Nintendo Underestimated the Cost of Going HD

Recommended Videos

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
The term HD makes me laugh. It's just a resolution difference but people act like they went from making cheeseburgers to space shuttles.

Nintendo gets no sympathy from me (and I imagine they don't seek sympathy either). They are a generation late to the 720p party and should have spent that time learning from others.
 

Jingle Fett

New member
Sep 13, 2011
379
0
0
Ok I'm sorry if I come off a little harsh but a whole lot of people here are completely ignorant of what HD means in the context Nintendo is using it here. You could take a N64 game and run it in "HD" but this is not what Nintendo is talking about. Compare a N64 game running on an emulator at 1080p to Gears of War at 1080p.

The Gears of War type HD is what Nintendo is talking about, and that has little to do with outputting the gameplay to 1080p. Anyone can do that, that's not the issue.
The issue is the fact that in order to get that kind of visual quality, they have to change their workflows completely just so they can make the kinds of games that everyone else have been doing for a while. They kind of need to do this too in order to win back the core gamers, the WiiU isn't selling well and old standard definition games aren't really going to cut it anymore.
But they have absolutely no experience with this new way of doing things because it's a completely different workflow from what they're used to, hence why they're having trouble.


To give a quick example of the type of work they now have to do (and why they're so unprepared)...the Marcus Fenix 3d model in Gears of War is about 15,000 polygons while Link in Twilight Princess was about 6900. So the Fenix model is more detailed right off the bat, but that's not the issue.

To make the Link 3d model, they probably made the 3d model by hand, then they painted a texture for it in photoshop or whatever, and more or less voila. And that's about how they've done their games since the N64 days.

Marcus Fenix on the other hand? The detail was obtained by a 3d sculpture of the character of between oh say 10-40 million polygons, which some artist had to sculpt by hand. The idea is that you sculpt a master object and then lower the detail until it works in-game. This way you don't have to do the same work multiple times if you want to use it for film or cutscenes or close-ups or whatever.

The detail then gets transferred into a special texture that gets applied the original 15,000 polygon model, making it look like the 10-40 million poly model. And if you don't have them already, you need to write shaders to interpret that special detail texture (called a normal map) to make the detail appear in-game.

Alright, now do that process for every object you can ever see in the game. Characters, environments, weapons, plants, enemies, everything. From scratch. Yeah. And that's why Nintendo's having trouble. It's a lot of work even when you're completely familiar with the workflow and Nintendo...has never done this before.

And note: this is the industry standard way of doing things in pretty much any major modern Xbox 360/PS3 title you can think of, from Skyrim, to Call of Duty, to Bioshock, to Mass Effect, to Dead Space, to Mirror's Edge. Nintendo is trying to catch up with that.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
As a mainly PC gamer i can't help but look at this whole "HD/SD" business and chuckle a little. My monitor has technically been HD for about a decade now.
And even then, you've had a higher resolution screen for ages.Modern Nintendo is a slow moving dinosaur of a company. As evidenced by... well everything they do.
More specifically, they're a bunch of cheapskates. They build cheaper consoles they won't take a loss on, for te most part. Not only have Nintendo fans adapted, but they actively defend the process as being necessary, despite Nintendo being huge and more than capable of short term loss for long term gain. (almost typed "game" there)

And that always puts them behind the curve. Though the dinsaurs bit may be partially accurate in that I don't know how they didn't think new technology wasn't going to have these issues.

ZippyDSMlee said:
Its not so much going HD its refusing to go HD that cost them.... Since they refuse to adapt they are paying for it now being a game desert.
Pretty good points. Had they gone HD last gen, they would have experience, and less issues with it. Then again, i stand by my "Nintendo is cheap" philosophy, so there's a decent chance they'd still have trouble adapting. I mean, just look at their internal storage solution: on the basic model, the system update pretty much fills the thing. And they want to sell HD content to people.

I wouldn't be surprised to find they even skimped on the Tablet, which seems to be the only expensive part of the unit.
I dunno they are either cheap or have a do not follow the competition mindset. But even then they would have to see the need and change. So I guess cheap and stubborn is it.
 

BarkBarker

New member
May 30, 2013
466
0
0
Hell, The Wii U didn't need HD graphics in my personal opinion, it just needed gallops of room to make some fantastic things, I don't need your tiny grain details or intricate details so fucking small I forget to care, hell my favourite game of all time, Klonoa 2, doesn't look good because of textures or tremendously tiny details, it looks nice because the masterful work of the klonoa team KNOW aesthetics, the music was beautiful, the particle effects were pretty, the LIGHTING made everything feel alive and breathing, if you ask me assholes like the guys at Crytek have no idea how to make a good game, they always feel like a cardboard box covered in glitter, real pretty and shiny but the level of immersion is pathetic, it is always nailed home how much of a GAME it is rather than a experience, and they need to forget graphical intensity and focus on what made gaming in the first place: batshit crazy ideas lead by amazing game designers, a good idea led by amazing people has made history more than once, let's keep it up!
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
stabnex said:
IshimaruHayato said:
Will Nintendo freak out when we tell them after HD is Blu-ray?
Umm... the WiiU uses Blu-Ray.
Yes and no. They use a special type of Bluray disc developed by Panasonic that can only be single layered and can only hold up to 25GB, which is weird because they could have easily developed a version that can hold more space since Panasonic helped them. The discs can only be read on Nintendo's own optical disc drives. The Wii U itself does not have a Bluray drive, but a modified Nintendo Optical Drive which is why the Wii U can't play Bluray DVDs as well as regular DVDs.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,756
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Except Nintendo have already said that they were taking a loss on the Wii U when it launched.
I like how you always selectively ignore parts of my posts. "For the most part" means...Well, for the mot part.

Sony had a huge warchest saved up from the PS2, a console they managed to sell at a good profit. The PS3 selling at a loss burned through that entire warchest, and ended up putting Sony's entire gaming division in the red this generation to the sum of several billion dollars.
That's kind of a bad example, as the big reason they went so far in the red was to push BD. Of course, you probably know that.

If Sony didn't have other divisions to subsidise their games, the Playstation brand would have gone bankrupt years ago. Nintendo doesn't have other divisions outside their games division, so they can't subsidise stupidly huge hardware losses like Sony can.
If Sony didn't have other divisions, the PS3 wouldn't have launched a year late for the price it did pushing Blu-Ray. Even Jack Tretton bragged about the BD functionality above all else, because that was the overarching narrative.

I don't know about you, but I would quite like videogaming to remain a viable industry in the future
So would I. that's why I'd like consoles on the market that actually push games, rather than ones that people buy for the pack-in and pout in a box six months later. But hell, you're undercutting yourself.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,756
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
I dunno they are either cheap or have a do not follow the competition mindset. But even then they would have to see the need and change. So I guess cheap and stubborn is it.
Nintendo was one of the big perpetrators of price fixing in the 80s. It was evident that they didn't learn their lesson up to the Gamecube era at the very least. "Because fuck you, that's why" seemed to be their stock answer to developers, publishers, and fans. Well, anyone who wanted more than Smash Brothers, anyway.

So yeah, they don't have a competitive mindset. I suppose being worshiped in Japan, even when you can't give your consle away elsewhere, will do that to you. Then again, the apologetics seem to be indicating one successful cycle is sufficient to let Nintendo coast for, well....Probably forever.