Crysis 3 on the Wii U? "Fat Chance"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Crysis 3 on the Wii U? "Fat Chance"

image

Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it.

Remember when the first Crysis came out? It was such a resource hog that just getting 20 fps took a hugely expensive gaming PC. The second Crysis game was a bit better, perhaps because of years of optimization, but also due to its nanosuit-powered leap to consoles. The newly announced Crysis 3 will likely possess graphics as crisp as its predecessors, and that means it will need at least the beefy graphics processing of a decent PC rig and the HD consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PS3. There won't likely be a port to the Wii, and even Nintendo's upcoming new console the Wii U won't have enough juice to get the nanosuit working with any fluidity, at least according to Rasmus Hoejengaard, Crytek's Director of Creative Development.

Will Crysis 3 appear on the Wii U? Hoejengaard said there's "not a fat chance" of that happening.

"I don't think it's going to be possible" for Crysis 3 to use the Wii U's hardware. "The launch platforms are the PC, Xbox 360 and the PS3. I don't think it's in the cards to do a Wii U version of it," he continued.

Sorry, Nintendo fans. Chalk up one more third party developer that's not planning on supporting the new platform.

Source: Destructoid

Permalink

Cue a huge P.C./console war. Which just depresses me so much.

*obligatory love and tolerate comment that will be ignored because everyone is too determined to defend their shiny from the nasty men with baaaad words*

Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

So, technically it has more then enough "juice" to run it, but I guess it's cheaper to not make a Wii U version.

"Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it."

That's not what was said in the interview at all.

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

Additionally, hasn't Crytek already confirmed Wii U support anyway?

The way the story was written here seems to make a hell of a lot of assumptions that aren't featured in the actual interview, some of which to the best of my knowledge are objectively incorrect, or are based on conjecture that's not congruent with what most named, sourced developers who have spoken out about Wii U have said about its capabilities.

SuperTrainStationH:
"Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it."

That's not what was said in the interview at all.

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

Additionally, hasn't Crytek already confirmed Wii U support anyway?

The way the story was written here seems to make a hell of a lot of assumptions that aren't featured in the actual interview, some of which to the best of my knowledge are objectively incorrect, or are based on conjecture that's not congruent with what most named, sourced developers who have spoken out about Wii U have said about its capabilities.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

Wait wait, so you're basically misquoting Crytek in a way that turns them into babbling idiots, and you're portraying Crysis 2 in a positive light?

The hell? What kind of news article is this?

Crytek have already said that the Wii U is capable of running Cryengine 3. Their own directors have said they're impressed with the dev kits they've been given and the processing power of the Wii U. Every bit of information released about the Wii U's tech-specs point towards it being more powerful than either the 360 or the PS3, by margins dependent on which sources you read.

Now, considering that the 360 and PS3 are both capable to run Cryengine 3, that the Wii U is all but confirmed as being more powerful than either, and that Crytek have said themselves they've got Cryengine 3 running on the console, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Wii U can in fact run Cryengine 3?

Most importantly of all, nowhere in the interview was it stated that Crysis 3 wasn't coming to the Wii U because of technical restrictions. All they said was that it wasn't on the cards for the time being. Which was also said about the Mass Effect series coming to PS3, Dark Souls coming to PC, and a host of other games being ported to other systems outside their original release schedule.

Much as I normally respect you Greg, you are quite obviously putting words in the developers' mouths here, and trying to draw conclusions outside of what was intended to be said. Everything released about the Wii U so far, including the comments of Crytek themselves, point to the Wii U being able to handle their games if they choose to develop for them, and nothing about this interview claims otherwise, simply that it's not in their schedule. Sorry, but this article is from the Fox News school of reporting, and I expect much better from the Escapist.

CrystalShadow:

SuperTrainStationH:
"Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it."

That's not what was said in the interview at all.

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

Additionally, hasn't Crytek already confirmed Wii U support anyway?

The way the story was written here seems to make a hell of a lot of assumptions that aren't featured in the actual interview, some of which to the best of my knowledge are objectively incorrect, or are based on conjecture that's not congruent with what most named, sourced developers who have spoken out about Wii U have said about its capabilities.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

It's not obvious that the Wii U will be more powerful though (well it would seem obvious, but this is Nintendo and they don't always do obvious :D ), people have been talking about on par so far and remember it's hard to squeeze full power out of a console for the first couple of years of development.

It's hard to find anything solid but we have this one
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116517-Darksiders-Dev-Wii-U-is-on-Par-With-Current-Gen
this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-05-nintendo-responds-to-wii-u-power-reports
and this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-03-wii-u-not-as-capable-as-ps3-xbox-360-report

all suggesting that the Wii U is on par so much with the 360 and PS3 or even slightly inferior. The one from Nintendo seems to be all but confirmation. They say numbers aren't important but if they had the numbers they wouldn't be risking all this negative PR

It's a bit worrying, my first thought was that it'd keep down the price, but the controller system is already making the price high. I guess Nintendo are committing to the idea that power convinces developers to spend too much time and resources on games

BrotherRool:

CrystalShadow:

SuperTrainStationH:
"Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it."

That's not what was said in the interview at all.

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

Additionally, hasn't Crytek already confirmed Wii U support anyway?

The way the story was written here seems to make a hell of a lot of assumptions that aren't featured in the actual interview, some of which to the best of my knowledge are objectively incorrect, or are based on conjecture that's not congruent with what most named, sourced developers who have spoken out about Wii U have said about its capabilities.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

It's not obvious that the Wii U will be more powerful though (well it would seem obvious, but this is Nintendo and they don't always do obvious :D ), people have been talking about on par so far and remember it's hard to squeeze full power out of a console for the first couple of years of development.

It's hard to find anything solid but we have this one
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116517-Darksiders-Dev-Wii-U-is-on-Par-With-Current-Gen
this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-05-nintendo-responds-to-wii-u-power-reports
and this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-03-wii-u-not-as-capable-as-ps3-xbox-360-report

all suggesting that the Wii U is on par so much with the 360 and PS3 or even slightly inferior. The one from Nintendo seems to be all but confirmation. They say numbers aren't important but if they had the numbers they wouldn't be risking all this negative PR

It's a bit worrying, my first thought was that it'd keep down the price, but the controller system is already making the price high. I guess Nintendo are committing to the idea that power convinces developers to spend too much time and resources on games

All but confirmation?

The response from Nintendo neither confirms or denies ANY claim about Wii U's capabilities.

And the third link saying that Wii U is less capable than the currently available HD systems is sourced from two or three anonymous sources which go AGAINST what many other named, on the record source have said about Wii U's capabilities, including Crytek themselves.

http://aussie-gamer.com/rumor-2/debunking-the-under-powered-nintendo-wii-u-rumour-is-surprisingly-easy/

So an EA-published style-over-substance FPS game isn't coming to the WiiU?
Huh. I guess Nintendo really is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers.

In all seriousness:
1: "Another" 3rd party? Where are the reports of the others that have said they won't?
2: People in Crytek have already said they were working on it. Or at least that it could run the Cryengine 3
3: It just sounds like there won't be a port. Unless there's more quoted that isn't in the article.

I would think this has more to do with Nintendo forcing Crytek to utilise the WiiU controllers unique features.

And then forcing them to tone down all those bodily fluids that come gushing out of knife wounds.

And then the prospect of having to deal with Nintendo's infamous online support schemes.

And then developing a game like Crysis 3 on a new console for a release in line with its competitors.

Processor power hardly needs to come into it.

therandombear:
Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

Nothings confirmed until Nintendo actually rolls out the info at E3.

Everything until then is best dismissed as optimistic rumors. Or degradatory rumors, whichever you deem fit to label them.

SuperTrainStationH:

BrotherRool:

CrystalShadow:

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

It's not obvious that the Wii U will be more powerful though (well it would seem obvious, but this is Nintendo and they don't always do obvious :D ), people have been talking about on par so far and remember it's hard to squeeze full power out of a console for the first couple of years of development.

It's hard to find anything solid but we have this one
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116517-Darksiders-Dev-Wii-U-is-on-Par-With-Current-Gen
this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-05-nintendo-responds-to-wii-u-power-reports
and this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-03-wii-u-not-as-capable-as-ps3-xbox-360-report

all suggesting that the Wii U is on par so much with the 360 and PS3 or even slightly inferior. The one from Nintendo seems to be all but confirmation. They say numbers aren't important but if they had the numbers they wouldn't be risking all this negative PR

It's a bit worrying, my first thought was that it'd keep down the price, but the controller system is already making the price high. I guess Nintendo are committing to the idea that power convinces developers to spend too much time and resources on games

All but confirmation?

The response from Nintendo neither confirms or denies ANY claim about Wii U's capabilities.

And the third link saying that Wii U is less capable than the currently available HD systems is sourced from two or three anonymous sources which go against what many other named, on the record source have said about Wii U's capabilities.

http://aussie-gamer.com/rumor-2/debunking-the-under-powered-nintendo-wii-u-rumour-is-surprisingly-easy/

Well I don't care enough to get in an argument about this :D but my feeling is if Nintendo said 'we don't comment on these issues' fair enough it could go either way. However they actually did respond and it was a 'we're not going to say anything, but it doesn't matter if we lose anyway because we're not really playing' which is more suspicious

The article you linked to is interesting. Some of it's arguments are pretty weak, we've had leaks with all the previous generations and it was pretty rare for someone to give out exact specs. I reckon it would be pretty normal in most peoples minds that a general overview is fair enough but details is getting close to being pretty darn unethical.

And the article claims that the Darksiders devs said the Wii U is powerful when we also have quotes from the Darksiders devs saying 'on par'

"We got the game running on their hardware pretty quickly," game director Marvin Donald explained to Gamereactor. "Visually, for the most part, it'll be pretty much the same. So far the hardware's been on par with what we have with current generations."

So that article itself is itself sourcing pretty poorly. The stuff about the shader model is much more optimistic though and pretty cool. Good evidence to support the Wii U. On the other hand a 2008 graphics card probably won't exactly outstrip the current gen. Especially because I think the 360 and PS3 paid for some custom tech rather than using something freely available? Considering that gap in technology between say Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 it's not unreasonable to assume they might be struggling to initially beat the current systems. Although considering the card has been used commercially for 4 years they should really be able to adapt quicker (Although I guess it's more about how the system as a whole works than the components)

But the article does make those two sources sound iffy. Not so much on the 'mysterious interview' because that's silly, it's far more likely just to be an email or casual conversation and it wouldn't be surprising if they asked Game Industry not to expose them for breaking whatever NDA's they've signed. But the stuff about more shaders does sound pretty unlegit and it doesn't sound like an incredibly reliable source (although they did say the magazine was normally pretty good at these things?)

Tell you what, when it coems out and we actually know the answer, whoever turned out to be right can message the other an I told you so :D

EDIT: Sorry I didn't mean to sound so patronising on my part. You have exactly the same right to challenge me as I challenged the person I was replying to, the weariness on my part wasn't/souldn't have been 'gosh why are you playing around with all this speculation' and more a 'okay you've made reasonable points and _I_ have reached my limit in being able to debate them'

BrotherRool:

CrystalShadow:

SuperTrainStationH:
"Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it."

That's not what was said in the interview at all.

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

Additionally, hasn't Crytek already confirmed Wii U support anyway?

The way the story was written here seems to make a hell of a lot of assumptions that aren't featured in the actual interview, some of which to the best of my knowledge are objectively incorrect, or are based on conjecture that's not congruent with what most named, sourced developers who have spoken out about Wii U have said about its capabilities.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

It's not obvious that the Wii U will be more powerful though (well it would seem obvious, but this is Nintendo and they don't always do obvious :D ), people have been talking about on par so far and remember it's hard to squeeze full power out of a console for the first couple of years of development.

It's hard to find anything solid but we have this one
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116517-Darksiders-Dev-Wii-U-is-on-Par-With-Current-Gen
this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-05-nintendo-responds-to-wii-u-power-reports
and this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-03-wii-u-not-as-capable-as-ps3-xbox-360-report

all suggesting that the Wii U is on par so much with the 360 and PS3 or even slightly inferior. The one from Nintendo seems to be all but confirmation. They say numbers aren't important but if they had the numbers they wouldn't be risking all this negative PR

It's a bit worrying, my first thought was that it'd keep down the price, but the controller system is already making the price high. I guess Nintendo are committing to the idea that power convinces developers to spend too much time and resources on games

Hmm. That is odd.

I have a fair grasp of estimated hardware power of consoles owing to their relation to PC hardware. (Architectural overheads on PC and optimisation issues mean a console with a given spec is more powerful than an equivalent PC, especially towards the end of a console cycle).

For this to be true though, it'd have to be really low-end components.

(Some articles implied it's about 3 times the power of an Xbox 360... But who knows? Especially when comparing a new console to one where games have been heavily optimised.)

I feel reasonably confident in the rumours that it's based around Ati 4000 series components.

To put that in perspective, the PS3 uses a close relation of an Nvidia 7800, while the 360 uses something closely related to the ATI 2000 series, but slightly less advanced.

The Xbox Xenos graphics chip has just 48 shaders, and the weakest 4000 series gpu in the entire range already has 40.

figures like that alone don't really tell you the whole story.
Benchmarks give a better picture.

3dmark06 scores imply a midrange part from this range should be around 20% faster than the PS3 gpu.
So... Any implication that is slower would suggest the use of very cheap low-end parts.

I guess it's possible, but... It's a little disturbing.

(Especially since the use of a controller with a display would in some cases imply needing to process a combined resolution somewhat higher than HD resolutions alone.)

Who knows. Though Nintendo's usual cryptic comments on the matter aren't encouraging either.

CrystalShadow:

BrotherRool:

CrystalShadow:

Yeah, I have to agree with this. What is up with these kind of articles?
Sure, Wii U specs are rumours right now, and overall it might seem below expectations, but it seems fairly obvious that it will at least be more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

How then, is it plausible to find an article claiming:

1. The Wii U is not powerful enough to run Crysis 3
2. Crysis 3 will be released on Xbox 360 and PS3

One of these two statements is almost certainly false.

It's not obvious that the Wii U will be more powerful though (well it would seem obvious, but this is Nintendo and they don't always do obvious :D ), people have been talking about on par so far and remember it's hard to squeeze full power out of a console for the first couple of years of development.

It's hard to find anything solid but we have this one
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116517-Darksiders-Dev-Wii-U-is-on-Par-With-Current-Gen
this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-05-nintendo-responds-to-wii-u-power-reports
and this one
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-03-wii-u-not-as-capable-as-ps3-xbox-360-report

all suggesting that the Wii U is on par so much with the 360 and PS3 or even slightly inferior. The one from Nintendo seems to be all but confirmation. They say numbers aren't important but if they had the numbers they wouldn't be risking all this negative PR

It's a bit worrying, my first thought was that it'd keep down the price, but the controller system is already making the price high. I guess Nintendo are committing to the idea that power convinces developers to spend too much time and resources on games

Hmm. That is odd.

I have a fair grasp of estimated hardware power of consoles owing to their relation to PC hardware. (Architectural overheads on PC and optimisation issues mean a console with a given spec is more powerful than an equivalent PC, especially towards the end of a console cycle).

For this to be true though, it'd have to be really low-end components.

(Some articles implied it's about 3 times the power of an Xbox 360... But who knows? Especially when comparing a new console to one where games have been heavily optimised.)

I feel reasonably confident in the rumours that it's based around Ati 4000 series components.

To put that in perspective, the PS3 uses a close relation of an Nvidia 7800, while the 360 uses something closely related to the ATI 2000 series, but slightly less advanced.

The Xbox Xenos graphics chip has just 48 shaders, and the weakest 4000 series gpu in the entire range already has 40.

figures like that alone don't really tell you the whole story.
Benchmarks give a better picture.

3dmark06 scores imply a midrange part from this range should be around 20% faster than the PS3 gpu.
So... Any implication that is slower would suggest the use of very cheap low-end parts.

I guess it's possible, but... It's a little disturbing.

(Especially since the use of a controller with a display would in some cases imply needing to process a combined resolution somewhat higher than HD resolutions alone.)

Who knows. Though Nintendo's usual cryptic comments on the matter aren't encouraging either.

I'll bend to you on this one. I think it's pretty clear you're more informed than me about it :D although from the human perspective I still think Nintendo would either just say 'no comment' or 'No they're wonderful and will fly you to the moon*' if that was the case.

Maybe people mean the controller is going to eat up some of the extra power? The guy who also responded to me pointed out the complaints about pixel shaders wasn't necessarily a legitimate source so it mightn't be true.

If the on-par stuff is true it's going to do some interesting things to the industry. PCs are pulling well away at this point and it doesn't feel like the PS3 and 360 can go on for that much longer so what's going to happen? Will it be another Wii/PS360 situation or will the Wii U actually lengthen the life of the other two?

Greg Tito:
Crysis 3 on the Wii U? "Fat Chance"

Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it.

Let's be clear here. YOU are saying, YOU don't think it can handle it. I see nowhere in the comment quoted or the video linked this being given as a reason.

From the comments, it would be just as valid to opinion that it won't be launched on the Wii-U due to them not being able to develop this on a console that has not launched yet / had hardware finalised. Or it has a development language they do not have time to learn before the launch date they are trying to hit.

Just to be clear about what is being reported and what is writer opinion in the story.

It's pretty much guarenteed the Wii U will be on par if not more powerful than current gen consoles.

So power is not why Crysis 3 won't be happening on Wii U. If anything it's a business decision based on a projected install base that assumes the Wii U won't outnumber the PS3/360 in homes and that development wont be profitable on the format.

Money is always the answer. Especially if EA is involved. Or Activendiizzard or Ubisoft or Capcom, etc.

gigastar:

therandombear:
Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

Nothings confirmed until Nintendo actually rolls out the info at E3.

Everything until then is best dismissed as optimistic rumors. Or degradatory rumors, whichever you deem fit to label them.

Ye, hence the quotation marks. You never know with rumors, would be all so much easier if Nintendo just said what the specs were, instead of hogging it until E3, but then that again isn't a wise business move either.

Never easy.

Greg Tito:

Sorry, Nintendo fans. Chalk up one more third party developer that's not planning on supporting the new platform.

Hate to post twice in a thread without saying anything drastically new, but this right here is outright false. Crytek have said on several occasions that they plan to support the WiiU, that they've been given the development kits, and that they're happy with what they've seen of the WiiU's power. Meaning that while the rest of the article is taking things out of context and putting words in mouths, this last statement is outright wrong.

Sorry, but considering the number of news articles this site has posted lambasting other media companies such as Fox for the misleading way they cover gaming news, it's not exactly unreasonable to expect you guys to be above such miserable journalism yourselves. Putting your own spin on an article is one thing, but putting in outright falsehoods is another.

Wow. This article is....wow. It misrepresents sources, makes claims that contradict things that have already been said, and just plain puts words in Hoejengaard's mouth.

jeez, nobody's laughing at nintendo's attempt to recapture the gaming cultural spotlight more than me, but seriously. people gotta stop calling it before they even know what they're dealing with.
then again... okay - nintendo have said it will be slightly more powerful than the 360, which will just put nintendo right back where they started when the xbox720 and the ps4 come out.

Isn't it weird how "not a fat chance" and "fat chance" mean the exact same thing?

SuperTrainStationH:

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

The keyword being preliminary, not current devkits.

itchcrotch:
jeez, nobody's laughing at nintendo's attempt to recapture the gaming cultural spotlight more than me, but seriously. people gotta stop calling it before they even know what they're dealing with.
then again... okay - nintendo have said it will be slightly more powerful than the 360, which will just put nintendo right back where they started when the xbox720 and the ps4 come out.

What, ahead in sales by around 30 million units, and being issued a license to print money?

Incidentally, every console generation for the last 15 years has been 'won' by the weakest system. The PS1 trounced the N64, despite being technically inferior. The PS2 stomped all over the Xbox and Gamecube, despite being lightyears behind Microsoft's console (the Xbox was pretty much a gaming PC with a controller when it first came out). The Wii outsold the 360 and the PS3 to an embarrassing degree. The DS couldn't have done anything else to win more decisively over the PSP. The 3DS is currently lording it over the Vita in terms of sales.

Just pointing out that if you're trying to imply something by comparing tec-spcs, raw power has counted for very little when it comes to which console wins each generation war. You'd have to go all the way back to the SNES to find a more powerful console outselling its main rival and 'winning the war'.

therandombear:
Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

So, technically it has more then enough "juice" to run it, but I guess it's cheaper to not make a Wii U version.

The spec rumours are all over the place; one week it's more powerful than a 360, next week it's 'on par' with the 360 and the week after it's not as powerful.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
The hell? What kind of news article is this?

Crytek have already said that the Wii U is capable of running Cryengine 3. Their own directors have said they're impressed with the dev kits they've been given and the processing power of the Wii U. Every bit of information released about the Wii U's tech-specs point towards it being more powerful than either the 360 or the PS3, by margins dependent on which sources you read.

Now, considering that the 360 and PS3 are both capable to run Cryengine 3, that the Wii U is all but confirmed as being more powerful than either, and that Crytek have said themselves they've got Cryengine 3 running on the console, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Wii U can in fact run Cryengine 3?

Most importantly of all, nowhere in the interview was it stated that Crysis 3 wasn't coming to the Wii U because of technical restrictions. All they said was that it wasn't on the cards for the time being. Which was also said about the Mass Effect series coming to PS3, Dark Souls coming to PC, and a host of other games being ported to other systems outside their original release schedule.

Much as I normally respect you Greg, you are quite obviously putting words in the developers' mouths here, and trying to draw conclusions outside of what was intended to be said. Everything released about the Wii U so far, including the comments of Crytek themselves, point to the Wii U being able to handle their games if they choose to develop for them, and nothing about this interview claims otherwise, simply that it's not in their schedule. Sorry, but this article is from the Fox News school of reporting, and I expect much better from the Escapist.

Various other sides reported the game thing, that they confirmed that it wont be on the ps3.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/122/1223691p1.html

http://www.destructoid.com/-fat-chance-of-crysis-3-coming-to-the-wii-u-226413.phtml

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/24/we-39-re-probably-not-getting-crysis-3-on-wii-u.aspx

This isn't the escapist having anything against the Wii U.

gigastar:
I would think this has more to do with Nintendo forcing Crytek to utilise the WiiU controllers unique features.

And then forcing them to tone down all those bodily fluids that come gushing out of knife wounds.

And then the prospect of having to deal with Nintendo's infamous online support schemes.

And then developing a game like Crysis 3 on a new console for a release in line with its competitors.

Processor power hardly needs to come into it.

therandombear:
Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

Nothings confirmed until Nintendo actually rolls out the info at E3.

Everything until then is best dismissed as optimistic rumors. Or degradatory rumors, whichever you deem fit to label them.

Actually.. The 'being stronger than the Xbox 360 and PS3' part isn't a rumor.... Nintendo has said themselves that it will be stronger...

And before you say anything, no Nintendo cannot say "Oh yeah we were only joking about it being stronger than the Xbox and PS3"

Foolproof:
Isn't it weird how "not a fat chance" and "fat chance" mean the exact same thing?

SuperTrainStationH:

That non-quote makes it out like Crytek dislikes or has low expectations of Wii U in general, which flies in the face of earlier quotes from Crytek which I believe went as far as to say that the preliminary Wii U devkits they were working with had "very good specs" and that they were "very happy with it" or something to that general effect.

The keyword being preliminary, not current devkits.

So you think Nintendo downgraded the devkits to the point where a company that said (paraphrase) "its very powerful, the specs are very good" would then go to completely reversing their position on the entire platform?

And Angry Juju, no, Nintendo themselves never said that Wii U is more powerful than the 360 or PS3, though nearly every on the record developer before three weeks ago or so had.

Korten12:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

SNIP

Various other sides reported the game thing, that they confirmed that it wont be on the ps3.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/122/1223691p1.html

http://www.destructoid.com/-fat-chance-of-crysis-3-coming-to-the-wii-u-226413.phtml

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/24/we-39-re-probably-not-getting-crysis-3-on-wii-u.aspx

This isn't the escapist having anything against the Wii U.

Ahem...

Greg Tito:

Crytek doesn't think Nintendo's new console can handle it.

...

The newly announced Crysis 3 will likely possess graphics as crisp as its predecessors, and that means it will need at least the beefy graphics processing of a decent PC rig and the HD consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PS3. There won't likely be a port to the Wii, and even Nintendo's upcoming new console the Wii U won't have enough juice to get the nanosuit working with any fluidity, at least according to Rasmus Hoejengaard, Crytek's Director of Creative Development.

...

"I don't think it's going to be possible" for Crysis 3 to use the Wii U's hardware. "The launch platforms are the PC, Xbox 360 and the PS3. I don't think it's in the cards to do a Wii U version of it," he continued.

Sorry, Nintendo fans. Chalk up one more third party developer that's not planning on supporting the new platform.

My issue isn't with Crytek not bringing Crysis to the Wii U. My issue is with Greg completely misreporting the issue and trying to draw conclusions where there are none to be drawn.

Look at the statement made by the Crytek dev. Where in that statement, or anywhere in the interview, does it state that they're not bringing it to WiiU for technical reasons? Clue: it doesn't. Yet the way that this article has been worded doesn't even imply, it outright states that the reason this decision was made was because the WiiU is underpowered, despite no such statement being made, and no such proof existing regarding the Wii's power.

My issue is not with the story about itself. My issue is with Greg Tito, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, trying to paint this in an anti-Nintendo, anti-WiiU light.

Nintendo has already said that the WiiU will have better third-party support than the Wii, a claim already backed up by the statements from EA, Epic, Crytek, Ubisoft, Tecmo and THQ that they will release AAA games on the system, with Valve hinting that they may support it too. So the claim that 'another developer not supporting the platform' seems pretty misinformed, not even factoring in that Crytek have already said they plan to support it.

And the WiiU's specs have yet to be revealed, but everything hinted at so far paint it as being several generations ahead of the 360 and PS3, and even at the barest minimum being equal to them, meaning the claims of lack of power come across as complete nonsense.

Leaving aside the fact that Crytek won't be releasing Crysis 3 for the WiiU in the near future, can you point me to anything in this article that isn't misleading rubbish, if not outright falsehoods? Because that is where my issue lies.

"It was such a resource hog that just getting 20 fps took a hugely expensive gaming PC."

Well, no. It required a decent PC to run it on decent settings. 'Ultra' was pretty much future-proofing at the time. (It's like moaning that The Witcher 2 is difficult to run right now when you've got ubersampling turned on.)

And I agree with everyone else: you seem to be drawing conclusions from nothing much.

Angry Juju:

gigastar:
I would think this has more to do with Nintendo forcing Crytek to utilise the WiiU controllers unique features.

And then forcing them to tone down all those bodily fluids that come gushing out of knife wounds.

And then the prospect of having to deal with Nintendo's infamous online support schemes.

And then developing a game like Crysis 3 on a new console for a release in line with its competitors.

Processor power hardly needs to come into it.

therandombear:
Hasn't it been "confirmed" that the Wii U will be several times more powerful then the 360 or PS3?

Nothings confirmed until Nintendo actually rolls out the info at E3.

Everything until then is best dismissed as optimistic rumors. Or degradatory rumors, whichever you deem fit to label them.

Actually.. The 'being stronger than the Xbox 360 and PS3' part isn't a rumor.... Nintendo has said themselves that it will be stronger...

And before you say anything, no Nintendo cannot say "Oh yeah we were only joking about it being stronger than the Xbox and PS3"

I dont believe in what Nintendo community reps say, i believe in what the model numbers say.

gigastar:

Angry Juju:

gigastar:
I would think this has more to do with Nintendo forcing Crytek to utilise the WiiU controllers unique features.

And then forcing them to tone down all those bodily fluids that come gushing out of knife wounds.

And then the prospect of having to deal with Nintendo's infamous online support schemes.

And then developing a game like Crysis 3 on a new console for a release in line with its competitors.

Processor power hardly needs to come into it.

Nothings confirmed until Nintendo actually rolls out the info at E3.

Everything until then is best dismissed as optimistic rumors. Or degradatory rumors, whichever you deem fit to label them.

Actually.. The 'being stronger than the Xbox 360 and PS3' part isn't a rumor.... Nintendo has said themselves that it will be stronger...

And before you say anything, no Nintendo cannot say "Oh yeah we were only joking about it being stronger than the Xbox and PS3"

I dont believe in what Nintendo community reps say, i believe in what the model numbers say.

There's no need to be skeptical of Nintendo community on this one.

Chiefly because they never made that claim to begin with.

CrystalShadow:

Hmm. That is odd.

I have a fair grasp of estimated hardware power of consoles owing to their relation to PC hardware. (Architectural overheads on PC and optimisation issues mean a console with a given spec is more powerful than an equivalent PC, especially towards the end of a console cycle).

For this to be true though, it'd have to be really low-end components.

(Some articles implied it's about 3 times the power of an Xbox 360... But who knows? Especially when comparing a new console to one where games have been heavily optimised.)

I feel reasonably confident in the rumours that it's based around Ati 4000 series components.

To put that in perspective, the PS3 uses a close relation of an Nvidia 7800, while the 360 uses something closely related to the ATI 2000 series, but slightly less advanced.

The Xbox Xenos graphics chip has just 48 shaders, and the weakest 4000 series gpu in the entire range already has 40.

figures like that alone don't really tell you the whole story.
Benchmarks give a better picture.

3dmark06 scores imply a midrange part from this range should be around 20% faster than the PS3 gpu.
So... Any implication that is slower would suggest the use of very cheap low-end parts.

I guess it's possible, but... It's a little disturbing.

(Especially since the use of a controller with a display would in some cases imply needing to process a combined resolution somewhat higher than HD resolutions alone.)

Who knows. Though Nintendo's usual cryptic comments on the matter aren't encouraging either.

Actually, the 360's GPU is more capable than that of the PS3's (By a small margin). The PS3's GPU definitely is based off of the GeForce 7800 series. It's been boosted slightly, though. The 360's GPU is based off of a VERY heavily modified 2000 series ATi Card. It implements a Unified Shader Architecture (something that was only introduced in the 8000 series nVidia GPUs and 3000~4000 series for ATi respectively). To compensate for this discrepancy, many games offload some of the GPU workload on the PS3 to the Cell processor.

You're also mentioning 3DMark, which means absolutely nothing when it comes to console GPUs. PC games have to run through several layers of interpreters when being run in real-time. Consoles games have something much closer to direct hardware access. Basically that means that console games are inherently more efficient on the platform they are programed for.

However all this information is useless when looking at the WiiU. Speculation has gone from the WiiU using a 4000 based ATi card to a 6000 based AMD card. One thing I do know is that many of the Alpha hardware samples given out to developers are running at lower clock speeds than the final product will have.

The spec I'm most interested in is how much VRAM the WiiU will have. In many of the alpha hardware samples, even the VRAM and DRAM are far from final. Assuming the WiiU has at least 3 cores running on two threads each (similar to the 360's) and has a GPU that is on par or better than the PS3 or 360s, then it's reasonable to assume that the console would easily handle CryEngine 3. Some questionable sources stated that the WiiU would have a total of 1gb RAM split 50/50 between GPU and CPU, which means that it can handle a lot more texture data... which is a good thing for the console.

In the end we can only speculate. I believe we'll find out at E3.

Regardless of the Wii U's specs, I don't think the controller would be very comfortable for a game like this.

image

I could be wrong but it looks so... uncomfortable.

image

Granted, it's Nintendo. I'm sure they don't mind selling us more peripherals and classic controllers in order to make up for any failings the default controller might have.

-Dragmire-:
Regardless of the Wii U's specs, I don't think the controller would be very comfortable for a game like this.

image

I could be wrong but it looks so... uncomfortable.

image

Granted, it's Nintendo. I'm sure they don't mind selling us more peripherals and classic controllers in order to make up for any failings the default controller might have.

Nearly EVERYONE who has actually used the controller says its very comfortable.

I personally have only read one negative hands on impression of it since E3 2011.

I was going to spew hatred on this page for paraphrasing the source material so horribly wrong.. but I see just about everyone has beat me to it.

Even if Crytek isn't supporting the Wii, all the publishers they go through are, meaning EA, Ubisoft, etc.

I see the system power speculation has made it's way into the thread. Gotta love the stock people put into rumors.

SuperTrainStationH:

-Dragmire-:

Nearly EVERYONE who has actually used the controller says its very comfortable.

I personally have only read one negative hands on impression of it since E3 2011.

I've done no research on it what so ever, so my opinion is only based on the visuals. It just looks too bulky for a fast paced game like an FPS... hmmm, that still not a very good explanation, it probably just my lack of familiarity with it that makes it look unappealing to me. I don't know...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here