Boomstick Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 If this was already posted my apologies http://kotaku.com/5025707/dead-risingfor-wii
Vicar Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Darn you beat me to it BUT if this is a joke im going to hurt somone
Aalborg Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 If this was already posted my apologies http://kotaku.com/5025707/dead-risingfor-wii you'll shoot your eye out!
Hero-of-Time Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Great news this. I loved the 360 version and everyone who hasnt played it is in for a treat. It will be great killing the zombies in various ways using the Wiimote! Lets just hope they have listened to the fans of the game in regards to the save system, it really put a downer on things in the original.
Owen Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Great news this. I loved the 360 version and everyone who hasnt played it is in for a treat. It will be great killing the zombies in various ways using the Wiimote! Lets just hope they have listened to the fans of the game in regards to the save system, it really put a downer on things in the original. I'll buy it if they have changed the saving system. One of the reasons i stopped playing the 360 version...did my head in...
Guest Jordan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Heres the question though. Afaik, the 360 version was developed on a beta development kit using only one of the three 3.2ghz cores on the 360 CPU. The Wii's estimated CPU speed is 733mhz (afaik), how the christ are they going to do this without: Drastically cutting the frame rate (the original ran at 60fps i think), drastically lowering the amount of zombies on screen (which will effect both difficulty and fun) or drastically lowering the quality of detail/lighting/effects on display. Dead Rising looked god damn awesome when it came out... the Wii version may not hold up at all.
Domstercool Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Shall look like Alone In The Dark, with no light or anything of the sort, Shall be interesting to see how this pans out, would of been better if it was a new game in the series though.
marcel Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 ******UPDATE BETTER SCANS******* Looks mutch better that previous scans:P
darkjak Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 WOW! This is the first game I'm interrested in this E3. Just hope this isn't fake.
Guest Jordan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 me personally thinks it looks bad and shallow. Its a game where you escape an American shopping mall from thousands of zombies. What the hell do you expect? Shallow yes, bad? No... its so damn funny.
Aalborg Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 tried it on my trusty 360..but the saving system also did my head in.. PLUS i kept getting "disc dirty or damaged".. made the game totally fucked.. but my new 360 runs like a dream.. so i will probably give it a try again.. yes I also wondered how the hell they are going to get the Wii filled with hundreds and hundreds of living dead (don't say the z word).. without cutbacks
gaggle64 Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Ah, now wiimote zombie wackery is something I can get into.
Ren of Heavens Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Heres the question though. Afaik, the 360 version was developed on a beta development kit using only one of the three 3.2ghz cores on the 360 CPU. The Wii's estimated CPU speed is 733mhz (afaik), how the christ are they going to do this without: Drastically cutting the frame rate (the original ran at 60fps i think), drastically lowering the amount of zombies on screen (which will effect both difficulty and fun) or drastically lowering the quality of detail/lighting/effects on display. Dead Rising looked god damn awesome when it came out... the Wii version may not hold up at all. It doesnt make sense comparing clock frequency in such different architectures. The X360 has an uses in-order CPU architecture while Wii uses out-of-order CPU (similar to for instance Intel Core 2 Duo). In short, this means the Wii CPU can do much more per cycle (Hz) compared to the others, so the actual performance difference is not that big, probably no more than 2:1 in favor of X360. Then you have the resolution. 480p requires a lot less power than 720p.
Guest Jordan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 It doesnt make sense comparing clock frequency in such different architectures. The X360 has an uses in-order CPU architecture while Wii uses out-of-order CPU (similar to for instance Intel Core 2 Duo). In short, this means the Wii CPU can do much more per cycle (Hz) compared to the others, so the actual performance difference is not that big, probably no more than 2:1 in favor of X360. Then you have the resolution. 480p requires a lot less power than 720p. What? How the hell does an IBM single core chip have anything to do with the Core 2 architecture? Secondly, Dead Rising didn't run at 720p the 360 has a scaler chip so it'll scale anything to whatever setting you have ...set.
Ren of Heavens Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 They both have out-of-order execution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution I'm talking about 1-core performance of course (when multiple cores are utilized the Wii comes nowhere close).
D_prOdigy Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 I'm struggling to understand how a port can be justified as a "surprising take" on a game. Still, I've heard good things about Dead Rising - now hopefully they'll fix the text problem that rendered anyone without HD unable to read anything in the game.
McPhee Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 YAHOOOOOOOO! : peace: Finally some good news! Can't bloody wait! One of the best games on the 360 this! I'm struggling to understand how a port can be justified as a "surprising take" on a game. Still, I've heard good things about Dead Rising - now hopefully they'll fix the text problem that rendered anyone without HD unable to read anything in the game. No need to fix it, it simply won't be an issue on the Wii because the range of resolutions it can output in is extremely low
DCK Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Heres the question though. Afaik, the 360 version was developed on a beta development kit using only one of the three 3.2ghz cores on the 360 CPU. The Wii's estimated CPU speed is 733mhz (afaik), how the christ are they going to do this without: Drastically cutting the frame rate (the original ran at 60fps i think), drastically lowering the amount of zombies on screen (which will effect both difficulty and fun) or drastically lowering the quality of detail/lighting/effects on display. Dead Rising looked god damn awesome when it came out... the Wii version may not hold up at all. A single core of the 360 is roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 @ 1.7 GHz (its single core performance is apparently dead awful). The GameCube CPU was roughly equivalent to a Pentium 3 @ 800 MHz, and the Wii version is estimated to nearly nouble that. Suppose the Wii CPU is equivalent to a Pentium 3 @ 1.4 GHz, which is not really an optimistic estimation, it'll have the power to draw a huge number of zombies for sure. Early 360 games looked great as they did because the GPU is a beast. That's where the Wii will definitely be outclassed, especially considering the amount of effort that's going to be done.
EchoDesiato Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Now this is something I like. Out with the PS2 ports, in with the 360 ports!
Guest Jordan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 A single core of the 360 is roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 @ 1.7 GHz (its single core performance is apparently dead awful). The GameCube CPU was roughly equivalent to a Pentium 3 @ 800 MHz, and the Wii version is estimated to nearly nouble that. Suppose the Wii CPU is equivalent to a Pentium 3 @ 1.4 GHz, which is not really an optimistic estimation, it'll have the power to draw a huge number of zombies for sure. What exactly are you basing this on? Where are you pulling these 'facts' from? EDIT: The 360 uses a PowerPC interface, which is actually quite smiliar to the Wii's IBM PowerPC processor. I don't understand how a you think a 3.2ghz CPU (which is drastically different from a Pentium) is anything like a 733mhz CPU. They are going to have to make cuts to this game, unless as i previously said make some reductions in places. I'm not having a go at the Wii, but you have to understand that the 360 is easily built for this kind of game, where as the Wii simply isn't.
pedrocasilva Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Heres the question though. Afaik, the 360 version was developed on a beta development kit using only one of the three 3.2ghz cores on the 360 CPU. The Wii's estimated CPU speed is 733mhz (afaik), how the christ are they going to do this without: Drastically cutting the frame rate (the original ran at 60fps i think), drastically lowering the amount of zombies on screen (which will effect both difficulty and fun) or drastically lowering the quality of detail/lighting/effects on display. Dead Rising looked god damn awesome when it came out... the Wii version may not hold up at all. Actually, no. Dead Rising alongside with Oblivion was among the first games to use the three cores (as in second gen X360 title), and unlike oblivion who was just heavy on the system due to lack of optimization, they got carried away with it, concerning the quantity of zombies on-screen and all that. MT Framework engine was conceived for multi-core tasking too, so really, a game using it while using only a core... would defeat the purpose on X360. They most likely used a core only for AI even, if not more; hence why porting Dead Rising for the PS3 "as is" would be a nightmare. As for CPU's... specs don't tell the whole story. Wii cpu most likely (like gc's gekko) has a 7 staged pipeline, Xenon and Cell surpass 30 stages. Incidentally this was why at one point, intel P4's clocked higher in MHz than AMD's and had comparable performance with AMD's with less MHz. and the differential then was just 17 to 28/31 stages (the 28/31 being for northwood versus preston) More than that though, Pentium 4 had cache miss prediction, Xenon and Cell lack it, and on Xenon it's estimated to be 5%. (and should be the same or even worse on Cell) All these are handycaps... so really, a Xenon core, running regular code (not floating point operations) should only have about double the original Xbox celeron 733 MHz performance per core. it's not a beast for those tasks by any means, despite having 3.2 GHz. EDIT: The 360 uses a PowerPC interface, which is actually quite smiliar to the Wii's IBM PowerPC processor.Actually, it is very diferent. For starters, when Xbox was unveiled, the top of the line Power5 CPU, from where PowerPC comes from, was 2.5 GHz with extreme cooling (and I mean extreme), 3.2 GHz were only viable doing two things... stripping it down, and putting in more stages (PowerPC G5 has 17 stages aswell) It is drastically different, one is a general purpose CPU, the other is a very stripped down CPU for the sake of MHz. Just like Cell does actually, but Cell has gone even further (and that's costing them), I mean... xenon at least has 3 regular stripped down cores, Cell has one, and still very streamlined. As for, where is this coming from... there's data, articles, comparisons, discussions. a mouthful of them, we're actually keeping it simple here.
Guest Jordan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Actually, no. Dead Rising alongside with Oblivion was among the first games to use the three cores (as in second gen X360 title), and unlike oblivion who was just heavy on the system due to lack of optimization, they got carried away with it, concerning the quantity of zombies on-screen and all that. MT Framework engine was conceived for multi-core tasking too, so really, a game using it while using only a core... would defeat the purpose on X360. They most likely used a core only for AI even, if not more; hence why porting Dead Rising for the PS3 "as is" would be a nightmare. Hmmm... I was under the assumption Dead Rising was only using a single core and thought (for some reason) Crackdown was the first game to "fully" use the 360. Okay, well... 3X3.2ghz CPU vs a 733mhz CPU? Wat.
Ren of Heavens Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Again, the clock speed is only useful when comparing similiar processors, as it is very possible for one processor to do more at 1 MHz than another at 4 MHz. Remember the PS2 is only 294 MHz... But yeah, Dead Rising will probably be cut down a bit. Less zombies seems likely. Anyways, I hope this is the start of a trend of 360/PS3-ports instead of PS2-ports...
DCK Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 What exactly are you basing this on? Where are you pulling these 'facts' from? I don't understand how a you think a 3.2ghz CPU (which is drastically different from a Pentium) is anything like a 733mhz CPU. I'm basing this on some Dhrystone and Whetstone benchmarks I saw just when the 360 came out. The source is probably expired, but the point was that a single Xenon core was matched by a Pentium IV-class Celeron clocked at 1.7 GHz at the time. Without going to go into too much detail Dhrystone/Whetstone are cross-CPU benchmarks that test pure computationial power. Because the GameCube already outperformed the 733 MHz Pentium 3-class Celeron in the Xbox, and the performance is supposedly doubled in the Wii, the Wii CPU should be able to get close to that 360 performance. It's really not surprising the 360 did bad, as the 360 CPU was designed to use all its three cores for multithreaded programming, which is a different league entirely. You've got to trust me here, no reason why I would be making it up. They are going to have to make cuts to this game, unless as i previously said make some reductions in places. I'm not having a go at the Wii, but you have to understand that the 360 is easily built for this kind of game, where as the Wii simply isn't.Of course, it's going to be a Wii game after all. I still think we're going to see respectable amounts of zombies, as otherwise this game would be a bit pointless to announce.EDIT: The 360 uses a PowerPC interface, which is actually quite smiliar to the Wii's IBM PowerPC processorYeah well, that's like saying a Pentium IV and a Phenom can be compared on clockspeed. The difference between the Wii CPU and the 360 CPU could hardly get bigger. I just read Pedro pointed out that Dead Rising did use all three cores, making it somewhat pointless, as the Wii is going to struggle with those numbers Point is, don't stare blind at the numbers. That 3.2 GHz is achieved with tricks and sacrifices. In a sense, the Wii CPU is more 'complete' than the 360 CPU- it's just beaten by brute force.
Recommended Posts