Metro: Last Light Developer Dumps on Wii U

[Mr.Mattress]

When I meant strain, I was referring to current consoles. But even with more recent components, if they're still weaker componants, I don't see how they could do much. An Nvidia 630 is newer than a 560, but not as powerful, you know?

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.

 

[Lyri]

Two things that I glean from this:

1) Developers need to grow the hell up and stop trash talking like they are still in the school yard.

2) If they are talking about how effort is required to get a PS3 version I predict a poor port. Which will be a pain if it is true, as it's probably the platform I'd choose.

1) Developers are entitled to there opinions too

2) The PS3 has been regarded as notoriously hard to code for since release.

2) Not so much hard to code for specifically. The 360 is basically a low quality PC, so developing for both at the same time is pretty easy (supposidly.) Because of the PS3's architecture, you actually need to rework a lot of the memory and processor interface code or you get things like Skyrim, where the game just wanders around begging for memory that doesn't exist and eating it's own foot.

Or so I'm told...

Skyrim is a ram issue, not the coding.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Im curious about something, and im Defidentally sure the escapist community would be happy to fill me in, but isn't the wii u cpu on par with the 360 and ps3?? I have not been keeping up, pc gamer elites and what-not.

It should noted that the Wii U is a new system so having hardware equivalent to last gen's systems is nothing to be proud of.

OT: Just means they can focus more on the PC version which I am very much looking forward to. Also I love how blunt he was.

It's refreshing after Crytek crying about consoles holding them back.

4A is like "Your console can't cut it, too bad. We're not putting in the work to include you."

 

[Frostbite3789]

1) Developers need to grow the hell up and stop trash talking like they are still in the school yard.

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.

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.

 

[Starke]

Two things that I glean from this:

1) Developers need to grow the hell up and stop trash talking like they are still in the school yard.

2) If they are talking about how effort is required to get a PS3 version I predict a poor port. Which will be a pain if it is true, as it's probably the platform I'd choose.

1) Developers are entitled to there opinions too

2) The PS3 has been regarded as notoriously hard to code for since release.

2) Not so much hard to code for specifically. The 360 is basically a low quality PC, so developing for both at the same time is pretty easy (supposidly.) Because of the PS3's architecture, you actually need to rework a lot of the memory and processor interface code or you get things like Skyrim, where the game just wanders around begging for memory that doesn't exist and eating it's own foot.

Or so I'm told...

Skyrim is a ram issue, not the coding.

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.

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.

 

[Frostbite3789]

A developer that doesn't know to make an optimized game complains about hardware power.
If he CPU was that weak, why is the Aliens developer saying how the WiiU version is the best working and best looking version, excluding the PC ofc.

As much as I adore Gearbox, they often claim to have the sun in their grasp and that doesn't exactly pan out.

Randy Pitchford seems to be on a Molyneaux 2.0 path at the moment. I love Borderlands and all, but there's still that whole Duke Nukem...thing.

 

[deckpunk]

Well, if they were to add the extra work of making a Wii U version, they'd just be increasing the chances that THQ will have gone out of business before the game is released.

I was listening to the bombast and they mentioned how much trouble thq is in, honestly things do not look good. Chances are they may well be going away. Adding another platform to the port list would almost certainly delay the game again and further complicate thqs many problems.

By the way, I was under the impression that Metro 2033 although being a cult favorite with critics, managed only modest sales. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it, I'm just surprised it got a sequel.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

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.

While Arkham City has Frame-Rate issues, I want you to look at BLOPS 2:


Be sure it's in 1080p for the maximum differences. The WiiU's version of BLOPS 2 is not inferior, it is superior graphic wise, and the exact same gameplay wise.

Ninja Gaiden 3: Razors Edge has gotten better reviews then Ninja Gaiden 3: IGN lists NG3 as 3/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/19/ninja-gaiden-3-review]. NG3:RE is listed as a 7.6/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/ninja-gaiden-3-razors-edge-review]! If anything, Ninja Gaiden 3: Razors Edge is a superior port!

IGN also says that Mass Effect 3 on the WiiU is the same as on the Xbox 360/PS3/PC, so it's certainly not inferior.

So sorry, the only port that is Inferior is Arkham City, and that is only because of Frame Rate issues. Blops 2 Looks better and plays the same, NG3:RE has a better scores then NG3, and Mass Effect 3 is completely the same.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Be sure it's in 1080p for the maximum differences. The WiiU's version of BLOPS 2 is not inferior, it is superior graphic wise, and the exact same gameplay wise.

Ninja Gaiden 3: Razors Edge has gotten better reviews then Ninja Gaiden 3: IGN lists NG3 as 3/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/19/ninja-gaiden-3-review]. NG3:RE is listed as a 7.6/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/ninja-gaiden-3-razors-edge-review]! If anything, Ninja Gaiden 3: Razors Edge is a superior port!

IGN also says that Mass Effect 3 on the WiiU is the same as on the Xbox 360/PS3/PC, so it's certainly not inferior.

So sorry, the only port that is Inferior is Arkham City, and that is only because of Frame Rate issues. Blops 2 Looks better and plays the same, NG3:RE has a better scores then NG3, and Mass Effect 3 is completely the same.

A few things I find suspect about that video. One, it's from a source called Ninten2. Boy that's going to be impartial. For two it lumps 360/PS3 and PC together. There are noticeable differences between these three platforms, in that 360 looks superior to the PS3 and the PC version is superior to the 360 version, so that makes it actually impossible for that video to be representative of all three platforms. Another, how is that better on the Wii U? The colors are muddled and the lighting is much more poor, far less dynamic, there's a reason devs were obsessed with bloom lighting for awhile, because bright, dynamic lighting like that was fancy new tech.

Also I've heard of frame rate and audio issues in ME3 and frame-rate issues in NG3, which to be fair was also a problem on the PS3 and 360, so really that game just has it's own problems.

 

[WanderingFool]

Call me all sorts of names but I can't be the only one who was most shocked by the fact that Homefront is getting a sequel. Medal of Honor was critically and, I think commercially a greater success than Homefront 1 if I'm not mistaken and people thought it killed Medal of Honor (before Warfighter happened and killed the franchise for real or so I've come to believe)

So Im not the only one who caught that.

First thing I heard on a Homefront 2.

 

[Eri]

So...he complains its weak and still develops for the 360 which is definitely weaker than the WiiU?

Is there some sort of logic to this I'm missin?

THANK YOU. Thats really all im saying here. Its not fanboyism, its just the fact it doesn't fit logically.

More powerful than a 360? Hardly.

http://kotaku.com/5962603/mass-effect-3-on-xbox-360-vs-ps3-vs-wii-u

360 wins.

Did you not read your own link?

Choice quotes.

the Wii U and Xbox 360 ran at virtual parity for much of the run of the play

Screen-filling effects work causes noticeable frame-rate dips on the Microsoft platform, but Wii U appears to be relatively consistent - even on the more open, challenging battlescapes of Palaven.

Even the parts that show it to have issues is explained away in the last bit.

it also is worth remembering that Mass Effect 3 on Wii U is both a port of a game made for other machines and a day-one game on Wii U. Usually developers can wring way more out of a console in year three or five than they can in year zero.

Learn to read yo.

A brand new console matches 7 year old ones? Amazing!

Time is not an excuse, The game should look infinitely better on the Wii U by virtue of it being a new console, but it doesn't, because instead of using new hardware, they used 6-7 year old hardware that's at best matching what we have already.

 

[shintakie10]

So...he complains its weak and still develops for the 360 which is definitely weaker than the WiiU?

Is there some sort of logic to this I'm missin?

THANK YOU. Thats really all im saying here. Its not fanboyism, its just the fact it doesn't fit logically.

More powerful than a 360? Hardly.

http://kotaku.com/5962603/mass-effect-3-on-xbox-360-vs-ps3-vs-wii-u

360 wins.

Did you not read your own link?

Choice quotes.

the Wii U and Xbox 360 ran at virtual parity for much of the run of the play

Screen-filling effects work causes noticeable frame-rate dips on the Microsoft platform, but Wii U appears to be relatively consistent - even on the more open, challenging battlescapes of Palaven.

Even the parts that show it to have issues is explained away in the last bit.

it also is worth remembering that Mass Effect 3 on Wii U is both a port of a game made for other machines and a day-one game on Wii U. Usually developers can wring way more out of a console in year three or five than they can in year zero.

Learn to read yo.

A brand new console matches 7 year old ones? Amazing!

Time is not an excuse, The game should look infinitely better on the Wii U by virtue of it being a new console, but it doesn't, because instead of using new hardware, they used 6-7 year old hardware that's at best matching what we have already.

Its a port that is a launch title on a completely new console. I'm surprised it plays as well as it does considerin how much time they spent adaptin to the 2 screen interface.

Want a game that looks infinitely better on the WiiU than its competitors? Look at that Black Ops 2 video linked earlier. Tell me that it doesn't look infinitely better so I can giggle uncontrollably.

 

[Eri]

snip

While I'm not doubting that blops looks better, My point is that even the shittiest of shit-ports should look great with it being a new console.

Though after paying further attention, that video is retarded. How can you lump PC in with consoles in a comparison? That's just stupid and makes the whole video worthless.

 

[Lillowh]

So...he complains its weak and still develops for the 360 which is definitely weaker than the WiiU?

Is there some sort of logic to this I'm missin?

THANK YOU. Thats really all im saying here. Its not fanboyism, its just the fact it doesn't fit logically.

More powerful than a 360? Hardly.

http://kotaku.com/5962603/mass-effect-3-on-xbox-360-vs-ps3-vs-wii-u

360 wins.

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.

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.

Well 2 things about that video. 1. Yes, the Wii U DOES have higher texture quality and a few extra lighting effects over the 360 and PS3 version, due to the marginally better but still abysmal by today's standard 1gb of RAM in the Wii U compared to the 512mb shared in the 360/PS3, so it looks better because that single bottleneck was loosened, however 2) That video lost every single bit of credibility the moment it grouped PC in with the PS3/360 footage, like the Wii U was better than all 3, which is a flat out lie.

 

[Slayer_2]

Wait. There is gonna be a Homefront 2?! NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Darmy647]

Unless the large population of gamers truly believe the PS4 and 720 are going to have a cord that surpasses HDMI, that the market can adapt a brand new wave of players and TV's that will specifically be able to play at such a higher and more powerful ability than what the wii U can do, which would force millions of gamers to invest and purchase new and expensive tvs or hardware to be able to output this brilliant and beautiful output they think this PS4 and 720 will no doubt do, especially since as Ive noticed The new clouds and entertainment sets/media outlets sony and microsoft are setting up for are CLEARLY gearing towards true powered upgrades to cpu's rather than gpu's, by all means continue the senseless babble. But once again, another case and point that stands the test of time; Its new and developing hardware, as developers tap into it, we will see what develops. Until then, you PS4 and 720 owners who are sooooo power hungry for such an amazing Jump in gaming evolution, just go PC for gods sakes. You WILL be ahead of the curb and be all powerful. Its what i did.

 

[DjinnFor]

Im curious about something, and im Defidentally sure the escapist community would be happy to fill me in, but isn't the wii u cpu on par with the 360 and ps3?? I have not been keeping up, pc gamer elites and what-not.

I haven't looked into the Wii U much but I know as general principal that comparing game consoles based on hardware specs is practically impossible. Unlike PCs which are designed to be as generalist as possible due to the diversity of programs that need to be run on them (or could potentially be run on them), game consoles generally specialize in performing the mathematical operations that are most common in games.

Depending on the ideas that the hardware designers have for what is necessary and important in video game consoles, and because of the fact that each of them have their own specialized operating system, video game consoles are considerably harder to compare. There are a variety of points of interest here; for example, "Dot Product (multiplication) operations per second" metrics are considerably more important in 3D processing than "floating point operations (which includes addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) per second" metrics; the former is more specialized and important video games and 3D processing than the latter, which is generic and can be very useful in other forms of computing.

For the 360 versus PS3 debate, the simplest way to frame it was that the Play Station was superior in the number of polygons it could place on the screen at one time, making for a larger potential draw distance and better models, whereas the XBox was better for both textures and post-processing effects (like shading and fog), making for a more detailed environment. Or maybe it was the other way around (it's been years since I looked into this with any detail). But if a game was "ported" from one system to another it would have the worst of both: if it came from the XBox to the PS3 it would have both the PS3's inferior texturing but would also inherit the inferior polygon count from the XBox from which it was ported from.

To frame the debate as simply as possible: games look the best on the system they were developed for, and whether a particular consoles exclusives look better than the other consoles exclusives depends on how convenient it is for a developer to access and make use of a consoles full capabilities and specialties.

As far as the new Wii U goes, it would depend entirely on what it's hardware specializes in doing. If it's built at all like the Wii it's going to need considerably better "on paper" hardware specs by PC metrics to compare to it's XBox and Sony competitors, because the Wii as is wasn't really specialized for gaming nearly as well as it's competitors.

 

[Aussie Legend]

Facts are facts guys, the cpu may just suck balls, they've had more experience with it than we have so who are we to call them wrong?