Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 02, 2007, 11:07:58 PM
Quote
But where we’re at, since id’s always been about taking revolutionary steps in graphics technology, the Wii’s really not a great platform for that part of our strategy because there’s just not a lot of horsepower there. We’ve looked at what would make sense, some of our older technology, to get up and going on the Wii, because people have expressed interest in licensing tech from us that would be for Wii games, so we’re still figuring out how we can do that. Some of our brands could end up on the Wii. But our new stuff, the next-generation stuff we’re doing, there’s no way that it could run effectively on the Wii.
Or maybe some of our brands. We have a bunch of brands and maybe we’ll look at partnering with somebody with some of our older technology that really would push the limits of the Wii and look at our brands and which are appropriate. See which makes sense, and this version of our technology would look better than any other Wii game out there. We would modify it to make sure things made sense and add things in where possible, because the Wii is a fairly new graphics card, even if it’s no a very powerful machine. So there are things we could do to make it look great.
It seems quite clear that iD is not going to invest much in the Wii. My question is is this really a big deal? Id has been creating basically the same game since Wolfenstein 3D, so will you guys really miss some new games created for the Wii from id?
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 03, 2007, 12:20:17 AM
Post by: Ceric on March 03, 2007, 01:44:56 AM
I personally would have preferred them stating that they would be developing an engine for the Wii that while wouldn't be able to produce the graphics of the other two systems would leverage the other unique attributes of the Wii.
Leave it at that. Don't even introduce the word "old"
Post by: BranDonk Kong on March 03, 2007, 03:35:03 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on March 03, 2007, 04:25:25 AM
I hope this doesn't become a trend with engine-makers, because that could seriously gimp the Wii.
Post by: Adrock on March 03, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on March 03, 2007, 05:54:12 AM
Post by: wandering on March 03, 2007, 08:36:08 AM
...get it? Because Id....you see? No? Ah, forget it.
Quote
You've got to expect it from these guys though. Their main focus is to constantly push the bar forward on graphics. They don't care what it costs, they just want the most powerful hardware available.
Well. They care about graphics a good deal, but it's not like they completely shun older hardware. If I recall, they paid special care to make sure Doom 3 looked and ran well on older systems, which isn't always true of cutting edge PC games.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 03, 2007, 08:53:27 AM
But they admit they're not useful to the masses of new-generation players.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 03, 2007, 09:12:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
The way I see it Wii won't get every game due to its limited hardware, but it can't get worse than it was the last two generations. Wii will get some great games and I don't have enough money to buy or the time to play them all anyway. It's a shame that not every game developers want to make are possible they way developers want them to be, but I think Wii will have more than enough solid titles to satisfy most people.... well, eventually.
I still wonder just how limited the Wii is visually when it comes to Standard Definition, or if many of these companies just don't want to put the money and effort into creating graphically impressive engines.
Post by: LuigiHann on March 03, 2007, 10:07:26 AM
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 03, 2007, 10:09:33 AM
QuoteLook it how you want, but I think it is positive rather then negative that id is looking to see how they can update and get old graphics engines running on Wii. I mean, you don't talk to id Software for graphics tech if you're just going to make some 3rd rate game. You can get graphics engines from others much cheaper i'd assume.
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
It's still disappointing to hear that the Wii's graphical limitations are still making it unattractive to some, despite how well it has been selling.
You talk to id for game tech if you want to maximize graphics capabilities. So, I'd say, that means developers are looking for tech to make the most of Wii.
Edit: More over... Why are you complaining that people want to develop games for Wii? I'd like to see lots of 3rd party developer support for Wii.
Post by: Pittbboi on March 03, 2007, 11:27:37 AM
I was, pure and simple, lamenting the fact that they're restricting all of their Wii work (possibly, there was no confirmation) to old technology, and claiming all of the next-generation, new work would be put elsewhere. Having their old tech is great--it's better than nothing. But it's still a little disappointing that they're going to be taking all of their new ideas to other consoles.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 03, 2007, 11:47:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
How could you possibly turn what I said into a complaining that people WANT to develop games for the Wii? You're looking far too deep into something I didn't say.
I was, pure and simple, lamenting the fact that they're restricting all of their Wii work (possibly, there was no confirmation) to old technology, and claiming all of the next-generation, new work would be put elsewhere. Having their old tech is great--it's better than nothing. But it's still a little disappointing that they're going to be taking all of their new ideas to other consoles.
New ideas being the same ideas they've been using since the Wolfenstein 3D days. id is perhaps one of the most unimaginative PC developers going, they are basically graphic whores and do little to evolve the "run n gun" FPS formula.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 03, 2007, 12:55:00 PM
QuoteWell, who says they'll always be taking their "new ideas" to other consoles. I was responding to that in your post that seems to be looking too deep for negativity. I mean, so what if id doesn't want to develop or put their "new ideas" on Wii right now. The same quotation says that other developers are looking to put their "new ideas" on Wii with the help of id's old tech engines. Even id's response to that was that they'd be updating the old tech with "new ideas" so it takes advantage full advantage of Wii's technology, regardless of the fact that Wii is less powerful then the PS3 or 360.
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
How could you possibly turn what I said into a complaining that people WANT to develop games for the Wii? You're looking far too deep into something I didn't say.
So why is it such a big deal that id isn't putting its "new ideas" on Wii right now? Even if they never do, why does that have to apply to other game engine makers? I mean, if other developers are interested in using updated old tech to work on Wii... Who says that can't lead to them asking for an entirely new engine specifically made for Wii? Or for that matter, id wanting to making one themself if Wii remains popular? There was, i'd say, a heck of a lot more good then bad in the quotation and was confused why you chose to focus only the negative.
Post by: oohhboy on March 03, 2007, 01:10:01 PM
New ideas will be added. Games on the Wii will look better. Just because you didn't get a "new tech boner" it doesn't mean that the technology is irrelavent or obsolete.
Post by: Pittbboi on March 03, 2007, 04:31:55 PM
Quote
There was, i'd say, a heck of a lot more good then bad in the quotation and was confused why you chose to focus only the negative.
Well, it's of my opinion that it was pretty easy to pick the bad out of that quote, as he actually says, "But our new stuff, the next-generation stuff we’re doing, there’s no way that it could run effectively on the Wii."
I didn't have to "dig" to pull that up.
What was said about "looking into" optimizing old tech for the Wii (again, not a confirmation, just them saying it was something they "might" look into) was just redeeming themselves, and you using that to make the quote appear entirely positive would be worse than me taking a direct quote and saying that I hope this doesn't become a trend, what with Epic basically saying the exact same thing about their next-gen engine.
You can save all of the debate on old technology, because it was nothing that I disputed. Of course people are going to be able to take old tech and do amazing things with it. Duh. I was specifically referring to what was in the quote, and the possible ramifications of it, and nothing outside of that. So stop trying to pick a debate because I'm the pessimist.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 03, 2007, 05:54:39 PM
QuoteWhen the negative is surrounded by certainly positive forward looking statements, "We have a bunch of brands and maybe we’ll look at partnering with somebody with some of our older technology that really would push the limits of the Wii and look at our brands and which are appropriate." And positive reaction to requests from other developers, at the very least, i'd call it looking for trouble.
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Well, it's of my opinion that it was pretty easy to pick the bad out of that quote, as he actually says, "But our new stuff, the next-generation stuff we’re doing, there’s no way that it could run effectively on the Wii."
QuoteBut I wasn't saying it was entirely positive. Rather that i'd see it as more positive that id is looking into developing a top class graphics engine for Wii (based on older tech) due to requests from developers that want one. Then negative because games that nativly won't run on Wii are not going to receive a port. Besides, I can't imagine that the ramifications of continued strong sales of Wii would be continued non-support.
What was said about "looking into" optimizing old tech for the Wii (again, not a confirmation, just them saying it was something they "might" look into) was just redeeming themselves, and you using that to make the quote appear entirely positive would be worse than me taking a direct quote and saying that I hope this doesn't become a trend, what with Epic basically saying the exact same thing about their next-gen engine.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 03, 2007, 06:31:09 PM
I think they sold the rights to someone else (or just lost them to the publisher or something), that someone made a crappy GBA game that didn't sell and decided not to try that again.
Post by: Kairon on March 03, 2007, 07:01:46 PM
Just like smaller developers can come to the Wii with confidence that they've got a better chance against the likes of established companies, smaller engine and middleware companies have a chance now that they should grab!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: MaryJane on March 03, 2007, 08:56:22 PM
Also, the way I see it, you have to figure that all these companies were banking on the PS3 and have spent considerable amounts of money on developing HD engines.
It is also likely that they are modifying those same engines to develop better for the (possibly newer-version) Xbox360. The PS3 is not doing well, and as we all know a lot of companies are shifting their resources.
Now that would mean that even after realizing that their super expensive systems can't develop for the Wii, that they are still putting effort into making other things for the Wii.
Of course if they can save money by upgrading an older system they will! Hell, Nintendo's whole philosophy is with being inexpensive, for everybody, developer and consumer alike (except for controller prices IMHO).
This is an all around good thing. Games can be made at an inexpensive price because of "old" technology that will push the Wii graphical limits. Making it cheap makes it more readily available, especially for these indie developers I'm still waiting to see develop. (still hoping Sadness isn't vaporware ::crosses fingers:: )
Really, what does it matter how it is being done? It is being done!
Edit: skipped two words lol
Post by: KDR_11k on March 03, 2007, 10:52:15 PM
Actually they have been banking on the PC and the "next gen" consoles just happen to support most of the features.
Post by: Ceric on March 04, 2007, 01:12:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: 31 FlavasQuoteWhen the negative is surrounded by certainly positive forward looking statements, "We have a bunch of brands and maybe we’ll look at partnering with somebody with some of our older technology that really would push the limits of the Wii and look at our brands and which are appropriate." And positive reaction to requests from other developers, at the very least, i'd call it looking for trouble.
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Well, it's of my opinion that it was pretty easy to pick the bad out of that quote, as he actually says, "But our new stuff, the next-generation stuff we’re doing, there’s no way that it could run effectively on the Wii."QuoteBut I wasn't saying it was entirely positive. Rather that i'd see it as more positive that id is looking into developing a top class graphics engine for Wii (based on older tech) due to requests from developers that want one. Then negative because games that nativly won't run on Wii are not going to receive a port. Besides, I can't imagine that the ramifications of continued strong sales of Wii would be continued non-support.
What was said about "looking into" optimizing old tech for the Wii (again, not a confirmation, just them saying it was something they "might" look into) was just redeeming themselves, and you using that to make the quote appear entirely positive would be worse than me taking a direct quote and saying that I hope this doesn't become a trend, what with Epic basically saying the exact same thing about their next-gen engine.
I have to disagree with "negative" being surrounded with "certainly positive forward looking statements" in that quote.
"Maybe": They're not even sure they want to do that.
"partnering with somebody": Read as someone else will be producing it actually and we are not going to take are considerable experience over the years of wrenching every last drop of graphical goodness out to this project.
"with some of our older technology": Pretty much whatever we happened to have done for the Gamecube is how I read that. Which if memory serves wasn't much. Also from what I read that you actually had to know how the system flowed to make the Gamecube shine. Though once you do, I think it was Konami that stated(In regards to Karaoke Revolution), you could do some things that outshined the XBox.
In the end I don't know what they really intend but I can say that that was a lousy way to say what they were trying to get at. Though that is becoming more and more prevalent with PR now days.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 04, 2007, 03:38:41 AM
QuoteToo an extent, we're just going to have to disagree. I'm obviously an optimist here. id Software (as well I'd assume Epic, Valve, and other top developers) is interested in pursuing "revolutionary steps in graphics technology" and Wii's architecture won't allow for that. So its not in their interest to develop their current technology for it. Which is too bad. But despite this though they've expressed interest in developing past-gen tech for it due to developer requests and for what, I'd say, is there own monetary reasons since Wii is shít hot at the moment.
Originally posted by: Ceric
In the end I don't know what they really intend but I can say that that was a lousy way to say what they were trying to get at. Though that is becoming more and more prevalent with PR now days.
Now you're right, id software did not say anything was definite. You can't convince me though, as I said, that the ramifications (the results) of continued strong sales of Wii hardware and software would be continued "maybe" or non-support stances from id or the rest of the top developers. These top graphics developers are going to find something to put on Wii so they can rake in the cash. And from what id software said, in the quotation, it looks like their stance is if they (or on their behalf they have another developer) put something on Wii it's not going to be a cut rate hack job.
So i'd still say the article quotation was more positive then negative.
Post by: segagamer12 on March 04, 2007, 06:59:53 AM
Post by: Ceric on March 04, 2007, 10:27:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: 31 FlavasQuoteToo an extent, we're just going to have to disagree...
Originally posted by: Ceric
In the end I don't know what they really intend but I can say that that was a lousy way to say what they were trying to get at. Though that is becoming more and more prevalent with PR now days.
Agreed and I'm fine with that.
Though I do think that if the Wii maintains it's popularity through this time next year, which it looks like it should, that these sort of developers, engine developers, are going to have to get out of exuding this image of old is "good enough." I really don't see them trying to push beyond "good enough" at this point because of the market's expectations; we expect the Wii to have inferior graphics as a whole in general, though not personally. When you can have titles like GoW, not the best example, and FFXII on the PS2 that look really nice. In fact better then most of the GameCube showings and about on par to TP, well from what I've seen of FFXII, on a marginally less powerful system you can't tell me that this architecture was ever truly exploited.
Personally I believe the next year during what I'm going to call the "Conference Season" if the Wii maintains its popularity we are going to start seeing hints of some of this more powerful looking graphics. Now if the Wii maintains its popularity at this rate 2 years from know I think we are going to see that Demo or actual game that will have us scratching are collective heads going, "Where did the get the extra power from. How did they do that?"
I'll be happy to scratch my head with everyone else on that day.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 04, 2007, 10:43:40 AM
Post by: Urkel on March 04, 2007, 04:55:46 PM
Post by: ryancoke on March 05, 2007, 03:12:01 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 05, 2007, 04:42:59 AM
Not necessarily, the Wii is in some regards even worse than the original XBox (e.g. has no shaders) which is completely retarded consideringt that it can't cost more to add those features than to make a custom chip in first place.
Post by: couchmonkey on March 05, 2007, 05:33:39 AM
Post by: ThePerm on March 05, 2007, 06:34:34 AM
For instance the difference in third party games and first party games in graphics on n64, is a clear indication of what can be done on the Wii with a little toying. According to Julian Eggebrecht
"Yes. I'm so disappointed knowing exactly what the Wii can do -- and I still think nobody knows it better than we (no pun intended) [laughs]. I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed! They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does. But I still don't see enough bump and normal-mapping, if any. I still don't see enough post effects, although you would have insane fill-rates with Wii. I don't see any of that. I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, "Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?" And I am at a loss. I really am."
http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762984p1.html
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 05, 2007, 06:50:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The way I look at is if it can be done on XBOX1 it can be done on the wii.
Not necessarily, the Wii is in some regards even worse than the original XBox (e.g. has no shaders) which is completely retarded consideringt that it can't cost more to add those features than to make a custom chip in first place.
Even at that, personally I really have doubts that the Wii isn't overall more capable than Xbox 360. Fine maybe you don't have every single trick built into the graphics card, but what is there, like stated in the above post, could be programmed to replicate shaders or something very similar.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 05, 2007, 07:07:00 AM
Shaders ARE what you program yourself (they're tiny processors that handle certain effects), trying to do their effects in software is like drawing 3d graphics without a GPU: Technically possible but so slow that it's rarely worth it and will never stack up to the output of something that includes the dedicated hardware. This is not about "not being lazy", this is about performance and being able to implement stuff without missing even more deadlines.
They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does.
That is pretty much a desaster, it sounds a lot like it's hard to make the Wii do any of those effects and things that are hard often result in hacks. Hacks result in badly maintainable code (didn't Factor 5 toss their entire engine between RS2 and 3?) and lots of bugs (something both RS games were notorious for IIRC). While it will look nice in screenshots it will hurt the overall quality of the game.
Post by: Deguello on March 05, 2007, 07:33:49 AM
Graffix
Please take special note of the NGage game with normal-mapping. If you can put normal maps on the NGage, you can put them anywhere.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 05, 2007, 08:02:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
That is pretty much a desaster, it sounds a lot like it's hard to make the Wii do any of those effects and things that are hard often result in hacks. Hacks result in badly maintainable code (didn't Factor 5 toss their entire engine between RS2 and 3?) and lots of bugs (something both RS games were notorious for IIRC). While it will look nice in screenshots it will hurt the overall quality of the game.
Factor 5 scrapped their first Rogue Leader engine halfway through development of that title, too. It seems to be common practice for them. Also, what bugs do you know about in the Rogue Squadron games? I know of a pretty bad one in the first game for the N64, but I don't recall encountering any bugs in Rogue Leader or Rebel Strike.
Post by: ThePerm on March 05, 2007, 09:37:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
well Wii may not have the custom shaders(really a dissapointment), but there used to be a time when devlopers werent lazy and didnt have to rely on built in hardware tricks to make better games, they programmed it themselves.
Shaders ARE what you program yourself (they're tiny processors that handle certain effects), trying to do their effects in software is like drawing 3d graphics without a GPU: Technically possible but so slow that it's rarely worth it and will never stack up to the output of something that includes the dedicated hardware. This is not about "not being lazy", this is about performance and being able to implement stuff without missing even more deadlines.
They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does.
That is pretty much a desaster, it sounds a lot like it's hard to make the Wii do any of those effects and things that are hard often result in hacks. Hacks result in badly maintainable code (didn't Factor 5 toss their entire engine between RS2 and 3?) and lots of bugs (something both RS games were notorious for IIRC). While it will look nice in screenshots it will hurt the overall quality of the game.
the balance here is that the Wii has a faster gpu and cpu then gamecube, so running software shaders in the background wouldnt be too slow, its not like you would be able to achieve xbox 360 graphics, but you would get graphics that are better than gamecube, and also better than xbox.
if we go back to gamecube verses xbox, the gamecube's proccessor was a monster of efficiency compared to the xbox cpu, the xbox gpu was better than gamecubes gpu with all of its extra features. Now though we have aqn overclocked cpu, and an overclocked gpu. I don't know what the specs of this overclockedness is, but one could say that the best looking xbox games(ie doom3,chronicles of riddick(the games that don't really look any different then this gen) should be possible on wii, and with some gruntwork look better than their original xbox counterparts.
i think it was ubisoft that said and im paraphrasing "the graphics on wii are not as powerful as the other systems, but gamecube had some really good graphics, and the graphics are better than that, so we have nothing to worry about."
i think devlopers are just being lazy with the wii
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/842/842201/img_4355989.html
games shouldnt look that bad on wii. especially when games look like this on gamecube
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/015/015821/img_2429086.html
Post by: KDR_11k on March 05, 2007, 05:38:55 PM
What would it have cost Nintendo to base that chip on a more modern chip that has all of these things in hardware? Their "strange" chip will just lead to developers not being able to use that claimed shader ability until maybe 3-4 years into the lifecycle.
Post by: Kairon on March 05, 2007, 06:01:59 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on March 05, 2007, 10:45:44 PM
The knowledge to exploit the GC's prowess was not explored because it was not worth it to do so, so no time was invested in by developers, outside of Resident Evil 4 and the two Star Wars games. The Wii is becoming much more popular than the GC, so the knwledge to exploit it will become more valuable, and thus the graphics will get markedly better.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 05, 2007, 11:06:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When Factor 5 put out Rogue Squadron on the GC at launch, and when Julian Eggebrecht is aghast at how lazy current Wii developers are, I'm more inclined to blame developers for poor graphical efforts than the chips.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Which is funny because while Rogue Leader looked awesome, it had the crappiest 'gameplay' since Dragon's Lair.
~Infernal "Infy" M. Onkey
Infernal@nwr.com
Post by: KDR_11k on March 06, 2007, 08:10:13 AM
I said it lacked shaders (referring to the shader units on modern graphics cards). Pixel shaders are only half the story, vertex shaders are another thing.
Post by: Kairon on March 06, 2007, 09:12:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal MonkeyQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When Factor 5 put out Rogue Squadron on the GC at launch, and when Julian Eggebrecht is aghast at how lazy current Wii developers are, I'm more inclined to blame developers for poor graphical efforts than the chips.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Which is funny because while Rogue Leader looked awesome, it had the crappiest 'gameplay' since Dragon's Lair.
~Infernal "Infy" M. Onkey
Infernal@nwr.com
True. Reminds me a lot of Rare, to be honest. Great TECHNICAL developer. Sorta lackluster game design...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ryancoke on March 06, 2007, 09:59:22 AM
http://www.thelastboss.com/post.phtml?pk=2349
Post by: Pittbboi on March 06, 2007, 10:04:57 AM
Quote
Which is funny because while Rogue Leader looked awesome, it had the crappiest 'gameplay' since Dragon's Lair.
But why does that matter? It still doesn't change the fact that their first gen Gamecube game is comparable, and surpassses, most of the Wii's current games.
A game can look great AND be great fun. Rogue Squadron might not be an example of that combination, but I don't think anyone was making it out to be (though I honestly didn't have a problem with the game).
Post by: Ian Sane on March 06, 2007, 10:49:06 AM
This sounds like revisionist history due to sour grapes because of Factor 5 moving to the PS3 (kind of like that "Rare was never that good" crap that shows up a lot). Rogue Leader is a great game. Rebel Strike is the sh!tty one. Rogue Leader is what all Star Fox games after Star Fox 64 wish they could be. It's a classic example of mixing great graphics and great gameplay.
Post by: Kairon on March 06, 2007, 10:53:40 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 06, 2007, 11:15:44 AM
I'm talking about Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader released in 2001 as a Gamecube launch title. Rebel Strike is the third game and it sucks, except for the odd ship-only level here or there and multiplayer which is Rogue Leader with two players. Rogue Squadron is the N64 game which I've never played.
Though Julian Eggebrecht does look like a tool when he uses Rebel Strike for comparisons because that's Factor 5's most recent game. If you make a poor game I'd say it's best to pretend it never existed. Bringing it back up just makes you look bad because it gives the impression that you're PROUD of the crap game you made.
I will admit that Rogue Leader's greatness is somewhat of a fluke. I don't think it's a good sample of Factor 5's overall talent. It's their best work.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 06, 2007, 06:58:13 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 06, 2007, 07:01:14 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 06, 2007, 08:30:15 PM
This man has never played Turrican, Katakis or Giana Sisters.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 07, 2007, 02:47:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Though Julian Eggebrecht does look like a tool when he uses Rebel Strike for comparisons because that's Factor 5's most recent game. If you make a poor game I'd say it's best to pretend it never existed. Bringing it back up just makes you look bad because it gives the impression that you're PROUD of the crap game you made.
What is so wrong about being proud of one of the most graphically impressive GameCube games ever made? He's not chastising other developers for making games that aren't fun. He's after them for not making good use of the Wii's graphical capabilities.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 07, 2007, 03:43:24 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 07, 2007, 05:04:28 AM
Yeah but making a very pretty game that isn't very good isn't really making good use of the hardware. It's just that Rebel Strike seems like a bad example because people can always point out that it sucks and use that in a "graphics vs. gameplay" arguement. Those people are idiots anyway but why give them ammo just the same? If you use a great game that also has great graphics as an example then anyone defending the Wii having inferior graphics has nothing. They can't use that bullsh!t arguement that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive because you've just proven otherwise.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 07, 2007, 06:44:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Yeah but making a very pretty game that isn't very good isn't really making good use of the hardware.
That's bunk. Factor 5 was one of the few developers to use every feature of the GameCube, right down to the clicking shoulder buttons and clock. If they don't get a pass on "making good use of the hardware," then nobody does. Not even Nintendo.
Post by: ryancoke on March 07, 2007, 07:16:17 AM
How did a thread about ID software turn into a factor 5 discussion?
Post by: Bloodworth on March 07, 2007, 09:49:06 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 07, 2007, 10:03:10 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 07, 2007, 10:23:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ryancoke
factor 5 was one of CGN's best developers. So what if rebel strike wasn't as good as rogue leader. It was still a damn good game and better than 90% of the other gamecube games.
How did a thread about ID software turn into a factor 5 discussion?
Factor 5 IMO is a decent developer but they are quite one dimensional in the genre they develop games for. There was little innovation between the Rogue Squadron games, they almost felt like expansion packs with better visuals.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 07, 2007, 10:54:17 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 07, 2007, 10:58:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
It's ok, the PC games industry thrives on expansions, SO IT MUST BE OK
Ehhe, regarding PC expansions. like the Rogue Squadron series I enjoy them for some of my favorite games but I still feel a bit let down if it is a continuous trend instead of true sequels (like the Sims).
Post by: Ian Sane on March 07, 2007, 11:05:35 AM
I didn't say Factor 5 didn't make good use of the hardware but rather that Rebel Strike specifically wasn't good use because it isn't very good.
Post by: ThePerm on March 07, 2007, 11:08:02 AM
as far as gamecube goes it had three problems, Nintendo didn't push the envelope, It got alot of playstation 2 ports, developers think whats made in the middleware is whats really available on the system.
so far those problems have reurned with the Wii, however chances are someone is going to arise and make something that loooks astounding.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 07, 2007, 11:11:46 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 07, 2007, 05:46:34 PM
Please don't call developers lazy for not doing that, most people nowadays aren't insane enough to try that and in fact these days EVERYONE tells you to avoid assembly whenever possible because today we have enough processing power and readable code means it's easier to maintain and debug.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 15, 2007, 08:54:12 AM
QuoteYea, yea. I know replying to yourself is egotistical ... but I just want to touch on this again due to new news.
Originally posted by: 31 Flavas
You can't convince me though, as I said, that the ramifications (the results) of continued strong sales of Wii hardware and software would be continued "maybe" or non-support stances from id or the rest of the top developers. These top graphics developers are going to find something to put on Wii so they can rake in the cash.
Check out this interview with Doug Lombardi of Valve. At the end of the video, in response to a question which essentially asked, "Why the hate form Gabe Newell on PS3?" Doug says, well ... the PS3 isn't selling. But, and immediately follows up saying, "I'm just going to be blunt with you. We missed the Wii. (no pun intended)" and continues that it wasn't because it isn't next gen or doesn't fit well with their plans, but because they weren't aggressively perusing the home console. And that while nothing is currently in development... since the system is selling like mad, you should not be surprised if they come up with something.
So vage as both id Software and Valve are being, Pittbboi, or anyone else, I would not make the assumption that Wii's non-HD graphics are gimping it or limiting developer interest.
Don't take that as an attack or anykind of "ha-ha, told you so." But perhaps as trying to dispel this cynical or continued pessimism.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 15, 2007, 09:06:11 AM
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2007, 04:08:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Rouge Squadron from what i hear was prgrammed straight in assembly,
Please don't call developers lazy for not doing that, most people nowadays aren't insane enough to try that and in fact these days EVERYONE tells you to avoid assembly whenever possible because today we have enough processing power and readable code means it's easier to maintain and debug.
to be honest, once you get one good engine running, then laziness can become alright. If your a great developer than while making your game you would also develop a really good scripting code, which would allow you to change gameplay mechanics with ease, thus making a new gameplay.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 15, 2007, 06:34:17 PM
That's assuming the hardware never changes, the firmware never gets new features, the engine is optimal for all games (very unlikely) and the developer community never finds any new tricks. You also have to assume that your assembly will be perfect and bug free. Realistically that won't happen and ASM is a maintenance nightmare, for a program that will undergo changes later you want easily maintainable code, not a write-only language.
Post by: ThePerm on March 16, 2007, 08:39:45 AM
are they hiring real programmers or are they just using script kiddies. You could say its a real bad thing to demand that programmers write code in assembly, but what are they getting paid 30,000+ dollars a year for? the Star Wars games for gamecube were made in a very short time period and have stood as the best looking cube & wii games. Why can other developers not get the power out of the system in 2007 that Factor 5 did in 2002?
It may be difficult, it may be a nightmare, but just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If your going to be competitive than you have to do the best you possibly can. You have to be on a level others are not. I just wish gaming companies wouldnt be so damn derivative, that there were not 1000 ww2 games, that wii games not look like ps2 games when the system is vastly more powerful. They shouldnt rely on middleware it looks like balls.
and this scripting language im talking about is an object oriented thing, you have your actors and your stage, but what they do is just a matter of changing behaviors, which is a matter of changing variables.
Post by: MaryJane on March 16, 2007, 09:25:53 AM
These companies likely still hate the fact that the Wii doesn't use HD graphics, and they likely don't (or at least didn't) care about the Wii-mote and wrote it off as a gimick, now however, there are dollar signs dangling in front of everything imprinted with those three little letters on it, and they want in.
I'm glad they're doing it, I say make more games, middleware, or whatever, anything made for the Wii is good IMO. I may not like it, and you may not, but someone somewhere will. (Hell people bought the VirtuaBoy didn't they?
). Sales are pushing the Wii into popularity with these developers, the ones that jumped on before it started selling are the ones who were excited about the possibilities, the developers who are only now starting to make games, just want a piece of the money pie.
Post by: Ceric on March 16, 2007, 10:13:48 AM
Some people said that Assembly was to high level when we moved away from Machine Code. Many said that C is to far away from assembly. Same with C++. Personally though for the speed and ease of developement done with those languages is great.
Nintendo knows the hardware best. They can write compilers to make superior low-level code for the system from the higher compiled langauges.
Also $30,000 a year is terrible pay for a programmer. In fact in my mind its bad for most everyone. You can't raise a family well on that sort of money. $45,000 is suppose to be the average for when you just get out of school. Something as specialized as game programming should command more and if you are a great enough assembly programmer to be able to outdo Nintendo and do a whole game in the langauge you should, in my opinion, command a wage that puts you closer or over the 6 digit area.
Edit:
Also for the Record: I enjoyed the Virtual Boy.
Post by: ThePerm on March 16, 2007, 02:51:32 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 16, 2007, 07:14:32 PM
Assembly is discouraged not because of programmer skills but because of its impact on the project. ASM is almost impossible to maintain so if anything needs changes or doesn't work you're SOL and can pretty much throw the whole codebase away because that's faster than trying to fix ASM.
and this scripting language im talking about is an object oriented thing, you have your actors and your stage, but what they do is just a matter of changing behaviors, which is a matter of changing variables.
That's nice except games have very different requirements for their interaction and ressource handling. They can be optimized for huge, open spaces, rooms, open spaces with only small areas you can actually go to, terrain-only with hundreds of actors, small arenas with two actors, etc. If you want an engine to be optimized you have to tune it for the specific game you are making.
These companies likely still hate the fact that the Wii doesn't use HD graphics, and they likely don't (or at least didn't) care about the Wii-mote
Don't make unfounded assumptions. Just because they go where the money is doesn't mean they automatically have to consider the PS3 the pinnacle of console technology.
the other thing that disappoints me is when third parties jump on our ship in order to make a quick buck only to make a piece of crap game and not realize Nintendo gamers wont just buy any shit. Were smarter than we think, just throwing money around and going with the lowest common denominator won't do them any good. Then when they've failed then they blame the console for lack of sales, and make public announcements.
Nintendo gamers don't buy bad games? Um, no. They buy games that are made by Nintendo, third parties get ignored unless they've got a huge hype machine runnign before release. Also it looks to me like Nintendo gamers buy crappy license tie-ins.
Post by: Adrock on March 16, 2007, 07:50:07 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 17, 2007, 11:24:26 AM
Theres no way though i'll buy the godfather games, or a series of other half assed games.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 17, 2007, 12:09:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
hey i bought the Resident Evil series, that was made by Capcom, and a bunch of ubisoft games for the cube. They were great. I buy good titles only, it just happens Nintendo makes alot of them.
Theres no way though i'll buy the godfather games, or a series of other half assed games.
Actually from the IGN review the new Godfather game sounds pretty cool with the new motion controls!
