28 replies to this topic

[Scumbag]

Wii U beasting.

 

http://www.lensoftru...x-360-vs-wii-u/

 

[alan123]

well the WiiU is the newest console out of the three, it also has the longest loading times though nearly twice as long as the others, also in the graphics commparision shots the WiiU version seems to have some sort of mist mask over everything 

 

the WiiU version should look a whole lot better than either the X360/PS3 versions not just a bit.

[syks-1]

wow to me the wii u version looks the worst

 

edit:

 

just found this on youtube and if its not been doctored in anyway then the 360 version looks better than the wii u in lighting and detail

 

Edited by syks-1, 25 August 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[uPadWatcher2]

The Wii U version looks better than the PS3/X360 counterpart.  While the two has screen tearing, the U format doesn't.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

Interesting stuff on all 3 versions. I didn't know that the PS3 still required mandatory installs; I thought those became a thing of the past after 2009. I didn't know the 360 version came on two discs and needed an install to be able to keep up, and seeing the difference between a game with screen tearing and it without screen tearing made it clear that the latter looked better. (I'm sort of a noob when it comes to this stuff. I never noticed screen tearing until recently)

[LinkKennedy]

The cut scenes on this game look like shizzz.

Edited by LinkKennedy, 25 August 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[Julio93]

Well, at least its nice to see them actually working on it instead of making a gimped version.

[Nollog]

Que people saying "Of course, it's not last gen!"
After saying for the past year "Barely as powerful as xbox 360"

[Desert Punk]

Does it look worse on wii u, I couldn't really tell by those images. I was quite pleased reading through it to see the wii u had no screen tearing and still a good frame rate but then the bombshell struck with the awful load times.

 

I mean come on the wii u has 1GB of memory and a very fast optical drive why is it slower? I can only guess it was due to uncompressing but then perhaps if they put more thought into it they could have optimised it more.

 

This feels like a game that could have been an outright victory for wii u even if the graphics may have had a few minor weaker bits and it was ruined by the loading time issue.

 

I'd also like to know the native resolution of each version. Not keen on 1080p upscaling being used to as the resolution. In which case every 360 game is in 1080p and the poor old ps3 can only muster 720p a lot of the time due to the lack of an upscaler built in. Not fair at all especially as all1080p televisions will upscale to 1080p themselves anyway. Yes I know upscaling in the console is better than the tv most of the time but not all the time as some televisions/projectors have some pretty amazing upscaling circuitry.

Que people saying "Of course, it's not last gen!"
After saying for the past year "Barely as powerful as xbox 360"

 

Can you clarify this point? Are you saying this shows the wii u weaker or stronger as to be honest as with most  wii u titles its hard to tell. No screen tearing great, horrible load times bad. It's hard to know what to prefer screen tearing or long load times. I believe there is also a missing feature or two in the wii u version.

 

All I care about at the moment is Zelda Windwaker and won't be buying this game until it hits the bargain bucket.

[Poptartboy]

Does it look worse on wii u, I couldn't really tell by those images. I was quite pleased reading through it to see the wii u had no screen tearing and still a good frame rate but then the bombshell struck with the awful load times.

I mean come on the wii u has 1GB of memory and a very fast optical drive why is it slower? I can only guess it was due to uncompressing but then perhaps if they put more thought into it they could have optimised it more.

This feels like a game that could have been an outright victory for wii u even if the graphics may have had a few minor weaker bits and it was ruined by the loading time issue.

I'd also like to know the native resolution of each version. Not keen on 1080p upscaling being used to as the resolution. In which case every 360 game is in 1080p and the poor old ps3 can only muster 720p a lot of the time due to the lack of an upscaler built in. Not fair at all especially as all1080p televisions will upscale to 1080p themselves anyway. Yes I know upscaling in the console is better than the tv most of the time but not all the time as some televisions/projectors have some pretty amazing upscaling circuitry.



Can you clarify this point? Are you saying this shows the wii u weaker or stronger as to be honest as with most wii u titles its hard to tell. No screen tearing great, horrible load times bad. It's hard to know what to prefer screen tearing or long load times. I believe there is also a missing feature or two in the wii u version.

All I care about at the moment is Zelda Windwaker and won't be buying this game until it hits the bargain bucket.

What planet are you on where waiting an extra 30 seconds every 45 minutes is worse than the hideous screen tearing that has basically been god awful in all of Ubisofts games for the entire generation?!

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

well the WiiU is the newest console out of the three, it also has the longest loading times though nearly twice as long as the others, also in the graphics commparision shots the WiiU version seems to have some sort of mist mask over everything 

 

the WiiU version should look a whole lot better than either the X360/PS3 versions not just a bit.

Eh it's not like it matters. It doesn't really have to do with Nintendo, but Ubisoft, right? Probably made more sense to just use models equivalent to PS360 than to go all out on the Wii U version. Plus then people would have complained about an "inferior"version, even though they have nothing to complain about...

[3Dude]

Ugh not this again.

It uses the exact same model assets, the exact same textures, and the exact same lighting between all three versions.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for one version of the game to look better or worse, (with the exception of ps3 and only because of its mandatory fxaa vaseline filter).

The only way it would look better on one over the other, is if they remade one version with different models, textures, and lighrs, which they very clearly didnt do.

All three versions are asset identical.

ps3 has its horribad blur aa, and wii u appears to have the same gamma level error as trine 2 when it first came out.

Anyone seeing anything else is nothing more than bias leaking through.

Wii u has a solid frame rate and no screen tearing whatsoever, along withthe extra stuff,if any, it does on the game pad.

Thats it.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Ugh not this again.

It uses the exact same model assets, the exact same textures, and the exact same lighting between all three versions.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for one version of the game to look better or worse, (with the exception of ps3 and only because of its mandatory fxaa vaseline filter).

The only way it would look better on one over the other, is if they remade one version with different models, textures, and lighrs, which they very clearly didnt do.

All three versions are asset identical.

ps3 has its horribad blur aa, and wii u appears to have the same gamma level error as trine 2 when it first came out.

Anyone seeing anything else is nothing more than bias leaking through.

Wii u has a solid frame rate and no screen tearing whatsoever, along withthe extra stuff,if any, it does on the game pad.

Thats it.

I but isn't it possible that in one of the games some of the textures would be worse to make the game be able to run? Honest question

Also, why do all the Xbox360 models look like they have squiched heads compared to the WiiU and PS3 ones? 

[Desert Punk]

Many face offs have already reported many minor differences in graphics. Yes the main graphic assets are teh same but that doesn't mean all sorts of other images factors don't come into play as well. Not only can lighting and other issues but often some graphic effects can be simplified or simply removed in some versions.

 

Assasin's Creed 3 looks like this on wii u;

 

 

 

Compared to 360;

 

 

If you read the face offs you often get a mixed bag of good and bad and how each system produces a final image.

 

Whether people care about the differences is another matter but there are a huge number of factors on how games which should look identical due to shared assets can actually look different in use.

 

Sometimes the resolution is lower. Sonic transformed on wii u is at a lower resolution than 360 and PS3.

 

In Darksiders the graphics were simplified for wii u with some missing features;

 

http://images.euroga.../0/WiiU_027.png

 

http://images.euroga...7/0/360_027.png

 

http://images.euroga...7/0/PS3_027.png

 

There is one wii u game which has more pixelated shadows and others with weaker lighting. Some games have shorter life graphic effects that are cpu intensive.

 

This is why I think the wii u has been very disappointing hardware because in such situations you expect the wii u version to show enhancement over the older models but if anything the 360 is multiformat king and the ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

 

My expectations of the wii u was that such ports would be enhanced on wii u with additional graphic detail and improvements not as often is the case small downgrades graphically and lower frame rates to go with it.

[Happy Monk]

Many face offs have already reported many minor differences in graphics. Yes the main graphic assets are teh same but that doesn't mean all sorts of other images factors don't come into play as well. Not only can lighting and other issues but often some graphic effects can be simplified or simply removed in some versions.

 

Assasin's Creed 3 looks like this on wii u;

 

 

 

Compared to 360;

 

 

If you read the face offs you often get a mixed bag of good and bad and how each system produces a final image.

 

Whether people care about the differences is another matter but there are a huge number of factors on how games which should look identical due to shared assets can actually look different in use.

 

Sometimes the resolution is lower. Sonic transformed on wii u is at a lower resolution than 360 and PS3.

 

In Darksiders the graphics were simplified for wii u with some missing features;

 

http://images.euroga.../0/WiiU_027.png

 

http://images.euroga...7/0/360_027.png

 

http://images.euroga...7/0/PS3_027.png

 

There is one wii u game which has more pixelated shadows and others with weaker lighting. Some games have shorter life graphic effects that are cpu intensive.

 

This is why I think the wii u has been very disappointing hardware because in such situations you expect the wii u version to show enhancement over the older models but if anything the 360 is multiformat king and the ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

 

My expectations of the wii u was that such ports would be enhanced on wii u with additional graphic detail and improvements not as often is the case small downgrades graphically and lower frame rates to go with it.

I've got Assassin's Creed 3 on the Wii U, it doesn't look like that screenshot... maybe not quite as nice as the 360 one, but not like that screenshot suggests.

Do you know why the 360 is multiformat king? Game developers make a game for the 360 and port it over to the other consoles; if they made the same game for all 3 consoles, but not as generic ports, I think the Wii U will outshine the other two in plenty of areas.

 

Heck, if the game was originally made for the Wii U and ported over to the other two consoles, the game would look best on the Wii U (having said that, I have not seen footage of Rayman Legends - the one game developed initially for the Wii U that I know of).

 

Even if a game has been made for the PC first and ported over, the 360 version will usually come up trumps compared to the other consoles due to similar architecture.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

 

I... I don't understand.

I joined WII U FORUMS.

As in for specifically for Wii U. And somehow people are still misinformed. I mean... I don't even...

[Aiddon]

I... I don't understand.

I joined WII U FORUMS.

As in for specifically for Wii U. And somehow people are still misinformed. I mean... I don't even...

Don't think about it; you'll just end up hurting your brain worthlessly

[Happy Monk]

I... I don't understand.

I joined WII U FORUMS.

As in for specifically for Wii U. And somehow people are still misinformed. I mean... I don't even...

Don't worry, just step into the angry dome and let it all out.

[Scumbag]

I post something interesting and good all Wii U owners should appreciate yet you are all still negative. Is everyone on here depressed or something?

 

Does anyone realize this is a very late game into PS3 and 360's library using most if not all those systems potential and Wii U gets a decent port probably only using 1 CPU core and still performs better overall.

 

Not a huge victory but if anyone bought this game on PS3 or 360 they have the inferior version vs Wii U. Period.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

Many face offs have already reported many minor differences in graphics. Yes the main graphic assets are teh same but that doesn't mean all sorts of other images factors don't come into play as well. Not only can lighting and other issues but often some graphic effects can be simplified or simply removed in some versions.

Assasin's Creed 3 looks like this on wii u;




Compared to 360;



If you read the face offs you often get a mixed bag of good and bad and how each system produces a final image.

Whether people care about the differences is another matter but there are a huge number of factors on how games which should look identical due to shared assets can actually look different in use.

Sometimes the resolution is lower. Sonic transformed on wii u is at a lower resolution than 360 and PS3.

In Darksiders the graphics were simplified for wii u with some missing features;

http://images.euroga.../0/WiiU_027.png

http://images.euroga...7/0/360_027.png

http://images.euroga...7/0/PS3_027.png

There is one wii u game which has more pixelated shadows and others with weaker lighting. Some games have shorter life graphic effects that are cpu intensive.

This is why I think the wii u has been very disappointing hardware because in such situations you expect the wii u version to show enhancement over the older models but if anything the 360 is multiformat king and the ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

My expectations of the wii u was that such ports would be enhanced on wii u with additional graphic detail and improvements not as often is the case small downgrades graphically and lower frame rates to go with it.

I honestly could not find a difference between the Wii U and 360 version of the Darksiders pic you brought up. In fact, I didn't see any of the games actually look worse on Wii U. That AC3 pic was the first obvious one. Everything was framerate related. AC3 was considered the worst when it came to framerate, and that was also a mess on the 360. Any framerate issues I have seen in Ninja Gaiden or Batman never impacted how the game played. In all of the launch ports (which weren't on finilized dev kits), I haven't seen a game that performed worse on Wii U to the point where it made the game noticeably worse.