There has been some discussion about an alleged Shigeru Miyamoto interview by GameBrink. In it, Miyamoto apparently says about Wii:
The hardware is basically a GC. We’ve upgraded our development tools to new versions but, you can still use GC programs as they are.
The interview is over a month old. And, according to Joystiq, Miyamoto really said:
The machine is based on GC. We'll be upgrading the development tools, but GameCube code can be used for the most part as is.
Funny how a small syntactical error can make such a big difference semantically.
Sources: GameBrink, Joystiq
11 comments:
yeah, i was only familiar with the right translation. i remember reading it somewhere like that. iwata yould have killed myiamoto for a statement like "its just a cube with a new controller"...
"Why do you all think Nintendo hides Wii's specs?"
Its simple, the Wii isn't about specs. Just like the DS, and the DS kicked the PSP's butt. To the point that the PSP is now a dead system.
http://pspupdates.qj.net/Developers-say-that-the-PSP-has-failed-/pg/49/aid/67974
And this comes from a website dedicated to the PSP.
If you want specs, buy the Xbox 360. If you want to waste your money, buy the PS3.
But if you want to have a good time, at an affordable price buy the Wii.
If you want a system that doesn't over heat. A system that is quiet and cool. Buy a Wii. I wish I could say the same for the other consoles...
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3930&Itemid=2
^Sony shares drop after TGS PS3 overheating issues
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ridge-racer-7/tgs06-ridge-racer-7--too-hot-for-tgs-202609.php
^more over heating
Did I mention that Blu-Ray, the format NO ONE WANTS, maybe already be poised to fail?
http://www.igniq.com/2006/09/ps3s-blu-ray-destined-to-fail.html
Wii is the only real option.
---------------
Consumers don't really give a $h*t about graphics. If they did, the PSP would be number one. Instead of being the latest casualty in the handheld wars.
Seriously, if graphics mattered, the original Xbox would have trounced the PS2.
If graphics were the only deciding factor,the $600 Neo Geo would have won the 16 bit wars.
If you were really serious about getting the best graphics, you'd play all your games on the PC.
Wii represents quiet, cool, cheap gaming for everyone. Not the select few.
----------------------
Why do you honestly care about the specs, they are numbers that really mean nothing as the underlaying technoliges are different.
When did specs matter so much... oh this one has a higher number so it must be able to do more and better.
.. no. Remember Genesis and SNES. Genesis had a faster cpu then the SNES but yet the SNES could do much much more than Genesis.
Specs mean nothing, and I can understand why Nintendo is not concerned about releasing them. Giving out the specs to the consumer tells them zero about the actually product. The GCN was weaker on paper than a PS2 but easily outperformed it. The XBOX was vastly superior on paper but at times and on occasion couldn't do what the GCN could do.
The point is specs don't matter, developers make magic with the system, the system does nothing. You can get a crappy looking NES game on an console if the developer so choose to do so, would you then say OMG look the PS3 , WII and XBOX have worse graphics then SNES, cause a developer chose to make look that way? Its people see screenshots and then are like OMG the graphics suck the xxx system sucks cause the graphics suck, yet seem to fail that the system overall just does what the developers tell it too. If the system did the graphic design, play style and all the other bells and whistles all the games would look and feel the same. Cause the system magical makes them. I don't understand why you guys have such a issue in grasping the concept that it isn't the system, its the developers. If it was the system why dind't every game look like RE4 on the GCN. I mean seriously some of you need to think before you speak.
---------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Owned the thread" I greatly disagree. RevDev by the sounds of it, it is you that doesn't know what your talking about. What I mean by this is it doesn't matter if chunkyman as an indivisual doesn't understand what the specs are on paper, many people out there do, and these people will break down and express their thoughts on the specs, thus people who don't know what the specs written on paper mean, now know what they stand for. If Nintendo doesn't release the specs, then it will be very hard for anyone to judge just how worth it the system is. And yes, it is sleasy for Nintendo not to release the specs, basically they are insulting the market, saying people don't know what they want, so we have to tell them. The facts are, specs are somthing that should be given to the consumer ALWAYS. You wouldn't buy a car if you didn't know the horsepower. How could you know if it was a fair price? Yes, even if you didn't know the horsepower some people would argue, if it runs, i'm fine with it. This is basically many peoples thoughts on the Wii specs, but that theory is a simple answer to a more complicated question. Why doesn't Nintendo release the specs? It's not Nintendo's place to decide whether or not people care about the specs of a system, it should still be somthing that is provided so the consumer can decide for themselves. All in all, I could care less if you, or anyone else, as an indivisual cares about specs. That's for you and you alone to decide, not Nintendo. I know that there is a great population of gamers that would feel a lot more confortable to know the specs and that is somthing that they, as the consumer, should be provided with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow look its another one.
Sleazy not releasing the specs... right. Buy a PS3 if you want specs.
I don't BUY a car based on how much horsepower it has, or how many bulleted points are on brochures that are sitting in the lobby. But thanks for bringing that up. So if car A has more horespower than car B that must be mean its better right? WRONG. Here, car B, still goes faster than car A, it handles better, has better gas milage, and when you drive it, it just feels better. So car A has more horsepower but everything else about car A is subpar to car B, and the overall DRIVING EXPERIENCE is best experience in car B.
I won't go into much more since suspect you to be about the same as chunkymonkey. Again the only real way to understand a product is to use it. BIGGER does always mean BETTER, MORE GHZ doesn't always mean FASTER. You are the one not understanding the posts or the comments.
So here then my question to you.
You drive car a, you drive car b, you drive car c. No one has told you what is under the hood. You drive all the cars and you enjoy car a the most. Would you buy it just by the experience you had, knowing that it was the most enjoyable to drive. Or would you wait to see whats under the hood to make that you breaking point?
I know I would personally chose the car I enjoyed the most driving. Everything else is irrelavant.
your all miss qoting its gamecube based dosnt meen its gamecube IF I SAID ITS IBM PC BASED AS ALL PC WINDOWS ARE would that be saying a bad thing if i buy a 2006 spec pc i can programme that pc using 1995 pc code your miss leading yourselfs to think that means a lack in power please step back into reallity and read the signs given
broadway is custom
hollywood is custom
nec/mosy speak of edram breakthrou for high bandwidths and low latancy
1t sram-r confermed for on board and external ram pools
silicon on insulater tech confermed 30% more power per clock
large high speed priorty gameing disc media not slow dvd
by massivly intergrating and optermizing the hardware you massivly increase avalable power
xbox 1 was 10/20% efficant (on paper 100million polygons in real life it hit 10 million)
ps2 10% efficant 70 million polygons on paper 7 million plus real life
gamecube was 35% plus efficant and designed for streaming data from a fast mini disc this acelorates in game power beyond the expected on paper specs
flipperwas rumoured 50% efficant if the yealed of power on wii is higher and allso the specs its clear wii shall kick out way above its wait in in game power
i bet you ps3s cell is loosing most of its power in bottlenecking and hard to programme ways
wii shall punch for punch pound for pound the most balanced and efficant of the 3 EASY NINTENDO KNOW HOW TO DESIGN A DAM CONSOLE
broadway is custom and gamecentric and doesnt do HD or sound processing get a grip on real world power in game not meaningless paper specs
Hey Kid take a gander at those Undercover shots on Gonintendo they are beautiful.
Really funny quote!!
which quote ?
Ok i can't take it anymore.
I coudn't wait for the Wii to come out in europe...So i decided to make my own Wii
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=finalmd4.jpg
Funny how a small syntactical error can make such a big difference semantically.
In what way?
"Hardware" vs. "machine"? These mean the same thing. Plus, the proof is in the rest of the statement: the fact that GC code can be run as-is on the machine means that it is basically a GC.
So I'm not understand what semantically changed. Wii is still an overclocked GC with 64MB of RAM, and every source on the subject seems to be in agreement with reguard to this. None of them are on-record sources, but they're all we've got.
Hi Nicol Bolas.
The big difference is not the noun:
The hardware is basically a GC.
The machine is based on GC.
The former translation suggests what you have said, that Wii is bascially a Gamecube (which I take as wrong).
The latter, correct translation, suggests that Wii is an extension of Gamecube hardware. It´s a console in its own right.
over clocked gamecube with 64mb of ram you havwe just made yourself look a compleat moron 64mb 1t sram is therietical to 256mb dram 1t sram performs as sram not dram so the performance figures per mb are way higher theres a wopping 27mb sram embedded on hollywod THATS A 27MB CACH MEMORY imagine a pentium 4 with a 27mb catch you clearly know nothing about specs 1T SRAM-R IS VASTLY SUPIERIER TO PS3S MAIN RAM IN SPEED PER MEG BANDWIDTH AND STABILITY THAT IS A RAM MEMORY INDUSTRE FACT BROADWAY USES IBMS LASTEST INNENTION SILICON ON INSULATOR TECH 30% MORE POWER PER CLOCK nec and mosys confermed edram mem process for high bandwidths and low latency OVER CLOCKED GAMECUBE YOU ARE A MORON YOU CARNT JUST TAKE CHIPS OF A SHELF AND EXPECT GREAt power and no bottlenecks nintendo know this every part of the wii hardware is designed with the next part in mind its called system in game power not on paper numbers if a pc was designed with such great engineering we would be getting p4 power from p3 pcs most pc cpu clocks are wasted more clock balance allso wastes clocks wiis clocks are all tightly balanced and synced compare that to a stupid clock balance in 360 700mhz for ram 3.2ghz cpu YOU HAVE JUST WASTED 1000S OF CLOCKS IDLE DOING NOTHING thats not power thats power wasted learn how hardware works you pc brainwashed higher the clock higher the performance brain washed foooooolllll next youll say cisc cpus match risc cpus clock for clock or dram can compare to 1t sram-r mmmooooooorrrrroooonnnnn
wii ram specs
hollywood3mb
hollywood24mb
external 64mb all 1t sram-r the fastest and most stabile ram out of all three consoles
16mb access ram dram
so please show me were the 64mb ram is clearly theres no 64mb only memory clearly it aint ddr3
your a pc biger is better marketing brainwashed idiot
For anonymous:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/11/03
Post a Comment