A hint at some Wii power
by Joystiq Staff 
{ Jun 19th 2006 at 10:35AM }
Nintendo has been mum, more or less, as to the exact power and capabilities of their next console, Wii; however, slowly but surely, little hints are starting to drop in. The latest comes from Gamasutra, who report that electronics firm MoSys "will be using the company's patented 1T-SRAM technology to implement the high performance memory within the Wii's graphics system." Worth noting: "The newest 1T-SRAM implementations embedded within the Wii console are fabricated using NEC Electronics' advanced 90nm CMOS-compatible embedded DRAM process technology. These high speed and ultra low latency memories are used as the main embedded memory on the graphics chip and in an additional external memory chip."
An official from MoSys goes on to say: "Designing the Wii console required an incredible list of breakthroughs in technology and innovation. ... The graphic performance of Wii benefits from MoSys' ability to develop highly innovative and dependable embedded memory products." Self promotion aside, it appears that Nintendo just may have a final ace up their sleeve as we come closer to seeing the final version of Wii.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Amir @ Jun 19th 2006 10:41AM
Just when will we see final specs? Will they ever be officially released? I guess not, at least not in a "we have an unbeliebvable amount of RAM/Processing Power/Polygon count" way. CoD Wii looks like an Xbox game, while Brothers in Arms 3 looks amazing. I guess this'll turn into another "Gameplay vs. Graphics" debate. Thing is, graphics do contribute. Not so much the technical power, but the overall look. For instance, Crazy Taxi on Dreamcast still looks decent because of the overall style, an area where the Jet Set Radio games excel as well. When you get half-hearted attempts (such as Path of Neo), it really takes away from the immersive experience.
Biggie @ Jun 19th 2006 10:41AM
Err didn't the GameCube use 1T-Sram too?
Woody @ Jun 19th 2006 10:52AM
Sure, see Resident Evil 4, looked pretty good to me.
J B Cougar @ Jun 19th 2006 10:55AM
Ok, so it's a safe bet we can just ignore the first few dozen "Joystiq is in bed with Nintendo" posts, right?
Now, onto a serious note. Wouldn't this really be the nail in the coffin for overpriced, overhyped, underclocked PCs that some may be demanding we buy in the next-gen? No names, please, I don't want to be dismissed simply because I use things like common sense and "facts" to bash a certain console.
It's all straight out of the Art of War, fitting since Nintendo is an Asian company that has been around for a hundred years. So far, Nintendo has managed to use the strengths of its competitors (these much ballyhooed 'specs' everyone seems to think makes a system these days) and has turned them against themselves. To date, it hasn't released anything more than a hint of the specs of Wii, and really -- why should Nintendo do this? Everyone against Nintendo has already written them off, and those in love with or very curious about the Wii are still very much so.
Wouldn't it then be ironic that Nintendo come out of the gate with specs that were even just slightly better than what everyone was anticipating? The Gamecube 1.5 comment has been done to death, but with Nintendo's strategy, even a slight increase to GameCube 1.75 would now seem like a quantum leap. It's a classic case of setting the bar low so your stronger opponent has nothing to hit you with.
This is off topic, but this whole thing resembles American cars. American car companies for the past 10 years have thrown together ugly, huge engine giants at the American public, who has greedily snatched them up so that they can ferry their children to soccer practice in a vehicle that is bigger than the one they saw their neighbor in the week before. Meanwhile, those "kiddie" or "hippy" compact car drivers were busy zipping around for half the price, and oftentimes with a better quality vehicle to boot! And look today. Who's number one? Same thing's happening in the video games market, because, as it always has been, history is highly ciclical in nature. Like the PSP has become the Atari Lynx of our time, so to will the PS3 become the 3DO. It's just too much for too little return.
darryl @ Jun 19th 2006 10:58AM
"it appears that Nintendo just may have a final ace up their sleeve"
...oh, and what is that, memory!? seriously... I'd hardly call this an "Ace", unless ofcourse you drink Nintendo cool-aide.
C. Grant @ Jun 19th 2006 10:59AM
According to the Wikipedia entry, it did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecube#Graphics_processing_unit
Questions here are exactly what amount and whether or not we'll ever find out from Nintendo. I'm guessing we'll be waiting for a thorough teardown, and then we'll now all about it.
Mausmalone @ Jun 19th 2006 10:59AM
Yes, the Gamecube used MoSys 1T-SRAM, but, like all other technologies, 1T-SRAM has come a long way in 5 years. (BTW, 1T-SRAM just means 1 Transisitor Static RAM... it's a classification for their RAM products. There's an entire line of varried 1T-SRAM chips that all have different specifications.)
SuicideNinja @ Jun 19th 2006 11:12AM
Awesome comment, J B Cougar.
I don't really think the Wii's specs really matter. Since power isn't their focus, what do we care? Sony and Microsoft had all the testosterone wars we need.
Since Nintendo's focus isn't on power, why bother focusing on specs that aren't related to features? As long as the Wii supports at least 480p, it should even fair well on HDTVs (unlike the PS2...ick). As long as that controller really is that fun to use, then I think they will have achieved their goal (assuming it catches on). Since gaming needs a change, I think everyone at least secretly knows that Nintendo is the company to do it.
IanC @ Jun 19th 2006 11:36AM
Joystiq will stil moan anyway.
elmer @ Jun 19th 2006 11:54AM
To follow up on Mausmalone's comments, 1T-SRAM that was also used on the Gamecube is actually a DRAM technology. DRAM tends to be much cheaper than SRAM since it uses 1 transistor per bit rather than the 6 transistors nominally used in SRAM, translating into less silicon being used. The downside is that DRAM has to constantly have the memory stored in it refreshed before it dissapates, wheras in SRAM the information gets reinforced around the 6 transistors (something like that anyway). These refresh cycles cause DRAM to have very poor and unreliable latency (latency in this case is the time between information being requested and the results actullay being sent) regardless of their transfer speeds.
What MoSys did was to invent a new architecture for refreshes that reduce their impact on data requests. Thus they get most of the benefits of DRAM costs and most of the benefit of low SRAM latency. They also take very little power.
On the gamecube the majority of the system memory (24MB) was this 1T-SRAM, but the graphics chip also contained 3MB of this RAM directly embedded in it for ultra high performance frame and Z-buffers. The Wii must also use the same or more, not least for backwards compatibility to work in hardware.
As an aside, the Xbox360 GPU contains a simmilar embeded memory system (10MB - needed for the higher resolutions), except their memory is on a separate die in the same housing increasing the latency somewhat, and as far as I know, they use regular high speed DRAM.
All in all, this is nothing not already known, and it's an area that Nintendo's hardware is moderatly smarter than the competition, but was so anyway. This piece alone is no miracle silicon. In terms of graphics that would go to NURBS surface hardware, Normal Mapping Hardware or Sub-surface Scattering hardware should they exist.
Eagle @ Jun 19th 2006 11:59AM
Joystiq, you're just trying too hard, now. The Wii WILL be less powerful, and I suggest you just accept that and let it be...It's not like you guys would care anyway, because gameplay is what matters to the Nintendo crowd...
But, seeing as how everything Wii fans say is boiled in hypocrisy, I wouldn't be surprised if they started tootin' their horn over this as well.
Ianc02 @ Jun 19th 2006 11:59AM
This is old news, also .....
"it appears that Nintendo just may have a final ace up their sleeve"
...oh, and what is that, memory!? seriously... I'd hardly call this an "Ace", unless ofcourse you drink Nintendo cool-aide.
Posted at 10:58AM on Jun 19th 2006 by darryl
Obviously you do not understand just how good 1T-SRAM is do you?
Also seeing as Wii cpu is based on IBM 750(forget this bit) PPC Chip, clock speeds will be closer to 1ghz. This info is on IBM website. Link to follow...
idioteraser @ Jun 19th 2006 12:05PM
They really need to post the Rebrith video done on Gamecube dev kit that was mostly real time and put anything the PS3 had shown to shame.
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 12:16PM
Does the Wii's power really matter?
Look at the pic of SMG at the top of this article. I bet that if Sony made this game's graphics, the game would look only slightly better than what it is now. You honestly cannot say that that pic of Mario is not the best he's ever looked. And I know that someone has to agree that if Sony or MS made this game, it would look only slightly better than this.
What i'm saying is that (so far) the Wii's graphics look only slightly inferior to PS3 or Xbox 360. But then this game is running on gamecube hardware and not the Wii. So we'll have to wait and see what the Wii is really capable of.
marsel @ Jun 19th 2006 12:41PM
dont really care that much about graphics, i mean com'n! theres only so far you can take characters like mario and peach to. do you really wanna see his garlic stains, belt strain, pants holding on for dear life, greasy hair or his other stains on peaches dress? i dont think so, well maybe some on the joystiq staff so they have a months worth of topics and that uncle youre not allowed to visit alone, but thats about it.
LongshotX @ Jun 19th 2006 12:45PM
Only slightly are you kidding me? How do you figure it would only slightly look better? The Wii specs may not be out to compare to the PS3 and Xbox 360 but the demos explain it all. Have you seen Madden on Wii, it's about as visually pleasing as well the Gamecube/Xbox. The PS3 and Xbox 360 push way more polygons, have way more processing power, and stimulate hundereds more effects. Mario Galaxy does look good on the Wii but it would benefit hugely if it ran on next generation hardware. Oh if you don't believe me just picture Metroid if it was in HD and it pushed polygons like Gears of War does. That would be crazy.
KevinM @ Jun 19th 2006 12:56PM
Ah, finally. I have been trying to explaine this to my friends for some time, but they think big numbers = big results.
This argument is in the same ballpark as the AMD vs. Intel war. AMD runs slower, but performs better then the MGhz equivalant Intel.
Or you could say, it's not the size of memory that counts, it's how you use it :)
martin @ Jun 19th 2006 1:02PM
Are all you people crying that Joystiq is in bed with Nintendo completely void of the concept of reading comprehension. Did you all not read the whole article before you decided to sing the old elemetry song "joystiq and nintendo sittin in a tree!". Joystiq is not making this news. Joystiq doesn't really even get the news first hand most of the time! (sorry guys) This article was found on Gamasutra. Not Joystiq!!! Joystiq just gets news from leads and puts them on this wonderful blog site!
If anyone is to blame for the constant great Nintendo news, and the lack of "ZOMG! PS3 is confirmed to get you laid by real chicks!" news, it is really your faults and not Joystiq, because you are not sending in the appropriate news!!!!! (and Joystiq cannot be blamed for bad PS3 news, because has anyone really seen any good PS3 news???)
Keep up the good work guys.
reguy @ Jun 19th 2006 1:04PM
at 12
see, nintendo fanboys like marc are the problem. First of all marc the demos at e3 were running on wii hardware with gamecube shells. and to say that the graphics we have seen so far from the wii only look slightly inferior compared to the 360 and ps3 just show what a BIG idiot you are. But to show that im done arguing about a system for little children (those are a sony reps words not mine, via the feed on g4) you can have your wii and i'll have a 360 and as long as your happy thats all that matters.
Ben Hobbs @ Jun 19th 2006 1:10PM
If graphics were so unimportant - how come we are not all still playing on the SNES, Megadrive etc...
How many of you use 640x400 resolution on your PC because "graphics aren't important"?
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2006 1:34PM
Ben:
I DO still play my SNES. That's why I'm so excited about the Virtual Console... being able to play fun games that I haven't had for a while is really inticing to me.
It's not that graphics are unimportant. It's just that they are not the only thing that matters (I'm not saying that anybody has ever said that, though). I would rather have a stylized game with depth and storyline than a lifelike game with area after area of shootouts.
Case-in-point: I am dying to play LoZ:TP and Super Mario Galaxy. I don't care whatsoever for Gears of War or God of War 2. My current favorite games are Guitar Hero, LoZ:WW (which I'm replaying in anticipation for TP), and Rockstar's Table Tennis. I have replayed LoZ:OT half a dozen times, FF7 4 times, MGS 3 times... those games I enjoy. In comparison, I have only played Halo in multiplayer; I've never had an interest in the single player campaign. I played 15 minutes of Black on a rental and took it back.
The Wii will be capable of some nice graphics... after all, look what the GC did with half the hardware. On paper, the Wii should be on par with XBOX1 spec-wise, but in application it will be about an XBOX1.5. Because the Wii won't be attempting real life models in most games, it won't have a problem pumping nice visuals.
With that said, though, I'm more excited about the controller and use of DVD to allow more space for bigger games than I am for the graphical bump.
Just goes to show that there are more than a few types of gamers out there.
Draco @ Jun 19th 2006 1:34PM
@ 17
I would use 640x480 if I could (they changed it so you need 800x600), when playing counter-strike I found it much easier to play with massive square targets, I can just as easily play on 1920x1080, butthen its to hard to see what I'm aiming at and I die alot more.
so I personnaly am willing to give up graphics for gameplay.
VaultedCeilings @ Jun 19th 2006 1:35PM
@ Ben Hobbs
I think the reason we aren't sill playing with our SNES's, Dreamcasts etc is not because graphics are so important but because all the developers moved off those platforms and onto newer ones. Essentially if you wanted to keep playing games past the SNES you had to buy a N64/Playstation. Plus if you look at the current generation graphics haven't been the biggest factor in console sales, as the PS2 is the undisputed market champion and also the undisputed weakest system. I'd say DVD bundled with the system plus some really cool exclusives like the FF series were much more important than graphics this generation.
@LongshotX
Don't lambast his argument then try to argue your point by just calling names. The Wii will definitely not have the same graphical abilities as the other two consoles this upcoming generation, but I'd bet money right now that what we've seen so far isn't what the Wii is actually capable of. Let me qualify that by saying that a lot of what we've seen so far looks worse than current generation stuff even on the PS2, so either there is something we don't know abou the hardware (ie it is actually less powerful) or the studios are showing us rushed software on incomplete/changing hardware. Since I don't think it is likely that the Wii will be a step backwards in terms of hardware I favor the later explanation.
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2006 1:39PM
Oh, I forgot to mention:
Graphics aren't the only thing that has changed since the SNES days. More depth, better storylines, more interaction (rumble packs, analog sticks), etc. Everything adds to a better experience.
If you gave me the same game on SNES and PS3, with no additional content or options on the PS3, only better graphics... I would choose the SNES version. Why? Better graphics aren't worth $600 + to me.
Slashbunny @ Jun 19th 2006 1:40PM
"If graphics were so unimportant - how come we are not all still playing on the SNES, Megadrive etc..."
Oh, you're not? Sucks to be you then. Unless of course you played all those games, in which case, it would be nice if they made some more :)
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 1:58PM
"How do you figure it would only slightly look better?"
That's easy. Because how far can you take a cartoon character like Mario into realism. SSBB is pretty much as far as Mario will go visually. What I was saying was that if Sony had to create Mario as a cartoon, he'd look slightly better than this. However, if Mario was supposed to look more realisticly, Sony would blow Nintendo out of the water.
But Mario is a cartoon so tough luck.
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 1:59PM
"First of all marc the demos at e3 were running on wii hardware with gamecube shells."
Really?.....oops.
Brock @ Jun 19th 2006 1:59PM
@Vidguy
"If you gave me the same game on SNES and PS3, with no additional content or options on the PS3, only better graphics... I would choose the SNES version. Why? Better graphics aren't worth $600 + to me."
This doesn't work. Games on a PS3 wouldn't work on an SNES. Most Ninboyz aren't going to understand this but jump on your moving rainbow platforms over here and listen for a sec.
HARDWARE CHANGES GAMES. You can't run Half Life 2 on an SNES. What made half life 2 so great? The emotional Pull and story telling that you nintendo fanboys love. But guess what, the SNES can't do advanced facial animation with hundreds of independent muscles to express true emotion. Your enemies would be complete MORONS, they wouldn't duck, cover, flank, regroup, call for back up etc. You couldn't have professional voice acting to make you laugh, hurt and cry like they do. You couldn't even have have the most realistic physics to incorporate FUN GAMEPLAY puzzles! So pretty much, you couldn't have these games.
Just think how restricted all of gaming would be if they all took Nintendo's route? You couldn't hardly convey hardly any emotions very well at all.
This is a proven fact, the hardware changes gameplay. If you don't believe me boot up Halo 2 on your NES and let me know how that works out.
Kent Houseman @ Jun 19th 2006 2:13PM
Graphics do add something to a game. The add a lot more to the production costs of a game. Nintendo Wii will be able to offer graphics superior to an Xbox. Probably nothing as good as the other two but it will have it's moments. It will also have cheap ways to develop for it. Either way it will be cheaper to develop for it.
Why is this such a big deal? Well, first of all, this will allow smaller game companies the chance to make games. The smaller companies will not be able to compete in the genre's out there(for the most part) so they will be forced to try and find their own little part of the game world. Innovation will happen.
On the other hand, the other two systems will probably never come anywhere close to the variety that will be present on the wii. Why? Because it costs so much money to make a game on that system. The huge costs will crush innovation.
Why wouldn't a company want to invest so much money on innovation? Because it is a risk. People may not dig it. Most likely, even if a lot of people do, it still won't sell as well as mainstream games. So why would they take such a risk? More often than not, they won't. They will stick to the standard main-stream formulas and add little variations to them. The innovation will focused on graphics. Of course this will not be the case everytime and I can not see into the future. How can you not think this is going to be the path of the industry?
So Wii - Cheap-Moderate production costs
- Forced innovation
- Small companies
-Fresh Ideas
-A good way to scout for talent
- Gameplay will have to be a main focus
- To compete with ultra realistic graphics they will have to adapt more artistic styles.
The other 2 companies
- Huge production costs for high quality graphics
- Discourages innovation
- The popular genres (highest success rate of profit)of today will be even more flooded.
- Innovation will only come in small-moderate variations to proven concepts.
- They see each other as the main competition.
- In order to 1-up each other graphics will always be a main focus.
- Will it be possible for other parts of a game to be overlooked?
I will get either a 360 or PS3 of course. I do want the graphics and I do want to play the games that will come out on those systems but I will have to get a Wii. I feel like once the system gets cooking and reaches out to developers that I will be missing out on some quality games.
Kent Houseman @ Jun 19th 2006 2:21PM
Some of the points at the bottom had sub points below them. They all got smashed to the left. Like "Discourages innovation". I don't think Sony or Microsoft discourage innovation. I think the high priced developing costs for their systems do it.
Lets see the last 2 points at the bottom are under "they see each other as the main competition"
The Popular genres point above it has the sub point right below it starting with innovation.
The wii part the Small Companies point is followed by two sub points. I think that is it.
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 2:28PM
O.K. listen up people!
First off, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. But I prefer their games over Sony or MS because I like to play games in short 10 to 20 minute bursts, as opposed to 1 to 3 hour epics that some people go through on PS2 and Xbox (which I can't do because of my short attention span).
The thing is is that I haven't been a gamer for very long. My first console was the Gamecube, and only because I didn't have money for a PS2 or Xbox. Now I respesct all 3 of the companies (which is why I said that SMG looks slightly inferior on Wii). But I support Nintendo because I love a good underdog story. I also like Nintendo cuz I don't want to be like my friends (who are complete graphic whores), I wanted to actually enjoy playing games.
Sadly, I fear that Sony and MS fans are losing that love of games. They care so much about the visuals, that they could careless if the game actually played like crap.
Don't get me wrong now. If you put me in a room with all 3 current-gen consoles, I'd play them all for an equal amonut of time. But I'd probably enjoy the Gamecube game more.
You can say I like cutsey stuff, and that I support a "kiddie" (God I hate that word) company, but I really could careless. As long as I have my games, I'm good.
(Also to all that don't support Nintendo, that "kiddie" crap is getting REALLY old. Nintendo's got a few mature titles that will stop any steroetype (like "Disaster: Day of Crisis", "Metroid Prime: Corruption", and "Project Hammer"). So if I were you, I'd give it up now before it's too late and you're considered "uncool" when you trash Nintendo)
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 2:36PM
Both Sony and MS WANT TO TEAM UP WITH NINTENDO. I really don't understand why the fanboys can't overlook their differences like their respectable companies have done.
So Sony, Nintendo, and MS fanboys, will we follow in the steps that our companies have done? Or will we allow another gaming generation to go by and still have no truce?
It's your call.
Brock @ Jun 19th 2006 2:37PM
Yes, i agree for the most part with Kent, although just because the PS3 and 360 are CAPABLE of those graphics, that doesn't mean they have to spend so much money pushing them. They could develope a mediocre graphic game and try to innovate in gameplay as well. The wii will have the new controller (which hopefully will be proven a sucess).
Personally i'm going to get a wii and PS3. I saw a couple of wii (zelda, mario) games that i think i would like, and i saw a couple of PS3 games i think i would like (MGS of course, heavenly sword).
But i do think ultimately the more capable system will more capably convey emotion which will almost away translate to better games.
Kent Houseman @ Jun 19th 2006 2:49PM
I totally agree Brock but it will be more expensive to develop a mediocre game for PS3 and 360 (the architecture is very complex: see insane) than it would be to develop a nice game for the Wii. I don't have numbers to back this up but that is my understanding and I think if you think about it you will agree.
Maybe a few years down the road when the big 2 have everything inside them mapped and figured out that a lot of shortcuts can be taken. I just don't see it being financially worthwhile to do it for those systems when you have a system that openly caters to developers with low budgets.
Finally, I think the graphics of the games have been hyped so much that anything below intentionally minmalistic graphics (that still ar sharp and polished) will be overlooked since they are trying to make graphics one of the main (if not the main) selling points. I'd have to assume the majority of people who purchase a 360/ps3 will almost expect each game to be pretty advanced graphically. That is not true in most cases. The 360 does have some awesome small time games to download but nothing to the extent of a full length game.
But in the end, I agree. Developers could develop a game by cutting costs.
BPM? @ Jun 19th 2006 2:49PM
There seems to be a great misconception that Wii will only be slightly more powerful than Xbox, based on the "leaked" spec numbers... Here is the truth...
Based on numbers alone, GameCube could be thought of being A LOT weaker than Xbox.
GCN: 485 MHz CPU, 162 MHz GPU
Xbox: 733 MHz CPU, 233 MHz GPU
That's a rather big difference in clock speeds, huh? However, in actuality, GameCube games and Xbox games are virtually the same, in terms of visuals.
And the "leaked" Wii specs were only slightly higher than the clock speeds of Xbox.
But given the fact that the two systems are on different architectures (GCN and Wii on PowerPC; Xbox on x86), their actual performance is greatly different.
In short, Wii games defnitely have the potential to look a lot better than Xbox games (should those "leaked" specs be true, or less than true of the real specs). It's all up to the developers to use that potential (and initial offerings may not look great, but later games likely will).
Now, how will Wii compare to 360 and PS3? The reason 360 and PS3 have all that horsepower is to output HD graphics. Wii will not have HD graphics. So, chances are, on a standard definition TV (SDTV), all three would look identical to each other, in terms of graphics (I've heard many people say that 360 games still look like Xbox games when on a SDTV). However, the difference between the systems will be much more obvious when using an HDTV.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked like Nintendo was using HDTVs at E³... And they still looked fine. So there's a chance Wii will look good, no matter what TV you have. But it won't have the level of detail as 360 and PS3.
Which I don't mind, really. I often see that the more effortdevelopers put forth on making great graphics, the gameplay and fun factor take a drop... But that's just my view.
MosquitoControl @ Jun 19th 2006 2:59PM
"HARDWARE CHANGES GAMES. You can't run Half Life 2 on an SNES. What made half life 2 so great? "
But you could have had HL2 on the PS1. Sure, you'd lose some graphical clarity, but all the gameplay elements were there.
You could have had Oblivion on the PS1. You'd lose some physics and lots of graphics, but the gameplay would be virtually unchanged.
So what, exactly, have the 360 and the PS3 brought that's new? How will they change gameplay?
Aside from being able to add physics, which no game as of yet takes advantage of to alter gameplay, they won't. These systems have no advancements over the last generation. They're bigger, they're more powerful, but neither features a single feature useful for new gameplay.
HDs have been done.
Internet has been done.
3D has been done.
The input devices have been done (outside of the x/y/z on the PS3 which I'd bet won't be much used.)
turtleboy @ Jun 19th 2006 3:04PM
reguy you call marc an idiot but it seems to me pal you are more worthy of the name yourself. You say that the games were running on wii hardware with gamecube shells. The games were running on gamecube hardware with wii shells at e3. Don't namecall someone till you get the facts. It would have been pretty hard for Nintendo to run any games on Wii hardware at E3 considering final development kits were sent out this month. Anyway I digress the Wii will look just fine as far as graphics go. It will be more likely less powerful then the other two consoles but I don't think you will be able to tell much diffrence really in the long run of things.
bladestar @ Jun 19th 2006 3:21PM
Why do people keep saying that it is expensive to create a game for the 360?
Here are some facts that only fan boys will dismiss:
1) It is true that the Xbox 360 has lots of power and can do a lot. But game developers have the option of spending millions making a game to look amazing while others spend a lot less (i.e. COD2 looks better than BF2:MC) to make it ok. You people are making it sound like companies have to spend millions on a game just because the system allows them to. The wii is not that weak; I guarantee you that a game that cost 50 Mill can also be made for the wii.
2) XBox Live - How about it? Lots of small companies with low budgets are making games for it and based on what they say it takes them months to do it with a small crew. And these games can look, or sound than any game on the wii since the hardware supports it.
3) Also, the XNA http://www.microsoft.com/xna/ + Direct X 10
This development environment will allows developers to using any programming language that takes advantage of the .net framework (i.e. vb.net, C#) to make games. This plug-in integrates with Visual Studio 2005 pretty. This allows many developers to make games regardless of what language they know (Most game developers are C developers because that’s the only language allowed by consoles, they also have their proprietary scripts and languages). And to make this easier (cheaper) No need to port/recode games between the PC, the XBOX 360, windows devices (phones). Now developers will be able to create multi-platform games between computers, Pocket PC, windows phones, and the XBOX 360 using the same computer language, development environment, and the same platform. Now; don't you think that lowers development cost? Companies will not have to have to learn, recode the game, hire extra staff to develop the PC version and the XBOX Version since they are both designed using the same platform. I would call that innovation. Of course I'm sure that all this means crap to you. As a web/software developer (asp.net, C#, vb.net) this means a lot to me, because now it is possible for me to use the tools that I am familiar with to make games.
4) How much you think the SDK for Nintendo or Sony cost? Also, the development environments, game engines, and tools to make these games? This is why it was always easier to make games for the PC than for a console. Some of us could never be given a license or the SDK to make a game for Nintendo or Sony. Go ahead give it a try! But the XNA will change that. You can now make a game that runs in 2 platforms or more without changing code.
Marc @ Jun 19th 2006 3:34PM
"XBox Live - How about it? Lots of small companies with low budgets are making games for it and based on what they say it takes them months to do it with a small crew."
So? Nintendo Wi-Fi is free and games don't cost nearly enough to make for DS as opposed to Xbox. Also NWC has gotten 1 mil. users in 4 months. It took Xbox about 1 year.
But to each is own.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 3:44PM
An ace up their sleeve? So far they're only offering more evidence the Wii is just a die shrink of the GameCube chipset. Higher clock but no new processing features.
Literally, all that has been announced here is that the same memory used in the GameCube will be used in the Wii on a smaller process node. If there has been announcement of any chipset feature that wasn't already in the GameCube, I've yet to see it.
Which is fine if you're looking to build a faster GameCube, which seems to be Nintendo's requirement for their plans. But it doesn't mean developers are now going to implement certain visual features they previously reserved for other machines. A faster clock and greater RAM makes it possible to do more in software than the previous platform allowed but the level of effort is still very high compared to platforms that offer dedicated hardware for the same task.
A lot of people seem determined to have Nintendo deliver something Nintendo itself isn't very interested in doing. Rather than hiding a surprise capability it instead looks like Nintendo is stalling until the general public can get their hands on a Wii-mote and see where the attraction really lies. Nintendo has confidence the product will score well once that time arrives but is being forced by the expectations of the hardcore audience that drives the gaming press to play coy. If Nintendo just comes out and says, "Look, it's just a faster GameCube with WiFi and a few other peripherals bolted on. The graphics aren't going to push the state of the art but the gameplay will," they then get all kinds of abuse from people who have too much of their ego invested in Nintendo doing things the company has found to not be in their best interests.
#33
I think you've let your personal opinion run away with you. There are many graphic operations that are easily done on the Xbox that either cannot be duplicated on the GameCube or require developers sweating blood to get scenes just right. That level of effort can only be justified on a few projects but just using the hardware shaders means any competent graphics programmer can achieve the same effect easily on the Xbox.
It's hard to draw a real comparison from real-world games since very few multiplatform titles make full use of each platform. All too often the Xbox and GameCube version are the originating PS2 version with some enhancements. Without that basis for side by side comparison of both platforms fully utilized for the same goal, it becomes very hard to qualify an aesthetic preference that isn't based more on the material than the execution of it. Someone who regards Halo as a high point in their gaming life is likely to lean one way, while the action RPG aficionado has an inclination toward the home of the genre's king, Zelda.
It would have been interesting if Capcom had seen fit to port RE4 to the Xbox, if only for the teams opinion on how much work it required. While making it look good on the PS2 was a major accomplishment, recreating the GameCube version on the Xbox would have been very straightforward with plenty of ceiling left for enhancements if they chose to pursue that. But like most visual showcases it just isn't available across the range for comparison.
A big handicap for the Xbox was that very little of the software really made full utilization of the machine. The potential strength was squandered because multiplatform publishers saw little reason to make the extra effort for a machine that so much lesser installed base than the PS2. And not enough of the projects dedicated to the Xbox as their primary platform had enough budget and talent to make the difference. Having the most powerful box has limited payoff if you cannot get the support to show it as superior in a consistent fashion rather than a few titles here and there.
You can talk about clockspeed comparisons but neither the value or lack of it for clock rates changes the unquestionable value of dedicated hardware over doing the same task in software unless there is an immense difference in pure system speed. This has been evident since the days when PC programmers had to work long hours to reproduce what 8-bit machine did easily with hardware sprites and other functions. The PC could reproduce pixel for pixel what the 'lesser' machine was doing but the work involved to make it work in software made many reluctant to pursue some types of games on what was overall the more powerful machine.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 3:47PM
Whoops. #33 became #35.
bladestar @ Jun 19th 2006 3:57PM
"So? Nintendo Wi-Fi is free and games don't cost nearly enough to make for DS as opposed to Xbox. Also NWC has gotten 1 mil. users in 4 months. It took Xbox about 1 year."
I own a DS Lite, PSP, GC, XBOX 360, PS2, I will buy a wii and maybe if any good the PS3. I'm not saying that the wii is bad. All I am saying is that saying that developing games for the wii is cheaper than the XBox 360 is a fact as many of you would like to believe. Also, comparing NWC online experience with Xbox live it is simply wrong. Try Xbox live in order to make intelligent comparison. Also, you also said “Free” isn’t expected for people to signup to NWC faster than XBOX live since it is free?
rocko @ Jun 19th 2006 4:24PM
For some reason this reminds me of the Okama Gamesphere episode of South Park (ep is called "Towelie")
"Dude, it's got a hundred and twenty-eight gigahertz D-Ram"
"What's that?"
"Dunno, but it kicks ass"
That's basically how I feel to this article
BPM? @ Jun 19th 2006 4:54PM
epobirs:
I'm guessing that when you're addressing #33, you actually meant me (since you mentioned clock speeds and what not).
I find it useful on places like Joystiq to refer to a poster's name, and not just post number (though, doing both is fine, too). Since a post can always pop up in the middle of a thread, due to how they're prioritized (based on the time when you click Add Your Comments, not when you confirm the post from the email link).
I suppose you are right, on the multi-platform issue. However, I find that exclusive games for each system look just as good.
But, it doesn't really matter to me what Wii can and cannot do, visually. It'll be more powerful than GameCube, and GameCube's visual prowess was good enough for me. :)
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 4:56PM
#36
You have to be kidding. There is far more going on in HL2 than a prettied up PS1 game. This is a lesson Id learned when Doom 3 peaked so early. The audience lost interest quickly when it became apparent it was just a much prettier version of the 1994 game. But Id makes mostof its money on licensing and supporting its engines, so Doom 3 served its purpose by making some fast profits while garnering tons of PR for the technology that other devs would use for deeper games.
Hey, technically every game ever done could be done in text like Zork, with the player producing the best possible graphics in his head and the quality then being contingent on the quality of the head. Makes for lousy screenshots in the ads, though.
"You see three skeleton men. They're the remains of long dead corpses with bits of rotting flesh and rags still clinging to their bones. Each clutches a rusty but still deadly sword. The skeleton men are attacking.
Use sword to kill skeleton men.
You shatter the skeleton men but not before they do 73 points of damage."
Visual detail is hugely improtant as to what can be implemented in a game. Not only does it make the game more engaging, it also make more complexity and sophistication possible.
Long ago, a game like Temple of Apshai came with a book which contained a detailed description of each room. Resources were extremely limited, not just visually but also in plain RAM. The text of the book would have been several time larger than the memory in most consumer systems of the era. (A page of 80x25 is typically 2 kilobytes without compression, so it doesn't take much to fill a 48K computer.) Even worse, the game needed to be loaded from cassette on the low end version. Multi-loads tended to be a disaster, so it was get everything in RAM in one go or forget it.
Today, if a room in a dungeon has all sort of notable details, we see it. Just as the game developers intends. If we need to interact with one of those objects we actually deal with the onscreen object.
More importanly, we can tell what the object is. A big problem in overambitious games on past hardware was that there just wasn't enough resources to allow sufficient detail to keep things from becoming abstract or the gameplay painful due to constant drive access. Sure, Morrowind could be done on the PS2 (to make a fairer comparison than Oblivion on the PS1) but it not only would have to lose a great deal of the Xbox version's visual splendor, it would also have much less RAM for storing non-visual elements. In a game of its complexity that would mean nearly constant loading from the DVD. Bethesda chose not to do a cut down version of Morrowind on the PS2 because the lack of a widely available hard drive (Sony couldn't get their act together on that front when Bethesda was weighing the decision) for the US/Europe PS2s meant a game that would be painful rather than pleasant. The only way to avoid constant loading would have been to really drastically reduce the visual elements to the point where most would be reluctant to call it the same game.
Another example of a game becoming more playable thanks almost solely to graphics power is the King's Field series. On the PS1 this game was far less engaging because the limits of the platform often made it hard to tell what was being shown onscreen. It was far too easy to find a location well away from things like walls but still a seemingly random collection of shapes and colors. The PS2 entry in the series had nearly identical gameplay but rarely suffered from the lack of visual definition.
It takes time for developers to make full use of the increased platform resources for more than just prettier games but it has always happened before and will continue.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 5:37PM
#37 Bladestar
You have a point but there are some assumptions when people speak of the cost for an average game project on a specific platform. First is the expectation that the game will meet a certain minimum standard for that platform and that those standards will be in line with the power of the platform. The idea is that the hypothetical GameBox2 title is going to meet a higher standard than if the same project had been done for the predecessor GameBox1.
People expect more from the average PS2 game than the comparable PS1 title. The increase volume and quality of audio-visual assets means greater costs. Better tools help but only so much.
Sure, Nintendo could spend $50 million on a game but people would start wondering how many nose candy habits were being fed as part of that budget. Or the result is a game of ridiculous length that loses much of the audience well before the end. Meanwhile a more powerful platform offers option for doing more in the course of a typical game. But more means more work.
Say you have a game where the player fight crowds of zombies. The designer hates how so many past games threw the same small collection of enemies at the player over and over. Because the new machine has so much through put and memory the coders say they can produce a system that'll generate semi-unique enemies on the fly and have a bunch of them onscreen at a time. In addition to creating and testing that part of the game, the art department has to produce all of the visual assets that will feed the enemy generator the wide diversity of items needed to make this really work.
So the game is better than what has come before but at a cost. If enough games match that it becomes a standard by which everything that follows is judged. Thus costs increase.
XNA is nice but tools can only mitigate so much and they come at their own cost. Treating the CLR as the platform means sacrificing some throughput to overhead and also genericising the result. Just trying to use the same codebase to produce game running in the CLR for both a WinCE PDA and XBLA means the result on the XBLA side could be rather mediocre. Potentially you could have a single codebase with a separate set of graphic asset for each platform is doable but is it worth the trouble just to not fork the code base at a certain juncture? Pushing hard on the average iPaq but barely breaking a sweat on the Xbox 360 isn't going to be very exciting for the 360 owners. I suppose a pure 3D polygon driven game could be scaled from PDA to 720p but items like the textures and 2D art are going to make one side or the other look bad.
You can only avoid platform localization so much if mediocrity is to also be avoided.
Ki @ Jun 19th 2006 6:06PM
"However, in actuality, GameCube games and Xbox games are virtually the same, in terms of visuals."
Not really, Xbox is superior.
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2006 6:18PM
My opinion on the XBOX vs Gamecube visual department is this:
Taking a copy of the same game on either system, the XBOX will contain more graphical detail, hands down. Do this with Madden to see what I mean.
Take the best the GC (RE4, LoZ:TP, etc) has to offer versus a run-of-the-mill XBOX game, the GC might win, but if not it's at least equal.
This means there's some bleed over between the two consoles. When the XBOX was pushed, it could produce great stuff that the GC couldn't. But when the GC was pushed, it beat 50% of the XBOX games visually.
In relation to next generation, this could mean that if the Wii is only slightly more powerful than XBOX1, it will likely produce visuals somewhere between the XBOX and the 360. With most Nintendo games avoiding lifelike models in favor of stylized characters, the graphics are sure to look great.
idioteraser @ Jun 19th 2006 6:33PM
It should be noted that a developer stated that only 20% of the gamecube's potential power was used. Memory was a limitation that had.
Look at the Rebirth demo that was real time or several demos that are real time based on gamecube hardware. It easily beats out anything the PS3 does on Cinematics.
Any GC game built on the ground up that had developers striving to max it beat out anything the xbox did in real time.
justchris @ Jun 20th 2006 3:15AM
@bladestar, your point about XNA is not even remotely valid. As nice as it would be to think so, it is by no means possible to code a game once, then simply port it from PC, to 360 to Mobile. The hardware configuration for each of the three systems is massively different. Maybe if you were going from PC to the original Xbox, it would have worked, because the Xbox was built very much like a PC. But the 360 is built a lot more like the Gamecube was built than it is like the Xbox was built, it has the architecture of a dedicated gaming platform. The dev environment, though it uses a similar API, is very different for the two platforms, and if you try to code something in XNA and port it over directly, it will simply fail to work.
Also, as someone above said, even if you did port it over directly, you'd end up with one version being very mediocre. Higher resolution requires more detailed textures or it begins to look muddy. Textures just do not scale up well. Textures scale up very badly, but scale down quite well. Which means you have to design to the highest possible resolution, which means the game is going to be more expensive than designing to a single, specific, but lower, resolution.
Lastly, the SDK for the Wii is exactly $2000 according to Nintendo. I'm not sure what the 360 SDK or the PS3 SDK cost, but I suppose you could just download .NET and then see if they'll let you release the game for the 360 anyway.
@epobirs, I understand what you're saying, but you're also wrong. They have said on multiple occasions that their hardware is going to be more advanced than GC hardware, not just faster clockspeed.
Specifically, Nintendo had IBM & ATI design a new CPU & GPU, respectively. These processors are based on the same process as the ones in the GC, but even aside from the higher clock speeds will be technologically more advanced than the GC processors. For the GPU, it will not be like any other GPU available on the market. It is being designed specifically for the Wii and the Wii alone. If they were using basically the same processors, only increasing the clock speed and shrinking the die, they could have begun ramping up production last year. But that is not what they are doing, they have actually had totally new chipsets created which are an extension of the existing chips, not a remake (a remake would be Super Mario 64 vs Mario 64 DS, whereas an extension would be Half-Life vs Half-Life 2).
Also, as someone previously mentioned, 1T-SRAM is a classification of memory, not a particular module, there are actually several different RAM technologies that could be referred to as 1T-SRAM. This is newsworthy specifically because MoSys has said that the Wii will be using their newest (read: most technologically advanced) iteration of 1T-SRAM technology, which is patented and therefore not used by anyone who doesn't licensce the technology from MoSys.
--------------
On the larger issue of graphics vs. gameplay. Graphics do matter. Everyone likes good graphics, and good graphics can be a big draw to a game. Graphics can even add to gameplay.
That being said, there are two things to remember. And these are very, very important.
1. Good graphics cannot substitute for good gameplay.
2. Graphics don't have to be perfect. They just have to be good enough.
The Wii will have good graphics. The question here isn't, "Will it be as good as the competition?" The question is, "Will it be good enough to satisfy the consumer?"
The answer to that is a matter of preference. For me, what I've seen so far puts Wii in the 'good enough' category. Does it for you? If not, are you going to wait to see more, or are you going to go out and buy something else?