Author Topic: id Software is leaning towards ports for Wii (Read 18145 times)

Ceric · « **Reply #25 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:27:51 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: 31 Flavas
Quote
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.
Too an extent, we're just going to have to disagree...

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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #26 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:43:40 AM »

Actually Ceric I think we are starting to see that "extra" power come into play with Super Mario Galaxy, it looks truly stunning in places. You are right though, if Wii does continue to grow in popularity these developers will be forced to rethink their position on Wii's visual abilities. Honestly I'm not convinced that we can't see visuals that resemble the gap between PS2 and Xbox when the Wii is fully utilized with standard definition graphics.

Urkel · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2007, 04:55:46 PM »

I'm quite confident we'll get a glimpse at some amazing looking games by years end, at worst. If nothing else you can count on Square-Enix to pump out some great visuals. And everybody keeps forgetting about Pokemon Battle Revolution. That game definitely looks like it couldn't be done on Gamecube.

ryancoke · « **Reply #28 on:** March 05, 2007, 03:12:01 AM »

The way I look at is if it can be done on XBOX1 it can be done on the wii. Gimme Half Life 2 dammit!

KDR_11k · « **Reply #29 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:42:59 AM »

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.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:33:39 AM »

I take this as pretty positive simply because Id had no interest in the GameCube at all. I can't think of a single Id game on Cube.

ThePerm · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2007, 06:34:34 AM »

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.

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

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #32 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.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2007, 07:07:00 AM »

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.

Deguello · « **Reply #34 on:** March 05, 2007, 07:33:49 AM »

Uh oh, time for some mythbusting.

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.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #35 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.

ThePerm · « **Reply #36 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

KDR_11k · « **Reply #37 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:38:55 PM »

Deg: Nice post, I love how it makes a claim and then uses OTHER systems as a proof using the assumtion that more GPU power immediately means it supports all features the weaker system does.

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #38 on:** March 05, 2007, 06:01:59 PM »

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

Deguello · « **Reply #39 on:** March 05, 2007, 10:45:44 PM »

Well, you said it couldn't pixel-shade at all, KDR. And he shows that not only is the Wii capable of pixel-shading, the Gamecube was as well.

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.

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #40 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

KDR_11k · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:10:13 AM »

Well, you said it couldn't pixel-shade at all, KDR.

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:12:33 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
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

True. Reminds me a lot of Rare, to be honest. Great TECHNICAL developer. Sorta lackluster game design...

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

ryancoke · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:59:22 AM »

ID should make Mario Doom...

http://www.thelastboss.com/post.phtml?pk=2349

Pittbboi · « **Reply #44 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).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:49:06 AM »

"Which is funny because while Rogue Leader looked awesome, it had the crappiest 'gameplay' since Dragon's Lair."

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:53:40 AM »

It's less revisionist history, more fans forgetting which Rogue is which. For instance, now the franchise is often msitakenly labelled Rogue Leader even though it's actually Rogue Squadron!!!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ian Sane · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:15:44 AM »

"It's less revisionist history, more fans forgetting which Rogue is which. For instance, now the franchise is often msitakenly labelled Rogue Leader even though it's actually Rogue Squadron!!!"

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.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #48 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:58:13 PM »

Rebel Strike is not shittee. It just totally lost its sense of refinement and direction by including CONTRA LEVELS. It's still better than Sonic SR and Red Steel.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #49 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:01:14 PM »

I actually Enjoyed rebel strikes on foot combat, granted it wasn't as good as flying but I didn't feel it was terrible.

News:

Author Topic: id Software is leaning towards ports for Wii (Read 18145 times)