cortjezter wrote:ehh... as long as we don't start getting spam-happy with the off-linking, especially when it isn't really news or verifiable information.
i would like to say there's a limit, but i can't think of any reasonable number or situation that would perfectly cover all rumor-posting.
how about this:
why not just mention what the rumor is, and then either name the source or provide a link.
it would also be better to actually talk about it instead of just posting links.
Jack_Atlas wrote:Really big wall of text, but you do make a lot of really good points.To be honest the only developer I think that is actually any good now is Masahiro Sakurai because his games still have a lot of quality put into them. Which is strange because I love Zelda to death but I think Aonuma needs to step aside or down and let someone else handle Zelda for once.Because when Ocarina of time came out he was not the directer or producer[he was assistant directer] and depending on how he handled the project it would either turn out fantastic,okay or lackluster[Majora's mask, twilight princess,skyward sword respectively.]
I hate to ask this but does anybody think it would be good for another industry crash? Seeing as the recent rumors are pretty much painting up a picture that none of the 3rd party publishers are smart enough to actually be running a business. If you answer try weighing the pros and cons when thinking about it I thought it would be something like "spring cleaning" so to speak.
I read both of your comments in full in fact I had a pretty lengthy one ready to be posted but decided not too since some people might think I'm some radical extremist with some of my viewpoints.
As for the developers I forgot about Wayforward,probably because I haven't played too many games by them[and the ones I have played I have lost interest in half way because I tend to do that with all downloadable games.] As for the others I haven't played those games or heard of the development teams before.
LegendofZelda1996 wrote:There is a rumor on NeoGAF that says that the Wii U may use a GPU that is similar to the specs of a GPU from the Evergreen GPU series. http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p= ... ount=11334
If the rumor is true, that means that the GPU of the Wii U is compatible with DirectX 11 & OpenGL 4.1.
Edit: I am not so sure if this counts as a rumor or just mere speculation.
gtt wrote:that would be sweet. unless they gimped it, any evergreen gpu trounces current consoles. by a lot.
LegendofZelda1996 wrote:gtt wrote:that would be sweet. unless they gimped it, any evergreen gpu trounces current consoles. by a lot.
But I have heard from this user named antonz in NeoGAF that Nintendo needs to seriously tweak the GPU of the Wii U that has with similar specs of Radeon 5550/5570 GPU since they have less raw power than a Radeon HD 4850/4870. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.ph ... count=4402, http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.ph ... count=4418
And I found this comparison between the Radeon HD 4850 which is supposedly only used for the early Wii U development kits and the Radeon HD 6670 which is the rumored GPU for the XBOX 720. http://www.hwcompare.com/10903/radeon-h ... 0-oem-1gb/
Nordic Games wrote:Nintendo is interested to meet with talented game development teams and explore publishing opportunities for original Nintendo 3DS and Wii U game proposals", says Tim Symons, Sales Planning & Strategy, Nintendo.
LegendofZelda1996 wrote:I am not very sure if I am allowed to post this type of information. If I am not, please tell me, so I will not do that again. Anyway, here it goes.Nordic Games wrote:Nintendo is interested to meet with talented game development teams and explore publishing opportunities for original Nintendo 3DS and Wii U game proposals", says Tim Symons, Sales Planning & Strategy, Nintendo.
Is this good news? It seems like very good news to me.
First off, this board is far too educated to presume that developing a console GPU is like shopping at Newegg. Or even determining current component prices, if it was AMD/ATI, Genyo Takeda (IR&D) would not have spent 2yrs.+ in the development process on the Wii U's graphics processor. I realize we are attempting to establish a power as well as an architectural baseline, but this will be an amalgamation of processor capabilities that will yield a very custom proprietary chip. Somewhat defying the current DX metric. (to a degree of course)
What I mean when I say that is this, we cannot assume because it's based off of, or similar to gpu architecture "X," that it is incapable of "Y." Y equaling effects such as tessellation, IBL, real-time GI, deferred rendering, etc. There are certain visual aspects, such as lighting, that are very important to Nintendo. I have heard that, much like the Flipper, Nintendo has incorporated at least partially a portion of the same design philosophies into the Wii U chipset. Features that “automagically” appear during shader code implementation. A post from my early days regarding the GC’s architecture on B3D:Spoiler:gamecube examples wrote:"However, as mentioned above, a couple of features where added in automagically already, like self-shadowing and tinting for example."
"Per-object self-shadowing can be realized quite nicely on the Nintendo Gamecube. The benefit of doing self-shadowing on a per object basis is that one does not need to be concerned so much with precision."
"One should note that during the shader build many features are activated dynamically. For instance, if an object should get tinted a color multiplication is added to the final output color whatever shader was setup before."
"The results of global lighting can be computed in three different ways: per vertex, per pixel using emboss mapping, and per pixel using bump mapping. All three of these methods come in two variants one with self-shadowing and one without."--Florian Sauer & Sigmund Vik http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20.../sauer_pfv.htm
Also 8 light values came at a very negligible performance cost, because Flipper computed light values in parallel to UV generation. It’s these types of “hardwired” like effects Nintendo I believe has carried over to make modern shader effects with a subset of fixed feature functionality. I’m simply providing examples as I do not know to what extent overall it is, or can be incorporated. (esp. with the gpu being of a modern design) I was told that lighting behaved in this manner, & that lighting was a point of emphasis. As always with a secondhand source, you must always be cautious not to take it as gospel. (though I trust this source, Nintendo's NDAs are the most binding)
Nintendo did make certain alterations to their gpu based upon various 3rd party input, a first. Usually, they tend to develop their gpus & platforms with just simply ATI/Nintendo engineering, consultation, & guidance. Designed around their evolving software strengths, & "the natural flow of the industry."-Genyo Takeda Yes, I am referring to all those benchmark tests Nintendo ran on 3rd party engines for optimization on Wii U hardware.
But make no mistake, Nintendo's footprint is definitely here. You will see a marked performance difference in their proprietary engines, as well as close 3rd parties, & exclusive titles. (UbiSoft, Capcom, etc.) Also, ARM may also be providing their DSP component solution. The nameless devs that are claiming inferiority to the current generation of consoles are either inept, or working with middleware that is still yet unoptimized for the differing Wii U architecture.
Remember how I recently wrote that a certain engine increased performance by several hundred percent over a couple of weeks? Just found out that another, even more common middleware solution seemingly had it even worse: If you tried to actually use some of the unique hardware features, the engine just crashed. I guess anonymous developer statements should be taken with a ton of salt at this point...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users