Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Platforms
PCXboxPlayStationNintendo
Games
ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games

Game Forum / Nintendo / Game Boy / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Perrin Kaplan interview about Wii's power, its development, and beyond Wii.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
AirRaid - 18 Sep 2006 04:21 GMT
watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee

some of the key Q&A

Q.)
Tell me how far back you guys went in thinking of  this controller  and
system.  how soon after the gamecube did you guys start thinking  about
your next console and when did....

Perrin:

"we start before....when something is being produced we're already
working on the idea for the next...so um... but we probably spent a
good 6,7, 8 months doing the "race" as well,
and then all of a sudden we said this not even really  even what
consumers in a mass way,  want. you're gonna get your hardcore  very
small  percentage.... what can we do to make sure this has  state of
the art technology and all the amazing stuff in it,  and i mean, don't,
dont..... this is a ferrari under the hood,  no confusion about that.
we wanna make sure people really understand  that. and then we went and
changed direction, cause we felt,
in order to keep the industry really healthy, there has to be a  right
turn somewhere."

Q.)  is this the last console Nintnedo's gonna make?

Perrin:  "I highly doubt it, I highly doubt it."

when will we see another handheld, any idea?

Perrin: "when it's time."

___________________________________________________________________________

okay... it sounds to me that before Gamecube came out they started
working on the next console and started in the traditional way, "the
race" as she said, to make the most powerful chips possible.  then they
decided this wasn't healthy for anyone (especially Nintendo).... so
while they continued to make a reasonably powerful console, at least by
last-gen standards, they decided their focus would be on a totally new
direction for playing games.   she stressed however, that Wii is
"ferrari under the hood" and I believe that for SDTV resolution, it
really is.   months and months ago, one of ATI's main guys said what we
had seen of Wii's graphics was just the tip of the iceberg.   it's my
belief that the graphics displayed in Wii games so far, are largely
"Gamecube Plus" graphics, due to the development environment being
Gamecube based.  the ATI Hollywood GPU remains a near-total mystery to
even the hardcore graphics observers on boards like Beyond3D, at least
as far as what is "public".  what isn't under NDA, and that's very
little.

the thing that's interesting to me is, as far as graphics power, the
Wii doesn't have to burn GPU performance blasting off into HDTV
resolution. the lowest HD resolution, 720p, requires 3 times the
performance just to achive that resolution, before the graphics
themselves can be improved.  THAT guys, is WHY  Xbox 360 and PS3 games
do not look to be a huge huge leap beyond Xbox and Gamecube games.
most of Xbox 360 and PS3's extra power is spent getting to HDTV level
resolution. there is NOT enough left over performance beyond that to
get a huge leap in actual graphics.

once we finally see what Wii can do visually, starting next year, I
think we might be surprised that Wii can offer some very good visuals.
more than just "Gamecube 1.5"  at SDTV resolution, Wii is not going to
be miles behind Xbox 360 and PS3 because those consoles will be wasting
much of their power going to 720p or 1080i, and in the case of some PS3
games, 1080p.

beyond Wii,  Nintendo is obviously well into the idea process of
creating their next console. I am sure that not everything that they
were thinking about for Wii, made it into the final design. many of
those ideas will be carried over into the next console, which you might
wanna call WiiHD or Super Wii or whatever.  Nintendo's president,
Iwata, said that Nintendo WILL introduce an HD console sometime in the
future.  maybe WiiHD will be to Wii what the SNES was to NES.   or
maybe Nintendo will offer a huge leap in everything again, as they did
when they went from SNES to Nintendo64.  who knows.  all wii know is
that Nintendo is not going away as a console provider.
Guest - 18 Sep 2006 05:04 GMT
Signature

This post is Sponsored by:  www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013

> watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> much of their power going to 720p or 1080i, and in the case of some PS3
> games, 1080p.

They are not wasting anything.  They are that powerful in order to handel
the HD, but they clearly have power to spare.  Now the Wii is not 'held
back' by such resolutions, so why are it's graphics not up to par?

> beyond Wii,  Nintendo is obviously well into the idea process of
> creating their next console. I am sure that not everything that they
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> when they went from SNES to Nintendo64.  who knows.  all wii know is
> that Nintendo is not going away as a console provider.
blue - 18 Sep 2006 14:01 GMT
-- This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com 
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013

>> watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>>
>> Perrin: "when it's time."

___________________________________________________________________________

>> okay... it sounds to me that before Gamecube came out they started
>> working on the next console and started in the traditional way, "the
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>> much of their power going to 720p or 1080i, and in the case of some PS3
>> games, 1080p.

>They are not wasting anything.  They are that powerful in order to
>handel
>the HD, but they clearly have power to spare.

If they had power to spare they would all be running at 60fps not a
generally choppy 30fps. Case in point: The graphics in Fight Night -
Amazing players but bland almost snes like (in the repitition)
backgrounds to play against.
Guest - 18 Sep 2006 16:15 GMT
Signature

This post is Sponsored by:  www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013

>
> -- This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com 
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> Amazing players but bland almost snes like (in the repitition) backgrounds
> to play against.

That has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the
programmers.  EA IS NOT known for graphics you know.  Their marketing is
what gets them sales.  This whole thread is nonsense as the Wii can't do any
of that.  Fight Night 3 of the Wii?  I'll bet that Nintendo would not allow
it to be made as it would surly show the system's wiikness.
El Guapo - 18 Sep 2006 15:24 GMT
>> watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee
>>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> the HD, but they clearly have power to spare.  Now the Wii is not 'held
> back' by such resolutions, so why are it's graphics not up to par?

That's actually a good question.  2-3 times the power of Gamecube should
give you much better graphics than we have seen so far.  So is the issue the
lack of development kits with final hardware, a lack of effort on the part
of developers, or simply that the console really is barely more powerful
than an original XBox?

I think the console can succeed regardless, but it would shock me if this
was the best they could come up with.
blue - 18 Sep 2006 15:59 GMT
>>>watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> I think the console can succeed regardless, but it would shock me if this
> was the best they could come up with.

I remember when I first played a ps2 - it was ridge racer and I was
shocked at how similar it appeared to a ps1 game - there was not much
difference if you remember. I personally think that Mario Galaxy looks
great and is what I would expect from a comparative step up in
horsepower (excluding a leap into HD). A lot of the other titles look
exactly like Gamecube games which is dissapointing but I think you'd
have to be a bit mad to think that these graphics will be representitive
of what will come later on; after all an improvement in horsepower
definitely yeilds results (which clearly aren't shown in games like Tony
Hawks etc) we can put this down to the fact that a lot of developers
never really got to grips with the Gamecube and abandoned it halfway so
never got to expore it's architecture - essentially picking it up again
now. I think we might be able to see what's possible once Capcom reveal
some more pictures of RE (as long as they don't just reuse the old engine).
Zomoniac - 18 Sep 2006 16:05 GMT
>>>> watch & hear the ENTIRE interview here: http://tinyurl.com/z9gee
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
> shocked at how similar it appeared to a ps1 game - there was not much
> difference if you remember.

You still got it? Go play RRT4, then go play RRV. They're worlds apart.
The most noticeable though, play GT2 and then GT3.

> I personally think that Mario Galaxy looks great and is what I would
> expect from a comparative step up in horsepower (excluding a leap into
> HD).

It looks worse than SMSunshine to me!

> A lot of the other titles look exactly like Gamecube games which is
> dissapointing but I think you'd have to be a bit mad to think that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> able to see what's possible once Capcom reveal some more pictures of RE
> (as long as they don't just reuse the old engine).

I am a little concerned. They said 2-3 times. Fine by me. But I haven't
seen that. The flagship graphical showpiece for Wii is a game that's
getting a visually identical version released for a five-year old
machine the following week! So far nothing at all has looked even half
as good as RE4, not even TP. I'm not writing it off, I'm not buying it
for the graphics, but at least a little progress would be nice,
especially if they're keeping it in standard def. But so far, in what
I've seen of first party titles (SMG, Zelda, MP3), there is nothing in
these games visually that a Cube can't do without breaking a sweat.
Air Raid - 19 Sep 2006 18:02 GMT
are you sure you weren't playing a PS1 Ridge Racer game on PS2 ??
because
Ridge Racer V was a large leap graphically over any of the PS1 Ridge
Racer games
(RR, RRR, Rage Racer, R4)  RRV had twice the framerate (60fps vs 30fps)
vastly higher polygon counts, filtering, z-buffering (thus real depth
to the polygons unlike PS1), mip-mapping, and far better lighting.
dispite the jaggies, RRV looked worlds better than anything on PS1.
gameplay was largely the same, though somewhat improved.

> I remember when I first played a ps2 - it was ridge racer and I was
> shocked at how similar it appeared to a ps1 game - there was not much
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> now. I think we might be able to see what's possible once Capcom reveal
> some more pictures of RE (as long as they don't just reuse the old engine).
Air Raid - 19 Sep 2006 17:57 GMT
> They are not wasting anything.  They are that powerful in order to handel
> the HD, but they clearly have power to spare.  Now the Wii is not 'held
> back' by such resolutions, so why are it's graphics not up to par?

Xbox 360 and PS3 have only a modest amount of graphical performance to
spare to make a modest improvement in actual graphics, after they burn
much of their GPU performance to reach HDTV resolutions.  if X360/PS3
did not have to render in HDTV resolutions but only 480p instead,
they'd be able to produce much better graphics that look much more
"next-gen" compared to last-gen consoles.   higher resolution does not
really make graphics better, only more pixels for a sharper image.

the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and first Xbox were all a large to massive
leap beyond PS1 and N64.  because a.) their graphics chips were a very
large advance over the ones in PS1/N64,  and the resolution increase
was small, going from the lower-end of SDTV  to the upper end of SDTV.

this time, with Xbox 360 and PS3, the graphics chips are less of a leap
in power
(only about ~4x in fillrate and polygons) and they're required to
output in resolution at least 3 times higher (720p) which required 3
times the pixel performance. what's left over is not very much in
performance.  with that said, we'll see SOME additional improvement
because of shaders, that's the biggest strength of the new console
GPUs. however shaders can only do so much, they're not a subsitute for
geometry and pixel processing power or bandwidth.

so while Xbox 360 and PS3 clearly offer better graphics than the
consoles they're replacing, the leap is not huge.

Nintendo is playing it smart.   even though Wii is not nearly as
powerful in raw specs compared to Xbox 360 and PS3,  it doesn't have to
have high performance to show nice graphics at SDTV resolution.

at SDTV resolution, Wii's graphics are not going to be many steps
behind Xbox360 and PS3 which usually have to show games in HDTV
resolution.

now if developers made games on Xbox360 and PS3 in SDTV resolution, of
course they could kick Wii's a.s all over the place in graphics, since
Xbox360 and PS3 would instantly gain back 3x more performance not
having to rendering in HDTV.

Nintendo Iwata and Miyamoto have stated that Nintendo will have an HDTV
console in the future. I'll bet when Nintendo does make the leap to
HDTV, it'll have enough spare graphics power to make a decent leap in
graphics.

but really, if it is only graphics graphics GRAPHICS that people care
about with videogames, why bother ?   I could watch flawless graphics
in a CGI movie if I wanted to.  with videogames, it's about
interaction, gameplay, fun and addictiveness.
Guest - 19 Sep 2006 19:14 GMT
Signature

This post is Sponsored by:  www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013

>
>> They are not wasting anything.  They are that powerful in order to handel
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> they'd be able to produce much better graphics that look much more
> "next-gen" compared to last-gen consoles.

They already do.  If you notice(which you have not) the first batch of 360
games were ports with touched up 360 features.  The second batch got a more
into the power of the system and after that, future titles are starting to
take it to level beyond imagination.  Their is no set standard of what
next-generation graphics or it's style of graphics are supposed to  look
like, but they must look like something that cannot be done on the
PS2/Xbox/GC.  This is why you see some game with a CG(movie) style graphics
and others with higher powered 3D arcade graphics.  You know, your Gears of
War type(along with Riddick) or your Dead Rising type.  It is up to the
producer to make the graphics a certain way.

higher resolution does not
> really make graphics better, only more pixels for a sharper image.

Higher resolution alone does not even do that!  The textures must be high
resolution in order for a high-res sytem to display it with quality.
Current-gen systems cannot handle that.  The GC had the advantage in
textures.  Again, that was because it lacked the storage space of the other
two systems, so they had to make up for it with hardware decompression.  It
just happened to work to their benefit.

If you think that al the 360 is capable of is higher resolution textures,
then you are sick.  It can do a lot more.  See if the current-gen systems
can put up hundreds of highly detailed zombies on the screen at once, in
720p, full action and no slow-down.  Of course it can't.  This is just the
start on things to come.

> the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and first Xbox were all a large to massive
> leap beyond PS1 and N64.  because a.) their graphics chips were a very
> large advance over the ones in PS1/N64,  and the resolution increase
> was small, going from the lower-end of SDTV  to the upper end of SDTV.

You are a fool.  Each system always bumped up the resolution and they all
handled them in addition to providing next-gen graphics.

> this time, with Xbox 360 and PS3, the graphics chips are less of a leap
> in power
> (only about ~4x in fillrate and polygons)

You must be sick.

and they're required to
> output in resolution at least 3 times higher (720p) which required 3
> times the pixel performance.

You are sick.  The videocards can handle that alone.  These systems are
multi-core to aid in that.  Do you really think that these people designed
things the way that you think?

what's left over is not very much in
> performance.  with that said, we'll see SOME additional improvement
> because of shaders, that's the biggest strength of the new console
> GPUs. however shaders can only do so much, they're not a subsitute for
> geometry and pixel processing power or bandwidth.

These systems have al of that dude.  If you don't know and if you think that
the Wii si your Nintendo savior, then you don't know jack sh.t.

> so while Xbox 360 and PS3 clearly offer better graphics than the
> consoles they're replacing, the leap is not huge.

..!

> Nintendo is playing it smart.   even though Wii is not nearly as
> powerful in raw specs compared to Xbox 360 and PS3,  it doesn't have to
> have high performance to show nice graphics at SDTV resolution.

Well the graphics are not spectacular.

> at SDTV resolution, Wii's graphics are not going to be many steps
> behind Xbox360 and PS3 which usually have to show games in HDTV
> resolution.

Lol!  You are right, not steps behind, it is leaps behind them!

> now if developers made games on Xbox360 and PS3 in SDTV resolution, of
> course they could kick Wii's a.s all over the place in graphics, since
> Xbox360 and PS3 would instantly gain back 3x more performance not
> having to rendering in HDTV.

It does that now and will do it even better in the future.  The systems were
designed to provide high resoltuion graphics.

> Nintendo Iwata and Miyamoto have stated that Nintendo will have an HDTV
> console in the future. I'll bet when Nintendo does make the leap to
> HDTV, it'll have enough spare graphics power to make a decent leap in
> graphics.

If it's designed like the Wii, it will be an overclocked Wii!

> but really, if it is only graphics graphics GRAPHICS that people care
> about with videogames, why bother ?   I could watch flawless graphics
> in a CGI movie if I wanted to.  with videogames, it's about
> interaction, gameplay, fun and addictiveness.

Well, it's because even a baby knows that you SEE graphics and PLAY the
games.  You people act as if Nintendo's Wii is the only system capable of
playing games.
Cthulhu mang - 19 Sep 2006 22:15 GMT
>The second batch got a more
> into the power of the system and after that, future titles are starting to
> take it to level beyond imagination.

hoHO! a level  'Beyond Imagination' are you really, really sure about
that?

"Stupider and stupider..." said Alice.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins - 20 Sep 2006 11:42 GMT
"a point beyond the imagination"?

Jesus, what a marketing-whore you are.

Choobs

Signature

Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org>
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1946-2006

http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings

Guest - 20 Sep 2006 17:16 GMT
Signature

This post is Sponsored by:  www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013

>>
> "a point beyond the imagination"?
>
> Jesus, what a marketing-whore you are.
>
> Choobs

Lol.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.