People should stop defending Nintendo's decision to make underpowered consoles

#31Binba442Posted 4/21/2013 2:55:36 AM
Ghost-inZeShell posted...
I agree.

Personally, I would prefer if Nintendo were to give up the gimmic tactic and just make a Super GameCube.


I kinda like the gimmicks, sometimes they add to the game, but I am all for a super Gamecube, but last time, power didn't win out for nintendo, having a console only marginly weaker than the strongest didn't pay off for them.
#32Pac12345Posted 4/21/2013 3:06:34 AM
Solis posted...
NeoSamuel posted...
I would rather have a reasonably priced and less powerful console then an overpowered console that costs way too much.

Anyone remember $599 US Dollars announcement? I remember laughing at the sony fanboys too.


PS3 overpowered? If anything it was UNDERpowered.


Pac12345 posted...
Maybe the so called "hardcore gamers" should stop asking for for over powered consoles. Remember that having bigger isn't always better. Case in point: More power=Higher Development costs which leads to an interesting series of events

Actually, no, more power doesn't lead to higher development costs. In fact, it essentially reduces them by requiring less effort to achieve the same overall quality, especially graphically.

Not to mention, there's not many claiming that they should be overpowered. The general consensus seems to be that they should be notably more powerful than last gen consoles, which is pretty much expected since they were released over 6 years ago. An 8-10x power jump is more than reasonable. It's not like anyone was complaining that the SNES, N64, or Gamecube were "too powerful", after all, why is being powerful such a problem now?


Ah, yes, that is a common misconception. While not entirely false (Cause the things you said are true), the fact remains that your statement is incomplete (Not false or wrong).

Yes, it is true that the more processing power, the easier is to achieve the same thing; you don't have to spend time thinking on how to overcome limitations or balance things out because you have more "space" (processing power) to do things. HOWEVER, the higher the jump is in power (Specially in terms of graphics), the MORE ASSETS YOU NEED TO INCORPORATE.

Let me give you a brief example:

Normally, when building 3D models of things that are in game (A gun for example), you would need to model, say 400 triangles to shape a pistol. If you had a computer 10 or 20 times more powerful than the one you are using, THEN it would be easier to add Anti-Aliasing and textures and lighting, etc. BUT, the thing is, that with more power at your disposal, you need to also up the count of polygons (triangles in this case) so that you make use of all that extra power and you provide your consumer with higher end graphics.

In the end, instead of spending X amount of time modeling a 400 triangle pistol, you end up spending double or triple the amount of time modeling a 4,000 or 5,000 triangle pistol.

It takes more time to model 4,000 triangles than it did modeling 400. This results in extended periods of man hours put into making that gun more realistic looking; making use of that extra power. In top of that, you need to spend even more time adding Anti-Aliasing, lighting, etc to a now more complex pistol.

Even if a more powerful console makes it easier and much faster to model a polygon than a weaker console did, the fact remains that you still need to spend extra time building more polygons than you did before.

So, while it is true that better specs make things easier, it is also true that you need to invest more resources (time, money, and learning the new ways of programming), in order to make use of said better specs.

Saying that more power makes things easier is half the truth of what really goes into making games look nice and be suited for higher resolutions (HD) and more effects.
#33JackalPosted 4/21/2013 3:57:54 AM
I also place part of the blame on the Gamepad. Multiplatform devs not have to go out of their way to make use of it when they don't have to worry about that for the other platforms. Nintendo even admitted that they have to find good ways to put it to use.
---
PSN: Jackal-5, XBox: Jackal 55 (No, I don't have a 360)
EVE Online: Jonak, Ouya: Zeek_Bronz
#34VeladusPosted 4/21/2013 4:01:50 AM
Wow. Wow! WOW! There's actually people that think Nintendo's hilariously under performing hardware isn't the reason that there's countless titles that are on the 360 and PS3 but not on the Wii? How many titles are there on the 360 and the Wii but not the PS3? Or the PS3 and the Wii but not the 360? Good God. Of course the reason that dozens, nay, hundreds of desirable titles are on everything not made by Nintendo is because of the hardware. It's called common sense. This isn't even fanboyism; this is straight up delusional. As soon as Nintendo puts out a system that can compete with their competitors (7 years late), they suddenly start getting the same games like Arkham Asylum and Mass Effect. Yeah, I'm sure the reason had nothing to do with the hardware.

I'm truly flabbergasted. I've been reading GameFAQs for years and this is the most inane thing I've ever seen. Whatever, guys. Enjoy another generation of saying Nintendo has the "best exclusives" because 85% of the games coming out will be non-exclusives available to everything except Nintendo consoles.
#35oxnerdPosted 4/21/2013 4:11:23 AM
Who's defending it? I'd love a powerful console but look at me, had a PS3 since launch and I have 3 games for it. Just give me the games, I could care less about power.
#36ChipChippersonPosted 4/21/2013 4:21:21 AM
People do realize that the lust and push for power and graphics is bankrupting the industry, right?
---
As long as you're in my house, you'll do what I do, and believe what I believe. So butter your bacon... and bacon up that sausage, boy.
#37SolisPosted 4/21/2013 4:32:44 AM
Pac12345 posted...
Ah, yes, that is a common misconception. While not entirely false (Cause the things you said are true), the fact remains that your statement is incomplete (Not false or wrong).

Yes, it is true that the more processing power, the easier is to achieve the same thing; you don't have to spend time thinking on how to overcome limitations or balance things out because you have more "space" (processing power) to do things. HOWEVER, the higher the jump is in power (Specially in terms of graphics), the MORE ASSETS YOU NEED TO INCORPORATE.
~

But there you're making another misleading conclusion, that it's power which directly determines what assets must be included in a game. This, again, isn't the case: power only dictates what CAN be included, it doesn't MANDATE what is. Games for any platform can have assets well below their maximum limit. Mega Man 9 and 10 were virtually identical between the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 for example, the game didn't suddenly require a complete overhaul just because the hardware it was running on was more powerful. And even the Wii version, in turn, was well below what the system was capable of on a technical level.

The aspect where games are expected to provide a certain level of quality is a result of increasing standards. Standards are essentially the expectation from both developers and consumers about what a game should contain. Standards increase not just with hardware, but also over time: a console game from 2013 is expected to look much better than a console game from 2003, regardless of the hardware it's running on. But along with this, more powerful hardware makes achieving that visual benchmark easier. Just as a modern low cost indie PC game can exceed the visual quality of a game like Doom 3 which had a far higher budget.

Conversely, what's really going to make things difficult is when the expectations for these games, regardless of platform, reach a point where certain systems would have trouble accomplishing them. We saw this with the Wii, where games completely skipped the platform simply because player's and developer's expectations were too high for the system to reliably accommodate. Even worse, the incredible amount of time and effort put into making games on the lower spec system look and run as good as possible will be essentially overlooked, because a better looking and better performing game will be available on another more capable platform with less effort required (the PS3 was a victim of this: how many people blamed "lazy developers" for the shortcomings seen in its games, when the real problem was the system's lackluster GPU that held games back?). And along with that, it's not just visuals this applies to: virtually all game content including gameplay are expected to improve over time for their relative market as well.

As an example of the divide between power and standards, if you look at recent mobile hardware such as the iPad 4, they're actually starting to approach the Xbox 360 and PS3 in performance (there's still a gap, but not as big of one as people think). And yet, Xbox 360/PS3 quality visuals or gameplay aren't expected from the platform. We've seen that it's quite capable of having near console-class visuals from games such as Infinity Blade 2, but its audience and developers are clearly just as happy to settle for something that's far below that. In a similar way, even the iPad 4's resolution is 50% higher than a 1080p HDTV, but that doesn't determine what assets are "suited" for it, since no games on it even manage to match the graphical bar expected from 720p console visuals (let alone exceed it by 3 and a half times). So clearly, neither power nor resolution can be the sole determining factor when it comes to expectations or development costs.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#38SolisPosted 4/21/2013 5:07:24 AM
Pac12345 posted...
Let me give you a brief example:

Normally, when building 3D models of things that are in game (A gun for example), you would need to model, say 400 triangles to shape a pistol. If you had a computer 10 or 20 times more powerful than the one you are using, THEN it would be easier to add Anti-Aliasing and textures and lighting, etc. BUT, the thing is, that with more power at your disposal, you need to also up the count of polygons (triangles in this case) so that you make use of all that extra power and you provide your consumer with higher end graphics.

In the end, instead of spending X amount of time modeling a 400 triangle pistol, you end up spending double or triple the amount of time modeling a 4,000 or 5,000 triangle pistol.

It takes more time to model 4,000 triangles than it did modeling 400. This results in extended periods of man hours put into making that gun more realistic looking; making use of that extra power. In top of that, you need to spend even more time adding Anti-Aliasing, lighting, etc to a now more complex pistol.

Oh, and I didn't want to drag this out too much, but as a side note I do want to point out that this example isn't exactly a very good one for a number of reasons. More notably, antialiasing takes absolutely no effort to add from an asset standpoint: it's essentially a "free" feature that's dependent on a hardware level, and if the hardware is powerful enough to run it, then it can be enabled without any real effort. It's like going from 16-bit to 32-bit color or from 640x480 to 1600x1200 resolution, it doesn't require the development team to actually change the game assets to support it.

The same applies to many modern graphical features. Once an engine supports things like HDR, SSAO, motion blur, and other effects, they can essentially be enabled throughout the whole game without any changes to the actual models, textures, or levels of the game. So in your example, a designer creating a weapon model for a game with a very basic lighting system would need to manually bake lighting effects into the textures of the object, while designing it for a more advanced engine/more capable hardware wouldn't require the designer to bake any lighting into the model at all. Heck, you could even go one further and create object made of a lower number of polygons and then apply tessellation to it in-game to up the perceived detail on it (although, that solution isn't quite ideal).
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#39TheWhoFanPosted 4/21/2013 5:25:43 AM
SamStone22 posted...
Yeah, we all know that graphics are not everything, but when a system is so weak that it doesn't even get the chance to get 3rd party exclusives or multiplats, something is wrong with it.


Yes. Consoles are underpowered in comparison to PCs. Hence, PC ports are usually terrible. Hence, consoles are holding back PCs, which are the only true cutting-edge gaming experience. Hence, consoles suck. Oh, wait. No. Selective blindless doesn't work that way! Silly me.

Yes, yes. The PS4 and the next Xbox will be much better than the Wii U. Graphics don't matter, but they totally matter if you want to bash the Wii U. Nintendo is doomed, blah blah blah. Am I doing this OK? I probably should drone a bit more and repeat everything once or twice in every thread I post on.

Go away.
---
"On a technical level, PC obviously. But because PC and Xbox have no games, PS3 wins." - ScreamingMidget
They don't even try anymore.
#40Emerald_MeliosPosted 4/21/2013 7:13:20 AM
andrea987 posted...
ElectricMole posted...
El_Dustino posted...
Honestly, with the way that production costs are shooting up at an amazing rate, it is nice to have something like the Wii or Wii U to provide an avenue for slightly cheaper to make games.


Thats not true. Developers can make low budget humble-graphic games on the powerful consoles too. And theres tons of proof of that fact already. so there goes the theory that the wii U is the solution to rising game production costs.


So why make consoles super powerful, in this case? And that would mean, anyway, that these games will be able to come out on all three consoles, Wii U included.


That's why I think Sony was out of their minds when they made the PS3, and should not have bothered with a new console yet..