Far Cry Vengence Wii

[Flaight]

I pretty much agree, its an unproven format with uncertainty in success unlike the greater liklihood of PS3 success due to brand loyalty so the developers current attitudes are "lets test the waters and see how things pan out..."

Push comes to shove, GameCube survived thanks to the 1st party games. Nintendo expanded 1st party studios for Wii since. Also, Wii hardware makes profit. I think 'success' would be a big word to use, but at any rate I think your take on it is a little too pessimistic. Wii should do alright at the very least, if not only for the Nintendo games.

 

As for PS3, I agree it's likely to have higher chance of success, but for different reasons; I don't think it's brand loyalty at all now. I think PS3 is likely to be successful because they stuck to the tried-and-tested formula like Xbox360, and because Japan devs have no other choice but to release their power-hungry games on PS3.

[Shino]

Push comes to shove, GameCube survived thanks to the 1st party games. Nintendo expanded 1st party studios for Wii since. Also, Wii hardware makes profit. I think 'success' would be a big word to use, but at any rate I think your take on it is a little too pessimistic. Wii should do alright at the very least, if not only for the Nintendo games.

 

As for PS3, I agree it's likely to have higher chance of success, but for different reasons; I don't think it's brand loyalty at all now. I think PS3 is likely to be successful because they stuck to the tried-and-tested formula like Xbox360, and because Japan devs have no other choice but to release their power-hungry games on PS3.

 

Exactly, Nintendo is completely self-sufficient, to the point that it harms third party devs. Most people with a Nintendo console (at least previously to Wii), bought it with the intention of playing first party games (not with the amount of obsession shown by solitanze). If this new Blue Ocean strategy works it will become a very successful console, and with the amount of praise it gets from the media, it might be the new Ipod.

[blender]

Warning: 18+ contains scenes of violence. Not for those of a nervous disposition.

 

New trailer:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=mov&id=15703

[James McGeachie]

So this game got a 4.0 on IGN....but anyway...

 

I was reading a topic on Gamefaqs about the game's visuals and finally got the hard facts on why this game looks so bad in comparison to the Xbox's version. The stuff about the Wii not supporting normal mapping isn't true so much....it's that it doesn't support pixel shaders of any sort. The Xbox had pixel shader 1.1 or something apparently and Far Cry makes heavy use of this as apparently pixel shaders make normal mapping, per pixel lighting and what not much easier on hardware because they let the system know how to do it....on the Wii that can't happen so if they want normal mapping they have to put a heavy strain on the processor explaining to the system how to do it before carrying it out basically...or at least this is the impression I'm getting. The end result anyway is that to get the game running at any reasonable rate anything involving pixel shaders had to be stripped from the game.

 

Actually I'm not sure if that's entirely how it works but I do know for certain the pixel shader thing is true. It's not just some theory, it's fact and it doesn't take a genius to work it out looking at Wii games, since games built from the ground up for Wii like Red Steel make no use of any sort of normal mapping because the system just sucks at it entirely.

[pedrocasilva]

So this game got a 4.0 on IGN....but anyway...

 

I was reading a topic on Gamefaqs about the game's visuals and finally got the hard facts on why this game looks so bad in comparison to the Xbox's version. The stuff about the Wii not supporting normal mapping isn't true so much....it's that it doesn't support pixel shaders of any sort. The Xbox had pixel shader 1.1 or something apparently and Far Cry makes heavy use of this as apparently pixel shaders make normal mapping, per pixel lighting and what not much easier on hardware because they let the system know how to do it....on the Wii that can't happen so if they want normal mapping they have to put a heavy strain on the processor explaining to the system how to do it before carrying it out basically...or at least this is the impression I'm getting. The end result anyway is that to get the game running at any reasonable rate anything involving pixel shaders had to be stripped from the game.

 

Actually I'm not sure if that's entirely how it works but I do know for certain the pixel shader thing is true. It's not just some theory, it's fact and it doesn't take a genius to work it out looking at Wii games, since games built from the ground up for Wii like Red Steel make no use of any sort of normal mapping because the system just sucks at it entirely.

Even GC does shaders, just look at Zelda TP, WW, RE4, RS2/3...

 

Hell, even Red Steel uses shaders.

 

If this Ubisoft team isn't using them... they're bollocks.

 

thing is GC and Wii's shaders are diferent from PC ones, not harder, diferent, it doesn't mean it lacks them, as they do the same thing, just not "shader model x.0 compliant".

 

thing is Farcry instints was coming for xbox, gc and ps2, it's obvious they got the old build running in Wii and simply gone along with it, just like splinter cell games we just know the gc version would be equal to the ps2 one albeit with faster framerates. Still... the engine is a native DirectX one so it's easy to figure why it's easy to port it into Xbox, there's no need for any changes, just make the game on-spec for it. as for Wii, the developers were just lazy there's no forgiving here with the hardware, if they give it as a reason for their failure they simply don't know the specific architecture for it.

 

Same for Splinter Cell too, since it's unreal engine 2.5, there's even a specially optimized unreal engine for xbox named unreal engine 2.x(box), this said... Red Steel uses Unreal Engine 2.5 (the one for gamecube, I believe) it just lacks the level of polish of the Xbox one. (although ubisoft made the effort)

[The Bard]

I was really looking forward to this, bitterly disappointed.

[Zechs Merquise]

I was really looking forward to this, bitterly disappointed.

 

Me too, a lazy bunch of arsehole developers have ruined a game from a great franchise because they're more interested in turning a quick profit than putting out a polished bit of software. The sad thing is this could've been done on the N64. I don;t mind if games look Gamecube quality, as long as they utilse the great power of the Gamecube and achieve what can be achieved with that hardware. (Ideally every game would push the Wii and look better than GC games). But when games that I really want end up like this it makes me angry. Ubisoft seemed to be doing the Wii a great service releasing so many titles, in the end all they seem to have done is flooded the system with shite (Rayman excluded).

[James McGeachie]

Even GC does shaders, just look at Zelda TP, WW, RE4, RS2/3...

 

Hell, even Red Steel uses shaders.

 

If this Ubisoft team isn't using them... they're bollocks.

 

thing is GC and Wii's shaders are diferent from PC ones, not harder, diferent, it doesn't mean it lacks them, as they do the same thing, just not "shader model x.0 compliant".

 

thing is Farcry instints was coming for xbox, gc and ps2, it's obvious they got the old build running in Wii and simply gone along with it, just like splinter cell games we just know the gc version would be equal to the ps2 one albeit with faster framerates. Still... the engine is a native DirectX one so it's easy to figure why it's easy to port it into Xbox, there's no need for any changes, just make the game on-spec for it. as for Wii, the developers were just lazy there's no forgiving here with the hardware, if they give it as a reason for their failure they simply don't know the specific architecture for it.

 

Same for Splinter Cell too, since it's unreal engine 2.5, there's even a specially optimized unreal engine for xbox named unreal engine 2.x(box), this said... Red Steel uses Unreal Engine 2.5 (the one for gamecube, I believe) it just lacks the level of polish of the Xbox one. (although ubisoft made the effort)

 

Look, just stop it. I don't care about any of this or if you think you're some technical genius, but whatever, the evidence is there with Wii developers (you know, REAL developers) stating flat out the Wii can't do a bunch of things specifically that the Xbox can. They're not lying, they're not exaggerating and they're not just being lazy. Do you have Wii development hardware? No, sorry you dont, so I dont care what you think you know and I'm fed up of seeing this stuff.

 

Regardless of how you word it or what the exact specifics are, the fact of the matter is the Wii does lack a specific kind of shader functionality that provides far easier bump/normal mapping and per pixel lighting. If you're going to deny this, without development hardware or the exact spec sheets the developers have, you're fooling yourself and in denial. Ubisoft aren't deliberately making all their games look bad. Were there any real benefits of getting Splinter Cell for Wii out by launch? No, there really weren't because it was never going to be a big seller on the system...but hey look another game where the Xbox version has heavy amounts of bump mapping and the Wii lacks it all! Hmm, guess Ubisoft are just having a laugh, nice one guys! Oh but who cares, actual evidence in games doesn't matter, let's just talk about hypothetical specs and abilities based on what I THINK I know! Time to fire up the excuse about them using the cube build for Wii because they were "too lazy" to use the Xbox one I guess!

[The Bard]

Well it is near launch, and Red Steel is great, but I do feel that they should have concentrated their efforts toward this game rather than those stupid driving games.

[The Bard]

Fuck off, ubisoft are great. They were one of my favourite 3rd parties of last gen and a botched launch isn't going to change that.

[mcj metroid]

what?i honestly don't remember posting that.Fuck who is using my profile.Damn i'll have to change my password.

 

edit:it was my brother but I am disappointed with ubisofts launch and their entire ds library of games without exception

[Charlie]

what?i honestly don't remember posting that.Fuck who is using my profile.Damn i'll have to change my password.

 

edit:it was my brother but I am disappointed with ubisofts launch and their entire ds library of games without exception

 

Doesn't your brother know the space bar exists either?

[Zechs Merquise]

Look, just stop it. I don't care about any of this or if you think you're some technical genius, but whatever, the evidence is there with Wii developers (you know, REAL developers) stating flat out the Wii can't do a bunch of things specifically that the Xbox can. They're not lying, they're not exaggerating and they're not just being lazy. Do you have Wii development hardware? No, sorry you dont, so I dont care what you think you know and I'm fed up of seeing this stuff.

 

Regardless of how you word it or what the exact specifics are, the fact of the matter is the Wii does lack a specific kind of shader functionality that provides far easier bump/normal mapping and per pixel lighting. If you're going to deny this, without development hardware or the exact spec sheets the developers have, you're fooling yourself and in denial. Ubisoft aren't deliberately making all their games look bad. Were there any real benefits of getting Splinter Cell for Wii out by launch? No, there really weren't because it was never going to be a big seller on the system...but hey look another game where the Xbox version has heavy amounts of bump mapping and the Wii lacks it all! Hmm, guess Ubisoft are just having a laugh, nice one guys! Oh but who cares, actual evidence in games doesn't matter, let's just talk about hypothetical specs and abilities based on what I THINK I know! Time to fire up the excuse about them using the cube build for Wii because they were "too lazy" to use the Xbox one I guess!

 

blistering response!!! And very true to boot, it's all well and good specualting and talking technical jargon, but the proof is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is rather ugly!

[solitanze]

This was to be expected, its merely what I stated last page, mediocre titles for at least another 12 successive months. The only decent game will be Super Mario Galaxy and only because it relies heavily on conventional control.

[BlueStar]

I agree with what the developers say about what the Wii can't do (pixel shading etc) - but it can certainly do a better job of handling a 3 year old game than Ubisoft have served up.

[Meo]

Look, just stop it. I don't care about any of this or if you think you're some technical genius, but whatever, the evidence is there with Wii developers (you know, REAL developers) stating flat out the Wii can't do a bunch of things specifically that the Xbox can. They're not lying, they're not exaggerating and they're not just being lazy. Do you have Wii development hardware? No, sorry you dont, so I dont care what you think you know and I'm fed up of seeing this stuff.

 

Regardless of how you word it or what the exact specifics are, the fact of the matter is the Wii does lack a specific kind of shader functionality that provides far easier bump/normal mapping and per pixel lighting. If you're going to deny this, without development hardware or the exact spec sheets the developers have, you're fooling yourself and in denial. Ubisoft aren't deliberately making all their games look bad. Were there any real benefits of getting Splinter Cell for Wii out by launch? No, there really weren't because it was never going to be a big seller on the system...but hey look another game where the Xbox version has heavy amounts of bump mapping and the Wii lacks it all! Hmm, guess Ubisoft are just having a laugh, nice one guys! Oh but who cares, actual evidence in games doesn't matter, let's just talk about hypothetical specs and abilities based on what I THINK I know! Time to fire up the excuse about them using the cube build for Wii because they were "too lazy" to use the Xbox one I guess!

 

http://cube.ign.com/articles/094/094556p1.html

 

http://cube.ign.com/articles/094/094522p1.html

 

TEV unit.

[James McGeachie]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/094/094556p1.html

 

http://cube.ign.com/articles/094/094522p1.html

 

I was fully aware those games featured bump mapping, so does Mario Galaxy (at some points). This doesn't matter however, if it was fine and easy to pull off, why isn't it in Far Cry? Why don't Red Steel or Rayman, games built from the ground up for Wii, feature it? I'm not sure how extensively it's used or how easy it was to impliment in the Rouge Squadron games, but I'm going to assume there was some kind of trick to it that made it possible in this genre of games but not so much in other genres. The fact of the matter is even other developers with the same extensive knowledge of the Gamecube's hardware as Factor 5, for example Mikami's Resident Evil 4 team, didn't impliment any kind of bump mapping into their last generation games, where as on the Xbox it'd already became commonplace in titles such as Riddick, Halo 2, Doom 3 and more.

 

Before you pull anything about the quotes "ease of use" out by the way, these interviews were in frickin 2001. Obviously speaking comparitively at the time the Gamecube was great for developers because it did offer much ease of development in the face of the PS2 and had a good deal more power. However, there's a damn good reason why Factor 5 aren't working with Nintendo anymore. 5 and a half years later, a nearly identical amount of power and features isn't nearly enough for them.

 

You know I love Nintendo and their systems, but get real. There is absolutely no reason to try and pointlessly defend the power of this system in the face of the evidence we're getting.

 

EDIT: Another random thing by the way. Normal mapping and bump mapping aren't the same thing. Normal mapping is a form of bump mapping or something, honestly I don't have a clue about the technical side of things (I just look at the realistic evidence) but it seems that Wii has more trouble with some kinds than others.

 

Here's a quote that lays out the exact differences though not being a technical genius (and never claiming to be) I'm not going to pretend I understand what it means.

 

In 3D computer graphics, normal mapping is an application of the technique known as bump mapping. Normal mapping is sometimes referred to as "Dot3 bump mapping". While bump mapping perturbs the existing normal (the way the surface is facing) of a model, normal mapping replaces the normal entirely. Like bump mapping, it is used to add details to shading without using more polygons. But where a bump map is usually calculated based on a single-channel (interpreted as grayscale) image, the source for the normals in normal mapping is usually a multichannel image (that is, channels for "red", "green" and "blue" as opposed to just a single color) derived from a set of more detailed versions of the objects.

 

Normal mapping is a combination of two techniques, a dot 3 bump map and a per pixel shader. A regular bump map defines elevation and color. The dot 3 bump map adds lighting as a vector to each pixel. So the "3" represents elevation, color, and lighting. A huge amount of what makes a model look realistic is how the light plays across it.

[mcj metroid]

Doesn't your brother know the space bar exists either?

 

......i didn't see anything wrong with my last post?No it's my older brother probably not

[Meo]

I was fully aware those games featured bump mapping, so does Mario Galaxy (at some points). This doesn't matter however, if it was fine and easy to pull off, why isn't it in Far Cry? Why don't Red Steel or Rayman, games built from the ground up for Wii, feature it? I'm not sure how extensively it's used or how easy it was to impliment in the Rouge Squadron games, but I'm going to assume there was some kind of trick to it that made it possible in this genre of games but not so much in other genres. The fact of the matter is even other developers with the same extensive knowledge of the Gamecube's hardware as Factor 5, for example Mikami's Resident Evil 4 team, didn't impliment any kind of bump mapping into their last generation games, where as on the Xbox it'd already became commonplace in titles such as Riddick, Halo 2, Doom 3 and more.

 

Before you pull anything about the quotes "ease of use" out by the way, these interviews were in frickin 2001. Obviously speaking comparitively at the time the Gamecube was great for developers because it did offer much ease of development in the face of the PS2 and had a good deal more power. However, there's a damn good reason why Factor 5 aren't working with Nintendo anymore. 5 and a half years later, a nearly identical amount of power and features isn't nearly enough for them.

 

You know I love Nintendo and their systems, but get real. There is absolutely no reason to try and pointlessly defend the power of this system in the face of the evidence we're getting.

 

First thing first, I hope you are not feeling that I'm attacking your posts to defend my console of choice:) . This is just a purely hardware conversation, and fanboyism isn't something I want to bring to such conversation.

 

That said, I think I can answer the question about Far Cry. The thing is, Far Cry, developed with the Cry Engine, is a Direct X engine at its core. The API that is used to develop applications for Gamecube is a derivation of DirectX's greatest enemy, OpenGL. Since DirectX is a Microsoft API, therefore proprietary, is logic to think that DirectX is as well the main API ( with some different extensions) for the development on Xbox. The very-well suceeded level of integration of Xbox tools with programming tools (like Visual Studio) confirms this.

Therefore, one can't simply expect a DirectX engine to run on GPU that is expecting to receive system calls of other API. Porting DirectX to OpenGL code and vice-versa is very time consuming, and generally demands a complete rewrite of the base engine.

When I posted those Factor5 interviews, I wanted to point out that, indeed, Gamecube supported those features, and, if the existing specs of Wii are pointing for a sort of "Flipper 1.5" (as they called it), then, surely, those features are indeed still there (they have to; Gamecube compatibility is 1:1).

 

Factor 5 used bump-mapping, yes, but not applied to all surfaces. Bump-mapping a is a RAM-eater; and in that regards, GC wasn't very generous.

 

Regarding Ubisoft, Red Steel and Rayman, they were indeed built for Wii, but unfortenately, only control-wise. Ubisoft are using some different engines at this moment, and all of them (Jade Engine (Rayman, King Kong), Unreal (Red Steel, Splinter Cell)) are Direct X engines.

 

Pixel-shading... the touchy topic:)

 

ArtX's Flipper was developed during the beginning of the Shader era, when final specifications of Shaders were still being developed . During the development period of the chip, ArtX wasn't yet part of ATI. They then integrated the TEV unit, designed to tackle the problem of programability through extensive/exotic textures use as opposed to shaders. This is why GC is capable of rendering up to 8 layers on a model, and this is where the big differences between Xbox and Gamecube are. Like Pedrocasilva said sometime ago, I believe, shaders are indeed capable, yes, through ISA, and not by usual Pixel-Shading pipelines. Star Fox Adventure is the proof, showing a water effect that, even today, still manages to impress me.

 

But I do understand your point, of course. It is disapointing that most of the games are showing such graphics, and if developers aren't using them,by all effects,you are correct.

 

Edit: OMFG, I hope this doesn't get tiring. I didn't notice the post was this big :p

[Hellfire]

I'm looking at some people's posts and they're so stupid they leave me speechless.

You think 2 or 3 launch games that were rushed and made on GC hardware are the proof, except of technical and documental proof and also videos and screenshots of future games made on Wii hardware that show that the Wii can do these things. It's mind boggling.

[pedrocasilva]

Only came to this thread now:

 

Look, just stop it. I don't care about any of this or if you think you're some technical genius, but whatever, the evidence is there with Wii developers (you know, REAL developers) stating flat out the Wii can't do a bunch of things specifically that the Xbox can. They're not lying, they're not exaggerating and they're not just being lazy. Do you have Wii development hardware? No, sorry you dont, so I dont care what you think you know and I'm fed up of seeing this stuff.

I've given interviews and technical proof in the past, just like you're saying they say it doesn't do things Xbox did, I've shown GC developers saying otherwise, that's a way of proving it wrong, IMO.

 

I believe more in people who pushed GC boundaries than people who have no previous experience with the system, that is the case with this Far cry team. There's a clear diference in results.

 

I understand what they're saying but this only means that the graphics card is still proprietary and not compliant or derivate with ATi's consumer graphics cards. But we already knew as much.

Regardless of how you word it or what the exact specifics are, the fact of the matter is the Wii does lack a specific kind of shader functionality that provides far easier bump/normal mapping and per pixel lighting.

No it doesn't, look at zelda TP... now do that on a DirectX 7 graphics card.

 

Yes, lots of shaders in there, infact... it's almost mind blogging how they managed to fit them into GC.

 

There's lots of games doing bump mapping too, Starfox Adventures, Rogue Squadron, the Resident Evil, even Super Smash Brothers Melee.

If you're going to deny this, without development hardware or the exact spec sheets the developers have, you're fooling yourself and in denial.

We know for sure that Factor 5, Capcom and Nintendo had more access to documentation than Ubisoft did.

 

They also used engines built from the ground (or heavily optimized) for the task.

Ubisoft aren't deliberately making all their games look bad. Were there any real benefits of getting Splinter Cell for Wii out by launch? No, there really weren't because it was never going to be a big seller on the system...but hey look another game where the Xbox version has heavy amounts of bump mapping and the Wii lacks it all! Hmm, guess Ubisoft are just having a laugh, nice one guys! Oh but who cares, actual evidence in games doesn't matter, let's just talk about hypothetical specs and abilities based on what I THINK I know!

they're using middlewares... and engines not designed for machines lacking directX in the first place.

 

Besides Far Cry was developed in such a short period of time.

Time to fire up the excuse about them using the cube build for Wii because they were "too lazy" to use the Xbox one I guess!

Cube? more like the equivalent of a PS2 build of the engine, since GC would always get a port of that toned down version running, is it because GC was as powerful as PS2?

 

In short... What Meo said is right, and a pretty complete explanation for it might I add. (better than mine) I just felt I should respond since you made that post above aimed at me.

[James McGeachie]

The only point I've really been trying to make isn't that it lacks any kind of shader functionality, just that what it has is significantly inferior to the capabilities of the Xbox and until I see some strong evidence in games that it can do anything even remotely close to what the Xbox done with Doom 3 I'm going to believe that, regardless of what excuses can be made about the choice of engine, developer's priorities or whatever.

 

Zelda is a nice looking game, perhaps it does make extensive use of shaders like you're saying, but it's not the kind of evidence I'm looking for of the Wii having equivalent capabilities to the Xbox. I want to see extensive normal mapping, stencil shadows and heavy amounts of lighting. Basically, I want to see if Doom 3 is possible on Wii.

[Charlie]

......i didn't see anything wrong with my last post?No it's my older brother probably not

 

I was pointing out the fact that neither you, or the person that was apparently using your account puts a space after a fullstop which led me to believe that it was you who posted the message that you deleted.

[Meo]

The only point I've really been trying to make isn't that it lacks any kind of shader functionality, just that what it has is significantly inferior to the capabilities of the Xbox and until I see some strong evidence in games that it can do anything even remotely close to what the Xbox done with Doom 3 I'm going to believe that, regardless of what excuses can be made about the choice of engine, developer's priorities or whatever.

 

Zelda is a nice looking game, perhaps it does make extensive use of shaders like you're saying, but it's not the kind of evidence I'm looking for of the Wii having equivalent capabilities to the Xbox. I want to see extensive normal mapping, stencil shadows and heavy amounts of lighting. Basically, I want to see if Doom 3 is possible on Wii.

 

"Why trying to change the world, when he doesn't want to change",

 

is the sentence that comes to my mind right now.

 

...to what the Xbox done with Doom 3

 

Doom 3 on Xbox is one of the most graphically stripped games I've ever seen.

 

regardless of what excuses can be made about the choice of engine, developer's priorities or whatever.

 

Well, then I guess my last post, made with so many love, is useless:p

 

You want to see (you are consumer, you are in your right to), but you keep ignoring why you are not seeing it.

 

Zelda is a nice looking game, perhaps it does make extensive use of shaders like you're saying, but it's not the kind of evidence I'm looking for of the Wii having equivalent capabilities to the Xbox.

 

In the last few days, I've been playing, in my spare times, Twilight Princess on my GAMECUBE. Bloom, pseudo-HDR,"pixel-shading"... and the best Depth of Field I've ever seen in a videogame. It is, easily, the most beautiful game I've ever seen (maybe, with the exception of Okami). It makes me wish I could get the source-code just to see how, especially when we are talking about a machine that has 24 MB of RAM. S3TC compression really makes wonders.

Honestly, I absolutely hate the trees in TP. But you can't get everything. That said, I've yet to see a similar engine on Xbox showing the same results. And you are free to go ahead, and prove me wrong. And during that period, please, discover an Xbox engine that is capable of loading those huge, vast maps, in such small period of time.

Assuming that the leaked specs are true, and looking at the performance of a 5 year old system, which, aparently is the base for the new system, how can you say that TP isn't the evidence you are looking to show that Wii is more powerful than XBox?

 

RISC arquitecture ====> CISC arquitecture, anyday.

 

And now, after writing all this blabbering, I ask myself if it makes any difference. Pedrocasilva and I already said all this, and you still don't believe.

 

I guess then that Microsoft really won. In marketing. "The most powerful console"...

[James McGeachie]

For the record I appreciate fully that the Wii is "more powerful" than the Xbox. The only thing I wish to see is whether or not it's also capable of the same quantities of bump mapping and lighting as games like Chaos Theory, Double Agent, Doom 3, etc. That's all. All I want to see is if it can be done in game, because if it can't then it seems like it's going to be much harder for developers to make the extra power of Wii make much of a difference visually and hence why current Wii games aren't much of a step up from Gamecube.