RE 5's Kawata: Wii couldn't even handle RE 5's intro screen

Actually, a lot of PS3/360 games now run title screens and cutscenes in realtime, using the in-game engine, rather than splash screens or pre-rendered videos now. The Wii does this too, with your Miis running around, etc.

The wii can't play dvds...

The wii uses dvd format and my wii does play dvds :)

The thing is, if devs start tailoring to the Wiis lower specs, then Nintendo won't be as willing to catch up with other consoles. I like the wii, but lower specs for the price it is makes it my least favorite of the current consoles.

Whether, a game is first release for the Wii or Playstation 3 isn't likely to influence what Nintendo puts in its next console. The only thing that should push specs higher is the response from consumers of the final product. Why put money into development that players don't care about? While I can't argue with you that Nintendo didn't beef up the Wii enough, it's not like you can agrue that Sony went too high with its specs. In the end all that really matters is return on investment. If you don't spend enough on development, your product will die out too soon. If you spend too much, then you might not see high enough return to justify the higher cost in development.

I'm more willing to bet why Capcom said the Wii couldn't handle the game is because it is a plausible reason for it not being release on the Wii initially. However, it's more plausible that Sony paid Capcom BIG after the GameCube got first run with RE4. Don't try to argue against that; we both know backroom deals happen all the time. They're not illegal, that mostly why I think that's a more plausible reason.

I know!!!!
I just want resident evil 5 for my wii, I like the better aiming controls! I don't mind RE4 graphics, they're pretty good.

Very nicely put!

Had they actually tried to make games which are not retarded, feature lackluster utility and strictly scripted gameplay, I'm sure many people would have set their WiiSports aside.

It is kind of frustrating that hardcore gamers and console game developers are literally living in basement and keep on with games which provide you with the same "authentic" experience of 2D-sprited 4-bit games from 20 years ago.

Casual market now is much more advanced than many like to admit. PC and mobile gaming is far far ahead of everything any console gaming has to offer - and mostly far ahead in sense of business plan. Now on PC and phones one can play *new* game every week (or day) and many people gladly pay for something new and original. Even if fun lasts for one hour - if price is right (something consoles could never manage) - people would pay it.

The point is that casual market is saturated - with lots of cheap games (PC, phones, Flash games on Web). It is not that people do not want to buy console games. Specifics of casual market is that the people do not want to sit before TV days through - like most console games mandate - they want to (and often can only) play on their own conditions. They do not want to restrain themselves to basements (and give up real life) just for games.

How many gamers do you know who play games in their basements Ihar? I imagine it's none. But nice try anyway.

I play games in a basement, my mother's basement. In fact, it's a basement lodged underneath another basement: a basebasement. Victory is mine.

I agree with Ihar. Mobile gaming is so much more fulfilling than any of the tosh on the big three consoles. Nintenknights scream and shout for another Zelda or Mario, but it's just meaningless fan service. You people are so attached to your childhood icons that you struggle to see how tired each and everyone of them are.

Look at the last Zelda game: Twilight Princess. That has got to be the most redundant, overhyped piece of shit I've ever played. It was like going back to the N64 all over again, but with an uglier colour palette. Over zealous Nintendo fanbois destroyed whatever confidence Anouma had in the Windwaker, an astonishingly beautiful game, and we got served a turd.

If you compare TWEWY, yes a RPG but useful for wanton comparison, to TP and there's no contest. TWEWY feels like the freshest spring day, while TP is a shit. TWEWY went on to sell well proving that the handheld market is a viable market, especially when compared to the blandness of what's on offer via the big three.

Some of the most technically advanced games are for the Wii and DS. The DS does hand-writing recognition! That's PhD level mathematics, running on a little low-powered hand-held. Meanwhile most PS3 and 360 games are using AI algorithms from the stone-ages. The power of the system has nothing to do with how advanced a game is, only how many polygons it can render.

@ Evan:

You're either: 1) a Fanboy 2) Ignorant or 3) Intentionally insulting everyones intelligence on this blog.

First off, the DS's processing power, in a handheld, rivals desktop PC's almost from a decade ago... seriously!

Second off, handwriting recognition is about MATHEMATICAL formulas, something ANY current device with processing power should be able to easily do (remember, software is about COMPUTATION).

Lastly, to say that the formulas required to compute handwriting recognition are significantly more advanced than say, Bungies code to give their NPC's artificial intelligence is just plain IGNORANT. It proves you have NO CLUE what the f**k you're saying.

Having said that, I don't care WHO you agree with, you're not intelligent or wise enough to actually participate in this discussion.

Handwriting recognition does not take a PhD. I've written HWR myself and I'm only a college graduate. The DS is a piece of crap though.

I'm guessing you haven't played RE 4.

Certainly the PS3 *should* be capable of better games than the Wii. PS3 hardware is capable of superior AI, better character-environment interaction, voice recognition. However most PS3 games have just been PS2 games with upgraded graphics. All the extra power has been put to rendering for polygons, while the game-play remains last-generation and easily within the capabilities of the PS2 or Wii.

You give the graphics chipset in the Wii and PS3 too much credit. You think the Wii can run it with "a few tweaks"? Try a complete graphics overhaul.

You obviously have no idea what the 360 is capable of if you say it cant run MGS4. The PS3 is using out dated graphics technology, the biggest reason they say it cant run it is because of the storage medium it's using (DVD vs BD-ROM). The 360 is more than capable graphically of handling it, since it uses a unified shader system (it's more robust and efficient).

The bottleneck in the 360 is the cpu. It's extra gpu power is useless.

I stand by what I said. If a game can run well on the 360, it can't really be that demanding.

The bottleneck in the 360 is the cpu. It's extra gpu power can't be exploited by its bottlenecked CPU that is far inferior to the cell processor. The PS3 on the other hand was designed with balance in mind. It's GPU and CPU don't bottleneck each other, they are approximately equal. Actually I take that back. The GPU does in the 360 has one clear advantage. Red Rings of Death.

If a game can run well on the 360, it can't be that demanding. Dead Rising is a game that runs well on the 360. Look at where it is being ported. A moderate game like Dead Rising, something the 360 can actually do well, is being ported to the wii as we speak.

But Listen to the review of the elder scrolls oblivion by gametrailers for both the 360 and ps3 versions. You can find the reviews, separate, on google videos. It is clear that the ps3 could handle it smoothly and the 360 couldn't. Having the pc version, I am aware of how demanding that game is.

wii = lower power but better controls and gameplay
360 = moderate power
ps3 = the highest power

Microsoft fanboys tenaciously claim that the 360 matches the ps3's power for a cheaper price but it's simply not the case. Every honest multiplaform developer says the PS3 has much more potential power.

Daryl. Bethesda was able to spend more time fine tuning Oblivion IV for the PS3. On the other hand, Fallout 3, which is also made by the same team and will be released at the same time on both platform somehow lost that edge, and in fact, although being almost equal, doesn't look as good on the PS3 (according to PSM3)... Kinda throw your theory out the door don't you say?

Most PS3 games ae prettier PS2 games? No, don't be stupid. Even developers of launch games for PS3 said PS2 couldn't pull of most of what PS3 games are doing. The resistance devs said PS2 couldnt even pull off some of the weapons they had in the game

If you impose a deadline, 360 games can look good faster, but they still don't have the same potential. The 360 has an advantage in that it is easier to develop for. And it had a head start. The PS3 is still potentially stronger when exploited. The 360 is based on a typical pc intel-style system, whereas the ps3 is based on original research and design. Fallout is pc-inspired, so it takes less work to port it to the 360 than the ps3. But if they took an extra year, like they did with oblivion, the ps3 would look better because the 360 has already reached its max.

Also, I haven't seen the cpu and gpu requirements for the new game, and how demanding the pc one is in relation to Oblivion.

Daryl, I like my wii too, but to say any game that runs on 360 can run on wii with some "tweaks" is a bit ridiculous, at best it's misleading.

I'm not flaming, I have wii and 360, but I mean, come on, look at Bioshock, or GoW, or Fable II, and look at some Wii games. Yes some games like Mario look great, but look at any screenshots and you immediately know whether a game is on wii or 360.
It's not as if Capcom is just too lazy to flip some big "build for wii" switch. They would have to redo most of the game, and virtually all of the graphics.
So just chill bro, I knew what I was getting when I bought my wii - I don't expect games that look like RE5 or GoW to come out for wii.

Bioshock isn't really that demanding, at least the pc version.

Almost no games on the PS3/360 is CPU limited. If you had any clue what you're talking about, you'd know this. Very few games are ever bottle necked by the CPU.

The difference in high quality @ 1600x1200 in Crysis between a X6800, QX6700, E6600, and E6300 was 0 FPS, they all performed the same. So unless you can prove to me that there is a more demanding game on the PS3/360 that shows the CPU is the bottle neck, you're just full of it.

Why is Crysis 1.5 coming out on the PS3 and not on the 360...

I rest my case.

If you think it's the processor, you really are as dumb as your comments make you seem to be.

Far Cry 2 is coming out on both systems and is just as taxing as Crysis. It's not the processor and if you still maintain that, then you're an idiot.

Sigh.

Yes, on a poorly optimized system, the CPU doesn't make a difference. But with console games it is different. They can tweak it to take full advantage of EVERY cpu cycle.

I'll explain why the PS3 can get by with a weaker GPU. It is called pre-rendering. Because of its massive blu-ray, it can store a bunch of image that normally are designed on the spot. So while the 360 may have to draw grass on the spot with mathematical calculations, due to space constraints, the PS3 can use its extra blu-ray space to have the grass already drawn. Then its just a matter of having a fast processor to get it off the disk. Whereas the 360 would have to create the graphics with mathematical calculations (done by the GPU) on the spot. Yes that is easier, but if you take full advantage of the PS3, it doesn't need as much GPU power as the 360 does for the reasons I described above.

But I'm done with this. This is nintendo wii fanboy blog. I merely made the comparison because I believe the average next generation game can be recreated on the wii, but without all the bells and whistles. With lower graphics. But I don't think the most demanding ps3 games can, even without the bells and whistles.