Battlefield 4 skipping Wii U to avoid spreading too thin
62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=redBadger;40061746]I don't think developers actually want to develop for Wii U.[/QUOTE]
Which is depressing.
[QUOTE=Makol;40061939]Which is depressing.[/QUOTE]
well it's Nintendo's job to make the product more appealing, not the developer's or consumers. Look at the Vita, that was selling like crap because Sony had trouble marketing it, the price was too high, etc. No one got butthurt when people pointed out it was Sony's fault for the Vita selling poorly, but people do get butthurt when you say it's Nintendo's fault for Wii U sales not being up to par. The reason is because the quote above has some truth to it: Nintendo fans are insufferable
It isn't entirely Nintendo's fault. some of the blame can go straight to lazy developers and EA's childlike mentality.
Maybe if Nintendo waited for something like Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate and use that as a launch title with their own games, including a more polished Zombi U, then maybe it would have been a bigger hit. Plus the devs who did lazy ports would have more time to maybe fix some of the issues that were present rather than ignoring them or patching them a month later. There's going to be a massive lack of EA games because they're acting like a 5 year old because Nintendo wouldn't let them turn the Wii U into an Origin box.
You can blame the launch line up all you want but look at what the 360 and PS3 launched with, most of them were crap (360) or non-existent (PS3).
And it's well known the 360/PS3 fanboys are way worse.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
The devs who claim the Wii U is too weak to play their games are complete liars. We know there was a fully functional Crysis 3 made for it that wasn't released just because of EA.
Criteron were able to add the high-res textures from the PC version to the Wii U version of Most Wanted with added lighting/particle effects the 360 and PS3 couldn't handle, plus they managed to it without sacrificing FPS.
Darksiders 2 had improved textures and a further draw distance on the Wii U but the devs sacrificed some of the foliage in the open world segments to do it. I'm assuming that was just an engine limitation.
The Black Op 2 version ran at a higher FPS than the 360 and PS3 versions but suffered from inconsistent drops, which is probably because of it being a bad port.
Assassin's Creed 3 had a better lighting, if I remember correctly, but suffered the same issue that Black Ops 2 did.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
Make the games and they will come.
that article is fake btw and i posted it hoping people would get a good laugh out of it. but apparently nobody can tell what satire is.
for the record i feel like it's a good thing right now that people aren't just putting these games as quickly as possible because despite the shortage of games, they do need to get used to the hardware. To just put the game with not knowing the hardware would be a bad thing as it leads to buggy versions of games like with what happened with the PS3 for a while. Although in this case it's not as bad since the Wii U isn't using something that's completely alien like Cell was. Game development is an odd thing that takes a long time to really "perfect" and this is going under the assumption that a lot of these games were in development before the Wii U hardware was finalized. Let's not forget that for a while with the 360 it also only had ports of games that were already on the other consoles and the PS3 obviously had very few exclusive for a while, most of them going to the 360 as well.
As an example of game development time let's look at all the games that the 3DS was announced with. The system was announced in 2010 with a ton of first-party games and those did not come out until last year. (With the exception of the two Mario games released in 2011, but Mario 3D land was not necessarily formally announced until much later than the other games. (It was discussed during fall of 2010 and announced at E3 2011))
Please keep in mind that Game Development is not a quick ordeal. The Wii U just came out a few months ago and it will take time to perfect development for it. It's much better to port games to it right now instead of releasing all the original titles with no polish and issues because with the ports you can figure out how to work around those issues.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;40060028]that's not the point, he was talking about the comment making it like the timeline of 2 years is what makes it "DLC"
just so everybody's up to par, look at this please
[t]http://visually.visually.netdna-cdn.com/BattlefieldvsCallofDuty_4eb7d7922619c_w599.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
What a fucking 1-sided, loaded image. Where's all the COD DLC ? Yet you put BF DLC ? :|
[QUOTE=redBadger;40061746]I don't think developers actually want to develop for Wii U.[/QUOTE]
Kinda makes sense. Isn't their hardware power going to be behind again?
Most multiplatform developers don't want to deal with that.
[QUOTE=Makol;40062320]It isn't entirely Nintendo's fault. some of the blame can go straight to lazy developers and EA's childlike mentality.
Maybe if Nintendo waited for something like Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate and use that as a launch title with their own games, including a more polished Zombi U, then maybe it would have been a bigger hit. Plus the devs who did lazy ports would have more time to maybe fix some of the issues that were present rather than ignoring them or patching them a month later. There's going to be a massive lack of EA games because they're acting like a 5 year old because Nintendo wouldn't let them turn the Wii U into an Origin box.
You can blame the launch line up all you want but look at what the 360 and PS3 launched with, most of them were crap (360) or non-existent (PS3).
And it's well known the 360/PS3 fanboys are way worse.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
The devs who claim the Wii U is too weak to play their games are complete liars. We know there was a fully functional Crysis 3 made for it that wasn't released just because of EA.
Criteron were able to add the high-res textures from the PC version to the Wii U version of Most Wanted with added lighting/particle effects the 360 and PS3 couldn't handle, plus they managed to it without sacrificing FPS.
Darksiders 2 had improved textures and a further draw distance on the Wii U but the devs sacrificed some of the foliage in the open world segments to do it. I'm assuming that was just an engine limitation.
The Black Op 2 version ran at a higher FPS than the 360 and PS3 versions but suffered from inconsistent drops, which is probably because of it being a bad port.
Assassin's Creed 3 had a better lighting, if I remember correctly, but suffered the same issue that Black Ops 2 did.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
Make the games and they will come.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that a company that's consistently a generation behind can hardly compete with the generation [I]before[/I] the one they want to compete with. Nintendo was top fucking dog hardware-wise with the Gamecube. What the fuck happened? They know having a shiny gimmick but shit hardware just won't work.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;40063424]The problem is that a company that's consistently a generation behind can hardly compete with the generation [I]before[/I] the one they want to compete with. Nintendo was top fucking dog hardware-wise with the Gamecube. What the fuck happened? They know having a shiny gimmick but shit hardware just won't work.[/QUOTE]
Generation behind, but still make better games. Funny.
[QUOTE=areolop;40058601]BF2 -> BF3 was a big jump.
BF3 -> BF4 looks like DLC.
Maybe we'll be surprised though[/QUOTE]
BC2 to BF3 was not a big jump though
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;40063424]The problem is that a company that's consistently a generation behind can hardly compete with the generation [I]before[/I] the one they want to compete with. Nintendo was top fucking dog hardware-wise with the Gamecube. What the fuck happened? They know having a shiny gimmick but shit hardware just won't work.[/QUOTE]
Focusing on top hardware did not necessarily work for Nintendo with the N64 and the Gamecube. With the Wii they decided to make development costs and the price tag relatively cheaper than what the 360 and PS3 were going for so they effectively used "two gamecube taped together." Which more or less worked out for them at the beginning since the Wii was everywhere for a while but Nintendo just sort of stopped developing games for it around 2008-9 in favor of developing the Wii U, which lead to a drought on the Wii.
Nobody is sure about what the Wii U can and can't do and it's simply too soon to really attempt to take anyone's word for it because when you ask anyone about it, it's either "it's better" or "it's worse."
When the die shots of the Wii U's hardware were posted on NeoGAF nobody could figure out just how strong it was because Nintendo always does weird things with their hardware where it looks like it's not good but it can actually pull things off very well.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;40063424]The problem is that a company that's consistently a generation behind can hardly compete with the generation [I]before[/I] the one they want to compete with. Nintendo was top fucking dog hardware-wise with the Gamecube. What the fuck happened? They know having a shiny gimmick but shit hardware just won't work.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious
Gamecube was way behind the PS2 and xbox and couldn't do anything those consoles could also do that made them actually populular (burn CD's, play music CD's, play DVDs, etc). They literally release the gamecube after the PS2 as a "hardcore gaming console"... that had a really weird controller, and couldn't do half the things that the PS2 did. It was primarily [I]why[/I] Nintendo went with the Wii in the first place, because it single handedly destroyed their confidence in the hardcore market. And guess what? The Wii exploded. Sure it wasn't hugely popular with the hardcore market, and it pretty much was totally absent in the last couple of years of its life, but it still was a success.
The Wii U is trying to appeal to both casual/hardcore but the problem is the casual market is fickle and it only worked with the Wii because it was the "hot toy" of the time, and the hardcore market isn't interested in the Wii U because of not only it's name, but also because it clearly lags behind compared to the competitiors future consoles.
[QUOTE=KorJax;40064030]Are you serious
Gamecube was way behind the PS2 and xbox and couldn't do anything those consoles could also do that made them actually populular (burn CD's, play music CD's, play DVDs, etc). They literally release the gamecube after the PS2 as a "hardcore gaming console"... that had a really weird controller, and couldn't do half the things that the PS2 did. It was primarily [I]why[/I] Nintendo went with the Wii in the first place, because it single handedly destroyed their confidence in the hardcore market. And guess what? The Wii exploded. Sure it wasn't hugely popular with the hardcore market, and it pretty much was totally absent in the last couple of years of its life, but it still was a success.
The Wii U is trying to appeal to both casual/hardcore but the problem is the casual market is fickle and it only worked with the Wii because it was the "hot toy" of the time, and the hardcore market isn't interested in the Wii U because of not only it's name, but also because it clearly lags behind compared to the competitiors future consoles.[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. The Gamecube was a lot stronger than the PS2. Devs simply didn't port to it or would port the PS2 versions to the Gamecube because it meant they would've had to do less work since the Gamecube could not support what the Xbox could. The PS2 could render up to 1080i but in terms of raw power the Gamecube beat out the PS2. Only thing the PS2 could do better was sound quality.
For a better comparison between the two, check out the RE4 port for PS2 and compare it to the one on GCN. Furthermore, Media functions does not make a system more powerful than the other in terms of raw power and the only reason the GCN could not do those functions was because it used Mini-DVDs.
Back in the day, Nintendo could do whatever they wanted with their hardware because multiplatform games hadn't exactly taken off. Basically, all the popular games were exclusive flagships to one thing or the other.
Now, with mega-popular franchises like GTA and The Elder Scrolls being on everything BUT Nintendo systems, they aren't on even ground anymore in terms of games themselves.
A lot of people have ONLY a PS3 or Xbox, but not many gamers have ONLY a Wii.
Because the seldom first party games (aka the only good ones) they push out just don't cut it for people who play video games as a primary hobby.
[QUOTE=darkzero226;40059404][URL]http://www.p4rgaming.com/?p=1406[/URL][/QUOTE]
a legitimate reason is this
porting your game costs money and development time
the amount of wii u owners is nothing compared to the amount of 360, ps3, and pc owners, so why should they even bother wasting money developing for an unfamiliar, new platform with a microscopic userbase?
[QUOTE=darkzero226;40064142]You're wrong. The Gamecube was a lot stronger than the PS2. Devs simply didn't port to it or would port the PS2 versions to the Gamecube because it meant they would've had to do less work since the Gamecube could not support what the Xbox could. The PS2 could render up to 1080i but in terms of raw power the Gamecube beat out the PS2. Only thing the PS2 could do better was sound quality.
For a better comparison between the two, check out the RE4 port for PS2 and compare it to the one on GCN. Furthermore, Media functions does not make a system more powerful than the other in terms of raw power and the only reason the GCN could not do those functions was because it used Mini-DVDs.[/QUOTE]
In addition to that the Gamecube controller was actually one of Nintendo's most successful controller designs, which is probably part of the reason why a number of Wii games supported them alongside the Wii remote and Classic controller. The asymmetrical layout has become a standard for nearly everyone but Sony and most of its more unique features are generally considered to have filled their intended role effectively.
[QUOTE=darkzero226;40059404][url]http://www.p4rgaming.com/?p=1406[/url][/QUOTE]
I just want to make sure; does everybody here realize that every article on this site is fake?
[QUOTE=Woovie;40063325]What a fucking 1-sided, loaded image. Where's all the COD DLC ? Yet you put BF DLC ? :|[/QUOTE]
Uhh
First of all, they didn't include any DLC, only expansion packs (and actually forgot BF2142 Northern Strike)
Second, the graph clearly shows CoD in a bad light, as new CoD games got pumped out every single year since it first released, while Battlefield games slowed down after BF2.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;40059445]Have you played both of those games? They play and look completely different. They don't even look like they're from the same franchise.[/QUOTE]
Daily reminder that 90% of BC2 assets (weapons, player models, vehicles, props) were directly ported from BC1. Animations and sounds as well. BC1 looks slightly different because BC2 was a refinement of the Frostbite engine and they went with a different visual/audio theme.
The game itself was a very thinly veiled double-dip of the PC market who didn't get to play BC1.
[QUOTE=kirderf;40063668]BC2 to BF3 was not a big jump though[/QUOTE]
It was noticeable but not to the extent people believe it was. BF3 still uses a lot of assets from BC2 but on the other hand refined the gameplay really well, especially in regards to infantry combat and vehicle physics.
[editline]28th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Vman;40068827]
Second, the graph clearly shows CoD in a bad light, as new CoD games got pumped out every single year since it first released, while Battlefield games slowed down after BF2.[/QUOTE]
Because two studios make CoD, it's not an entirely fair comparison to show the releases between both series and try to paint one or the other in a "bad light".
[QUOTE=The Vman;40068827]Uhh
First of all, they didn't include any DLC, only expansion packs (and actually forgot BF2142 Northern Strike)
Second, the graph clearly shows CoD in a bad light, as new CoD games got pumped out every single year since it first released, while Battlefield games slowed down after BF2.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying I shouldn't count expansion packs as DLC ? It's the same thing. More maps, more weapons, more cars, etc. Battlefield just had much better DLC than COD did. Just because it's not downloadable doesn't make it the same thing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40068870]Daily reminder that 90% of BC2 assets (weapons, player models, vehicles, props) were directly ported from BC1. Animations and sounds as well. BC1 looks slightly different because BC2 was a refinement of the Frostbite engine and they went with a different visual/audio theme.
The game itself was a very thinly veiled double-dip of the PC market who didn't get to play BC1.
It was noticeable but not to the extent people believe it was. BF3 still uses a lot of assets from BC2 but on the other hand refined the gameplay really well, especially in regards to infantry combat and vehicle physics.
[editline]28th March 2013[/editline]
Because two studios make CoD, it's not an entirely fair comparison to show the releases between both series and try to paint one or the other in a "bad light".[/QUOTE]
I'm aware they used a lot of the same gun models and some other art assets, but because of the updates to the engine, it still didn't play the same at all.
The game mechanics feeling completely different, along with the new visual style greatly separated the two. More so than any other two Battlefields that come to mind.
[url]http://mynintendonews.com/2013/03/28/dice-says-frostbite-engine-isnt-supported-on-wii-u/[/url]
I was right. They haven't tried to port the engine to the Wii U yet and doing so right now would take more time and development, and considering the sales of the Wii U right now, it would be a bit pointless to port it because they'll have spent a whole lot of time and money on porting something people might not even buy.
The comments on the article gave me cancer though.
this wouldn't be a problem if they cut the shitty single player
they have to compete with CoD somehow. :v:
[QUOTE=MisterM;40059402]I'd have to disagree. The single player was a huge step back, it lost a lot of the charm from 1. The multiplayer was an improvement, but that was about it. They did look quite a lot similar as well, so with that its fair to say BF5 (hate the thought of having to say that) should look insane. Just give me BF2143 (2144?) and I'll stop complaining.[/QUOTE]
I have absolutely no confidence that DICE could pull off a 2143 that would be amazing to all of us. Who knows though, if they do make an excellent sequel to the game then I'd be very happy.
black ops 2 has like 200 players in multiplayer vs the millions on the other consoles jeez i wonder why bf4 is skipping wiiu bet its because the people at ea are just childish and nintendo hatters!!!
[QUOTE=backfoggen;40103997]black ops 2 has like 200 players in multiplayer vs the millions on the other consoles jeez i wonder why bf4 is skipping wiiu bet its because the people at ea are just childish and nintendo hatters!!![/QUOTE]
this is the sad part. nintendo fans are way too passionate for their favorite thing where they sort of just try to refuse all sense of logic and reason to the point where they say and genuinely believe things like this.
I mean i know no fanboy of anything doesn't do things like this but nintendo fans are generally very bad when it comes to this kind of thing.
[QUOTE=imMonkeyGOD;40058926]If that's the case, then BC1 - > BC2 looked like DLC as well[/QUOTE]
how the fuck can anyone say this, let alone the slew of people defending BF4 lately
have you even seen bad company 1? it looks nothing remotely like bc2 and it plays radically different as well
[QUOTE=Pikachu231;40059610]
If EA wants to release another game that includes Nintendo consoles, Nintendo should tell them to fuck off.[/QUOTE]
Nintendo isn't capable of moving their own systems anymore, they need all the third-party help they can get. The Legend of Mario: Cut and Paste doesn't fly these days (but for some reason Cut and Paste: Shooter Edition does)
[QUOTE=cccritical;40110059]how the fuck can anyone say this, let alone the slew of people defending BF4 lately
have you even seen bad company 1? it looks nothing remotely like bc2 and it plays radically different as well[/QUOTE]
See my other quote.
[QUOTE]
Well what I was trying to say is, BC1 to BC2 took 2 years to make. Same timeframe as BF3 to Bf4 now. BC2 felt like a much more polished version with new things of BC1 which is completely fine.
It's just people especially Facepunch are so quick to judge what they saw in a single player campaign when we all know why we would get a Battlefield game, the multiplayer.
We have no idea if whatever DICE is gonna do for BF4's multiplayer is for the better or worse. It's too early to tell. [/QUOTE]
Nobody will know the true capabilities of the Wii U until someone balls up and ports a game or makes a new game on it.
And since nobody in the game industry is ballsy enough for this, Wii U sales won't gain for the longest time.
I'm still the proud owner of one though, so fuck all the haters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.