Gaming Project C.A.R.S possibly cancelled (720p/23fps)

[Foxi4]

Nintendo won't. They are all about fanboys and gimmicks to ever redeem themselves and have had outdated hard ware since the snes.

That's not true - the N64 was pretty close to a Pentium-based computer in terms of horsepower, the design was based on an SGI workstation, it was a good machine with design problems like the cartridge slot. The same can be said about the Gamecube, it was a good machine with design problems. Out of Nintendo home consoles only the Wii and the Wii U are below par.

 

[DiscostewSM]

With how long it's been in development, the numerous platforms that were added and removed since its conception, and the fact that the devs pushed the Wii U version to the side to focus on getting the PS4/XB1/PC version out first, was anyone expecting the Wii U version to perform well? All the previous talk about the Wii U version being this great thing from a year ago and on.....was that actually true, or were they just spouting at the mouth?

The problem that plagues most Wii U versions of games is that the devs don't care about it. Either a game never releases for it, gets delayed, or is outsourced by a shoddy group who doesn't have the skills to optimizing it for what Wii U needs. NFS:MW is one of the few games that the devs took care to develop for the Wii U. The game for other platforms was released before the Wii U was out, so there was nothing they could do about a delay.

As it is, most ports from 360/PS3 to Wii U were bad because of different development methodology. The CPUs, for instance, may all be PowerPC, but their strengths and weaknesses are different. An example is the Wii U utilizes a 4-stage pipeline, whereas the PS3/360 utilize pipelines that stretch from 32-40 stages. Long pipelines suffer far worse from instructions like branching compared to shorter ones (branching causes a wipe of the instruction queue, meaning longer pipelines take longer to fill)), but less branching that occurs benefits longer pipelines than shorter ones. This one detail (among many) is a main cause for problems with ports to Wii U. If devs only focus on getting a game to work on Wii U using code designed with PS3/360 in mind, it's not going to perform well.

 

[RevPokemon]

That's not true - the N64 was pretty close to a Pentium-based computer in terms of horsepower, the design was based on an SGI workstation, it was a good machine with design problems like the cartridge slot. The same can be said about the Gamecube, it was a good machine with design problems. Out of Nintendo home consoles only the Wii and the Wii U are below par.

Well using an inferior form for storage makes it outdated hardware imo

 

[sarkwalvein]

Well using an inferior form for storage makes it outdated hardware imo

If you consider it so, then the X360 was also outdated as it used DVDs, the storage media from the previous generation.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Really? (Obviously) I didn't know that.

Dude. Think about it. A frame is 1/23 of a second long. That's plenty fast enough for the human eye to distinguish it as a smooth transition

Get it down to 10-15 and we'd have problems

 

[VinsCool]

Dude. Think about it. A frame is 1/23 of a second long. That's plenty fast enough for the human eye to distinguish it as a smooth transition

Get it down to 10-15 and we'd have problems

The thing though, is that cinema uses a technique named "motion blur", which hides the visible frame with interlaced movement effect.

A computer, or a console, do not do that in real time, it has to be post processed. So a 23 fps is very noticeable.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The thing though, is that cinema uses a technique named "motion blur", which hides the visible frame with interlaced movement effect.

A computer, or a console, do not do that in real time, it has to be post processed. So a 23 fps is very noticeable.

I suppose... Getting it up to 30fps should at least be acceptable though, and that sounds doable from what they're saying

 

[Foxi4]

Cinema and games is apples and oranges - the amount of post-processing required to make a game "look cinematic" is insane. 24 FPS is pretty bad without motion blur *unless* it's stable - it's the spikes and drops people notice, not the framerate itself. Anywho, these two mediums are nothing alike.

Well using an inferior form for storage makes it outdated hardware imo

It was a misguided choice for sure, but the hardware was fine, all things considered.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Dude. Think about it. A frame is 1/23 of a second long. That's plenty fast enough for the human eye to distinguish it as a smooth transition
Get it down to 10-15 and we'd have problems

Well, yes and no.
The human eye can somewhat adapt to watching something at 24FPS (and lower) and fill the "gaps" to make it seem smoother.
But if you simultaneously watch something at more FPS, the eye will not adapt and 24FPS will seem choppy.
Actually, in most cases the eye can perceive 60FPS as fluid. But it can detect flashes of light at way higher speed.
In very optimal conditions the eye could detect a flash with a duration as brief as 1/500 second, and your body/hands can react to those fast impulses in almost a mechanical way.

 

[VinsCool]

Well, yes and no.
The human eye can somewhat adapt to watching something at 24FPS (and lower) and fill the "gaps" to make it seem smoother.
But if you simultaneously watch something at more FPS, the eye will not adapt and 24FPS will seem choppy.
Actually, in most cases the eye can perceive 60FPS as fluid. But it can detect flashes of light at way higher speed.
In very optimal conditions the eye could detect a flash with a duration as brief as 1/500 second, and your body/hands can react to those fast impulses in almost a mechanical way.

Could you imagine... playing videogames in 500fps *gasp*

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Not that i would buy this game anyways but I'm getting really sick and tired of these developers blaming whatever platform for there inability to program for said platform, if you didn't have the ability to do it you should have kept your mouth shut.

The problem here is that the Wii U is inferior to the PS4 and Xbox One, so when Xbox One can't even keep up with the PS4 version at 900p then expecting a Wii U version would have to be completely butchered from its original vision. It was just too ambitious of Slightly Mad Studios to expect the game to run 720/30 on the Wii U.

PS4: 1080/60
XO: 900/60

Though keep in mind that while they're both "60fps" they tend to drop, Xbox One considerably way more than PS4 so um, even with a lower resolution it still can't keep up.

Anyway, there's no way in hell I'll even consider Xbox One as a gaming console when PS4 has much better multiplatform releases and eventually exclusives worth buying.

 

[Bladexdsl]

I still don't get why anyone would want to play this game on anything other than a PC. It's literally a car graphics tech demo.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

I still don't get why anyone would want to play this game on anything other than a PC. It's literally a car graphics tech demo.

Codemasters failed to release a true sequel to GRID and this seems as close as possible so it's something of my interest. GT and Forza are okay but I'd rather play GRID over them.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

meh, I have a gaming pc why would you want to play on console anyways? The wii u is literally my only console I have for exclusives. Might consider buying a ps4 for uncharted, if it comes out sooner or later. So yeah... i cant give shit... one less game for my wii u i guess...

 

[grossaffe]

Well using an inferior form for storage makes it outdated hardware imo

depends on your definition of inferior. Cartridges did have a disadvantage when it came to storage space, but it had a big advantage when it came to loading time (which was the reason they chose to stick with cartridges at the time; read speed on discs were too slow). The Gamecube's Mini-DVD's also brought a loading time advantage over full-size DVDs. I read something to the effect of a 12 second load time being reduced to a 4 second load time.

 

[laudern]

I could be argued the main reason for Nintendo to choose cartridge over disc was the fact that game publishers needed to place orders with Nintendo guestimating how many cartridges they would need for a certain games. Nintendo didn't want to go to disc as they would lose the cartridge press income.

So regardless of home many games actually got sold, Nintendo got paid based off how many were actually ordered originally.

 

[DiscostewSM]

depends on your definition of inferior. Cartridges did have a disadvantage when it came to storage space, but it had a big advantage when it came to loading time (which was the reason they chose to stick with cartridges at the time; read speed on discs were too slow). The Gamecube's Mini-DVD's also brought a loading time advantage over full-size DVDs. I read something to the effect of a 12 second load time being reduced to a 4 second load time.

Actually, the size of the mini DVDs isn't what helped loading, imo. It's the format the disc was designed around.

It's all about CLV vs CAV, the former used for DVD/BR players as well as Sony/MS consoles (excluding XBox I think), while the latter is used for Nintendo consoles and HDDs.

 

[the_randomizer]

Gamecube was near the power of the Xbox in terms of raw power, the medium is what killed it in sales, Nintendo's logic for using said medium was to deter piracy and to avoid licensing fees.

 

[grossaffe]

Actually, the size of the mini DVDs isn't what helped loading, imo. It's the format the disc was designed around.

It's all about CLV vs CAV, the former used for DVD/BR players as well as Sony/MS consoles (excluding XBox I think), while the latter is used for Nintendo consoles and HDDs.

I have not read that CAV makes disc reading faster. It makes data-speed more variable as it will be faster on the outer layers than the inner layers as more of the disc passes under the laser per unit of time, but I have not been able to find anything on how it is faster than CLV. One thing Nintendo did do to improve average read speed, though, was fill the inner tracks with garbage so that the actual data would exist on the outer tracks where the read speed is at its greatest.

At equivalent speed ratings (1x, 2x, etc.) a CAV drive will have a slower average data speed than a CLV drive, as the speed rating refers to CAV's maximum speed (source). Unfortunately this source is more looking into read times based on advertized speed ratings of commercial drives which isn't really what we're interested in, which is how these things affect the speed you can get from a drive. I would not at all be surprised to find out that CLV drives keep constant read speeds by slowing the spin as it goes outside rather than increasing the spin as it goes inside (in other words, the max angular velocity of the drive is the limiting factor, and they're sacrificing the benefits of the outside spinning faster than the inside by slowing it down when reading there).
It's also worth considering how much disc size has to do with the the number of RPMs they can put on a disc. A smaller disc should be able to be reliably spun faster than a bigger disc, so the question is if the smaller disc can spin fast enough to surpass the read speeds on the edges of the bigger disc.[/URL]