tessellation is not a software feature, its a hardware feature, existed from 3xxx or 2xxx series amd cards (cant remember which nvidia series tessellation was a feature), they just used it very recently, its not because of direct x.. So basically Wii U is the first console that will use tessellation.

ok, yes... i was once again not being specific. while "tessellation" has been around for a very long time, it is MUCH more effective in the latest batch of high-end GPUs, which allow displacement mapping to work seemlessly with streamlined, instantly-scaleable tessellation processes when over a billion triangles are being rendered at any given second - the parallel units (and engine rasters) allowing for a much more dynamic programmable pipeline...

... and, while the tessellation itself is handled by hardware, it seems pretty misleading to me to say that APIs like Direct3D have NOTHING to do with its effective implementation (but that may not have been your point)...

Consoles don't rely on APIs - developers can suck out all the features and performance the hardware has, regardless of API features. But advanced machine code programming is very hard - only a few developers have the knowledge, skills and programming resources to fully ulitise the power - these are companies like ID Software, EPIC, Crytek ...etc ; Crytek doesn't have that much of a good skills for console games obviously in design/creativity - crysis 2 disaster.

So the capabilities of the console would appear more than actually when comparing raw hardware, to the equivalent performance on PC benchmarking since becase of all the driver, API , OS overhead 40% of the performance is lost.

Good point to bring up. Companies like High Voltage were able to squeeze a lot more out of the Wii's hardware because they were designing their engine from the ground up to be optimized for the Wii's exact hardware... knowing the precise CPU they were working with, they were able to tweak the code pretty specifically, even down to the level of writing some catered code in assembly language (I don't think anyone actually "writes" in machine language, do they?). They were able to imitate several of the effects that PCs produce with shaders, by using the baked-in hardware features that the Wii's GPU did have. Still, there are physical limitations imposed by "fixed" pipelines and built-in operations on the GPU... even The Conduit, while pretty "for the Wii", was nothing close to a comparable PS/360 title in terms of graphical performance.

Also, it is worth noting that, while it is technically possible to avoid using APIs at all in programming for a console like the Wii, the dev kits provided by Nintendo include APIs similar to OpenGL for graphics (which many low-end devs will use) and, as you said, very few developers producing cross-platform games are going to go through the immense effort of bypassing APIs (or even have the technical muscle to do so) when they code for the WiiU. It's just not efficient!

Here's hoping that we get some intrepid devs on the platform, who are able to squeeze every last ounce out of that GPU...

mostly to comfort others, that tessellation is not a microsoft protected thing... it is free for all, and wii U, will use that. As many people think that this feature appeared in direct x 10-11, so it belongs to MS.. Its not true.. (direct x made use of it..) Nintendo can update their api's and use it also.. simple as that.

ah... yes, good point. i guess people do seem to think that tessellation was invented with DX11, lol (as if breaking polygons into smaller pieces was anything new)... and I definitely agree that Nintendo developers will be able to make use of some of these advanced processes (after all, many devs admitted that they could have pushed the wii a lot farther if they wanted too, even with the gpu's "fixed" pipeline, by emulating shaders using the wii processor's existing tools). out of curiosity, do you personally think that the gpu Nintendo chooses will be a capable piece of hardware, able to support the kind of demanding processes that make cutting-edge graphics really "pop" these days?

Wasnt direct X for Microsoft only?

well, technically DirectX is just a set of APIs that allow software to communicate with hardware... but yes, it was developed specifically by Microsoft for Microsoft, and is proprietary. To my knowledge, Xbox/360 is the only console to actually use a version of DirectX. Sony and Nintendo have their own libraries, optimised specifically to suite their graphics cards (and OS). When people (well, me at least) talk about a console "supporting DirectX11", they are probably talking about the set of features supported by that version of Direct3D (the graphics API in the DirectX suite)... things like tesselation, multithread rendering, and some advanced blending modes.

Some of these features are really revolutionary, but they depend upon the GPU being able to receive certain kinds of programmable instructions...

I just hope that Nintendo's GPU is better than what we're being told!

The only console I ever pre-ordered was the N64, because it gave me Mario 64 and a real Pilotwings game on day one, with Shadows of the Empire right on their heels.  Those games BLEW MY MIND at the time, especially Mario.  I'm just not sure that they could impress me again in the same way, and if they could, it would *probably* take more than a Mario game.

If they give me a game that revolutionizes my play experience, I'll put money down tomorrow.  Until they do, I'll wait and see what the catalog looks like a few months after release.  I have not been genuinely impressed (in the way that Mario 64 impressed me) by a game since Gears of War, and that makes me sad... sad that it was Epic/Microsoft and not Nintendo that impressed me, and sad that Nintendo really hasn't stepped up to the plate in the intervening time.  

The idea of Wii and its motion controls excited me, but the experience itself didn't live up to its promise (though I have had some pretty enjoyable moments with Wii Sports and Red Steel 2)... what I really wanted, a GOOD, realistic baseball experience, never came.  The idea of the 3DS really excited me... but what do I play on it?  Can Nintendo really not come up with anything more revolutionary (in terms of actual gaming experience) than what they did 15 years ago?  I'm not looking for a "good" game... I'm looking for a game that fills me with wonder - a game that transports me.  I would say that I'm being unrealistic if Nintendo hadn't done it before...

Come on big N, impress me!

I think some third party devs are being a bit narrow-minded in saying the Wii U is not their kind of platform and, seemingly, planning on ignoring it, not because of what it can do, but because of Nintendo's reputation as a "family gaming" company. Silly.

Yeah, I agree with this... but are the devs really saying this?  The only devs I've heard turning up their nose at the WiiU are those in the pocket of one of the other brands (Sony or MS), and they turn up their noses at each others' systems too.

I think that the WiiU does direly need 3rd party exclusives (and good ones), but I don't think they should buy them.  They need to organically generate them.  People who don't think Nintendo can do this must have very bad memories... I don't know how anyone could forget what Rare did with GoldenEye, and I don't think it would take too much to get a studio like Mistwalker (of recent Last Story ire), Eurocom (new GoldenEye, Dead Space:Extraction), or Remedy (Alan Wake for Xbox360, who hasn't yet signed with MS for a sequel or followup and could probably be turned) to come to Nintendo with a genuinely fresh, deep experience that really turns some heads.

Also... what in the world is Silicon Knights doing these days (other than whining about Epic's tech support)?

Why not an mature version of Mii Hunt, set in a dystopian, SF, nightmare scenario, the "second-screen" player as the alien and the rest as the bug-hunters? I could even see this translating to a kind of deadly 'tag' where you hunt down and take the "second-screen" controller from the player using it, in order to access other game targets.

Hey, this is pretty much what Ubi demonstrated with a Killer Freaks mode, lol... "great minds think alike, eh"?

The options are definitely there, for sure... the question is, will the system get the games it deserves? I think it can...

If Nintendo wanted to make those types of games exclusive to the Wii U then they would hire a renowned studio and publish the games themselves.

I'm pretty much cool with this, too (as you pointed out with my examples) - and honestly kind of assumed that it was what the OP meant by 3rd party exclusives (i.e. games made by 3rd party studios, using those studios' own IPs, which are only available for one system).

I agree that it seems to be a raw deal for the publisher - missing out on millions of dollars of revenue by agreeing to exclusivity on one platform - but Epic Games insists that they couldn't be happier with the arrangement, as does Lionhead (of Fable fame).

I would hope that you would be right about the draw of the new controller in pulling core gamers from other systems (and I like this tack on the issue)... but I have grave concerns about the likelihood that publishers will put such innovative functionality into their WiiU ports unless the install base is ALREADY there and demanding such unique consideration with hands full of ready cash.

As Nintendo doesn't seem really likely to pull in any 3rd party exclusives, however... I am going to hope that you are right in your estimate of the controller's power to draw new people!

I mean GOOD exclusives:P

LOL... yeah, the Conduit was fun for a playthrough, but High Voltage is not the studio to turn to for a bit hit.

Nintendo lost a lot of third party support on the N64 when it kept cartridges instead of switching to discs.

*cough* FFVII *cough*... seriously, man, the wound's still sore...

Nintendo does not need third party exclusives. Their plethora of first party content is all that they need to ensure that their console stands out.

I respect your point, but I really gotta disagree with you on this one... the 1st party content appeals to a certain type of gamer (mostly, the kind that was perfectly happy with the Wii, as well), but not to the audience of gamers currently on other systems, or about ready to go to other systems - both those that have left the Wii because they felt it ignored them, and those that never took Nintendo seriously in the first place.

The real problem is this.  With the much lower install base of a newly launched system, and the recent memory of abysmally low sales for 3rd party games on the Wii, developers will, naturally, be hesitant to make anything truly original for the WiiU.  3rd parties need either big sales numbers or big Nintendo support to justify design risks.  If all that the WiiU gets from 3rd parties is bland ports of games available on other systems, the WiiU may be looking at a repeat of the Wii situation, where 3rd party support evaporates and Nintendo is left with the only content on the system.  Cross-platform games are okay... but they don't help the system itself succeed if there's no wide install base to buy them.

This is what Nintendo needs the 3rd party exclusives for.  3rd party exclusives draw wider ranges of new people to a system - get them in the door - and that allows all cross-platform games to sell well.  If you can make a Sony fanboy break down and buy a WiiU for those two or three cool exclusives (like I bought an Xbox for Mass Effect and Gears of War), then you've got them for the cross-platforms, too.  If you don't have them, then the cross-platforms don't sell at all.

The people who are all OMG'ing for a new Animal Crossing are NOT the same ones obsessing over the latest COD zombie mode DLC.  The difference makes a big difference in a systems financial viability...

And there's really no good way to make a platformer more mature...

I think this ^ is obvious, and I totally get your point. I know that "hardcore" is a term that tends to provoke flames, but there is SOMETHING to the pervasiveness of the view that Nintendo is not hard core - meaning, at least to some extent, that the perception is that Nintendo is not listening to those that consider themselves to be dedicated, intense gamers.

Certainly, you can play (almost) any game obsessively... I think the real question is, what does the demographic that buys the most games and logs the most hours WANT to play, and is Nintendo making that kind of game?

Every time I pick up a Nintendo title, I LOVE my experience. But sometimes I don't WANT to play those games... it's just a shift of aesthetic taste and thematic preference, really, but nonetheless, I am the kind of consumer that will drop $100 a month on games and online connectivity. I want a company to make games that I want to play... not just games that they want to make.

Well wow! What the heck have they been doing now a days! Can't be much since I have never heard if them!!!!!

LOL... I thought you were joking in your first post. Rare used to be Nintendo's Golden Boys - the go to studio for everything awesome and cutting-edge on the big N. It's really Nintendo who dumped them, not the other way around, because the big N execs said they didn't see much promise in the studio's future. Might have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it sure seems like they were right.

Rare has mostly been pumping out so-so Xbox Live Arcade games for the past few years. Some of their best talent left early over artistic differences, and they haven't really found their way since... one of the saddest stories for core gamers ever.

So everyone pretty much agrees on this front (that the Conduit simply cannot fit the bill of flagship FPS franchise for a Nintendo system)... but I'm actually rather interested in the Individual "why's" (especially the ones people are reluctant to mention).  Some seem to think that Nintendo is incapable of courting a real "hardcore" FPS at all, while others simply object to the Conduit as an individual franchise.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp.  I think Nintendo has been home to some of the greatest FPS of all time (Goldeneye/Perfect Dark) in earlier console cycles, and I see no reason at all why they cannot do the same thing this next cycle.  The Conduit, while fun, is a copycat game on every level, from story to play mechanics and everything in between.  This does not mean, however, that Nintendo could not court a real quality, innovative studio - one that could produce the "next big thing" in FPS gaming.  Lots of people are afraid to use "hardcore" on these boards as a descriptor, because the reaction is often so severe (for one reason or another)... but really, people, we know what is meant by the term if we are being even slightly charitable.  Halo is a deep, innovative experience.  It is well crafted and well polished.  It does a lot of very interesting and very unique things with online multiplayer, and with open-world combat.  People that play competitively and spend lots of money on services and DLC are VERY into this game.  It's fun to play, in part and as much as it pains us to admit it, for the same reason that Facebook is fun to use... because it's "cool" enough that everyone uses it.  I think that Nintendo can, and that Nintendo SHOULD, play host to a game that does just this - captures the hardcore market with a fresh, innovative approach to the stale FPS formula, and provides the market with an experience that IT thinks is "cool".  I know this is distasteful to a lot of people... but entertainment companies really do have to pay attention to what consumers want in terms of theme, tone, and style.

That doesn't mean that Nintendo should sell out on the kind of game that they want to make (that would make for some really clunky and awkward gaming), but it sure as first-person-shooting does mean that they need to court a studio that does want to make this kind of game.

Hm... these thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Especially compelling seems to be the demographic argument (that people of the target age to appreciate an "N-Phone" probably won't want to/be able to pony up the cash to own/maintain one), as well as the worries about size/performance issues at the moment.

Ultimately, however, I suppose it always comes down to Nollog's point that Ninty's "business DNA" is wired toward making games (an end which the hardware serves, not visa versa), and that they would never really be GOOD at providing an iPhone-like experience... still, it will be a sad day for me when I have to download Mario as an app on my iPod.

Don't know about you, but I'd feel like a total a-hole just holding my 3DS up to my ears.

lol... this (the form factor) really is a big deal, i guess.  you'd have to use a bluetooth headset all the time, and then things start getting really cost/battery prohibitive for the average consumer, especially as the idea in the first place was maximum portability and minimum complexity.

i think i agree that mainstream gaming (there will always be an 'arcade' niche for console-like products) will move away from consoles eventually... and i'm genuinely impressed by some of the great horizons being explored by indie developers on mobile platforms (just tell me Sword & Sworcery:EP isn't an awesome game).  but this really hits on the big frustration of the current crossroads in technology.  the more portable you make something, the less physical real estate you have for essential things like viewable space, input devices, etc.  but the less portable you make something, the less likely people are going to be to spend the majority of their time with it in our current "always-on-the-go" mindset.  what to do, what to do...

So... Nintendo is pretty clear regarding how they feel about smartphones as gaming devices. Iwata says that phones, as non-dedicated gaming devices, can't offer the rich, deep experiences that are ultimately satisfying to their fans. Reggie has said that the company is not - and probably never will be - interested in making a phone.

But... and I'm not just parroting the silly doom-and-gloom-consoles-are-out analysts here... SHOULD they be?

The thing with phones is that - unlike a gaming device - you kind of have to have one (or at least it's becoming increasingly expected in our society that we will have one). We (speaking as the representative consumer, here) feel that it is essential for us to have a phone... and as long as we have to have one, we feel that it would be silly for us NOT to choose a phone that also has so many other things we want (like access to social networks, streaming video, email, web access, books, utilities for performing everyday tasks, and yes, GAMES). Once in the possession of such a device - one that seems to offer so many genuine opportunities for rich media - we feel that it is cumbersome and unnecessary (or at least annoying) to bother with DVD players, separate music players, laptop computers, or even to carry around a second device for gaming...

I get Iwata's argument... and I agree that smartphones, such as they are, will never replace the experience of gaming with sticks and buttons. But why not simply make a gaming phone with sticks and buttons, then (like Sony's phone, but much, much better)? The iPhone has some games of very broad scope and very deep value (few, I grant it, but they are there). It can be done, and done well... and iPhone sales are exponentially greater than iPod sales (which can do everything the iPhone does except for make calls), simply because it is also a phone.

So... why is Nintendo uninterested? And should they be?

Man, I have to register a pretty emphatic "no" to this thought, for a few reasons.

1st, while the game is fun... it's pretty much one of those games that, I hate to say, is "good for a Wii game"... Conduit 2 was not a significant improvement in terms of story, features, tone, or game engine either (and I think that's why it suffered from fairly universal "so-so" reviews). The scale of the game is hardly "epic", the premise is neither original nor particularly compelling, and the play dynamics are not really anything to write home about in terms of innovation or deep immersion.

2nd, and this perhaps helps to explain the first point, High Voltage has said in interviews with IGN (GameScoop) that they really had (and have) no interest in making a "killer app" for Nintendo - that they were not out to make the "Halo killer"... rather, with the Conduit, they were just trying to "have fun" and to push the limits of the Wii's hardware.

With this in mind, I think that the Conduit is hardly the franchise to be Nintendo's flagship FPS. High Voltage may, indeed, produce something great for the big N... but this doesn't seem to be their goal... and I don't think that what they make will be on par with Halo. The studio does good genre pieces... but nothing genre defining (and they seem to be okay with that).

I like The Grinder.

Hey,ya... I was gonna mention The Grinder, too. From the look of it, at least, I'm likin' that game a lot.

The Conduit will NOT bring anyone to a system. People are right when they say we only accepted it because we had no alternative on Wii. It is a pretty fun game when considered as a "Wii game", but it is a lackluster, boring game on pretty much every level when compared to sci-fi FPS on other systems.

... yeah, I think what made the original Starfox and SF64 so amazing was the presense of the big, interactive action set pieces and the frenetic action (things which have all become kind of staples of AAA game production in recent years).  I'm not sure that Nintendo could stick with the original formula and end up with the kind of mind-blowing experience that fans are begging for, if only because that kind of experience has become so common.

The cinematic feel of the first two games seems important - the sense that these big, gorgeous worlds are just coming at you, and making you react to events with speed and precision.  This doesn't require the game to be "on rails", I suppose (originally, my favorite level from SF64 was Katina), but it does require a certain kind of cinematic, action-oriented pacing.  The RPG/Adventure elements always felt like an awkward departure from this core, to me, and left me feeling that I was playing a different (albeit somewhat interesting) franchise.

It does have triggers.....

Er... no, they mean analog triggers with graded pull (for variable acceleration)... the ones on the current version of the controller are on/off buttons.

Isn't there some sort of rule against threads with only two real contributors?  Seems like back and forth posts are a rather inefficient way of having an argument of this nature...

As for the topic, it has been suggested in the past that the sensor strip could replace the separate sensor bar if you were, say, wanting to bring your WiiU over to your friend's house and play some games with only the wiimotes.  I admit that having fewer wires is appealing, but this seems like a pretty limited application. I suppose that it makes sense as a simple perk (being that, as others have said, it's just a matter of a couple of LEDs)... I guess we'll have to wait to see.

To be able to play games.

give that man a gameboy!

but seriously... the biggest reason by far that i care about the wiiu's hardware specs is, as others have mentioned, its relevancy to the next generation of consoles. i want this console to get continued 3rd party support well into its life cycle.

i like looking at pretty games, i dont think there's anything wrong with admiring complex aesthetic processes, and i feel that visual complexity often increases my enjoyment (even for so-called "cartoony" games)... but at the end of the day i don't really need the bleeding edge of technology to impress me... nor do i think that such is affordably achievable at a comfortable/reasonable console price point.

Dementis, man, you make consistently intelligent points on these forums... but at this point you're pretty much just picking on Koopa (and often, purposely it seems, mis-hearing his points).

It seems valid to say (as Koopa clarified to be his original point) that successive Activision iterations of Goldeneye would NOT be what the WiiU needs to move forward... Goldeneye itself would not make a good serial (as you point out), but even worse than a bad serial would be a bad serial produced by an Activision B-studio. Don't get me wrong, Eurocom did a great job with Dead Space: Extraction, for what it was. But honestly, this is not the studio to produce the next big thing in gaming. The thing I really agree with here is that Nintendo needs to look to a GREAT studio to make them a GREAT new IP... what they manifestly don't need is another CoD clone.

As far as the whole Sci-Fi FPS thing goes... I don't think that Koopa is really sold on the genre ideas he tossed out there at first. He was just providing an example of what he was looking for, and happened to have Halo in mind. There is nothing "mindless" or particularly "gory" about Halo (or have you, perhaps, not played it?). I found even Reach to be gripping, exciting, and just plain fun. Metroid Prime is amazing for what it is... but it is definitely not what Koopa is looking for (nor I).

Interestingly enough, as I'm sure you know, Prime was not what Retro studios developed their engine for in the first place. Metroid was tossed their way when Nintendo didn't particularly like the direction they were taking with the FPS that was in development at the time. This adds credence to your suggestion that Nintendo is not really interested in a typical FPS experience from their first parties... so ultimately, I agree with you when you say that if such a thing is to appear on the new system, it will have to come from a non-1st party source.

This being said, I have seen fruitful collaborations in this vein between Nintendo and a 3rd party studio, such as the Eternal Darkness project, in the past. So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Nintendo could work with a talented studio to make a real, quality FPS for its new system... and I, for one, hope that it happens.

I would really Prefer The Nintendo Fps to be made by Nintendo and not ActiVision and for it to be a Scifi themed Shooter like Halo instead of Modern like Cod because it would seemed more like Nintendo and it would make the stages alot more funner than lets say Cod and more creative .

Even though I can't get behind the grammar of your post ( ), I couldn't agree more with your sentiment! Nintendo needs to push a new IP, made by an in-house or 2nd party studio, and it needs to make something distinctive (i.e. not another CoD clone). I'm done with companies trying to cash in on my nostalgia by offering me "pretty good" reboots, or trying to cash in on my love of great franchises by offering me mildly entertaining clones.

Where all the mad creativity at?! (Ok... so grammar really isn't that important...)