Wii U Architecture • Hacker News Board

Re: Wii U Architecture

#131

Post by jonny_eh » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

croak3r wrote: post #33

DCKing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware. This is a bit of a meme, but it isn't generally true. The Nintendo 64 and GameCube were pretty cutting edge in their day. At the time the Nintendo Switch released, the Tegra X1 was still about as cutting edge as mobile GPUs came (in early 2016). What Nintendo is about - to a fault, some would argue - is cost cutting. Sometimes that means they use older stuff, but using…

The gamecube is 20 years old though and ever since then they've had the weakest hardware. I remember buying a Wii the month it released and being pretty disappointed at how bad the graphics looked.

The Switch's mobile chipset was basically as bleeding edge as you could buy at the time. But it was a mobile chipset, so couldn't compete with a PS4 or Xbox.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#132

Post by vanderZwan » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

ace2358 wrote: post #3

The Wii U was unfortunately not a very successful console, but I feel that it had plenty of power to make fantastic looking games and great experiences. It came out in a weird time for technology and Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware. As a homebrew device it is amazing. There are still exploits being found with a new, safe, simple method out now thanks to some crazy dedicated modders. There’s a whole homeb…

Can you point me to more information about the GameCube part? Speaking as an owner of an almost broken down GC with a large library, and a very functional Wii U with a smaller one.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#133

Post by pjmlp » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:33 PM UTC

One of the few game consoles that actually supports a subset of OpenGL, yet most WebGL 2.0 games are not up to Wii U ones.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#134

Post by vanderZwan » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:33 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #4

meibo wrote: post #2

The Wii U was such a fun console with so many great games, it's a shame that it was relatively inaccessible due to horribly bodged marketing and weird choices - luckily they're porting most(but not all) of the gems. I actually think that the gamepad screen did contribute a lot to a lot of games, especially if there was a lot of action and you were able to use it as a map/for quick actions. It's good that they basical…

Which games really used the secondary screen in an interesting way? The main ones I can think of are: Splatoon— second player without split screen. New SMB U— gamepad player can spawn blocks to help you reach secrets. Wind Waker— map and inventory. But an awful lot of titles just mirrored the TV or had a button to enable off-TV play.

I used it a lot for planning and multitasking in Pikmin 3, it felt like a really organic addition to the gameplay there.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#135

Post by jonny_eh » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:36 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #6

ace2358 wrote: post #3

The Wii U was unfortunately not a very successful console, but I feel that it had plenty of power to make fantastic looking games and great experiences. It came out in a weird time for technology and Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware. As a homebrew device it is amazing. There are still exploits being found with a new, safe, simple method out now thanks to some crazy dedicated modders. There’s a whole homeb…

The problem was that albatross of a gamepad. Not only did it have garbage battery life, but its presence led Nintendo to actively make games worse just to force mechanics onto the gamepad. Anyone else remember how godawful Star Fox Zero was, for absolutely no good reason?

I always found it pretty funny that the system's best game, Zelda: BoTW, features a tablet carried by the protagonist prominently in the game, but the game makes ZERO usage of the gamepad. This was likely a last minute change due to the decision to also make it a launch game for the Switch, and they didn't want people to say "the Wii U is better because you can manage your items on the game pad more easily".

Re: Wii U Architecture

#136

Post by amyjess » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #115

amyjess wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you like JRPGs, in which case the Switch is a first-class console. Except for a few AAA-scale action RPGs that launch on PS4/5 (e.g. FF7R, upcoming FF16), the vast majority of JRPGs being released today come to Switch first. And when Switch exclusivity expires, many of them only get a PC release beyond that with PS4/5 and XB1/XSX releases simply never happening. For a good chunk of JRPG players, the question i…

The DS was also to JRPGs what the Switch is to them now! Contact, Dragon Quest IX, TWEWY, Strange Journey, Rune Factory - median and top 10 beats both the PSP and PS3.

There were some good JRPGs for the DS, but it was nowhere near as dominant as the Switch is now..

The PSP was a pretty strong contender, since it had the 2.5D Trails games, FF7 Crisis Core, and some of the best remakes of FF4, FFT, and Tactics Ogre.

And PS3 got a lot of then-exclusives in mid-budget franchises that would be Switch games if they launched now, such as multiple Atelier trilogies and the first half of Trails of Cold Steel (and in fact they've all been ported to Switch). By comparison, current Atelier games now launch simultaneously on Switch and PS4 with PC ports following soon after, and the much-delayed English localizations of Trails now get cross-platform releases (Switch/PC/PS4 simultaneously).

There was never a point during the DS's lifetime where you could say "except for a tiny handful of AAA-scale PS3 exclusives, every JRPG either got simultaneous DS/PS3 releases or was a DS exclusive", but it is the case that right now you can say "except for a tiny handful of AAA-scale PS4/5 exclusives, every JRPG either gets a simultaneous Switch/PS4 release or is a Switch exclusive". I'll also add that we're in a PC renaissance too; JRPGs on PC were virtually nonexistent during the PS3 and DS's heyday (unless you spoke enough Japanese to play unlocalized Falcom games), but now pretty much every JRPG that isn't a first-party Nintendo game gets a PC port, with even the timed Switch exclusives coming to PC after a few months to a year.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#137

Post by goosedragons » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:02 PM UTC

lostgame wrote: post #127

tiagod wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>full backwards compatibility with a prior console (Wii) Wasn't the Wii, at least initially, compatible with gamecube? Mine even has gamecube controller and memory card slots.

The Wii Mini - I believe only available up here in Canada; but actually fairly common up here - I think dropped GCN support. Otherwise, all Wii models had GCN game, controller; and memory card support. Fun fact: the Wii was a modified GameCube for a bit of its development cycle. Prototypes of the Wiimote with a GCN have been found.

There was a model before the Wii Mini that also dropped GameCube support. It looks similar to the original model but lacks the GameCube ports and the "Wii" logo is placed for horizontal orientation instead of vertical. It's sometimes called the "family edition".

The Wii Mini originally released in Canada but came to other regions later. Japan never got the GameCube-less models for some reason.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#138

Post by RajT88 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #96

DCKing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware. This is a bit of a meme, but it isn't generally true. The Nintendo 64 and GameCube were pretty cutting edge in their day. At the time the Nintendo Switch released, the Tegra X1 was still about as cutting edge as mobile GPUs came (in early 2016). What Nintendo is about - to a fault, some would argue - is cost cutting. Sometimes that means they use older stuff, but using…

Hang on there. I think the more accurate sentiment is "Nintendo hardware has lackluster graphics". Switch is as much a console as it is a mobile device. Compared to an XBox, a Switch is a few horses short of a full stable. Even the blockbuster Wii could only do 480p while contemporaries were doing HD. What Nintendo does well is make the tradeoff worth it. Both the Wii and Switch make up for their reduced graphics by…

The Wii gets a lot of hate for bad looking games. Deservedly so.

The example I like to give is the game GT Pro Series. It looked super rough even for the horsepower the Wii was packing.

However, the motion controls make that game among the most fun racing games I have ever played. It was great! I still play occasionally.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#139

Post by dm319 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

tiagod wrote: post #108

Bondi_Blue wrote: post #88

The Wii U had a rich feature set. Firsts for a Nintendo home console: - OTB web browser - OTB audio and video chat with friends, native support for 3rd party headsets - real-time direct messaging (via Miiverse) notifications and other friend notifications via the home button LED - Ability to view online status of friends - High definition graphics - 5+ player synchronous local multiplayer - built-in Nintendo TVii ser…

>full backwards compatibility with a prior console (Wii) Wasn't the Wii, at least initially, compatible with gamecube? Mine even has gamecube controller and memory card slots.

The article mentions that the Wii U had gamecube compatibility. I wonder how that was achieved? And I'm guessing it can't take the small optical disks of the gamecube.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#140

Post by ascagnel_ » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

philistine wrote: post #117

lynguist wrote: post #82

Another badly designed Nintendo console. Now hear me out: NES: Well designed. SNES: Well designed. N64: Hampered by the originally 12-24 MB cartridges as opposed to 650 MB CDs. GameCube: Well designed. A little hampered by the 1.4 GB mini DVDs as opposed to 7.8 GB DVDs. Wii: Underpowered, but a surprise smash hit capturing that era’s sensibilities (like the PS2). Wii U: Clunky and awkward, which however led to the Sw…

You’re missing the whole story here. Was the Game Boy well designed? It was a smash hit upon release, but everybody immediately complained about the screen quality. The thing sold and sold and sold because it was inexpensive and just plain fun, bad screen notwithstanding. By 1996 however, it was woefully old, and the Game Boy Pocket sales were soft when it came out. Pokémon saved Nintendo’s bacon and gave them leeway…

It was the pragmatic choice at the time: the screen was reflective and featured four colors (really, shades of grey), but that was enough to allow the system to run for several hours on four AA batteries. It's closest competition, the Game Gear, featured a backlit color LCD, but it ran through its six AA batteries in an hour or two at most. There were other also-ran handhelds in that era (Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket), but the Game Boy was by far the most dominant system of that era. Nintendo didn't face any substantial competition until 2004/2005 with the PlayStation Portable, and even Sony didn't do all that well with its two portable units (the PSP sold okay but game sales dropped off once the system was hacked, the Vita was a dismal failure in both hardware and game sales).