The Wii U Won't Be Getting Unreal Engine 4

[Guy]

For all the quirky innovation introduced with the Wii, most games resorted to simple pointing and waggling for controls. After a while I ended up just wanting regular controls again, which is fortunately something Nintendo have given me again with the Wii U. Sure, those controls are on a game pad...but it's nowhere near as intrusive as the Wiimote was into the standard gaming "formula".

 

Nintendo do things the Nintendo way and produce unusual systems with features they (and any brave third party) can take advantage of. This alone is enough to create a barrier for straight ports that are fairly simple across Xbox/PC/PS3. Add in another barrier with the system being a generation late/underpowered? It isn't hard to see why people see Nintendo's work as separate to the rest of gaming these days.

 

What they work so hard for, to provide that unique "Nintendo" experience and to set themselves apart from the pack, is looking like it will eventually be their downfall. At least in the console market.

 

I'm starting to think their style of gaming is better suited to the portable market these days, where they are already and are likely to remain hugely successful. I doubt we'd miss out on any Nintendo magic if they went down that route.

[madeinbeats]

The console is clearly capable of multiplatform ports of UE4 (to Reiny's own admittance even!). It obviously wont look as good, but it's perfectly possible, so technical barriers arent the problem. The controversy here is the complete dismissal of the Wii U by Epic, everyone in the room and pretty much every single major western developer out there. The console is quite literally seen as a joke by the industry at large.

 

A good few people are taking it to mean that the Wii U isn't powerful enough to handle these games, but that's the Internet for you. The real problem is developer relations, not hardware power and I think it's a problem that Nintendo really cannot solve (at least amongst the likes of EA, Epic and Take Two/Rockstar)

 

Is that in itself unusual though? There is a clear divide in gaming, Nintendo, then the others. It's like being in the same roomful of people and a journo asked "can MS make a console successful without a single shooty shooty game" *everyone laughs*.

Edited March 31, 2013 by madeinbeats

[Fused King]

God, how I would love it for NINTENDO to actually make an in-house 1st Person shooter and actually re-define the genre with that

[Grazza]

Right, I've only got two points to make for now:

 

1) Please don't call people fanboys or say their posts are "dick'ish". Saying "I know you love Nintendo" is not patronising or insulting. Always keep your debates about the actual topic. Don't get personal.

 

2) Maybe, just maybe, publishers and developers, including ones who make highly popular graphics engines, have some sort of right to determine what a console "generation" is. Don't you think they have enough expertise?

 

Keep it friendly, please.

[Dcubed]

God, how I would love it for NINTENDO to actually make an in-house 1st Person shooter and actually re-define the genre with that

 

Yeah, that would be cool - but done by either NST or a new western studio.

 

If they're gonna have to go it alone, they should prepare for that; not by expanding their existing studios (as that would risk killing their respective cultures), but by setting up new ones.

[madeinbeats]

 

2) Maybe, just maybe, publishers and developers, including ones who make highly popular graphics engines, have some sort of right to determine what a console "generation" is. Don't you think they have enough expertise?

 

Not really, it has nothing to do with power. You can say it if you plan on solely concentrating on 2 of and the 3 next-gen consoles and more or less completely ignore the third as if it doesn't exist. That's just constructing your own reality for your own interests.

[Grazza]

Not really, it has nothing to do with power. You can say it if you plan on solely concentrating on 2 of and the 3 next-gen consoles and more or less completely ignore the third as if it doesn't exist. That's just constructing your own reality for your own interests.

 

The point you're missing is that until the Wii, a new generation of consoles meant a leap in power. Just because Nintendo started making machines that are one gen behind doesn't mean everyone has to adapt their definitions to suit them.

 

Secondly, please explain how you are more qualified to define a generation than Mark Rein.

[madeinbeats]

The point you're missing is that until the Wii, a new generation of consoles meant a leap in power. Just because Nintendo started making machines that are one gen behind doesn't mean everyone has to adapt their definitions to suit them.

 

Secondly, please explain how you are more qualified to define a generation than Mark Rein.

 

You're missing the point. A noticeable jump in power was just there back in the day. It's like saying generations are defined only by new control pads.

 

The same Mark Rein who can't decide in-between laughing like a silly boy if UE4 can, will or should run on Wii U? This same Mark Rein?

 

The Wii was more powerful than the cube, the wii u is more powerful than the wii and more powerful than the ps360.

Edited March 31, 2013 by madeinbeats

[Sheikah]

As much as Nintendo innovate, they're also extremely guilty of repetition. So very guilty of it. So very guilty. So very guilty.

 

Sometimes their repetition is so bad I question if they're still as innovative as people once claimed. I realised the other evening that the Wii U is essentially a giant DS for your living room. After realising that it felt just a tiny bit less special.

 

Yeah, there's no doubt that most of their Mario and Zelda titles these days follow a cookie cutter formula. The trouble with their innovation this gen is that it's not as good as last gen. I mostly have 3D off on my 3DS and I'm not really interested in a tablet controller.

 

You're missing the point. A noticeable jump in power was just there back in the day. It's like saying generations are defined only by new control pads.

 

The same Mark Rein who can't decide in-between laughing like a silly boy if UE4 can, will or should run on Wii U? This same Mark Rein? The Wii was more powerful than the cube, the wii u is more powerful than the wii and ps360.

 

If people have the option of having a console that plays the same multi format games but they look a lot better and run smoother, with a far better online experience then they will get the games on that console.

 

Equally, if there are two very high spec well established and popular consoles then developers are going to make powerful games that run on those consoles. Then there's either the option of making a scaled down version for the WiiU or skipping it altogether. That's why it's important to have a console with a level of power in the same ballpark as the other consoles.

[Grazza]

You're missing the point. A noticeable jump in power was just there back in the day.

 

Why does it have to be noticeable? The PS4 is objectively on a higher power tier than the Wii U, even if you can't notice it. 8GB of DDR5 RAM compared to 2GB of DDR3. Much faster CPU and GPU, no doubt. It's not about being slightly better or slightly worse (Xbox 3 will surely be slightly below and possibly slightly above the PS4 is some regards), it's about what developers establish as a tier/standard.

 

Besides, it is noticeable. There might not be any PS4/Wii U games to compare, but if you compare modern PC games to PS3/Xbox 360, there is a clear difference nowadays.

[madeinbeats]

Why does it have to be noticeable? The PS4 is objectively on a higher power tier than the Wii U, even if you can't notice it. 8GB of DDR5 RAM compared to 2GB of DDR3. Much faster CPU and GPU, no doubt. It's not about being slightly better or slightly worse (Xbox 3 will surely be slightly below and possibly slightly above the PS4 is some regards), it's about what developers establish as a tier/standard.

 

Besides, it is noticeable. There might not be any PS4/Wii U games to compare, but if you compare modern PC games to PS3/Xbox 360, there is a clear difference nowadays.

 

I didn't say it has to be noticeable, just that previously, it always was, more-so; bit wars, 2D to 3D, SD to HD. Technology power advancement may have largely defined those generations, but technology advancement doesn't define the meaning of 'a generation'. That's the difference.

 

It doesn't matter how much RAM the ps4 has compared to the Wii U, Wii U and UE4 partnership quite obviously doesn't exist at the moment for reasons other than RAM or CPU if it can run on phones and browsers. Simple.

 

Grouping all developers in the world together and saying they dictated the specs of next-gen PS4 & 720 is hyperbolic, and another discussion for another day if and when the Wii U and Wii U owners are proven to have been sold short on their experience.

Edited March 31, 2013 by madeinbeats

[liger05]

Yeah, that would be cool - but done by either NST or a new western studio.

 

If they're gonna have to go it alone, they should prepare for that; not by expanding their existing studios (as that would risk killing their respective cultures), but by setting up new ones.

 

should of been setting up new studios when there were rolling in the cash. Dont know why they didnt as nintendo pretty much always has to go it alone.

[Serebii]

God, how I would love it for NINTENDO to actually make an in-house 1st Person shooter and actually re-define the genre with that

 

I was surprised the Wii didn't have a sequel to it, to be honest

Edited March 31, 2013 by Serebii

[Dcubed]

The point you're missing is that until the Wii, a new generation of consoles meant a leap in power. Just because Nintendo started making machines that are one gen behind doesn't mean everyone has to adapt their definitions to suit them.

 

Secondly, please explain how you are more qualified to define a generation than Mark Rein.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation

 

gen·er·a·tion [jen-uh-rey-shuhn]

noun

 

1.the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation.

 

2. the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

 

3. a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc. Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.

 

4. a group of individuals belonging to a specific category at the same time: Chaplin belonged to the generation of silent-screen stars.

 

5. a single step in natural descent, as of human beings, animals, or plants.

 

Pretty cut and dry really :p Just because developers have their own BS definition, doesn't change what the actual definition of the word refers to...

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed

[Lens of Truth]

Yep, time and succession are the only meaningful connotations to the term. It's been hijacked in videogame polemics though (like so much else) in the name of console wars.

[Sheikah]

Grouping all developers in the world together and saying they dictated the specs of next-gen PS4 & 720 is hyperbolic, and another discussion for another day if and when the Wii U and Wii U owners are proven to have been sold short on their experience.

 

Out of interest then, do you believe a console has the right to be called next gen simply for coming into existence at a particular time? If so, a stripped down NES equivalent released tomorrow would therefore be 'next gen', which I think we can all agree would be pretty ridiculous.

 

I think people focus too literally on the word 'generation', like you would when referring to generations of people. In tech talk I don't think anyone using the term 'next gen' is really ever referring to the timeline in which a product was released, rather the fact that it contains modern/futuristic elements.

 

Edit: yep, I just scrolled up and saw someone pasting dictionary definitions for "generation". Heh.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Sheikah

[Lens of Truth]

An unspecified increase in power/graphics is one feature of a generational leap, a potential symptom, depending on how obvious it is and/or how much an individual notices such things. A new controller or interface or features are others, but none of these is the meaning of new generation and to say so is ludicrous.

 

Does anyone really consider the Wii to be in the same generation as the Gamecube when it was such a different beast and so influential on its generational peers?

[Sheikah]

Indeed, an unspecified leap in graphical power is the one main constant that has been observed throughout pretty much the whole timeline of video game history, which is why I can see why people might think the WiiU doesn't stand alongside other 'next gen' consoles, rather seems more in line with existing consoles. A number of ports of existing PS3/360 games to WiiU helps strengthen the view that it fits in more with the current gen, I think. The only distinguishing factor here may be the tablet controller, and I guess it's up to people to decide whether that reclaims the next gen banner for it or not.

 

There's also the potential to see the WiiU as 'not next gen' based on it potentially being shut out of a number of next gen multiformat titles as the Wii was, on account of developers perhaps not wanting to make less resource intensive versions of their games for another console.

[Dcubed]

Out of interest then, do you believe a console has the right to be called next gen simply for coming into existence at a particular time? If so, a stripped down NES equivalent released tomorrow would therefore be 'next gen', which I think we can all agree would be pretty ridiculous.

 

I think people focus too literally on the word 'generation', like you would when referring to generations of people. In tech talk I don't think anyone using the term 'next gen' is really ever referring to the timeline in which a product was released, rather the fact that it contains modern/futuristic elements.

 

Edit: yep, I just scrolled up and saw someone pasting dictionary definitions for "generation". Heh.

 

Guess Mega Man 9 and 10 are 3rd generation (NES, Master System, Atari 7800 era) games now then; while Minecraft is Gen 5 (N64, PS1, Saturn) and Sly 4 is Gen 6 because it looks like a PS2 game. Graphics are clearly the sole differentiator between generations after all...

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed

[tapedeck]

In my opinion, the whole generation thing is just a marketing term created to make something seem exciting, full of promise, slicker and somehow better than what we already have. Cynical? Perhaps. I'm still gutted that we always move on to new machines when developers rarely push existing consoles in new ways. (Not just graphically).

 

 

 

Just like the example in the spoiler, all 'next gen" really enforces is the belief that new = better. In a capitalistic sense, that's a good belief system to feed the masses.

So, as new chips become more cost effective, developers believe they can make 'better' games so as to get the consumer to reinvest again. However, look at something like Star Wars. Did the newer versions better the predecessors because of tech? No. I also enjoyed the SNES more than anything that came after. (Entirely personal and subjective I know). Also: remember the backlash from Wind Waker - that showed the industry for what it was (is?) at the time - graphics focused. Never mind the imagination, creativity, scope and ingenuity of it all.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there isn't just one model for next-gen.

 

The content creators are therefore key and anything that allows content creators to establish new expressions for enjoyment should be what also defines a generation in the industry.

Sure I enjoy a new console but equally enjoyed things like the Super Scope, EyeToy, Dance Mat, wii remote...but instead we have this old-fashioned view that improved graphics are true pointers as to what defines a next gen machine.

 

Interesting debate though...

Edited March 31, 2013 by tapedeck

[Sheikah]

Guess Mega Man 9 and 10 are 3rd generation (NES, Master System, Atari 7800 era) games now then; while Minecraft is Gen 5 (N64, PS1, Saturn) and Sly 4 is Gen 6 because it looks like a PS2 game. Graphics are clearly the sole differentiator between generations after all...

 

But that's just it, you're pretty much pinpointing the problem. When people throw around the term 'next gen' they aren't referring to the timeline a game came out because that's a pretty meaningless statistic, especially if a particular game like Megaman, as you rightly pointed out, isn't even trying to be anything radical or new.

 

Next gen is more a term people often follow up with the words 'graphics', 'hardware', 'technology' or maybe even 'peripheral', if the peripheral in question is really neat and new. People might refer to a 'generation of consoles' to recall competing consoles of past eras (e.g. Xbox / GC / PS2) but when people use 'next gen', I don't think they're so much referring to a release schedule, rather particularly nifty attributes or a standard that they expect to see in future consoles. So I can appreciate people might not think the WiiU conforms to their current pre-conceptions of what is 'next gen'.

 

@tapedeck yeah I agree, it's more of a marketing / consumer buzzword thing. But I'd still say the public are interested in features considered to be 'next gen'.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=199346

 

Seems like Mark Rein is backpedalling a little

[Dcubed]

The problem is that the word "generation"/"next gen" has been warped by marketing execs who have corrupted the term to mean a certain baseline in technology (which, in this industry, has been focused on graphics)

 

Ouya is a generation 8 console, despite it not being nearly as powerful as the PS3 or 360, but the heads of games publishers by and large don't want you to think that because it undermines their focus on pushing graphics technology as the defining characteristic of their products.

 

The reason why most game publishers and developers are so focused on pushing for better graphics as being the key defining point of a new console is because it's much easier to produce a mediocre/samey game with a new and shiny lick of paint than it is to make a game that innovates in the actual gameplay department, with unique and interesting mechanics that allow for new styles of play.

 

It's also why the Wii U does not interest them as it does not fit into their vision of where they want to see the industry to go (homogenisation, with spiralling graphical performance and budgets and a greater focus on cinematic presentation, with gameplay/player agency taking a backseat to spectacle)

 

But that's just it, you're pretty much pinpointing the problem. When people throw around the term 'next gen' they aren't referring to the timeline a game came out because that's a pretty meaningless statistic, especially if a particular game like Megaman, as you rightly pointed out, isn't even trying to be anything radical or new.

 

Next gen is more a term people often follow up with the words 'graphics', 'hardware', 'technology' or maybe even 'peripheral', if the peripheral in question is really neat and new. People might refer to a 'generation of consoles' to recall competing consoles of past eras (e.g. Xbox / GC / PS2) but when people use 'next gen', I don't think they're so much referring to a release schedule, rather particularly nifty attributes or a standard that they expect to see in future consoles. So I can appreciate people might not think the WiiU conforms to their current pre-conceptions of what is 'next gen'.

 

@tapedeck yeah I agree, it's more of a marketing / consumer buzzword thing. But I'd still say the public are interested in features considered to be 'next gen'.

 

Well yeah. The term doesn't mean what it should when it comes out of the mouths of game developers/publishers because it feeds the narrative that they're trying to sell you. Wii U may be an 8th generation console, but it isn't considered "next gen", as loathsome a concept as it may be.

 

I however refuse to subscribe to the definition that these shit eaters are trying to ram down my throat because I know what the word actually means and what they're trying to condition me to believe.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Well yeah. The term doesn't mean what it should when it comes out of the mouths of game developers/publishers because it feeds the narrative that they're trying to sell you. Wii U may be an 8th generation console, but it isn't considered "next gen", as loathsome a concept as it may be.

 

I however refuse to subscribe to the definition that these shit eaters are trying to ram down my throat because I know what the word actually means and what they're trying to condition me to believe.

 

I wouldn't say the term 'next gen' has been corrupted like you're suggesting; taken literally as you're suggesting it should be it would mean 'a series of consoles released within a specific time frame'. I don't really see what information that conveys to the public and is pretty arbitrary if we're being honest.

 

As it currently stands, 'next gen' is certainly a term that marketing has helped shape and they no doubt use it to tout the new features of their consoles. But at the same time, it does have merit in that people anticipate certain key features from future consoles, and would perceive those features as 'next gen' technology. It's not something that only marketing can comprehend, or even use to describe things.

[Dcubed]

I wouldn't say the term 'next gen' has been corrupted like you're suggesting; taken literally as you're suggesting it should be it would mean 'a series of consoles released within a specific time frame'. I don't really see what information that conveys to the public and is pretty arbitrary if we're being honest.

 

As it currently stands, 'next gen' is certainly a term that marketing has helped shape and they no doubt use it to tout the new features of their consoles. But at the same time, it does have merit in that people anticipate certain key features from future consoles, and would perceive those features as 'next gen' technology. It's not something that only marketing can comprehend, or even use to describe things.

 

It is their marketing that defines the features that are considered to be "next gen" in the first place. These publishers/platform holders and developers work to condition consumers to expect enhanced graphics as the headlining feature of a new console and more importantly, work to set a baseline of what to expect (why do you think the likes of Square Enix, Epic, Capcom and such have been making these public tech demos in the first place?) from any console that they consider to be "next gen".

 

They could be making demos that show off interesting game concepts and unique forms of gameplay (like Nintendo first did with those E3 2011 demos that made their way into Nintendo Land and Game & Wario), but instead they prefer to make graphics tech demos because that's what they want to sell.

 

The target market for these consoles want better graphics because that's what they've been conditioned to want. Why would Epic or any of the other major oublishers want to support a console that is made by a console manufacturer that specifically does not focus on graphical horsepower and cinematic games? (Regardless of whether or not the console can run the engine or not) - especially when mobile already allows them to make low budget titles to fund the AAA budget level stuff.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed