I've met him a couple times (I live in North Dallas, kinda near where Gearbox is). He's a great dude. But...he's kinda full of it when it comes to PR.Blind Sight said:
Metro: Last Light Developer Dumps on Wii U
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Oh man, did it ever. It was up there with Crysis 1 in terms of being unoptimized.JediMB said:
Not to detract from the game(s), of course. They were very entertaining and incredibly "pretty". Just...you know...not quite the pinnacle of efficiency.
O.T. :
I find it odd this guy is "dumping" on the Wii U, calling it "horribly slow", when his company is actively developing their new game for the Xbox 360.
This screams of nonsense, honestly. Me thinks this is just a flimsy excuse to cover up some other reason for not developing for the Wii U. A reason they're not quite comfortable with or are unwilling to admit to.
I could be wrong, but so far more companies seem to think of the Wii U as far better than the current generation as opposed to "horrible" and "slow".
It's not "ignorant tripe". It is absolutely relevant and more of a dig, I don't know why you didn't pick up on that? It's a dig. The hardware is more or less consistent with "last gen", which is absurd. When Microsoft and Sony dump their "next gen" or "this gen" since apparently Nintendo already started, then the Wii U will not meet the standard.. which is why everyone talks about it in that manner.CriticKitten said:
Its more or less just disappointing, as it was being lauded for being "high power" for the hype period.. and turns out it really isn't.
Your "fanboi" accusations are kind of remarkable, considering you're telling people to shut up and "wait for the future" before criticizing the console. Okay.
Actually, the hardware is farther ahead then the 360/PS3. Sure, it's not Modern PC tech, but it's still farther ahead. The PS3/360 had Tech from 2003,2004? The WiiU has tech from 2008-2009 (From what I've read). It's still years ahead from PS3 and 360.nexus said:
Think about it; The Last Generation, Xbox 360 games started out looking like Xbox games. They advanced to look so much better (Compare Condemned with Condemned 2). So think of it this way, if the WiiU looks slightly better then 360/PS3 right now, imagine the future when the developers can play with it more?
Also, I don't know what Microsoft can do, but I can almost Guarantee you that the PS4 will not be a powerhouse. If anything, it will be the PS2 of this generation. The PS4 can't be a powerhouse cause it would cost them too much money, money which they don't have, and they would have to sell it at a lost, costing them more money, and it would still be too expensive for anyone to buy. For reference, the PS3 cost 800$ to make, and they sold it at "Five Hundred Ninety Nine US dollars". People weren't willing to shill 599 for a console, and thus, the PS3 suffered, causing Sony to loose money, money which they have only started to make back (And loose to the Vita). Sony cannot continue down the path of Power-Housery, they have to do something cheap or else be destroyed. I can guarantee you, the PS4 will be 'weak'. It will be as 'weak' as the WiiU is.
They DO reap profits mate, you should do some research before commenting on their situation. The UDraw tablet's investment was almost a pure loss (in the millions) and if I recall correctly the man that backed it most at THQ isn't there (due to the fact it was an obviously stupid idea).CrossLOPER said:
Captcha: Marry me. Nothanks SOLVEmedia
They sold it for $1200 here at a profit so your argument is invalid.Mr.Mattress said:
His argument is erroneous. First the Wii U's processor is well above the current generation. However, if he was expecting a huge jump that just wasn't going to happen. CPU speeds have been stagnant for almost the last decade. If he thinks the Wii U CPU is too Slow for his game then So is every PC and Console CPU so he has no market for his game. If he had kept his complaint more general then no one would be able to call him out on his bull, but he singled out the CPU. I highly doubt that IBM's flagship Power Arch used in Watson is too Slow for anyone. It might be too difficult to design for, but I doubt that since they went with the 3 core design that the 360 went with which is what make the 360 easier to code for. Details from IBM would be nice. However, given the fiasco with the PS3 and 360 Processor Nintendo probably put them under a iron clad contract. The Fiasco, if you're not aware, is were IBM sold the same chip design to MS and Sony. True story, the designer wrote a book about it. With a couple of minor details the chips are basically the same architecture. MS basically went up to IBM and said we want the chip you're making for Sony in our system but we want it sooner and with XBox backwards compatibility. Sony opted out of hardware level backwards compatibility due to price and thought that they would be able to resolve the issue in emulation, never worked. MS was unhappy initially because the Backward compatibility made their version a little weaker, but their loss of 1 core and double bonding to make 3 core made it easier to work with paid off.Darmy647 said:
The entire thing actually sounds like THQ doing a CYA to justify to their board why they aren't making any games for the Wii U. If they can go to their board and say "See here one of our developers says it's not good". They are ultimately making a bet on their jobs. If it turns out that the Wii U sells even better than the Wii then heads will roll. The board will be very upset if come this time next year that the Wii U is the top selling system, and they have no games on it.
No, it's not invalid, because one simple thing is needed to be determined: How many sold at 1200$? How many more sold when price drops hit? Did you buy a PS3 at 1200$? Did you wait for a Price Drop? How many people kept their 1200$ dollar PS3's?rapidoud said:
The PS3 was basically in 3rd place everywhere (Except in Japan), and it still hemorrhaged them money. Even if they didn't sell it at a lost where you are, do you honestly think a lot of people were buying it at such an expensive price? I know I wouldn't have. A console that isn't being sold at a loss but isn't being sold is no better then selling a console at a loss and selling it.
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?
And I mean on a practical level here.
From where I'm sitting, I get the feeling that the next gen will most likely be defined by improved network connections, advanced social interaction and online streaming (like OnLive, etc). There may also be more of a focus on improved and enhanced user interfaces, and more of a focus on designing the perfect 'home entertainment' system that does everything (including making your tea) and less on designing a machine that's solely intended for playing games. Basically the improvements will be in what's considered right now to be the boring back-stage stuff.
In terms of graphics, the improvement curve is starting to plateau now, and I'm not entirely convinced it's because of current gen limitations. For the next generations of games, there may be a slight bump up in the visuals and audio, as seen in the Wii-U, but I'm skeptical that it will be as much of a leap as it was between - say - the PS2 and PS3.
Remember, if it's still extremely expensive to make an A+ game to current-gen specs at the end of the current cycle, imagine how much more money developers and publishers would have to sink into a next-gen game if everything has to be near-to-photorealistic.
The industry just won't be able to sustain that, especially in this day and age.
One of the reasons why the Wii became the surprise seller this generation was because Sony and Microsoft were basically stuck in a glorified dick-swinging contest over who had the best graphics. Seriously, the E3 conference where they unveiled their new consoles, Sony and Microsoft should have just brought out two Jeremy Clarksons to duel over who could scream "POWER!!!!" the loudest.
It reached a point that still stands to this day; there's very little difference in what the PS3 and Xbox 360 have to offer, which doesn't really leave much by way of choice between the two. Really, if you're going to buy one, you may as well just decide on the flip of a coin.
The Wii, however, wisely chose to distance itself from that schoolyard war and focus on providing a new user interface that was easy to sell and exciting at the time (still is, in my humble opinion, when it's done right). That's how it won over so many wallets; it set itself apart from its competitors (I know, that's business 101 stuff, but it still needs to be said).
The Wii-U's a tougher sell, and frankly Nintendo haven't been doing a very good job at it, but I do think the gamepad controller is enough of an innovation to see the console at least do a lot better in the long run when people fully "get it", so to speak.
I wouldn't necessarily call the gamepad a game-changer in the way motion controls have been, but it does have the potential for more practical uses in and outside of the gaming world than its naysayers claim.
The tl:dr version: in my humble opinion, the next generation may not be defined by power, but more by the difference in player experience.
As it stands right now, and as Jim Sterling has already pointed out on this very website, the Wii-U kind of has the edge on that right now.
And I mean on a practical level here.
From where I'm sitting, I get the feeling that the next gen will most likely be defined by improved network connections, advanced social interaction and online streaming (like OnLive, etc). There may also be more of a focus on improved and enhanced user interfaces, and more of a focus on designing the perfect 'home entertainment' system that does everything (including making your tea) and less on designing a machine that's solely intended for playing games. Basically the improvements will be in what's considered right now to be the boring back-stage stuff.
In terms of graphics, the improvement curve is starting to plateau now, and I'm not entirely convinced it's because of current gen limitations. For the next generations of games, there may be a slight bump up in the visuals and audio, as seen in the Wii-U, but I'm skeptical that it will be as much of a leap as it was between - say - the PS2 and PS3.
Remember, if it's still extremely expensive to make an A+ game to current-gen specs at the end of the current cycle, imagine how much more money developers and publishers would have to sink into a next-gen game if everything has to be near-to-photorealistic.
The industry just won't be able to sustain that, especially in this day and age.
One of the reasons why the Wii became the surprise seller this generation was because Sony and Microsoft were basically stuck in a glorified dick-swinging contest over who had the best graphics. Seriously, the E3 conference where they unveiled their new consoles, Sony and Microsoft should have just brought out two Jeremy Clarksons to duel over who could scream "POWER!!!!" the loudest.
It reached a point that still stands to this day; there's very little difference in what the PS3 and Xbox 360 have to offer, which doesn't really leave much by way of choice between the two. Really, if you're going to buy one, you may as well just decide on the flip of a coin.
The Wii, however, wisely chose to distance itself from that schoolyard war and focus on providing a new user interface that was easy to sell and exciting at the time (still is, in my humble opinion, when it's done right). That's how it won over so many wallets; it set itself apart from its competitors (I know, that's business 101 stuff, but it still needs to be said).
The Wii-U's a tougher sell, and frankly Nintendo haven't been doing a very good job at it, but I do think the gamepad controller is enough of an innovation to see the console at least do a lot better in the long run when people fully "get it", so to speak.
I wouldn't necessarily call the gamepad a game-changer in the way motion controls have been, but it does have the potential for more practical uses in and outside of the gaming world than its naysayers claim.
The tl:dr version: in my humble opinion, the next generation may not be defined by power, but more by the difference in player experience.
As it stands right now, and as Jim Sterling has already pointed out on this very website, the Wii-U kind of has the edge on that right now.
Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.Foolproof said: