Slashdot Mirror
Does the Wii Provide A "Watered-Down" Game Experience?
CNet is running a story inspired by comments from Ubisoft's Ben Mattes about how the Wii affects game development. When asked why there was no Wii version of Prince of Persia, Mattes said, "The reality is that from a technical standpoint, the Wii cannot do what we wanted the game to do. The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience." The article goes on to look at a number of Wii games that are stripped-down versions of their Xbox 360 or PS3 counterparts. Of course, part of the Wii's drawing power is that it's much simpler than the other systems, and has brought casual gaming to millions more people than it would have otherwise. The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.
It goes without saying that a lazy port of a title to a system with insufficient power to run the original, with chunks cut out to make it fit, will be a piece of shit. It's as true now as when they unveiled Duke 3D for the Game.Com. That tells us absolutely F-all about the remaining 90% of Wii software that wasn't pumped out as a high-return bond by investor-fellating cash-mongers.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
And still the Wii can handle hardcore games. Just look at Brawl. The problem is the publishers whine and complain whenever they have to do something thats different. There is no reason that the Wii can't do 360 games. And there is a market for hardcore games on the Wii.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You're missing the point. Read the title of the article. The consensus seems to be that the imagination and ability of developers is watered-down, not the Wii itself.
The Wii's more powerful than the most powerful gaming machines a few years ago and there were a lot of good games back then (unreal tournament 2004, Doom 3, etc).
This is total bullshit. The Wii is a 729mhz PPC processor with 88 megs of RAM. I don't know what backwater part of the world you lived in a few years ago, but that isn't even remotely more powerful than the most low-end gaming machines that were powerful enough to play Doom3/UT2004.
Ya, ok. Try playing the latest Tomb Raider on Wii, and then on PS3 or Xbox 360. The Wii very IS simplier, the controls are crappier (that is, it's slow to respond) and there are every things you can't do in the Wii version. Its pretty much a different game.
I don't think the Wii could handle Doom 3.
I taught this dam myth was put to rest already, The wii is selling games, a lot of games in fact see here: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Wii#Best-selling_video_games
Last time I seen attachment rates comparison, Wii's was about 1 point below Xbox360. I wouldn't call that abysmal. Likewise, PS3 higher attachment rate also doesn't translate into better financial performance.
Most reports indicate that Wii owners buy games, but they buy games differently but only few publishers have caught the wind.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Just for future reference, the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2 and also had better graphics onboard too. Its a shame it wasn't that popular with developers though.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Unfortunately the same can be said for almost ALL the consoles. On XBOX and PS3 the games may LOOK good but there is little game play. It used to take me months to finish a game and I spent most of my time playing. Today I have very little time to play and I finish the games in weeks.
It's tempting to use numbers to compare systems like that, but it's also completely misleading. Doom3 and UT2004 played on general purpose computers that were not optimized for gaming, no matter what the specs are. Those games needed a lot of brute force computing to overcome the limitations of the generalist PC design.
The Wii is built for gaming and practically nothing else. It's more efficient at doing game stuff, so it doesn't require the same kind of oomph as a PC.
You keep talking about price..
The base 360 is $199.
The base Wii is $249.
You were saying?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
OBJECTION!
The Genesis and Super Nintendo had much different specs! The evidence is...
TAKE THAT!
Compare the screenshot of the title screen of Super Mario World and Sonic the Hedgehog. The second in particular proves it.
Where is the proof in these pictures?
TAKE THAT!
The Sonic the hedgehog picture is dithered around the edges of the flag!
(Slams hand on the desk)
The video chip in the Genesis could only handle 256 colours, while the Super Nintendo could manage 16-bit colour and transparency! There's no way you could say those specs were similar!
(Shit, I need to stop playing so much Ace Attorney)
It's been a long time.
"but that isn't even remotely more powerful than the most low-end gaming machines that were powerful enough to play Doom3/UT2004."
BULLSHIT. Doom3 on the Xbox - the Xbox is a fucking 733MHz CELERON with 64 MB DDR SDRAM at 200 MHz; 6.4 GB/s .The graphics core is essentially a modified GeForce 3/4 hybrid.
The Wii - 729 MHz Power-PC based core, 88 MB main memory (24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM) AND 3 MB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer, and an ATi graphics chip on par with their 9800 series of cards. I'd think with obviously superior hardware doom 3 should have *NO* problem running on the Wii.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
[quote]Doom ran on pretty much everything, even the Super Nintendo (which was "less capable" than the equivalent PC required to make it run at bare minimum.)[/quote]
Doom on the SNES isn't exactly the best example to make that point: it came as a cartridge with a separate graphics chip in it, because the SNES itself wasn't capable to render the 2.5-dimensional graphics. Much like Star Fox and Stunt Race FX which had extra vector processors in the cartridge.
It really is one of the best overlooked games of that generation.
Please. The Wii graphics chip is nowhere near a 9800. It's approximately the same speed as the XBox1's, but less flexible.
My problems with the Wii are as follows:
1.) Lazy. It's essentially a slightly more powerful gamecube. But, it allows you to sell the same stuff to the same people more than once. Also, in 2006, it was barely acceptable that it didn't put out high def. Now, in 2009, with a large percentage of people owning high def widescreen TVs, it's inconceivable that a modern console will top out at 480p.
2.) Price. It's not that expensive, but it has been out for almost THREE YEARS without a single price drop. Plus, $50 for a new controller. Plus $90 for a bathroom scale. Plus, $50 for the component cable to make it output 480p (see above). Plus, according to E3, a bunch more money for a bunch more controllers. Whenever you point out to someone that nintendo is using cheap hardware, paint-by-number game programming, and proprietary IP to print money, they always come back with "BUT IT'S FUN!!!". What's the last killer title for the Wii?
3.) Lack of killer titles. Zelda, metroid, Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Wii Fit... there haven't been many for a console that's 3 years old. Where are the 3rd party games?!? The top 14 games (which comprise 40% of the total game sales of the console) are all proprietary IP; you have to go down to #15 to find a non-3rd party game, and that's Guitar Hero III.
That's pretty much it.
~X
sig?