example:josemlopes said:
This is one of the first launch titles for the Xbox 360, Condemned. Notice at how terrible it looks: It looks just like an Xbox/Gamecube/High Graphic PS2 game. Plus, it's impossible to run this game in 720p, something the Xbox 360 can do quite well. Compare it to Condemned 2:
Looks so much better, doesn't it? Characters eyes move, the graphics can be in 720p, the characters are more expressive, there's better use of the areas (Debris, coloration, etc), hair looks real, and the enemies are much more expressive/creative.
With time, the WiiU will go from "Looking slightly better then PS3", to "Holly Crud! These Graphics are so beautiful!!"
Except that whole PS3 bit. The PS3 has been proven to be decidedly harder to port to than the 360 and, by all accounts, should be harder to port to than the WiiU. It, based off of evidence show so far and based off of whatever little information we've gleamed from people tearin WiiU's open, is also weaker than the WiiU in terms of sheer power.FelixG said:
Either he's full of shit or this was the easiest answer he could say without goin into specifics.
I wouldn't preclude "full of sit," but it's probably going to be easier to port for a 6 year old console simply due to familiarity. WiiU is infant technology, whereas the PS3 is well-traveled road at this point.shintakie10 said:
No; From what I've heard, it is using more recent components. Not as recent as a 2012 Custom made Gaming PC, but definitely ahead of the 2005/06 Consoles. The WiiU will, in a few years, have games that look as great as Modern day PC games (By the time PC games look way better).Mcoffey said:
Also, the only "Dev" that is straining under the WiiU's limits is this company that had a hard time making a game on the Xbox 360, and who is owned by a company that is going bankrupt. A lot of companies have been praising the WiiU's capabilities; Ubisoft [http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20121115155334_Ubisoft_Happy_with_Nintendo_Wii_U_Technology_Not_Happy_with_the_Price.html], Activision [http://www.videogamer.com/wiiu/call_of_duty_black_ops_2/news/wii_u_is_a_big_step_in_the_right_direction_for_activision_titles_including_call_of_duty.html], Team Ninja [http://n4g.com/news/1119833/team-ninja-on-wii-u-hardware-bringing-qte-free-ninja-gaiden-3-to-ps3-and-360], Gearbox [http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/05/gearbox_wii_u_is_a_powerful_powerful_machine] and even Valve [http://www.1up.com/news/wii-u-valve-games-could-be-match] (Yes, the Valve) have praised the WiiU in terms of Specs. We don't have to worry about Specs.
See, im a hardcore pc gamer myself. I just kind of smell the bullshit here is all. Porting is a whole nother topic. The main topic is how he's talking down to a cpu were not even entirely sure is capable of entirely yet. We got ideas but thats really it. Also, i made this comparison earlier. Look at GTA3 on the ps2. Then look at GTA San Andreas. Holy shit right? It just takes time is all. So its currently at its baby stage and looks a little better than a ps3 and 360. Who says it cant improve when developers actually tap into it? Also, Refer to Jim sterlings videos. Its totally possible the next gen ps3 and 360 successors will either be on par with the wii U or a little better, as they are focusing on other draw-ins than the Core firepower of the system. Its a different field thats panning out folks, this is one we actually cant predict too far ahead yet.
I understand where you are coming from, but as I've said, we don't have to worry about these specs, at least not too much. Many companies that have absolutely no reason to support the WiiU in anyway, such as Gearbox and Valve, are saying the WiiU is much more stronger. I don't think they're using weaker parts, because then Gearbox and Valve wouldn't be saying nice things about the WiiU. Like I said, we don't have to worry about the specs of the WiiU: They are definitely more powerful then the Xbox 360/PS3.Mcoffey said:
It's refreshing after Crytek crying about consoles holding them back.Xan Krieger said:
4A is like "Your console can't cut it, too bad. We're not putting in the work to include you."
Since when did honesty become trash talk? Nintendo hasn't released the CPU they use. Which means it should be pretty well known that it's not very good, because you don't hide good news. I'm glad to hear a dev tell it like it is, instead of trying to suck up to the suits and money.Legion said:
You don't want to spend money on the hardware to make it worthwhile, because you HAD to have that expensive tablet controller, fine. You get piss-poor ports (ME3, BlOps 2 is noticeably inferior, NG3, and Arkham City is a complete mess) and passed over by other multiplatform games altogether.
A ram issue, almost by definition is a coding issue. If you don't have enough memory to do what you want, you don't keep staggering around with your hand out asking for more, you find a way to keep the application from eating everything in easy reach, and most of all the rest.Lyri said:
The slightly more nuanced statement is: it's a long running engine problem that existed in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas long before Skyrim came along. And that's true. But it's still an issue with the porting of the engine and how it retains data. PCs and 360s can handle it, PS3s handle it for a while, but slowly fall apart.
EDIT: I should have said, "a memory allocation issue," which is sort of the problem with Skyrim... more specifically deallocation, because "a ram issue" could be a faulty chip on the memory stick.