Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unreal 3 Engine to Skip the Wii

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the it's-okay-wii-you-can-still-be-mario's-friend dept.

Wii 245

Mark Rein, speaking with Chris Kohler and Game|Life, has stated that Epic's next-gen Unreal engine will never make it to the Wii. Touting the virtues of high-definition gaming, the 360, and the PS3, Rein said that their engine is simply not designed for Nintendo's hardware. He also quickly mentioned the upcoming deal between Epic and Square Enix: "It's definitely a challenge to convince Japanese developers to work with a third-party technology like ours. But Square Enix, they're the granddaddy. I'm hoping that'll be pulling the stopper out of the drain, and we'll gradually crack that nut. We've been looking to hire somebody in Japan, to be our representative there. " Update: 02/06 04:19 GMT by Z : Accidentally misattributed the interview to CVG when it was a Game|Life piece. Fixed. Also, Chris made sure to point out that a partner of Epic's is trying to get UE3 onto the Wii, so ... maybe someday?

cancel ×

245 comments

No Wii? (0, Troll)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897182)

Fine, shoot yourself in the foot. (I bet it's because of an under-the-table deal...)

Re:No Wii? (5, Insightful)

mingot (665080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897302)

Huh? Nintendo came out said (and proved through actions) that the Wii was not about graphics, but gameplay. Why should it be a surprise that Epic took that to heart and decided not to invest in getting it's latest engine to run on underpowered hardware?

And really, is this a loss for Epic or Nintendo? If a killer game comes out using unreal 2 I think I'd still buy it.

Re:No Wii? (2, Informative)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897978)

Huh? Nintendo came out said (and proved through actions) that the Wii was not about graphics, but gameplay. Why should it be a surprise that Epic took that to heart and decided not to invest in getting it's latest engine to run on underpowered hardware?

And really, is this a loss for Epic or Nintendo? If a killer game comes out using unreal 2 I think I'd still buy it.
I think you're missing the very obvious point: if Epic doesn't port the Unreal 3 engine to Wii, then that's Y games that won't be appearing on the Wii.

Here's how it works:

1). Publisher creates game for Xbox360 using Unreal 3 engine
2). Publisher realizes he can rework the control scheme, turn down the model polygon count and texture resolution, and recompile the code for the Wii engine at marginal extra development cost. The profit and revenue generated from hitting an extra market (of 10+ million consoles or however many Wii's are out there) far outweighs the porting cost.
3). Publisher sells video game for not only Xbox360, but Wii also
4). ???
5). Profit!

If the engine isn't there the Wii can't play the game.

Re:No Wii? (3, Informative)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898580)

Your 5 step process falls apart around #2. It's not as trivial as you imply and you make two assumptions that aren't justified.

Re:No Wii? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17899240)

I work as a games port programmer, and the process isn't nearly as cheap or easy as you make it sound. Unless you want to divert some of your core programmers to a secondary-market port (hint: you can't, they're overworked as it is), you need to outsource the work to a separate team. These new guys, while they may be competent, need to pull off optimization, bugfixing, input and UI changes on a codebase they are completely unfamiliar with.

To make matters worse, since ports are usually released at the same time as the main title, porters need to work with a constantly-changing codebase. They need to regularly update their code with changes from the core team, which each time break things and force a rewrite of some of their work. If you want to avoid these breakages, you need to avoid direct refactoring of core code as much as possible and build separate execution paths for everything, which imposes its own costs. As a result ports take a lot more programming resources than might be expected.

Oh, and I wish there was a "polygon count" slider you could turn down in 3d modeling programs!

Re:No Wii? (1)

nonsequitor (893813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898190)

According to the article Red Steel is based on the Unreal 2 engine. And the game play on that is great. I was a little worried about the accuracy of the WiiMote, but after playing the game it proved to be much more accurate than other games, meaning that the driver for WiiMote input used by Red Steel is much more sophisticated than the other games and not a hardware problem as I had originally feared, but I digress.

Re:No Wii? (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898376)

There's been one shooter to date that IGN accused of having worse graphics than an N64 game, but yes - I'm amazed at what older engines can do in the right hands. It's really dated but RTCW on the Quake 3 engine is still nice (mostly because it's fast and runs on everything but a Commodore 64). I'm more concerned that Nintendo's tighter than tight grip on internet access will shun some developers off in that relm.

Since not one online shooter has emerged yet I don't think that fear is ungrounded. I'm hoping that EA's next Medal of Honor effort for the Wii addresses this, but I haven't heard diddly-squat on the mutliplayer aspects at present.

Re:No Wii? (5, Informative)

Pc_Madness (984705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897344)

No, its because the Wii's graphics card isn't capable of doing the kind of things that this engine is designed for, which is obviously delivering realistic graphics, which isn't the focus of the Wii. Seems abit stupid to gut the main feature out of the engine just to get it to work, only to have an engine equivalent of the previous generation.. I could be wrong, but didn't they say the Unreal 2 engine would work fine on the Wii?

Re:No Wii? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17897520)

Fine, shoot yourself in the foot. (I bet it's because of an under-the-table deal...)
The Wii is good for a lot of things, but Nintendo stated from the get-go that it wasn't aiming for high-end graphics. These guys simply agree.

If you make Formula One cars, it's not "shooting yourself in the foot" to ignore the go-cart circuit. Go carts may be fun and they may be way more plentiful than Formula One cars, but you're not going to get your customers really excited about your F-1s by saying, "look, we also have a huge presence on the go cart circuit!"

It says nothing worse about their business sense or their market savvy than the fact there is no Zelda:TP for the 360 or PS2. Zelda may have sold well on those platforms, but it was designing for the unique capabilities of the Wii. Unfortunately, the Wii doesn't also have the capabilities to handle the needs of the Unreal Team.

BTW, you're gonna see a lot of this. There are a lot of games that will look awesome on the other platforms but will not look good on the Wii. Nintendo made their choice and they picked Fun and Inexpensive. A lot of games striving for high-end visuals will opt to go with the platforms that chose High-End Visuals rather than put out a port that looks like Far Cry.

Re:No Wii? (1, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897732)

There's no reason Twilight Princess couldn't use conventional controls, any Wii-specific stuff is superfluous at best and sometimes more of a main than a joystick.

Re:No Wii? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897892)

> There's no reason Twilight Princess couldn't use conventional controls, any Wii-specific stuff
> is superfluous at best and sometimes more of a main than a joystick.

Probably because it was released on the wii and the GC, which lacks a WiMote.

Re:No Wii? (2, Insightful)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897946)

His point exactly - Zelda isn't a Nintendo exclusive for technical reasons, obviously..

Re:No Wii? (2, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898090)

Aiming the bow (or boomeraing, or whatever else) is much, much, better with a pointer than with an analog stick.

People who have never actually tried the system, and are just talking out their ass, tend to assume the Wii has nothing but motion sensing, but it's not so.

What will wii do (5, Insightful)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897186)

I am sure they will plenty of other engines for Wii. Maybe even a few just for it.

Re:What will wii do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17897406)

Well duh? Doesn't change the fact that the unreal engine is 'sweet' and it would have been nice addition to wii

Re:What will wii do (2, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897412)

Yeah. They can just keep using the ones for the gamecube.
Its the same hardware, after all.

(seriously not joking, the differences are so small it wouldnt even be worth calling it a major refresh. I guess thats the real reason they canned the "revolution" codename.)

Re:What will wii do (3, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897548)

Well, maybe you don't understand but the one of the major selling points of the Wii to developers is they could continue to use the same technology and their development costs would not increase ...

With the Wii you get to produce an Unreal 2 Engine game with some graphical enhancements over a Gamecube game but costs don't explode; in contrast to make a PS3/XBox 360 game your budget will probably explode to being 3-4 times what a PS2/XBox game cost. Now, what I hope happens is that the Wii demonstrates that pushing graphical limits is not necessary so that in the next generation developers produce games which focus on gameplay and have graphics on the level the developer can afford.

Re:What will wii do (1, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897834)

With the Wii you get to produce an Unreal 2 Engine game with some graphical enhancements over a Gamecube game but costs don't explode; in contrast to make a PS3/XBox 360 game your budget will probably explode to being 3-4 times what a PS2/XBox game cost

Reality Distortion Field: disengage.

Having to maintain ports for two different engines is a cost. Textures and models are typically downscaled for consoles anyway. Your 3-4 times figure has zero connection with reality.

Re:What will wii do (5, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898526)

Unfortunately, it is you who is incorrect. Development costs do "explode" for the 360/ps3 games over the ps2/gc/wii kind of games.

These games are capable of much more power, and with more power, you do not simply not "downscale" as much. Next-gen games feature more assets (more particle emitter assets, more model assets) nevermind that producing environments for next gen games is far more time consuming due to the increased scale.

More power also means you can do far more in code, so typically, you have larger teams of developers in order to produce more complicated AI systems, more complicated physics engines, more complicated shaders, etc.

Also, since the assets 'weigh more' on disk, your tools and technology infrastructure to support explodes. More disk space, more powerful hardware to work on, more files to support (because of more assets being created.)

Game budgets ARE far higher on next gen games, for all the reasons listed .. even more than 3-4 times higher in some cases when comparing a triple A PS2 title to a triple A PS3 title. One of the biggest issues within the industry is how to keep costs down on next gen games since the financial risk is much higher. Procedural art assets is one common discussed potential approach.

And how do I know this? I'm a game developer, at a company that produces both current (ok, well now last) gen and next (okay with now current) gen games, for the xbox, ps, and nintendo families.

So really, he doesn't have a reality distortion field. Its a reality .. a reality that has a lot of developers and publishers concerned.

"Textures and models are typically downscaled for consoles anyway."

Textures and models are typically "baked" (and LoD models set) relatively early in a single-generation production process, in order to ensure that artists are working on exactly what appears in the game. If you downscaled every time you made a build (ie, proceduraly,) you'd never know exactly what you'd end up with. Your comment regarding two ports at the same time, is of course correct. Especially so if you're producing a next and current gen version of the same game, which is why you just won't see it done very often. (Legends was one such example.) But your comment about budgets being generation specific are completely contrary to what the industry is experiencing and trying to grapple with.

Re:What will wii do (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898828)

I stand corrected -- thanks for adding some seasoned perspective to the discussion.

Certainly the "AAA" titles have Hollywood-esque production budgets, but a lot of that would seem independent of the technology. Writing, directing, acting, scoring, etc are all part of the package of these games, and while the progress of technology might drive the demand, the gaming culture is demanding it as well. Certainly beefier platforms drive some of the demand, but an increasingly discerning gamer culture does independent of the technology as well. How much of the budget would you say is driven by production costs like that as opposed to technology overhead?

I'm kind of glad to see a platform that isn't primarily focused on the "AAA" titles, though it's downright irritating to see The Faithful play it up as The One True Path To Enlightened Gaming.

Re:What will wii do (1)

Bobartig (61456) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898882)

People have always assumed this arrangement, even though it has never existed:

-Quality of original assets
|
|
-Quality of Next gen in-game assets
|
|
|
-Quality of Current gen in-game assets.

So that next gen and current gen assets come from the same [magical] place somehow. this ignores a lot of things like lighting, physics, and the fact that current and next gen games will use different models.

The statement that assets are 'downscaled' for consoles is of course true. But this statement is irrelavent in terms of comparing current gen to next gen development costs.

Re:What will wii do (0)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897836)

The Wii has about double the horsepower of a GameCube. I would be inclined to call that a major refresh. But the whole point is not that Nintendo is trying to sell an uber-powerful new console. Nintendo said when they released the GameCube that current generation power was enough to make the designer's vision become reality. With Wii, they are holding true to that statement. They are providing more powerful hardware, but more than that, they are providing new experiences in other ways.

Wii's hardware isn't up to the task.... (1)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897486)

It's the same with PC's, either the graphics hardware is up to the task or it isn't. There is no reason to spend more money crippling your engine to run on a specific console when you know what it will look like anyway. When people bought the Wii, they basically bought a Game Cube with a cool controller. I'm not saying the Wii isn't entertaining, I'm just stating the fact that the hardware was not designed for good graphics quality (by today's standards). Just don't hold your breath for some stunning new engine for hardware such as the Wii.

What? (0)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897242)

I'm not an expert on this matter but:

1) Wasn't some version of Unreal usable on the GameCube?

2) Does Unreal force you to use the level of detail that's currently found on the Xbox 360 and PS3?

OOPS (3, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897290)

Sorry, didn't realize they were only referring to the next-gen version of the engine. I know, I know, "Please read the summary before responding. It's fun. It's like reading, but ... of the summary."

Re:OOPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17897930)

Not reading TFA I can understand. Not reading the summary is harder, but I guess it has to happen sometimes. But seriously... you didn't even read the entire title, "Unreal 3 engine to skip wii." I mean seriously, you didn't even get FP.

Re:OOPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898128)

It takes a pretty dumb jackass to miss the basic point of the rather uncomplicated article title and summary.

Accordingly, I present to you UbuntuDupe, the dumbest jackass of them all. Applaud his efforts; he's worked hard to earn that distinction.

Re:What? (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897292)

Unreal has/had the best software rendering engine so the answer to LOD would be no.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897532)

It could be that Unreal 3 simply has too much overhead to be practical on GameCube, but I have my doubts about that. While the new-gen consoles are very powerful, it's not exactly like the Wii is a complete slouch in terms of processing power. Games tend to be fairly scalable by their very nature. After all, there's nothing that *demands* a certain number of polygons in a scene. I worked at a company that (in a different division) made kids games using the Unreal Engine. They even integrated a software-renderer for the inevitable compatibility problems that would crop up.

My guess is that, as alluded to, Epic felt that the market simply wasn't/wouldn't be there for a middleware engine. It could be that they were predicting the demise of Nintendo's new console, and simply guessed wrong.

If they suddenly realize there *is* a big middleware market, I'd guess you'll see a pretty quick about-turn. It's not all that hard to port an engine that already has proper abstraction layers in place (which Unreal3 surely has, being cross-platform). The GC was one of the more straight-forward systems to develop for, and I'd imagine the Wii is no different (although I'm not developing for it at this point).

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897538)

1) Yes, but the latest version of Unreal is something else.
2) The Unreal Engine is designed for hardware with shaders. The Wii hardware doesn't have full-fledged shaders like the PS3 and 360 have. Even if Unreal 3 would run on the Wii, there would be no point. Without shaders, you couldn't do any of the fancy lighting and texture effects that Unreal 3 is designed to enable.

Ultimately, it's just Epic admitting that the Wii isn't designed for the kind of games that will use Unreal 3. And that's OK, Nintendo has its niche, Epic has theirs.

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897916)

The Unreal Engine is designed for hardware with shaders. The Wii hardware doesn't have full-fledged shaders like the PS3 and 360 have.

What the fuck? All modern GPUs have shaders, Wii included. Hell, even the GameCube [gamasutra.com] GPU had shaders. I honestly have no idea why you would make the ridiculous claim that the Wii "doesn't have shaders".

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898528)

Perhaps you missed the word "full-fledged" in the parent post. Or were you implying that the shaders are equivalent in PS3/360 and Wii.

Re:What? (0)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898578)

"full-fledged" does not mean "state of the art". The shaders in the 'Cube are "full fledged". Just like a Pentium 3 is a "full fledged" x86 microprocessor, even if it isn't as modern and powerful as Core 2 Duo.

"Gamecube doesn't have full-fledged shaders" is wrong. "Gamecube's shaders aren't as powerful as those of Xbox360" is correct, but also not as strong a statement, so I can see why the author chose the other.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898716)

1) Calling its Texture Stages with Logical Operations a 'shader' is abusing the terminology. At best, it has a PSEUDO-pixel shader, like the DX7 style texture stages, not the PROPER DX8 pixel shaders.

2) The Wii doesn't have vertex shaders -- unless you write your own. Are you going to call CPU skinning a 'hardware vertex shader' ??

So it's not ridiculous to claim the Wii has no shaders. I agree with the gp "the Wii doesn't have full-fledged shaders" At best, it has 1/2 a pixel shader.

Or do we need to take this to the 'rvl.graphics' group?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898756)

The Wii and the GameCube don't have shaders in the modern sense of the word.

They do have highly configurable pixel/texture operations, but this is a far cry from current hardware shaders.
Basically, you've got up to 16 texture combine operations. Each op can look up a texture and do either a
linear interpolation or some similar mathetical operation. A few (like 4?) constant color registers are available
for holding constant inputs or intermediate results.

It's kind of similar to the first DX8 "shaders"; more flexible in some ways, less in others.
Shaders have come a long way since then, but the Wii hasn't.

The link you provided describes a software "shading" system that isn't quite relevant to the discussion.

Re:What? (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897690)

Does Unreal force you to use the level of detail that's currently found on the Xbox 360 and PS3?

Releasing a sub-par version for the Wii would give them a bad reputation among consumers seeing their products on the Wii. Consumers don't know or care whether the limitations are due to the hardware or the software. All they would know is "Unreal sucks" if they saw it on the Wii. It would be a bad business decision to do that.

Re:What? (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898422)

>>All they would know is "Unreal sucks" if they saw it on the Wii.

How so? They would be comparing Unreal to other games on the Wii, not Unreal on the Wii compared to a different game on another console.

Unreal Tournament & Unreal Tournament 2004 were excellent FPS games. You can take the original on an old PC, turn the graphic settings down, and guess what? It's still loads of fun. (Facing Worlds + Low Grav, FTW!)

Personally, as much as I love Epic, this smells a bit of a copout. They could take their latest and greatest Unreal Engine3, lower the textures and poly count, and I bet it would run fine on the Wii. The problem is that you can't just port it to the Wii without putting a bunch of work into making control with the Wiimote more than just a novelty.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898850)

The problem is that you can't just port it to the Wii without putting a bunch of work into making control with the Wiimote more than just a novelty.
Yeah, I'm sure the major problem they would run into would be the controller *eye roll*

Re:What? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898900)

why would they make a Wii version of the Unreal 3 engine? the hardware the Unreal 3 engine is designed to take advantage of isn't present in the Wii, and the Unreal 2 Engine is perfectly capable of utilizing the Wii.

it would be a waste of money since they already have the Unreal 2 engine to sell to developers for the Wii.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17899076)

The Wii version will be out shortly after they finish the Commodore 64 version, because all they gotta do, you know, is reduce the polygon count and remove the textures.

Re:What? (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17899102)

That's not the problem. The problem is UE3 is designed to work with DirectX style hardware. The Wii GPU is very different from the GPUs in the 360/PS3, which are more like current PC GPUs. Epic would have to recode some of the low level parts of the engine to properly take advantage of the Wii GPU to get the same kind of effects they can get on the other systems. It's not just poly count and texture depth. It would be a lot of work, and not necessarily for any gain, since UE2.5 already works on the Wii.

Re:What? (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898210)

Unreal 3's advantage over previous engine seems to be primarily graphical. I'm going to venture that the reason that it won't be applicable to the Wii is that cutting effects enough to run on the Wii makes the advances of the Unreal engine largely irrelevant. I'm sure some form of it will be usable, but will it really be Unreal 3 at that point?

Mexed Mitaphors (5, Funny)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897264)

"I'm hoping that'll be pulling the stopper out of the drain, and we'll gradually crack that nut."

Yeah, better jump under that bandwagon before the train leaves the station!

Re:Mixed Mitaphors (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898576)

"we'll gradually crack that nut"

That phrase is just throbbing for a good Wii joke! ;)

And Wii Owners Rejoiced! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17897294)

There really is no better way for a company to let the gaming world know that they just don't give a shit than to crap out a game with UE3. Although with the outright screenshot fraud Epic has been pulling with garbage like Gears of War, bogus high rez marketing shots with massive AA applied, it's not really surprising that crappy game dev execs are falling for the Epic marketing spiel.

Downside for Wii owners? No bumpy/shiny bald space marines for you!

That a company is actually managing to sell a low-poly massively overly normal mapped graphics engine that was ripped of from the old Doom 3 engine designed to work around the shitty x86 bus architecture by minimizing graphics traffic across the bus should be a good indication of just how fucked up things are in the game dev world.

Re:And Wii Owners Rejoiced! (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898238)

Apparently, unreal engine 3 sounded too generic, so the name is being changed to UE:SG, or Unreal Engine: Sour Grapes.

No big deal (0, Troll)

LukeCage (1007133) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897304)

That's no big deal. The Unreal engines, at their core, are nothing more than flashy-graphic delivery packages. Heck, if they port Unreal Engine 2 to the Wii, who cares? The Wii has been touting gameplay over graphics since it's conception; not having the abolutely cutting-edge and latest bloom/particle/shading techniques shouldn't make a bit of difference to the average Wii owner (and if it does, why don't they own a PS3 or 360?)

Re:No big deal (4, Insightful)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897574)

You're forgetting the flip-side to that argument. There are a large category of games that are *expected* to look great. Zelda: TP got a lot of flack for looking last-gen, because people expect Zelda to both have great gameplay *and* look pretty. Licensing something like Unreal 3 frees a lot of developer resources to working on other things besides the graphics engine, allowing for better gameplay.

Re:No big deal (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897962)

"because people expect Zelda to both have great gameplay *and* look pretty."

I think you're confusing "artistic style" with "shiny polygons." Nobody complains when a new Zelda game graces the GBA, nor was there much outcry about the 2D Four Swords Adventure on the GCN.

The only people complaining about TP's lack of polygons were the ones who were new to the franchise and/or thinking the Wii was outselling the PS3 because it has better graphics.

Re:No big deal (5, Insightful)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897618)

Exactly! I actually think the graphics on the Wii are _too_ flashy! All those polygons are detracting from my gameplay experience, when really they could satisfy me with simple cubes and squares to represent the players. Why not have Wario be a cube with a W on it, Link a green pyramid with an L, etc. And now seeing as they aren't going to have one of the industry standard engines on the Wii, well, we should probably reduce the expected level of graphics requirements that gamers want since getting anywhere will be that much harder. ...

Ok, I can't continue with that. But seriously, just because it doesn't have the "leading edge in graphics" doesn't mean it has no graphics, or is going to get along with stick figures. Its more powerful than the Gamecube, and the cube had some pretty nice looking games last generation, at least on par with the Xbox and PS2, and in many cases (personal opinion, of course), exceeded them. And yes, yes, the Wii is all about gameplay and not graphics, BUT getting to at least the bar set by the last gen is hard enough - the bar is only going to get higher. Line up a late gen PS1 game next to a late gen PS2 game (or N64 to GameCube). Its a pretty big difference. How do you get to that bar and possibly surpass it while still having lots of resources to focus on the gameplay? By having someone else do the work of course! That's where engines like Unreal come in - they do all the fancy shading techniques so you don't have to. You have extra costs in the terms of artists, but in your average shop the realities of the situation are artists and art techs are cheap, graphics engineers are not. Its a shame they're losing Unreal, which is a great engine. I don't know if Unreal2 is on the Wii, but it seems likely given the similarities to the GameCube.

To sum up: gameplay for graphics was a trade-off made by Nintendo to reduce costs for the system. Its not quite the same for gamedevs - you don't magically get a game thats more fun by firing all your graphics engineers and hiring 2x more designers. You still make models, textures, build sets, etc. Its at least as much work as it was last-gen. BUT those tasks can be done in parallel, and having the code partly done for you gets them completed faster.

Re:No big deal (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898666)

> you don't magically get a game thats more fun by firing all your graphics engineers and hiring 2x more designers

Shudder .. don't you ever give me that apocolypical mental image again. ;)

Re:No big deal (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898148)

I don't know why you haven't been modded insightful yet. Your post was dead-on.

Some of the people posting to this discussion are acting hurt about this decision, yet they're in the same crowd of people who've been saying all along that they Wii doesn't need better graphics. There really are benefits to a nice looking game. Many Wii games look nice, but the best Wii game will never look as nice as the best 360 or PS3 game. They've seemed all along to be saying, "that doesn't matter to us," but I think this decision reveals an important truth. It really does matter.

I think Wii fans need to come to grips with the fact that if they want this particular thing, they shouldn't be looking at the game maker, hey should be looking at the game machine. If they've deciding that graphics are cool after all, they should stop trying to convince everyone the Wii can be all things to all people, and realize that is is a notable weak area.

I don't understand the shame in admitting that the graphics on the 360 and PS3 are superior and thats a major bullet point in their favor. All three companies have already come to grips with this in a very public way. Why do the Wii fans so desperately want to believe the Wii can compete in the visuals?

Hasn't this been known for awhile? (4, Interesting)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897306)

I thought this was known back in August/September?

I swear I saw an interview saying that Red-Steel was an Unreal 2 Engine game and it was unlikely the Wii could support an Unreal 3 Engine game ...

The fact is that the Unreal 3 Engine was designed with a reasonably powerful GPU (probably in the Geforce 6800 range) and a reasonably powerful CPU (AMD X2 3800+ as a guess) in mind and the Wii simply isn't in the same league. The Wii should be able to handle the Doom 3, Unreal 2 and (maybe) the Source engine which are all solid game engines which should be good for several years.

Re:Hasn't this been known for awhile? (2, Informative)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898718)

I have serious doubts that Source and other truly advanced game engines will ever appear on Wii unless they are severely compromised. The sad fact is, as awesome and powerful as the Wii is in a lot of ways, Nintendo made a huge mistake not adding to the feature set of the GPU. GPUs have moved a bit beyond 2001; Nintendo hasn't.

Although on the whole the Wii is more powerful than the original XBox, and Source did appear on the XBox in the form of Half-Life 2, Valve has stated (although I can't find the quote) that Half-Life 2 will not be coming to Wii.

Still, Gabe Newell continues to talk up the Wii saying: "I'm betting that by Christmas of next year, the Wii has a larger installed base than the 360. Other people think I'm crazy. I really like everthing that Nintendo is doing."

And Doug Lombardi said in an interview about Half-Life 2 for PS3: "Understanding the [PS3] has been the biggest challenge of all, since we're still learning a lot about the control and interface. It's really just a design challenge, but nothing impossible to overcome. The bigger challenge will be if we ever did a Wii version down the road."

Valve seems a bit wishy-washy on the topic, so who knows? It seems like an obvious choice to port to Wii, but maybe this quote from Red Steel developer Novel Campos Oriola puts things into perspective (sorry for the bad translation): "I do not have the right to speak in details of what Wii can do graphically. What one can say, it is that on the sum of all that it can do, Wii is more powerful than Xbox. But there are things which Xbox can make and which Wii cannot make." Red Steel uses the Unreal 2 engine.

Re:Hasn't this been known for awhile? (3, Interesting)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898958)

Although on the whole the Wii is more powerful than the original XBox, and Source did appear on the XBox in the form of Half-Life 2, Valve has stated (although I can't find the quote) that Half-Life 2 will not be coming to Wii.
... But if you're bored, you can always play HL2 with the Wii's controllers [hylobatidae.org] . On a PC!

Square? (1)

RealmRPGer (889362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897310)

Is the Unreal engine for FFXIII? If that's the case, then does that mean this deal happened quite a while ago?

Re:Square? (1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897348)

No, FFXIII uses the White Engine [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Square? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897458)

Why do people forget that Square made much more than the Final Fantasy series... And I'm not just talking about 'B' games either. They've done some of the best side scrollers [wikipedia.org] , third person platformers, and fighting games ever.

Personally, I hope they use the Unreal engine for a new Bushido Blade...

Re:Square? (1)

RealmRPGer (889362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898164)

Dude. Brave Fencer Musashi is one of my favorite games. Of course I know they make other stuff... But they HAVEN'T really made anything other than KH lately (and even that team is now on FFXIII Versus, soo).

Re:Square? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17899006)

Ugh. Einhander? That game is decent, but there are dozens of better shooters out there (Ikaruga and the dozens of great Hudson PC Engine shooters) and it's just a throwback to the Thunderforce games (Fuck. Even G. Darius was more fun to play on the PSX). I mean, come on. They've got *one* shmup. *One*! And the best fighting games? Tobal? Ehrgeiz? You've got to be friggin' kidding. Platform games? Which third-person platformers?

One of the related links reads (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897318)

"never make it to the Wii"

That sounds like a painful medical problem.

High def gaming? (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897360)

What version of the Unreal engine didn't support "high def" resolutions?

Oh, that's right... None of them... Yet they all managed to support running at a lower resolution too. This is a huge load of marketing bullshit.

Besides, they'll change their mind and compile it for the Wii (and the PS2) as soon as not doing it costs them a licensing agreement. (Unless Microsoft or Sony is paying them actual cash to be High-Def only?)

Re:High def gaming? (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897554)

Watch me care.. I'd think almost any game engine can pull off 480p at a decent framerate these days, it's not like any game looking for one will come up short. Btw: A note to all Wii gamers, Warioware: Smooth moves is the most overrated game so far with a short SP and hardly any simultanious play in MP. Get Rayman's Raving Rabbits, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz or hold out for Mario Party 8.

Re:High def gaming? (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898200)

Warioware: Smooth moves is the most overrated game so far

Your problem is you haven't turned it into a drinking game yet.

Sit down with a few cases of beer and play it with some friends. Every time you screw up you take a drink.

Fun times. Already starting some new memories now... Well from what I can remember anyway :)

. Get Rayman's Raving Rabbits, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz or hold out for Mario Party 8.

Wife and I tried Super Monkey Ball and it really wasn't for us. The control is klunky and not very much. I found myself getting quite irritated by the control and the multi-player wasn't nearly as fun as Warioware Smooth Moves.

Re:High def gaming? (3, Informative)

JanusFury (452699) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898084)

Running a DX9/DX10-class game engine or graphics application on a DX7-class or DX8-class GPU is not remotely close to being as easy as 'compiling it for the Wii and the PS2'. No offense, but if you knew *anything* about game engines, you'd realize this. There are significant hurdles preventing an engine like Unreal 3 from running on hardware like the PS2 or Wii without being designed specifically for it in the first place.

The problem here is that UE3 was designed for a system with a modern graphics processor and fairly high end CPU. The Wii and PS2 have neither of these things, so UE3 simply won't run on them. Obviously, stuff like the previous Unreal Engine (used by Red Steel) runs fine on the Wii, so it's not as if the Wii can't run games. It just can't run UE3.

Re:High def gaming? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898500)

"High def" is more than just a high resolution. It's also using detailed textures and geometry, and older engines don't really scale to handle that much data.

Misreadind trends (3, Insightful)

NotthatFrankie (1004384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897400)

So Epic wants to have a "representative" in Japan, but their newest engine doesn't support Wii? Doesn't Nintendo own the market over there?

Re:Misreadind trends (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897674)

Sony's king actually. Still. Since it'll take a while for the Wii to catch up to the Ps2. This might change later when the ps2 market declines. But the ps2 is still very strong.

Re:Misreadind trends (1)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897806)

Well of course the PS2 is still market champ. But if you're talking about the current generation of consoles, then Wii is the champ in Japan, since they overtook the 360 during the holiday season. The PS3 just isn't selling that well. Which makes sense, because it has no compelling software yet.

Re:Misreadind trends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898448)

Then I look forward to running Unreal 3 Engine on my PS2.

Oh, wait..

Re:Misreadind trends (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898406)

There is actually this small startup over there called Sony. I am sure you will be hearing about them someday soon.

who cares... (4, Insightful)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897466)

This is not a troll. Anyway, who cares? The whole point of the Wii is not to deliver stunning movie-quality graphics. The point of the Wii is to change the way games are played. High end graphics are overrated anyway. Doom 3 and Quake 4 both have fantastic fx but the game play is not innovative and is boring. WarioWare for the Wii has minimal graphics, but IMHO, is very replayable. I know I'm sounding old here but I'm sick of the argument that graphics are everything. In other words, the PS3 and the Xbox 360 may render a piece of crap in high detail... capturing all the intricate details and using 16X anti-aliasing to render the post steam convecting off of it... but it still a piece of crap. I want to be able to play with that piece of crap... toss it around like bowling or in tennis. I can do this with the Wii and it smells fantastic.

Re:who cares... (3, Interesting)

Spikeles (972972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897596)

Aye, the exact reason Starcraft, Morrowwind, Baldurs Gate, Betrayal at Krondor, Commander Keen, Doom, C&C (list goes on) are all very fun games that i still play these days. They don't have the gfx of todays games, but heck they are still fun! And here [vgcats.com] is why Bloom sucks.

Re:who cares... (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897942)

You aren't kidding about bloom.

Got my first experience on the 360 using bloom. As a side note, I don't plan on purchasing a current-gen console, since I just sank 1200$ into a dual core machine for my pc gaming. However, I was at a friend's house, and one of the games he had was Project Gotham. Similar in playability (at least my brief tour) to GT4 and it's ilk, I was having a blast tearing up my "host's" times.

Got to the end of a straight stretch where you play for about 20 seconds under a bridge covering, and WHAM. Bloom. What the fuck? Why did you just temporarily blind me? Even if I was ready for it (as I tested with another run on the track) it was still just an annoying trick.

I know that PG was a launch title, but come on... I can't believe that something like that would be popular. That fucking hurt. And it was only a 24" screen!

Re:who cares... (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898466)

Bloom, Ragdolls, "physics", there all just the next "lens flare", poorly implemented features to cram on the back of the box to to tout some intangible superiority.

Re:who cares... (1)

Spikeles (972972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898564)

Ragdolls, "physics", there all just the next "lens flare", poorly implemented features to cram on the back of the box to to tout some intangible superiority.
Bloom yes, ragdolls maybe, but "physics"? I think the way games use the physics to create sandboxes for user designed gameplay are a great idea. How many times have you played Oblivion, FEAR, FarCry, or GTA, and just sat there playing with the physics instead of doing the missions? The physics add so much more playability, they don't need to be fancy, they don't need to be good, but damn, it's fun creating multi-car pile ups in GTA-SA, or seeing how many arrows it takes to hit an apple in Oblivion with your bow! You can make your own little mini-games!

As for ragdolls and physics together, just look at Stair Dismount [skinflake.com] it may not look flashy, but it has HOURS of fun.

Re:who cares... (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898732)

Show me a game that actually lists having a "lens flare" on the back of the box.

The key to all these features is using them properly. When the effects are shoved down your throat at a detrement to gameplay, than yes, it sucks. But start actually looking out for lense flares in games; you'll be surprised how many games have them and you've never even noticed it before. Those are the games that use those features to enhance the level of immersion .. you just don't notice how frequently they're used properly because when they're used properly, you don't notice them.

Re:who cares... (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898322)

Ceasar 4 has perhaps some of the most gratuitous bloom I've ever seen in a game. Every building in it just shines like a thousand suns, and makes your GPU about as hot too. Tilted Mill is now 0 for 2 on picking up Impressions' legacy.

Perhaps it's why Gamespy skipped the Lens Flare Award for 2006 -- bloom won it in 2004, and it deserved to win the dubious honor again, but there's nothing new to say about it.

Re:who cares... (2, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898482)

Because those games didnt have graphics as their big selling point at the time of their release? Yeah, retrospective reality distortion hey...

Commander Keen: pixel-wise fluid scrolling unseen before on EGA IBM-PCs
Doom: No need to mention. People were blown away by the full-screen (pseudo) 3D graphics. I knew someone who bought a Pentium60 more or less just to play the game for its graphics.
C&C: new frontiers for FMV cutscenes and the best use of the 320x200*8bit vga resolution seen in any strategy-game at that point of time
Baldurs Gate: 5 CDs full of high-resolution scenery graphics back when games didnt even manage to fill one, usually
Morrowind: hyped years ahead for its graphics, the use of shaders, the big visibility range, the water reflections, ect, blabla

just starcraft looked like crap when released.

So your point doesnt exist: just because you picked the games from 1.5 decades that YOU likes, and those of course are outdated now, doesnt give any correlation. Especially since you have games in your list that demanded highest-end computers for their graphics at the release-time (doom and morrowind).

Re:who cares... (1)

Spikeles (972972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898662)

My point is simply that graphics don't make the games, gameplay does. I listed those games because i liked the gameplay, and the quality of the graphics does not impact how i feel about the game. This is in contrast to the myriad of players who see the latest and greatest Battlefield game and go "OOO! Shiny" and rave on about how awesome it is, although the gameplay is crap ( this is my biased opinion though ).

So you want some more recent games that have awesome gameplay that don't need the latest and greatest computer and graphics card?, Ok...
Soldat [soldat.pl]
Flow [usc.edu]
Warning Forever [wikipedia.org]
Dismount games [jet.ro]
Solitaire [wikipedia.org]

I'm sure there are more...

Re:who cares... (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898800)

The point is that these games remain fun without the draw to their graphics. It is time to realize that we are in the computing era of "good enough." Processors were good enough about 5 years ago for most useful tasks. There are exceptions, but those applications that constantly need more power will probably never be completely satisfied.

Once developers realize that they can make a game that has good enough graphics and superior design and sell like gangbusters, gaming will start its renaissance.

Nintendo is thriving today, because they realized that. Sony is in trouble because they don't. The foundation has been laid by the likes of Nintendo, Game Freak, Blizzard, Fraxis, some people at Square and Namco, and Rockstar (though they might be changing), and those who do not see will be left in the digital dust. Sure there will always be a market for the big-budget blockbuster, but even Hollywood is starting to realize that people won't pay for simple shine over substance anymore.

Re:who cares... (1)

oOo Shiva oOo (582339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897756)

I'm going to have to exercise my right to disagree about WarioWare... I felt like I was just repeating myself over and over by the 2nd area. By the 4th or so I gave the controller to my friend and said "have fun, this is ass."

I will agree, however, that movie-quality graphics are not a requirement. Its nice to have the option, but its not necessary. I hate hearing these threads about how its becoming too expensive and too hard to code for games because the requirements of the system and making stunning graphics and stuff like that. I love that the PS3 and X360 *can* deliver those features... I just wish they'd make less use of them and spend more time on gameplay. My favorite games are still on the old NES, SNES, and Genesis systems... Stuff like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy 3 and World Series Baseball and Breath of Fire II, Simons Quest, Metroid.. Megaman... You can't tell me its not possible to make games like that for the modern systems... Every game doesnt HAVE to take advantage of every hz of processing power in the box. Its up to the developers to come up with new and ingenious ways of making games fun and interesting, not up to the system manufacturers to pull new gimmicks out of their butts. The wiimote was a great idea and its fun for some games. So far the only games I've had any fun with are Wii Sports.. and its getting real old quick...

The Wiimote was a great idea and I think it should be incorperated into every future game system.. or at least some rendition of it... but it shouldn't be the sole reason to purchase the system... it should be used as a small part in games for fun or interesting uses... tests of skill or endurance or mini games or what have you..

Thats just my 2c, take it or leave it.

Re:who cares... (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898252)

But what if you're a developer for the Wii, and wanted to make a first person shooter? Sure, you could build the engine from scratch, but why not buy a pre-existing engine that's ready for you? Maybe that's not the best example because I'm sure the Unreal 2 engine is available instead of 3, but I'm trying to make a point somewhere in there.

Cool (0, Offtopic)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897490)

Pity, I won't own any other consoles.

One Simple Thing.. (1)

Tainek (912325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897670)

Why would you need anything on the Wii in UE3 that UE2 Cant Already Deliver?

The Reply is simply you wont, its a smart move on Epics part

Not News (5, Funny)

My name is Bucket (1020933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17897676)

Is anyone really surprised that UE3 won't run on the Wii?

I mean, far be it from me to drone on about hardware limitations, but the Wii wasn't even made for that kind of software. It's all about gameplay, man, the gameplay! When will you people learn that the ability to wave a stick around offers endless gameplay possibilities?!? You can pretend it's a sword or a bat or a racket or a longer stick or some bat/sword hybrid. A bword, if you will. The Wiimote responds to your every movement, duh. It then translates that movement into a general "the Wiimote is moving" signal which then triggers one of three generic sword-swinging animations. How can you not see the potential?

Seriously, though: there may be a shortage of horsepower for the Wii, but thankfully the world will never run out of people to say "Man that game would be soooo awesome using the Wiimote".

Re:Not News (2, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898214)

When will you people learn that the ability to wave a stick around offers endless gameplay possibilities?!? You can pretend it's a sword or a bat or a racket or a longer stick or some bat/sword hybrid. A bword, if you will.

Sword-chucks! [nuklearpower.com]

Just saying...

Re:Not News (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898282)

Thanks for that. I am tired of all the hype about the Wii, especially since most of the games don't really track the motion that well. If there was a swordfighting game that you could actually have control of the sword's position in, I would be more interested.

Hey Let's Link to the Real Article! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17897792)

Who Cares (4, Insightful)

Rev Jim (AKA Metal F (1004571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898010)

The people who own wiis, or the target audience for wiis compared to the target audience of Unreal are like comparing Slayer fans to Radiohead fans, they're so far apart it's like night and day almost. I mean there's really no reason to have unreal on the wii when it's on every other platform. That said, there will be FPS titles on the wii and I'm sure a developer with a 3d engine developed for the wii will emerge as the defacto wii 3d engine soner or later, or a ported engine will take that place until something beter comes along. It obviously won't be able to compete graphically, but the gamers on the wii are looking forward to Mario Planet (or whatver it's called) or Metroid Prime to establish what we can come to expect from the wii in graphics as well as gameplay, we don't particuariuly care if unreal makes it to wii or not and we know the hardware isn't going to support Crysis or Company of Heroes really - but that's not the wii's niche anyways.

Re:Who Cares or Wii Players (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898862)

Good point, but as a Wii owner (and, like you, gaming for over 25 years, in my case more than 30 years, love them punch cards!), I'm not exactly worried about a paucity of FPS games.

Besides, we already have one Wii game that competes with CoH - Call of Duty - and that's on the Wii, so it's not like we're hurting for military combat sims.

Gosh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17898038)

Good luck pulling out granddaddy's stopper so you can get at his nuts to crack 'em.

So no uncanny valley for Wii? (4, Funny)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898262)

Ok so basically nobody is going to be able to make horrendously ugly "realistic" graphics that end up looking like a 12 year old made them in bryce and poser right?

Nintendo must be sweating bullets.

Re:So no uncanny valley for Wii? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17899320)

Nope, no uncanny valley for the Wii. Instead, you'll get stick figures that look like they were drawn by a 4 year old with a crayon.

Maximally Mixed Metaphor (1)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898508)

But Square Enix, they're the granddaddy. I'm hoping that'll be pulling the stopper out of the drain, and we'll gradually crack that nut.

My poor little grammar^W English nazi head just exploded :(

different gaming platform, different games (2, Insightful)

theantix (466036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898544)

The new Wii controller isn't necessarily going to work with "traditional" games like Unreal. Red Steel for example was completely crap... even if you factor out the bad graphics and horrible voice acting, the gameplay itself was pretty lame *because of the controller*. For me at least, the Wiimote is going to supplant, not replace, the existing types of games out there. When GTA4 comes out I'll grab a PS3 or 360, but when friends come to visit I'll throw WarioWare up on the Wii for everyone to laugh until it hurts.

Re:different gaming platform, different games (1)

Spike15 (1023769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898998)

supplant, not replace
Umm...this is from Merriam-Webster

1 : to supersede (another) especially by force or treachery 2 a (1) obsolete : UPROOT (2) : to eradicate and supply a substitute for b : to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence or power synonym see REPLACE
Your statement makes no sense, because "supplant" and "replace" are synonyms. Wait...wait...your statement doesn't make no sense, it's nonsensical. Seriously people, grab a fucking dictionary and learn your language before you try and be profound.

In Reply to Unreal 3 for Wii (1)

insaner (1060392) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898648)

I'm not sure if a lot of people know much about Gamecube hardware, it clearly has more horsepower than the PS2, the reason you couldn't always see the difference was because developers were throwing around ports rather than building games from the ground up. Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example of graphical superiority over the PS2 in every way. PS2 couldn't render RE4 cut-scenes (as Gamecube did) and relied on FMV throughout the game. Besides that, Red Steel on the Wii uses Unreal 2.5, for those who wanted to know. The reason for 3.0 not going to the Wii is obvious, Epic isn't focused on Wii development. But it's wrong to assume it'll NEVER happen, because Mark Rein himself stated the following in a CVG interview back in September: "You know, Unreal Engine 3 can't run on Xbox 1 or PS2 either - and that's not to say that some of licensees wont find a way to shoe-horn it into [the Wii], we certainly have some licensees that are doing some experiments in that area and it could very well happen." This means that licensees are experimenting with UE3 on the Wii, it can happen, but it won't look anywhere near Gears of War quality.

Shaders (3, Informative)

Drilian (661329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898650)

In a nutshell:

The UE3 engine is heavily built around pixel shaders. Everything it does is based around shader support.

The Wii is not capable of doing pixel shaders. The hardware can't do it. Period.

Take away the shader support, and UE3 becomes no different than UE2. Note that UE2 does, in fact, support the Wii platform.

This is a hardware issue, it has pretty much nothing to do with Epic.

Re:Shaders (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17898824)

The Wii is not capable of doing pixel shaders. The hardware can't do it. Period.
That's not entirely true. The Flipper GPU can do pixel shaders, it's called the TEV "Texture EnVironment" engine. What the Wii lacks is vertex shaders.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...