I can't believe this article didn't create more of a noise around here after all the reports that the Wii U version of AC3 was not up to snuff to the other HD consoles:
http://thegamershub.net/2012/08/assassins-creed-iii-preview/
"I also was lucky enough to get shown some lovely footage of the Wii U build of Assassin’s Creed III behind closed doors. The Wii U demo was again naval based, but this time took place at a pivotal point in the Revolution set around three-quarters of the way through the main game.
I suppose that the biggest question everybody has about the Wii U version has to do with just how good the game looks. Honestly, it looks incredible on Wii U. So incredible, in fact, that it makes me wonder why the PS3 version looks as ropey as it does. This isn’t to say that the PS3 demo I played looked abysmal, far from it, but it definitely didn’t look as smooth and texture rich as the Wii U version does. Of course, as the Wii U version is actually a port, the most likely explanation for visual differences is that the PS3 version is an older build, perhaps an E3 demo, while the Wii U version is up to date."
I can't think of a reason why they would lie, and it's not a Nintendo fan site........sounds good to me.
Maybe because it was obvious long ago it was a Port, and that it will look a bit better. No surprise here sorry.
But as far as other things missing, that's obviosuly lackluster effort on getting the port done right.
Sounds like you're mixing some things up.
UE4 does not require a 1TFLOP GPU. Tim Sweeney said the "primary" UE4 renderer (there is a different renderer for mobile products) is targeted at DX11 GPUs and gets interesting once the power goes beyond 1TFLOP.
Epic has said the intended platforms for UE4 have not been announced.
Mark Rein said UE4 games could be ported to Wii U. They just won't bring UE4 to Wii U themselves. Or probably the best way to say it is they won't design a renderer tailored to Wii U hardware.
EPIC is now just a licensing service, what games do they even do from their original output, they don't see the WiiU a big marketplace for
Because if they we're normally making their games on the platform they would have to have an engine and that would simultaneously be a good idea to drive for to make it licensable as well.
So if they are going to make a game for WiiU, they're going to use UE3, but a pretty optimized one, still there is work to be done anyway they choose.
I've really not cared at all if this engine gets on or now, it's irrelevant, nintendo is self-sufficient and there are still other big players in the game including id software's eager to make Doom 3 BFG for WiiU but they aren't sure because of scheduling, sooner or later, Crytek may jump on it and for once Crysis 3 ends up there, while it's not as good as original Crysis, it's a lot better than GOW for me.
Atleast crysis 3 is a step in the right direction from Crysis 2. But I still was one of the big PC fans of Crysis times and was EXTREMELY disapointed how crytek pissed on the whole community, including the total wiping of crymod.com which now redirects to a crydev.net which is as good as blizzard's BNET "2.0" (practically 0.2) was when 1.0 version of SC2 was launched. I was there I know all that was going on as I was modding and participating in community, custom servers and mods it was a HEAVEN but we didn't got that many support from crytek as there was no patches at all for years.
Then they made this stupid new forums which look like some XBLA consolized UI that totaly made me go away forever, never bought any crysis game after that and I still won't buy Crysis 3 for PC until I can be sure if it's really a game that I would like to play/mod.
Thanks, I recalled incorrectly then, both in terms of the source and the direct context. Apologies.
I found the actual relevant quotes.
Sweeney: "Unreal Engine 4’s next-generation renderer targets DirectX 11 GPU’s and really starts to become interesting on hardware with 1+ TFLOPS of graphics performance, where it delivers some truly unprecedented capabilities. However, UE4 also includes a mainstream renderer targeting mass-market devices with a feature set that is appropriate there."
Sweeney: "Yeah, we're starting a behind-closed-doors showing of the engine to developers; this is part of our very early ramp-up cycle. We went through this cycle with Unreal Engine 3 starting in 2003 and 2004. At some point we'll make public announcements and ramp up to the point where developers are shipping games, but it's very early right now. We're aiming very high, and the intended platforms this is aimed at haven't even been announced."
Rein: "I'll state that I don't think it's our intention to bring Unreal Engine 4 to Wii U, but Unreal Engine 4 is going to be supremely scalable. We'll run on mobile phones and on a wide variety of things, so if a customer decides they want to port an Unreal Engine 4 game to Wii U, they could. But Unreal Engine 3 is a really good fit for that platform."
One can probably assume the second quote is in reference to the other next generation consoles.
Do the first and third quotes imply ease in portability between next generation platforms - i.e. the point about supreme scalability - or does it imply the Wii U will likely require bespoke solutions if ever a developer is using UE4 and targeting the other platforms - i.e. the part about targeting DX11 and letting customers decide? Or both.
And if so - going back to the core query - will it be worthwhile to do so.
The overarching query is: If a developer makes something targeting the PS4/720 and PC on next generation engines, will it be cost- and time-effective to downscale it [on those engines, or otherwise] to the Wii U.
Epic makes the engine "scalable" = Epic makes many different versions of it's engine.
The way the words are twisted by many people sound like that the engine is a fixed construct that is then licensed because it's scalable. That's so ridicolous my mind hurts.
Epic is making that FOR the licensing market, they are making so many UI shortcuts, so many this and that, ease of access and development FOR the market. That means they are investing money and effort in those areas.
What they are doing can be done with any single engine out there. EPIC is not breaking any revolutionary boundries because they cannot focus on 2 huge things at once which contradict each other, or they'll need a twice as big studio, Crtyek's already passed them in technological advance, and id Software is making a revolution in game engines in shadows, EPIC just has a lot of fanboys. And that's a Fact, i wouldn't say that if I wasn't sure.
Id Software is taking the ease of entry away, moddability is there but it's not a platform made for "programmers that aren't really programmers" - because all that what EPIC is doing is hurting the performance and response of the engine, script compilers are very bad as well.
Rage's idTech5 has only a little bit of script, and Doom4 will use superscript as a more widely used way to make game logic, which is a C++ derivative and is type safe,
I really feel kind of weird when I read texts at which people look at software engines the same as car engine or a washingmachine. That makes ones of those moments when you'd just throw the PC out the window, ah, brainsore.
This is more of a general reply and opinion for other places I read, not directly to this quote.
This is how it works, which is why simply saying it's based off of R700 isn't really saying much. It probably has more in common with 6000 series, or maybe even 7000.
Ofcoure, it's heavily modified. I do believe 4000 was kind of an add-in at the time.
4000 series didn't had eyefinity (multi-display) and i think it was said that the hardware could support 5 outputs but they cut down to 3 max.
Also the fact that controller's FPS drops by 30 automatically when using 2 aslo helps to have much less inpact on the GPU, so i think the GPU won't be much that more strained by controllers if they have split FPS, there goes the arguments of people worrying about that the GPU will be loaded.
. Feel the vibe!!!
