Support NeoGAF

[Lenardo]

Has anybody else considered that the reason why ports aren't looking significantly better is becasue the devs have such strict development deadlines that they have neither the time nor the money and resources to make the ports look significantly better?

THIS comes up alot.

until the devs get engines that focus on the strengths of the next generation of consoles, which focus more on the gpgpu aspect than the cpu centric design, a dev will have difficulty programming to the console's strength.

hell most engines do not support wiiu's dedicated dsp(sound chip)- i can pretty much guarantee that unreal 3/4 does not, pretty sure it was mentioned that unity does not(at least yet), etc etc, until an engine is out that supports 100% of the wiiu strengths, it won't perform as good as it can.

i expect Retro & nintendo's engines will support all of the wiiu's abilities.

whether or not other engines will, remains to be seen.

 

[Van Owen]

Has anybody else considered that the reason why ports aren't looking significantly better is becasue the devs have such strict development deadlines that they have neither the time nor the money and resources to make the ports look significantly better?

So what's the excuse for the Wii U exclusive games?

 

[M°°nblade]

So what's the excuse for the Wii U exclusive games?

shovelware

 

[JavyOO7]

I think people just take issue with the Wii that its not leagues ahead of PS3 or X360 when they first started out. Like there's that one game where they can point out: 'this can't be done on last gen, whoa!!' and so then they get excited.

I'm just excited because its like a DS. And its Nintendo games on HD. And if Nintendo gets their Nintendo Network thing off the groun and is more pro active with their eshop stuff, then I'll be a happy gamer. =p

 

[tkscz]

I think in the long run if third party support is a high priority for those interested in the Wii U, they would be better off looking into a PC or putting money aside for also the new PlayStation/Xbox. I could of course be very wrong, but I do not predict a bright future of third party ports on the Wii U, for a multitude of reasons, some hardware related. We'll see.

Considering the highly negative reaction of core gamers of the WiiU (Bayonetta 2 being exclusive was disastrous) I don't see the WiiU getting too many 3rd party titles. Sales are what tends to count the most, and when it came to core titles, the Wii simply couldn't sell those (of course 3rd parties were also to blame for that one).

So what's the excuse for the Wii U exclusive games?

Are there any exclusives that are AAA and didn't start off on another console?

 

[phosphor112]

This circular arguing over whether or not Wii U is "any" more powerful than PS360...

... seems to not take into account the fact that Wii U is driving the gamepad with its independent screen view. Step back and consider most games on the current HD consoles that support any form of split screen gameplay. How do they achieve it? Lower resolution in each view. Dramatically reducing details, object pop-in, and turning off dynamic shadows and lighting effects. Most games with split screen views suffer, even with all that taken into account, from inconsistent to bad framerate.

Meanwhile, Wii U has to drive a game view at full resolution and full detail on one screen, while driving various kinds of windows and views on a second device. There are plenty of games in Nintendoland that have full gameplay views split 5 ways. We know there are games coming that let one player use the TV and another use the gamepad for "splitscreen". Sonic Racing can run a rear view of the game while the big display shows the uncut view.

I would say there's plenty of evidence that if nothing else, all that ram, and a much newer GPU are making a difference immediately. The problem, is that difference isn't being displayed by launch games that look better than the current generation's most expensive AAA productions and/or run at twice the framerate just because.

Aside from that, I think one valid critique of the cynicism is, aside from the framerate argument (even though that is based on judging launch ports handled by outside porting companies), superior assets and effects don't just make themselves because one piece of hardware is more powerful than another. I don't think it's rational to assume anything yet, one way or the other - aside from acknowledging that the console has a lot more ram, and the GPU is better. Logically, in the long run, that means some improvements over the current consoles should make themselves clear.

But really saying Wii U is exactly the same is just as bad as the exaggerated, overly optimistic claims that it's going to be almost like Durango and Orbis just a little worse.

The screen isn't rendered twice unless it's two different screens. For example, ZombiU would take a hit because you have your main screen and then the "aux" screen, or w/e you'd call it. If you scope in, it still renders things on the main screen, but the view of the scope on the gamepad as well. That game doesn't look too impressive, probably for that reason.

But yeah, now doubt the Wii U is more powerful. It's silly to assume otherwise. The question though is "by how much?"

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

so far we have not seen it.

i'm back to being pretty pessimistic on wii u. until i see something (or some gpu specs) that prove otherwise.

the one thing we have that isn't speculation so far is the games, and so far i haven't seen one iota of a thing you couldn't do on 360.

i'm saying the burden of proof is on wii u right now to show it's even better than ps360 gpu-wise.

360 launch fare didn't look 10x Xbox either, but the specs are there. Give it some time, more than double the memory, triple the framebuffer and a GPGPU that's ~1.5 shader models newer is going to yield results at some point.

 

[Disorientator]

nvm

 

[JordanN]

Considering the highly negative reaction of core gamers of the WiiU (Bayonetta 2 being exclusive was disastrous) I don't see the WiiU getting too many 3rd party titles. Sales are what tends to count the most, and when it came to core titles, the Wii simply couldn't sell those (of course 3rd parties were also to blame for that one).

You have to remember the environment for those games on Wii was a near disaster (motion controls, no HD, non-existent online).

Am I saying Wii U will automatically do better in terms of third party? No. But I think using the Wii as a precedent for Wii U isn't fair. The two are literally worlds apart in terms of how they present their games to the "core" gamer.

 

[RedSwirl]

Has anybody else considered that the reason why ports aren't looking significantly better is becasue the devs have such strict development deadlines that they have neither the time nor the money and resources to make the ports look significantly better?

I think some people were maybe thinking devs would at least get the Wii U versions to look a little closer to the PC versions with slightly better assets and maybe whatever effects they can get in if the Wii U's capabilities do indeed equate to DX10.1. Of course that would be for the games that actually have improved PC versions (AC3, Arkham City, BOII, etc.). The only games I think we know are doing this even slightly are FIFA 13, Colonial Marines, and Trine 2.

THIS comes up alot.

until the devs get engines that focus on the strengths of the next generation of consoles, which focus more on the gpgpu aspect than the cpu centric design, a dev will have difficulty programming to the console's strength.

hell most engines do not support wiiu's dedicated dsp(sound chip)- i can pretty much guarantee that unreal 3/4 does not, pretty sure it was mentioned that unity does not(at least yet), etc etc, until an engine is out that supports 100% of the wiiu strengths, it won't perform as good as it can.

i expect Retro & nintendo's engines will support all of the wiiu's abilities.

whether or not other engines will, remains to be seen.

Aren't some of the engines coming out now basically next gen-ready but being contorted to run on current gen? I'm mainly talking about Frostbite and CryEngine 3 though, and I guess we we haven't seen anything of those on the Wii U. I don't think EA has any FB2 game announced for Wii U yet and of CE3 we only know that "CryTek is working with Nintendo."

 

[lherre]

360 launch fare didn't look 10x Xbox either, but the specs are there. Give it some time, more than double the memory, triple the framebuffer and a GPGPU that's ~1.5 shader models newer is going to yield results at some point.

10 x in power doesn't mean 10 x visuals ...

EatChildren my 2c there.

 

[DeuceGamer]

I think in the long run if third party support is a high priority for those interested in the Wii U, they would be better off looking into a PC or putting money aside for also the new PlayStation/Xbox. I could of course be very wrong, but I do not predict a bright future of third party ports on the Wii U, for a multitude of reasons, some hardware related. We'll see.

This is what I'm expecting. I do hope it gets better support then Wii (especially in the latter portion of it's life), but I don't expect support like MS/Sony/PC and that is completely fine with me. I'll have a PC and/or the new Sony/MS system as well to play the third party multi-plat games.

If a person is only able to get one console/PC next gen then they should seriously look at what is most important to them. Even if you believe Wii U will get third party support it's best to look at it as if it won't when making your decision, if third party support is that important to you. Of course, this is just my opinion/suggestion.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

10 x in power doesn't mean 10 x visuals ...

EatChildren my 2c there.

Much like how 2-3x power wouldn't necessarily yield 2-3x visuals. Especially at launch.

I think an argument could be made for current 360 games being 10x Xbox 1 games visually though.

 

[beril]

I think some people were maybe thinking devs would at least get the Wii U versions to look a little closer to the PC versions with slightly better assets and maybe whatever effects they can get in if the Wii U's capabilities do indeed equate to DX10.1. Of course that would be for the games that actually have improved PC versions (AC3, Arkham City, BOII, etc.). The only games I think we know are doing this even slightly are FIFA 13, Colonial Marines, and Trine 2.

We don't really know exactly how the multiplatform titles compare and won't know until they're released. Just because they're not rendered in twice the resolution with extra AA doesn't mean there can't be some minor improvements here and there. You won't notice a few bigger textures, more detailed shadows and more stable framerate in off-screen fotage and bullshots.

Not saying that I expect them to run/look better, just that if they were in fact slightly closer to the PC version, it would still be very hard for us to know at this point.

 

[Forsaken82]

Are there any exclusives that are AAA and didn't start off on another console?

Zombi U definitely has a AAA budget. I am sure you can argue project 101 will be a AAA game perhaps not in budget thouh.

 

[magash]

Zombi U definitely has a AAA budget. I am sure you can argue project 101 will be a AAA game perhaps not in budget thouh.

ZombiU started out as a 360 game

 

[AOC83]

Zombi U definitely has a AAA budget.

Not really. Ubisoft themselves said it is low budget.

 

[Forsaken82]

ZombiU started out as a 360 game

News to me

And in my opinion unless it had a sub 10mil budget id consider iy a AAA budget was it sub 10mil?

 

[Alexios]

Zombi U definitely has a AAA budget. I am sure you can argue project 101 will be a AAA game perhaps not in budget thouh.

What are the budgets of these since you seem to know that for a fact? I don't see much of high production values in ZombiU. Voice acting is average, there aren't extensive cinematics or scripted sequences requiring lots and lots of high quality animations, etc, etc. It seems pretty barebones and crude so far regardless of the system specs, what did that AAA budget go to? Its few impressive features aren't assets (lots of zombie models shown aren't all that great either), just things like the lighting, engine stuff.

 

[magash]

News to me

And in my opinion unless it had a sub 10mil budget id consider iy a AAA budget was it sub 10mil?

Zombie U started out as Killer Rabbits which was initially a 360 game. It wasn't until after E3 2011 that killer freaks became Zombi U.

 

[BlankaBR]

Zombie U started out as Killer Rabbits which was initially a 360 game. It wasn't until after E3 2012 that killer freaks became Zombi U.

Where did u get that it was a 360 game?
No source? As far as I know Ubisoft started developing it exclusively for the Wii U, wherr is that info?

 

[big_erk]

Zombie U started out as Killer Rabbits which was initially a 360 game. It wasn't until after E3 2012 that killer freaks became Zombi U.

Exactly.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Where did u get that it was a 360 game?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32613763&postcount=408

 

[magash]

Where did u get that it was a 360 game?

Here is ZombiU's game profile from giant bomb

 

[beril]

Zombie U started out as Killer Rabbits which was initially a 360 game. It wasn't until after E3 2012 that killer freaks became Zombi U.

Assuming they had planned the move to Wii U at least a few months before it was announced as Killer Freaks at E3 2011, that gives them about two years of development for Wii U. During this time they also changed the enemies to zombies and presumably a lot of the setting. How many "360 assets" ( if such a thing would exist ) do you really think remains at this point. Did it ever even enter production as a 360 game?

 

[Forsaken82]

Dont remeber that. My mistake. I just remember freaks being announced for wiiu not the rabbids game for 360.

 

[BlankaBR]

Here is ZombiU's game profile from giant bomb

I see they say it started as a muktiplataform title yes

 

[magash]

Assuming they had planned the move to Wii U at least a few months before it was announced as Killer Freaks at E3 2011, that gives them about two years of development for Wii U. During this time they also changed the enemies to zombies and presumably a lot of the setting. How many "360 assets" ( if such a thing would exist ) do you really think remains at this point. Did it ever even enter production as a 360 game?

I think the change from killer rabbits to Zombi U happened immediately after E3 2011. I don't know if killer rabbits actually entered production.

 

[snowdog1971]

Probably gamepad. We saw the silicon it wasn't that big.

Pretty weird to me it's at a loss. I'm kinda skeptical. Maybe initially, quickly transitioning to break even then profit?

It says more about the GPU and RAM. We're probably looking at a BOM of $40-60 for the GamePad, the majority of the expense of the console, like all consoles before it and every console to follow it, will be the GPU, CPU and RAM. We know that the GPU has plenty of grunt, we know that the CPU is less impressive (although we should remember that Nintendo consoles are generally well balanced) and we know that there's 2GB of RAM.

 

[John Harker]

Exactly.

No exactly. It was Zombie's way before E3 2012.

 

[Forsaken82]

What are the budgets of these since you seem to know that for a fact? I don't see much of high production values in ZombiU. Voice acting is average, there aren't extensive cinematics or scripted sequences requiring lots and lots of high quality animations, etc, etc. It seems pretty barebones and crude so far regardless of the system specs, what did that AAA budget go to? Its few impressive features aren't assets (lots of zombie models shown aren't all that great either), just things like the lighting, engine stuff.

Everyone has there own idea of how much qualifies as a AAA title as i said before i attribute budgets over 10mil to be AAA and i doubt its less than that. If you can find info that states otherwise please let me know but thats how i view things.

 

[Thraktor]

Assuming they had planned the move to Wii U at least a few months before it was announced as Killer Freaks at E3 2011, that gives them about two years of development for Wii U. During this time they also changed the enemies to zombies and presumably a lot of the setting. How many "360 assets" ( if such a thing would exist ) do you really think remains at this point. Did it ever even enter production as a 360 game?

I think the bigger issue is the switch from Killer Freaks to ZombiU. It would have required a lot of work on redoing assets and given them very little time to polish, which would explain why we've got a game which looks very nice in some places and very mediocre in others (although of course the final build could be an improvement in that regard).

No exactly. It was Zombie's way before E3 2012.

I assume they meant E3 2011.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Everyone has there own idea of how much qualifies as a AAA title as i said before i attribute budgets over 10mil to be AAA and i doubt its less than that. If you can find info that states otherwise please let me know but thats how i view things.

I thought $20m for production was usually the AAA standard, then the ad budget usually went 2-5x that.

 

[Forsaken82]

I thought $20m for production was usually the AAA standard, then the ad budget usually went 2-5x that.

I think its definitely debatable but like i said i think people have there own opinions on the matter

 

[Donnie]

10 x in power doesn't mean 10 x visuals ...

EatChildren my 2c there.

Yeah on a technical level it can mean 10x the polygons, textures, shader comlexity ect ect, but the game may not be seen as 10x since how a game looks can be quite subjective. Though that doesn't change the fact that 360 launch titles vs the best currently on 360 show a massive difference. WiiU will improve a lot as well.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I think its definitely debatable but like i said i think people have there own opinions on the matter

The only $10m AAA HD game I can recall was Gears of War 1, and that figure was contentious since a chunk of the game's cost was folded into UE3 R&D. What else has been just $10m to make?

 

[magash]

I think the bigger issue is the switch from Killer Freaks to ZombiU. It would have required a lot of work on redoing assets and given them very little time to polish, which would explain why we've got a game which looks very nice in some places and very mediocre in others (although of course the final build could be an improvement in that regard).



I assume they meant E3 2011.

Yeah it was a typo. It's supposed to be 2011. So killer freaks/rabbids was changed to Zombi U after E3 2011. This means that the game is most likely being developed for less than two years.

 

[IdeaMan]

I really don't know why people keep saying the Wii U CPU will be some sort of weakest link on the console, the system is balanced so it's doing its job quite efficiently. I never heard once people from 3 different studios complaining about it.

 

[KageMaru]

That's being obtuse. Read the links and "Directx 11 like effect" (not "DirectX". I'm specifically referring to one API) gets covered.

I accidently left out the "11" in DX 11. Still you should have gotten my point. Those "DX11 effects" mentioned on Epic's site have been done on current gen hardware.

It doesn't seem like you understand the difference between an API and hardware designed around an API, which is why I asked you what "DirectX 11 like effects" were in the first place.

If something like deferred shading indicates a system can keep up with DX11 hardware, then great the ps360 will be able to keep up with the PS4/720 as well! /sarcasm =p

You said "there's nothing easy about game development" so for me to give an objective answer would be seen as contradicting or certainly not interest you.

Oh no, I'm definitely interested. The fact that nothing is easy in game development has no effect on pointing out one system is easier to work on than the other. Just because development is hard, that doesn't stop me from saying definitively that the ps1 was easier to work on than the Saturn, or the Xbox was easier to work on than the ps2.

However even when looking at which system is easier to work on, there are many things to consider. By saying the Wii-U is easier, what exactly do you mean? Are the tools better? Is it easier to get better utilization out of the hardware? Is there better documentation for the Wii-U than the ps360?

These, and more, are all questions you have to consider when crowning any system as being "easier" to develop for. Have considered all this before making your initial post?

The most impressive technology in the Wii U will be the controller, simple as that. There's a lot of stuff going into it, and that 'stuff' costs money to R&D and manufacture. It should be a pretty impressive piece of technology, especially for the wireless video technology.

It's not really surprising this is where Nintendo's bigger investment lies. It's the staple of the Wii U much in the same way motion/pointer controls were the staple of the Wii. It's not just a controller. It's part of the Wii U hardware package, part of the philosophy, and thus part of all those years of technology R&D and now shipping.

As for the actual processing technology, I'm currently sitting on "expect the worst, hope for the best". Yes, it should outclass current generation consoles, even if such evidence isn't apparent right now. Yes, it might take some time for a developer to flex the Wii U's muscles. Whether or not that difference will be readily noticeable is impossible to say, but the potential is there.

I do feel it will be heavily outclassed by Sony and Microsoft's next generation console, to the point where games look noticeably better. I don't really have anything to back that up other than fragmented pieces of information on all three systems, a vague assessment, and a dash of cynicism. I do firmly believe people thinking the Wii U will manage to keep up admirably with the next generation of consoles will end up disappointed. I don't want to say it's the Wii all over again, and I don't believe it is, but the "PlayStation 2 of next generation" in terms of hardware doesn't sit well with me and I don't agree with it.

End of the day, I believe Nintendo's R&D and philosophy with the Wii U, both in terms of spending and manufacturing, is producing a system that is compact, low voltage, low heat, and thus very stable on the processing front. In addition to this, they've poured quite a bit of tech into the GamePad, which is a major factor of the system, especially the impressive wireless video feed. Both of these points will noticeably impact the raw processing capabilities.

And that's my 2c for now.

This is what I've been trying to say for a long time but worded much better.

I also agree the whole the "PlayStation 2 of next generation" doesn't sound likely. DC of the next gen is a better possibility IMO.

Has anybody else considered that the reason why ports aren't looking significantly better is becasue the devs have such strict development deadlines that they have neither the time nor the money and resources to make the ports look significantly better?

Plenty of people, including myself, have pointed this out. Logic escapes people when they feel the need to troll or bash something for no reason.

 

[Forsaken82]

The only $10m AAA HD game I can recall was Gears of War 1, and that figure was contentious since a chunk of the game's cost was folded into UE3 R&D. What else has been just $10m to make?

First of all i never said 10million was what zombi u cost i said it cost no less and im sure its closer to 20. The budgets of games have changed so much this generation that the idea of a AAA budget can fluxuate.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I also agree the whole the "PlayStation 2 of next generation" doesn't sound likely. DC of the next gen is a better possibility IMO.

The PS2 of next gen is way too optimistic, the dynamics of the market have changed too much since those times and Nintendo doesn't have the kind of relationship across the board with 3rd parties that Sony had then.

Calling it the DC of next gen is way too pessimistic though as it totally discounts the massive issues Sega was having that contributed to the failure of the Dreamcast and this doesn't even factor in the unlikeliness that a "wait for PS4/720" campaign would have any effect on Wii U sales as it did to the DC.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

First of all i never said 10million was what zombi u cost i said it cost no less and im sure its closer to 20. The budgets of games have changed so much this generation that the idea of a AAA budget can fluxuate.

Don't get so defensive, I was just seeing what your $10m figure was based on. And now that I know it's NOTHING, feel free to get defensive.

I also agree the whole the "PlayStation 2 of next generation" doesn't sound likely. DC of the next gen is a better possibility IMO.

Both sound equally unrealistic. The best bet in somewhere in the middle.

 

[AzaK]

Has anybody else considered that the reason why ports aren't looking significantly better is becasue the devs have such strict development deadlines that they have neither the time nor the money and resources to make the ports look significantly better?

Many times we have. It's just that some people just like stirring shit.

So what's the excuse for the Wii U exclusive games?

Launch budgets, new to hardware, Nintendo themselves not doing graphically intense games.

10 x in power doesn't mean 10 x visuals ...

EatChildren my 2c there.

Hello lherre.

I really don't know why people keep saying the Wii U CPU will be some sort of weakest link on the console, the system is balanced so it's doing its job quite efficiently. I never heard once people from 3 different studios complaining about it.

The reason why is simple. They are trolls.

 

[Van Owen]

I really don't know why people keep saying the Wii U CPU will be some sort of weakest link on the console, the system is balanced so it's doing its job quite efficiently. I never heard once people from 3 different studios complaining about it.

Because other people said it was clocked low and had to work around it.

 

[JordanN]

I accidently left out the "11" in DX 11. Still you should have gotten my point. Those "DX11 effects" mentioned on Epic's site have been done on current gen hardware.

It doesn't seem like you understand the difference between an API and hardware designed around an API, which is why I asked you what "DirectX 11 like effects" were in the first place.

If something like deferred shading indicates a system can keep up with DX11 hardware, then great the ps360 will be able to keep up with the PS4/720 as well! /sarcasm =p

When I refer to DirectX 11 like effects, I'm referring to the ease of efficiency that comes with taking advantage of the new pipelines (hull and domain shader, compute shader). So while there should be some crossover between PS3/360 and the new DirectX 11, there's no way they can render as many complex lights, dynamic shadows, particles, subdivide polygons on the fly etc with the same efficiency as DirectX 11 can.

Oh no, I'm definitely interested. The fact that nothing is easy in game development has no effect on pointing out one system is easier to work on than the other. Just because development is hard, that doesn't stop me from saying definitively that the ps1 was easier to work on than the Saturn, or the Xbox was easier to work on than the ps2.

However even when looking at which system is easier to work on, there are many things to consider. By saying the Wii-U is easier, what exactly do you mean? Are the tools better? Is it easier to get better utilization out of the hardware? Is there better documentation for the Wii-U than the ps360?

These, and more, are all questions you have to consider when crowning any system as being "easier" to develop for. Have considered all this before making your initial post?

I should say I'm referring to a statement made by Shinen where they expressed the power of the GPU opens up many new possibilities for developers to approach things that make it easier to implement then if you were to try the same thing on PS3/360.

Both sound equally unrealistic. The best bet in somewhere in the middle.

PSP?

 

[IdeaMan]

Because other people said it was clocked low and had to work around it.

But then, their issues can derive from 10 different origins. They may not put in good use all the co-processors such as the DSP to alleviate some processing burden, versions of middleware not fully optimized for the system, the adaptation of their engine to the Wii U specifics isn't good enough, etc. This could be a problem witnessed at a certain time, their complains were relevant a semester ago but not now, they took more time than other studios to learn how to exploit the hardware with the trio cpu/memory/gpu, etc. There are like tons of variable. But a sure thing is that 3 studios have developed ambitious titles on the platform without ever criticizing the CPU.

 

[Blades64]

Because other people said it was clocked low and had to work around it.

One developer said it was clocked low (Tekken producer) and one spoke about working around it (Koei).

Clocked low does not equal 'weak', and working around it could simply mean getting used to the system (getting used to the processor).

 

[big_erk]

No exactly. It was Zombie's way before E3 2012.

I was speaking more to the fact that it started out as Killer Rabbids.

 

[KageMaru]

The PS2 of next gen is way too optimistic, the dynamics of the market have changed too much since those times and Nintendo doesn't have the kind of relationship across the board with 3rd parties that Sony had then.

Calling it the DC of next gen is way too pessimistic though as it totally discounts the massive issues Sega was having that contributed to the failure of the Dreamcast and this doesn't even factor in the unlikeliness that a "wait for PS4/720" campaign would have any effect on Wii U sales as it did to the DC.

I was talking in terms of performance, not overall sales potential or 3rd party support.

Both sound equally unrealistic. The best bet in somewhere in the middle.

True. I guess it depends on what aspect of the systems we're looking at. The gap in memory may be comparable, if not larger, to the DC -> xbox, but the processing performance gap may be smaller for example.

When I refer to DirectX 11 effects, I'm referring to the ease of efficiency that comes with taking advantage of the new pipelines (hull and domain shader, compute shader). So while there should be some crossover between PS3/360 and the new DirectX 11, there's no way they can render as many complex lights, dynamic shadows, particles, subdivide polygons on the fly etc with the same efficiency as DirectX 11 can.

Ok, so this same principle applies to the efficiency differences between the Wii-U and ps4/720 as well, right?

I should say I'm referring to a statement made by Shinen where they expressed the power of the GPU opens up many new possibilities for developers to approach things that make it easier to implement then if you were to try the same thing on PS3/360.

That doesn't mean the system is easier to work on though. Yes, the newer design of the Wii-U GPU will likely run effects more efficiently than the Xenos or RSX found in the PS360. However getting to that point may be harder due to the tools, documentation, experience, etc. all being immature compared to the years of work and efficiencies gained on the older, more well known, consoles.

PSP?

That still wouldn't be very reassuring IMO.

 

[roddur]

But then, their issues can derive from 10 different origins. They may not put in good use all the co-processors such as the DSP to alleviate some processing burden, versions of middleware not fully optimized for the system, the adaptation of their engine to the Wii U specifics isn't good enough, etc. This could be a problem witnessed at a certain time, their complains were relevant a semester ago but not now, they took more time than other studios to learn how to exploit the hardware with the trio cpu/memory/gpu, etc. There are like tons of variable. But a sure thing is that 3 studios have developed ambitious titles on the platform without ever criticizing the CPU.

ur explanation will not help those others to say the system is crap.