crappy gpu in next xbox?

[Gordon Freemen]

Not really, you're forgetting the comparatively weak CPU of the Wii being part of the equation. You can't really get around that issue as it would mean changing too much of a game if it's already leveraging even half of the performance of the CPUs in the PS3 and 360.

No they would just "PORT" & tone down the graphics man and like I say "Graphics" is not the reason we don't see all the games on Wii it's because the Nintendo brand has a "PG" Family approved clean image to maintain thats why it has much less Mature rated and Ultra violent games many of which happen to have high level graphical effects. Nintendo has contributed more to the gaming industry than all the newer mainstream garbage put together such as COD, BF3, EA, Skyrim, etc etc etc.

 

[Red Hawk]

No they would just "PORT" & tone down the graphics man and like I say "Graphics" is not the reason we don't see all the games on Wii it's because the Nintendo brand has a "PG" Family approved clean image to maintain thats why it has much less Mature rated and Ultra violent games many of which happen to have high level graphical effects. Nintendo has contributed more to the gaming industry than all the newer mainstream garbage put together such as COD, BF3, EA, Skyrim, etc etc etc.

The thing is, the CPU usage for some 360/PS3 games is so intense that it's impossible to tone it down and port it to the weaker Wii. Some games are even built around the specific CPU architecture. I remember reading an article about Uncharted 3 where the developer talks about how they used the PS3's unique Cell architecture, with its main CPU and its SPUs (synergistic processing units), for gameplay-effecting physics effects, like a ship level actually tossing and turning on sea. You can't port that to the Wii because the horsepower just isn't there. Physics effects calculations, AI calculations, large rendering areas, etc -- these just can't be replicated on the Wii without redesigning entire levels, gameplay mechanics, and game engines. At that point it's not porting the game anymore, it's designing it from scratch.

It's a moot point though, since the Wii has a fair number of exclusives with great gameplay to make people buy it (Smash Bros, Zelda, Mario, etc.) But let's not let this thread turn into a console war pissing match.

 

[Grooveriding]

Grooveriding, remember that thread you made with Crysis 1 on PC vs. 360? The lighting may have been improved, but they removed a lot of the detail in Crysis 1 and blurred the background/reduced draw distance to get it to run. While it is true that developers optimize much more efficiently for consoles, eventually you simply run out of power and are eventually forced to cut corners. HD6670 level of performance may be good for 3 years, esp. compared to PS3 and 360 but then we'll be back to even faster consolization .

Because many console gamers don't follow hardware, they might hear that Crysis 1 was very demanding on the PC. They they'll play it on the 360 and see that it runs smoothly. Then they think consoles are just as good as the PC for $200. Only thing is in some places Crysis 1 on the 360 barely even looks like the same game.

Yes, let me find the youtube link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_1mcnH2yQ

It's night and day.

I think I am right in remembering that the Xbox GPU is about what an X1900GT was ? I can't even find relevant benchmarks to compare that card to a 6670 in the same games unfortunately. I really don't think it is that much better, apart from having DX11. Very sad.

 

[Red Hawk]

Yes, let me find the youtube link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_1mcnH2yQ

It's night and day.

I think I am right in remembering that the Xbox GPU is about what an X1900GT was ? I can't even find relevant benchmarks to compare that card to a 6670 in the same games unfortunately. I really don't think it is that much better, apart from having DX11. Very sad.

The Xbox 360's GPU (Xenos) is a custom GPU that is something of a midway point between the Radeon X1000 series and Radeon HD 2000 series. It's not truly Direct3D 10 compliant, but AMD prototyped several technologies (such as unified shading) that they later implemented on PC with the 2000 series first.

The 6670, weak as it is for a current PC card, should be much, much faster than the Xbox's GPU. Compared to the 2900 XT, the 2900 XT has 320 VLIW5 shader processors at 743 MHz while the 6670 has 480 at 800 MHz. A hypothetical 6670 in the Xbox 720 will also (I hope) use GDDR5 memory, giving it twice the memory bandwidth.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

No they would just "PORT" & tone down the graphics man and like I say "Graphics" is not the reason we don't see all the games on Wii it's because the Nintendo brand has a "PG" Family approved clean image to maintain thats why it has much less Mature rated and Ultra violent games many of which happen to have high level graphical effects. Nintendo has contributed more to the gaming industry than all the newer mainstream garbage put together such as COD, BF3, EA, Skyrim, etc etc etc.

Don't restate the same flawed point please - porting and toning down the graphics isn't all that has to be done in order to make games that run on the PS3 and 360 to run on the Wii. The CPU isn't there simply and only to queue up the graphics for the GPU to render. I explicitly mentioned the CPU, stop trying to make a point with less than half the pieces.

Nintendo does have a family friendly image, sure, but that doesn't excuse the Wii for its under-performing hardware that's unable to run "mainstream garbage" as you so ineloquently put it. Nintendo has demonstrated that by enthusiastically announcing current generation titles released and to be released on the PS3 and 360 as titles also heading for the upcoming Wii U. A family friendly image has nothing to do with it, the Wii simply doesn't have the performance to run these titles, so Nintendo is making up for lost ground by assuring the market that popular multiplatform "mainstream garbage" will also be released on their upcoming console.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Don't restate the same flawed point please - porting and toning down the graphics isn't all that has to be done in order to make games that run on the PS3 and 360 to run on the Wii. The CPU isn't there simply and only to queue up the graphics for the GPU to render. I explicitly mentioned the CPU, stop trying to make a point with less than half the pieces.

Nintendo does have a family friendly image, sure, but that doesn't excuse the Wii for its under-performing hardware that's unable to run "mainstream garbage" as you so ineloquently put it. Nintendo has demonstrated that by enthusiastically announcing current generation titles released and to be released on the PS3 and 360 as titles also heading for the upcoming Wii U. A family friendly image has nothing to do with it, the Wii simply doesn't have the performance to run these titles, so Nintendo is making up for lost ground by assuring the market that popular multiplatform "mainstream garbage" will also be released on their upcoming console.

Wii has lots of great games and maybe you need to become a real gamer and not a Graphics whore this will be the time when you realize that's there is much more to a game than the way it looks.

 

[Red Hawk]

Wii has lots of great games and maybe you need to become a real gamer and not a Graphics whore this will be the time when you realize that's there is much more to a game than the way it looks.

Wait, didn't you just say all the good games are on other systems [not the Wii] on the last page? Bobisuruncle didn't even say that the Wii doesn't have good games. We are just saying that the Wii's CPU is not powerful enough to play games made for the PS3 and 360, plain and simple.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Wait, didn't you just say all the good games are on other systems [not the Wii] on the last page? Bobisuruncle didn't even say that the Wii dosn't have good games. We are just saying that the Wii's CPU is not powerful enough to play games made for the PS3 and 360, plain and simple.

Why do you guys think a good game has better graphics LOL. Nintendo has an image to uphold and Zelda games are much better game than is COD and or most other mainstream trash lol

 

[Red Hawk]

Why do you guys think a good game has better graphics LOL.

We...don't? The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Final Fantasy VI, and Chrono Trigger are some of my favorite games ever (despite the fact that I never finished the last two ). Good or not, most Xbox and PS3 games simply cannot be ported to the Wii because the Wii's CPU is not good enough to handle the game engines, level design, physics calculations, etc. For example, Epic never ported Unreal Engine 3 to the Wii because the Wii simply can't handle it.

Nintendo has an image to uphold and Zelda games are much better game than is COD and or most other mainstream trash lol

Um...ok? This is getting off topic.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

We...don't? The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Final Fantasy VI, and Chrono Trigger are some of my favorite games ever (despite the fact that I never finished the last two ). Good or not, most Xbox and PS3 games simply cannot be ported to the Wii because the Wii's CPU is not good enough to handle the game engines, level design, physics calculations, etc. For example, Epic never ported Unreal Engine 3 to the Wii because the Wii simply can't handle it.



Um...ok? This is getting off topic.

Um it's not a CPU issue man RAGE on ipod A4 CPU it's called tailoring for the hardware LOL ..... Which is why I might add Console ports generally take SUBSTANTIALLY more power to run on PC hardware than on the console because they spent less time making it work well for the PC hardware.

 

[Red Hawk]

Um it's not a CPU issue man RAGE on ipod A4 CPU it's called tailoring for the hardware LOL ..... Which is why I might add Console ports generally take SUBSTANTIALLY more power to run on PC hardware than on the console because they spent less time making it work well for the PC hardware.

Yeah, ok. Go try "tailoring for the hardware" for Battefield 3 to make it work on SNES and tell me how it goes, ok?

 

[Sonikku]

@Sophitia

You have a point however what "really" sold the Wii wasnt the graphics, it was the "experiance" you could get with the system.


1) Wii remote has a speaker that makes certain "sound" effects for games.

2) Wii remote has a rumble effect (shakes) (I know others have this too)

3) Wii "comes" with kinect like system as default, and a software ecosystem (because all Wii 's have this)


It might sound gimmicky, but I loved playing Resident Evil 4, on my brothers Wii, and useing the remote to point like a gun at that TV It just adds something extra to the experiance when your gameing.

Also... with nintendo you know you ll have:

Super Mario games (of all types ei, Mario kart (raceing) / Papir Mario (RPG) ect)
Donkey Kong Country
Zelda
Kirby
Punch-Out
Sonic
Metroid

And the random Oddball that pops up thats decent like:
Monster Hunter


When you buy a Playstation, do you know any titles that are "sony" only that make you want to buy the consol?

Why Xbox/Playstation didnt sell as well, might just be a question of price, but it could also be that "powerfull graphics" isnt enough to sell a system.

I didn't mean to suggest that people bought a wii specifically because it had lower specs than the competition, that would make no sense at all. But to say that by tossing in a gimmick they can "get away" with lower specs. That is more or less what is happening with the Xbox this generation. Microsoft is offsetting the low specs by shipping a Kinect 2.0 in every box. The exact same strategy that Nintendo used. The goal being to maximize profit.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Yeah, ok. Go try "tailoring for the hardware" for Battefield 3 to make it work on SNES and tell me how it goes, ok?

You are not even grasping the point. 1.) if you want to play BF3 play it on the PC the way it should be played 2.) Nintendo is about great classic Adventure platformer games like Zelda and Mario not high frame rates, cutting edge hardware and FPS online multiplayer action with amazing realistic graphical effects.

Just because Zelda: Wind Waker for example has relatively low end cartoon type graphics does not mean the game sucks and is not fun because it is actually one of the most fun game ever made. The Art direction was wonderful in Wind Waker and the controls are tight along with the creative and FUN & challenging game play mechanics and story.

 

[Red Hawk]

You are not even grasping the point.

Oh, irony.

The point -- which you keep trying to avoid -- is that Xbox 360 games and PS3 games aren't ported to the Wii because the Wii, on a CPU level, is not powerful enough to run them. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game design or tone and mood of the games. Bless 'em, they tried -- Modern Warfare and COD : World at War were ported to the Wii (you can read DigitalFoundry's tech analysis here), so it's not a matter of Nintendo blocking the games entirely (also, look up the games MadWorld and No More Heroes. M rated games that aren't even on other consoles)

Game engines designed for the 360 and PS3 simply won't work on the Wii without changing them at a fundamental level that would require remaking the whole game. It was possible to port Modern Warfare to the Wii because at its heart it was still running off the same Quake code that powered the last generation's Call of Duty games, but Modern Warfare 2 left even that behind, and COD games target 60 FPS on 360/PS3 anyways. Unreal Engine 3, Cryengine 3, the Frostbite Engine, idtech 5 -- these engines would require wholesale rewrites, and the levels would need to be redesigned to accomodate the Wii's CPU. It would go beyond porting.

And, in case you try to strawman me again, I am NOT saying that games on the Wii are bad. Far from it. There are plenty of good Wii games, and there are plenty of crappy 360/PS3 games. Quality of game design is not directly correlated with computational horsepower (though more computational horsepower can broaden options for game design).

Now, to tie this all back into the topic: One symptom of consolization that people probably don't realize is level design. Levels have to be made to accomodate the 360 and PS3 CPUs. It's hard to make complex moving or open environments. Hopefully the next generation of consoles will have beefy CPUs so that designers are free to make as huge, complex, and intricate levels as they can.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Oh, irony.

The point -- which you keep trying to avoid -- is that Xbox 360 games and PS3 games aren't ported to the Wii because the Wii, on a CPU level, is not powerful enough to run them. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game design or tone and mood of the games. Bless 'em, they tried -- Modern Warfare and COD: World at War were ported to the Wii (you can read DigitalFoundry's tech analysis here), so it's not a matter of Nintendo blocking the games entirely (also, look up the games MadWorld and No More Heroes. M rated games that aren't even on other consoles)

Game engines designed for the 360 and PS3 simply won't work on the Wii without changing them at a fundamental level that would require remaking the whole game. It was possible to port Modern Warfare to the Wii because at its heart it was still running off the same Quake code that powered the last generation's Call of Duty games, but Modern Warfare 2 left even that behind. Unreal Engine 3, Cryengine 3, the Frostbite Engine, idtech 5 -- these engines would require wholesale rewrites, and the levels would need to be redesigned to accomodate the Wii's CPU. It would go beyond porting.

And, in case you try to strawman me again, I am NOT saying that games on the Wii are bad. Far from it. There are plenty of good Wii games, and there are plenty of crappy 360/PS3 games. Quality of game design is not directly correlated with computational horsepower (though more computational horsepower can broaden options for game design).

Now, to tie this all back into the topic: One symptom of consolization that people probably don't realize is level design. Levels have to be made to accomodate the 360 and PS3 CPUs. It's hard to make complex moving or open environments. Hopefully the next generation of consoles will have beefy CPUs so that designers are free to make as huge, complex, and intricate levels as they can.

Then how was RAGE successfully ported to the ipod LOL ????? You say quote "changing them at a fundamental level" AKA porting.

 

[Red Hawk]

Then how was RAGE successfully ported to the ipod LOL ????? You say quote "changing them at a fundamental level" AKA porting.

...when was Rage ported to the ipod? It doesn't matter anyways, as the iPad/iPhone are now more powerful than the Wii and can run games at HD resolutions. And no, porting is not changing the game at a fundamental level; the goal of porting is to get the same game with the same gameplay running on a different system. Taking games from the 360/PS3 to the Wii would require more than that.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

...when was Rage ported to the ipod? It doesn't matter anyways, as the iPad/iPhone are now more powerful than the Wii and can run games at HD resolutions. And no, porting is not changing the game at a fundamental level; the goal of porting is to get the same game with the same gameplay running on a different system. Taking games from the 360/PS3 to the Wii would require more than that.

Porting means making a game/software work on a non native platform such as RAGE or GTA III Ported to iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch (3rd generation), iPod touch (4th generation) and iPad
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rage-hd/id400707675?mt=8
And the CPU does not render graphics it's the GPU/APU that does that but because of a proper Porting job RAGE was able to look and perform well enough on the ipod/iphone 4G.

It's not about all out hardware performance it is about how efficiently the game was coded on the software level to utilize the given hardware it was designed to run on just like how a 4cyclinder car can be faster than a V8 do to efficiency.

 

[Red Hawk]

Porting means making a game/software work on a non native platform such as RAGE or GTA III Ported to iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch (3rd generation), iPod touch (4th generation) and iPad
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rage-hd/id400707675?mt=8
And the CPU does not render graphics it's the GPU/APU that does that but because of a proper Porting job RAGE was able to look and perform well enough on the ipod/iphone 4G.

That is not Rage. It is, in John Carmack's own words:

"We do not have the full RAGE game running on iOS, and we do not plan to try. While it would (amazingly!) actually be possible to compile the full-blown PC/console RAGE game for an iPhone4 with some effort, it would be a hopelessly bad idea. Even the latest and greatest mobile devices are still a fraction of the power of a 360 or PS3, let alone a high end gaming PC, so none of the carefully made performance tradeoffs would be appropriate for the platform, to say nothing of the vast differences in controls."

The engine, in a sense, was ported, but not the whole game. They could compile it, but it wouldn't actually run well at all. That's like trying to run The Witcher 2 on an Athlon64 and Geforce 6200. Is the software support there? Yes. Is it playable? Heck no. And the point remains: Weak as the iPad is compared to the 360/PS3, it's still better than the Wii.

A CPU does not render graphics, but rendering graphics is not the only important element of running a game. The CPU is very important, otherwise CPU performance would be irrelevant outright.

It's not about all out hardware performance it is about how efficiently the game was coded on the software level to utilize the given hardware it was designed to run on just like how a 4cyclinder car can be faster than a V8 do to efficiency.

^^ John Carmack disagrees.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: despite the fact that Nintendo is willing to let mature games on their console (the Call of Duty ports, MadWorld, No More Heroes), the vast majority of 360 and PS3 games have not been ported to the Wii. The only reason that remains for 360 and PS3 games to not be ported to the Wii is the simple fact that the Wii can't handle them.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

That is not Rage. It is, in John Carmack's own words:

"We do not have the full RAGE game running on iOS, and we do not plan to try. While it would (amazingly!) actually be possible to compile the full-blown PC/console RAGE game for an iPhone4 with some effort, it would be a hopelessly bad idea. Even the latest and greatest mobile devices are still a fraction of the power of a 360 or PS3, let alone a high end gaming PC, so none of the carefully made performance tradeoffs would be appropriate for the platform, to say nothing of the vast differences in controls."

The engine, in a sense, was ported, but not the whole game. They could compile it, but it wouldn't actually run well at all. That's like trying to run The Witcher 2 on an Athlon64 and Geforce 6200. Is the software support there? Yes. Is it playable? Heck no. And the point remains: Weak as the iPad is compared to the 360/PS3, it's still better than the Wii.

A CPU does not render graphics, but rendering graphics is not the only important element of running a game. The CPU is very important, otherwise CPU performance would be irrelevant outright.



^^ John Carmack disagrees.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: despite the fact that Nintendo is willing to let mature games on their console (the Call of Duty ports, MadWorld, No More Heroes), the vast majority of 360 and PS3 games have not been ported to the Wii. The only reason that remains for 360 and PS3 games to not be ported to the Wii is the simple fact that the Wii can't handle them.

They Ported rage to the ipod and IOS http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rage-hd/id400707675?mt=8 and John
Carmack is moving away from PC exclusivity and copping out to a pay check by developing for consoles first.So what he says is not relevant for all he cares about is a pay check right now.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/john-carmack-rage,6074.html
Also RAGE play just fine on IPOD LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RMKOka9Qrs

 

[HurleyBird]

Dude... you seriously think that you know better than John Carmack? Rage HD isn't the same game as Rage. Get over it.

The only reason that remains for 360 and PS3 games to not be ported to the Wii is the simple fact that the Wii can't handle them.

And/or it being far too much work to get them to run on such feeble hardware, but the end result is the same: The Wii failed in the long run because it was too slow.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Dude... you seriously think that you know better than John Carmack? Rage HD isn't the same game as Rage. Get over it.

NO crap it like a DEMO JUST LIKE MOST GAMES ON IOS platform but the RAGE engine was PORTED albeit cut down successfully to another lesser platform was my point do you guys not understand the point I am making here. BF3 can be ported to the Wii if they just tone down the graphics BF3 can also be played on a GTS 250 PC with reduced graphics etc etc etc . Just because the graphics are crippled does not mean the core game changed LOL.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

The Wii failed in the long run because it was too slow.

The Wii hardly failed it just did not have the exclusives and online community like on the PS3 and 360 plus IMHO the motion controls are a bit of a gimmick that was one on the best and at the same time worst features of the system. Instean of developers developing to take advantage of the Wii motes which would cost time and money they just concentrated on the other two console as a first priorities cause they are the money makers.

 

[Red Hawk]

NO crap it like a DEMO JUST LIKE MOST GAMES ON IOS platform but the RAGE engine was PORTED albeit cut down successfully to another lesser platform was my point do you guys not understand the point I am making here. BF3 can be ported to the Wii if they just tone down the graphics BF3 can also be played on a GTS 250 PC with reduced graphics etc etc etc . Just because the graphics are crippled does not mean the core game changed LOL.

It was a demo, which is not a full port of the game. The engine was ported, but not with complete success -- Carmack said that technical issues makes porting the whole game a bad idea. And the point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the iPad/iPhone is still more powerful than the Wii. You know what platform they haven't ported the Rage engine to? Wii.

And Battlefield 3 would be near impossible to port to the Wii; it's one of the most processor-heavy games out there. This is the point that you don't get: you cannot reduce CPU usage by toning down graphics. You have to actually change gameplay (not to mention memory; the sheer size of the maps wouldn't fit on the Wii's RAM). To "port" Battlefield 3 onto the Wii, you would have to:

-- remove environment destruction, which is central to gameplay.
-- shrink maps, probably making new ones entirely and throwing out the current ones.
-- change the animations to be limited and stilted

It would require overhauling the entire game, and at the end, you wouldn't have Battlefield 3. You would have Battlefield Wii, and it would play nothing like Battlefield 3 on consoles.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

It was a demo, which is not a full port of the game. The engine was ported, but not with complete success -- Carmack said that technical issues makes porting the whole game a bad idea. And the point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the iPad/iPhone is still more powerful than the Wii. You know what platform they haven't ported the Rage engine to? Wii.

And Battlefield 3 would be near impossible to port to the Wii; it's one of the most processor-heavy games out there. This is the point that you don't get: you cannot reduce CPU usage by toning down graphics. You have to actually change gameplay (not to mention memory; the sheer size of the maps wouldn't fit on the Wii's RAM). To "port" Battlefield 3 onto the Wii, you would have to:

-- remove environment destruction, which is central to gameplay.
-- shrink maps, probably making new ones entirely and throwing out the current ones.
-- change the animations to be limited and stilted

It would require overhauling the entire game, and at the end, you wouldn't have Battlefield 3. You would have Battlefield Wii, and it would play nothing like Battlefield 3 on consoles.

You fail to see the point of what this conversion is about man. You say quote "changing them at a fundamental level" which is AKA porting. GTA III was a direct prot from PS2 to the ipod 4 but I suppose to you that makes it a different game LOL Ok.

 

[Red Hawk]

You fail to see the point of what this conversion is about man. You say quote "changing them at a fundamental level" which is AKA porting. GTA III was a direct prot from PS2 to the ipod 4 but I suppose to you that makes it a different game LOL Ok.

Oh, the point of this conversation has long been lost. You took one small comment relating to the Wii and successfully derailed the thread, and I played right into it, despite my better judgement.

Well, no longer! Block.