We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.

Unreal Engine 3 in Development for Wii

by Michael Flynn - November 23, 2007, 11:38 am EST
Total comments: 23 Source: Kiziko

Not by Epic, but still.

In an interview with games site Kikizo, Epic Games VP Mark Rein was asked about the possibility of getting some form of Unreal Engine 3 running on Nintendo Wii. According to Rein, one of the engine's licensees is already attempting it.

"I know one of our licensees who's giving it a shot; it's their own port, in the same way Ubisoft brought Unreal Engine 2 to the Wii," says Rein. He alludes to Ubisoft multiple times in his answer to the question, but never says outright that they are the licensee responsible for porting Unreal Engine 3.

As for Epic themselves working on it, Rein says not to hold your breath. "I just don't see a big market there to bring this big hulking memory intensive engine over to a much smaller system." Rein seems open to the technical possibility of some version of the engine running on Wii, but he remains uninterested in the commercial benefits for Epic. "We won't don't do it ourselves. Look, there's so many things we can do, and are already doing, to improve our engine on the platforms we're aiming it at, that going back and working on that [for Wii] just doesn't make sense."

But Wii-owning Epic fans take heart: at the end of his answer, Rein mentions the possibility of creating a graphics engine geared specifically for Wii. Said Rein: "The engine is getting optimized and we're improving it all the time; there's too much low hanging fruit that we already have on the engine side, and new improvements and things we can do to try and make an engine for the Wii - it wouldn't be smart business for us [to port the existing UE3 to Wii]."

Talkback

Smash_BrotherNovember 23, 2007

Good news, indeed.

Tell me what game this is being done on so I can buy it.

&P

BlackNMild2k1November 23, 2007

Assassin's Cwiid?

Smash_BrotherNovember 23, 2007

Ubi stands to benefit a great deal from the porting of the UR3 engine, mostly for their own games but also because they could then license it out to other companies for additional profit.

Since they clearly intend to support the Wii a great deal, it would surprise me if this wasn't Ubi doing the porting.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 23, 2007

No hope for this since we all know how great Ubi is with any kind of "port".

tiamat1990November 23, 2007

He keeps on mentioning Ubisoft...oh that's right they used the Unreal Engine 2 for Red Steel!

Are they possibly using Unreal Engine 3 for Red Steel 2?? Hm....

Shift KeyNovember 23, 2007

Its being developed by one guy chained to a computer while another guy whips him telling him to "get back to work".
He doesn't belong to a company. He doesn't even have a name. He just keeps typing like his life depends on it.

That's why Epic aren't spilling details.

Quote

Originally posted by: tiamat1990
He keeps on mentioning Ubisoft...oh that's right they used the Unreal Engine 2 for Red Steel!

Are they possibly using Unreal Engine 3 for Red Steel 2?? Hm....


That was exactly my train of thought when I read this, and I think it's the most likely explanation. If it is what they're doing it increases my optimism regarding RS2; they could have easily cut corners by reusing the same engine, but this would mean they put real thought and effort into the sequel.

ShyGuyNovember 23, 2007

In the IGN invterview with Gearbox, they hinted that they were using UE3.

Quote

IGN Wii: We had heard rumors that Gearbox was initially exploring the option of utilizing a version of Unreal Engine 3 for BIA on Wii. What happened with that, if anything?

Stephen Palmer: We're not really allowed to comment on that at the moment, but that sure does sound like a fun challenge, doesn't it?


Matt confirmed that he thought it was a "wink wink" kind of hint in the last Wii-k in review podcast.

KDR_11kNovember 23, 2007

The UE is huge and bloated, it's probably long overdue for a rewrite anyway. I wish iD software didn't have the stance of "yeah, the Wii is great but we're already committed to the other platforms and have to stick with it".

Shift KeyNovember 23, 2007

Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Matt confirmed that he thought it was a "wink wink" kind of hint in the last Wii-k in review podcast.


Did Matt give you a grain of salt to take with that statement as well?

vuduNovember 25, 2007

Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
...We had heard rumors that Gearbox was initially exploring the option of utilizing a version of Unreal Engine 3 for BIA on Wii....
What's BIA?

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out; Brothers In Arms.

Athrun ZalaNovember 25, 2007

it doesn't make much sense for Ubi to port it, given that:
- they've already ported UE2 (or maybe it's 2.5) to Wii
- it would be easier (and cheaper) to optimize UE2Wii instead of porting UE3

however, having UE3 on Wii would probably make multiplatform games easier to do...

Smash_BrotherNovember 25, 2007

Quote

Originally posted by: Athrun Zala
however, having UE3 on Wii would probably make multiplatform games easier to do...


That's the big kicker here, and then Ubi could license it to other companies for their Wii ports.

As a purely monetary investment, it would definitely pay off.

Does Ubi have a history in the middleware busniess?

UltimatePartyBearNovember 26, 2007

I'd be surprised if Epic allowed sublicensing.

KDR_11kNovember 26, 2007

They will, for the right amount of money of course.

ThePermNovember 26, 2007

The deal is this. Right now, Wii developers are under utilizing the platform. The best games are coming out of Nintendo themselves. This is only because Nintendo gives a damn about how well their games are. Twilight Princess looks great but was designed for Gamecube. Wii is more powerful than Gamecube. Not by leaps like the competitive hardware, but only a little extra memory, processing speed, and disk space go a long way.

I keep using Mario galaxy as an example. Right now programmers and developers have an obsession; Shaders. Shaders are kind of a cross between texture mapping and lighting. The idea behind a shader is that when drawing polygons you fill that polygon with colors. In the old fashioned days we would just fill it with a texture map and then apply some sort of real time gouraud shading to it. This is fine and dandy, but to some extent theres some waste of power. With shaders you basically create a gradient. Linear, non linear. Doesnt matter. By doing this you can simulate surfaces like wood, water, whatever. Newer processors have the ability to dish out shaders like they were no problem.

http://www.tetrametrics.com/theperm/Renders/fish4.jpg

theres an example of me using shaders, those scales are generated by shaders, so there was actually no need to add a texture map to the character. Not to mention the foggish watery backround is also generated by shaders. Also, the tooths switch between yellow and white.

The Wii doesnt have built in Shaders, or what it does have is really limited and primitive. However, as the lead people in factor 5 will tell you. Anything that can be done on one system could probably be done on another, with same effect, if done in a different way.

The Wii has been compared to the xbox in power, however the Wii has something the xbox doesnt have and thats more ram. The gamecube was very much caught up in power compared to the original xbox. The gamecube could do more textures in a cycle then the xbox could, but the gamecube had crappy 1.5gb disks and less ram. So while it was capable of doing better than the xbox, it only did as well if not a little better because ram and storage limitations. The Wii beats the xbox in this category, so theoretically or more or less proven by Mario Galaxy(or what iv seen of it so far), if put to the task it can have great texturing.

Anyways back to shaders. Shaders do a lot of things, but really as i said above they are sort of a cross between lighting a texturing. If built in they provide a graphical boost. however, if you could produce the same effect with real time lighting and textures gthan you would get the same effect.

Also normal mapping. normal mapping is a hack. Its a fake simulation of real time crazy real lighting. However, if you can process real time lighting and self shadowing in real time than you don't need to normal map.

I think the Wii is capable of blowign us away, but I think PC developers think to conventionally. My brother is a pc gamer and he is trying to tell me that my system can't handle half life 2. I have a 2.3 ghz dual core computer, with a geforce 6100 with 2gb of ram. He thinks because the card is integrated into the motherboard it will be slower. which doesn't make sense to me. Without an agp or pci bridge in the way then my gpu talks directly to the cpu and the ram, thus it should actually be FASTER. He thinks too conventionally. I looked up the recommended specs, and i have a slightly better video card and a better processor. He just doesn't know how to optimize things. I'm not a hardware guy, i dont try to put hardware together(i just dont want to be the one resposible for breaking expensive stuff), but i do know how it works and what its capable of.

UltimatePartyBearNovember 26, 2007

Quote

Originally posted by: ThePerm

Also normal mapping. normal mapping is a hack. Its a fake simulation of real time crazy real lighting. However, if you can process real time lighting and self shadowing in real time than you don't need to normal map.

I thought normal mapping was about using lighting tricks to make models look like they're made with many more polygons than they actually are. How would real-time lighting and shadowing do the same thing without a substantial increase in polygon count?

Quote

I think the Wii is capable of blowign us away, but I think PC developers think to conventionally. My brother is a pc gamer and he is trying to tell me that my system can't handle half life 2. I have a 2.3 ghz dual core computer, with a geforce 6100 with 2gb of ram. He thinks because the card is integrated into the motherboard it will be slower. which doesn't make sense to me. Without an agp or pci bridge in the way then my gpu talks directly to the cpu and the ram, thus it should actually be FASTER. He thinks too conventionally. I looked up the recommended specs, and i have a slightly better video card and a better processor. He just doesn't know how to optimize things. I'm not a hardware guy, i dont try to put hardware together(i just dont want to be the one resposible for breaking expensive stuff), but i do know how it works and what its capable of.

The slowness of integrated video generally comes from two things. One, the video card has to share main memory with the CPU, which is often too limited in the first place. Two, its access to main memory is not as fast as it would be to onboard memory. Add to that a well established tendency for companies to use really cheap crap for integrated video in the past, and your brother's opinion is no surprise.

ShyGuyNovember 26, 2007

Speaking of shaders and Brothers in Arms:

Quote

The biggest challenge was probably moving the Xbox shaders over to the Wii. We moved skeletal mesh processing over to the CPU, and re-wrote the pixel shaders to Wii's fixed-function pipeline. Overall, the lighting, water, particle effects look just about like they did on the Xbox.


Demiurge's Al Reed talks Wii development for Brothers in Arms

ThePermNovember 26, 2007

well its an nvidea motherboard, not another brand. So, it should be better than some crappy brand.

Anyhow, normal mapping is used to make polygon models look beefier through lighting. If however, you can actually display a higher poly count model than you don't need to use the hack. Theres some increased processing speed on the Wii, youll get more polygons theoretically then you would on a last gen system, but of course not to ps3 and xbox 360 levels. However, its hard to tell whether they are even pushing the polygons they could be because their "cheating".

Fightign games for instance on Wii had some high poly models, yet without great texturing. In theory, a little boost would make adventure games have fighing game like detail, at least in the characters. Or maybe half and half between the background and the characters. If polygon count was represented in liters then previously there was only
1 liter, so maybe in an adventure game you used 1/4 a liter for characters and 3/4 liter for levels/stages. in a fighting game you would probably use 2/3 of the liters for the characters and the other 1/3 liter for stages. Now with a better system like Wii you got something like 2 liters. Its how you use those liters that determine what the elements all come together to look like. On a note, my estimate is Ps3 and xbox360 have something like 4 liters of power compared to gamecubes 1, but they are only doing 2.3 liters because the tools are not available yet to get out up to 4. Wii is only doing 1.1 liters of power of its 2. This is not technical its metaphoric.

GalfordNovember 26, 2007

Why not make a customized version of Unreal Engine 2 for the Wii?
Call it something like UE 2W.
Epic did it for the XBox.

But what is the point of porting the UE3 to the Wii??
It's not going to make UE based games look any better on it...

Also Mark Rein likes money hats.
He didn't take the PS3 seriously until Sony started dropping money hats on him.
Maybe Nintendo needs to do the same...

ShyGuyNovember 26, 2007

From what I understand, advantage of UE3 is the more advanced toolkit and extra features.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement