28 replies to this topic

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

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

 

I honestly could not find a difference between the Wii U and 360 version of the Darksiders pic you brought up.

Let's play spot the Difference!

Okay, Here's where the Wii u version is lacking:

1)Missing the trees in front of the stone

2)Ground textures are worse

3)Grass models are worse (more clumped together, square, unnatural-looking)

4)How the portal-looking thing looks worse around the edges where it connects to the cliff-face

5)Worse Anti-aliasing on both the character and horse

6) Worse anti-aliasing on the bars underneath the horse picture

 

So yeah, those are just the really noticeable ones.

But it doesn't matter, cause it's not like it's the Wii U's problem it's lazy developer syndrome (as usual).

[3Dude]

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?

Well, no.

That would be changing assets, so it would not be an asset identical port.

NFSmwu is not an asset identical port, it has improved textures and effects on wii u.

Darksiders 2 is not an asset identical port, they made many compromises in order to finish the port in like 2 months. The razor blade method of porting. Just cut crap/compress it until it runs.

Splinter cell is an asset identical port.

Also, the shot of asscrred screen punk posted is moronic. Its from a scene where the bokuh changes focus, several frames apart. it has different depth of field because at that moment, the focus was changing in both versions, one screen is just furtherahead in the scene than the other.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Oh okay.
But what about the squished heads?

[3Dude]

Oh okay.
But what about the squished heads?

Whoops. Thumbs too big...

My guess without looking is a video feed/screenshot web compressed mistake. IGN used to leave several dozen lines of pixels out of their wii screens when they would resize them for web pages. Drove me nuts.

[Poptartboy]

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.

I know it's weird isn't it? Still, I love the Wii U and so far I've found Splinter Cell to be great.

[Arkhandar]

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.

 

Stop failing so hard. The blur issue in AC3 was corrected in version 1.03.

 

Darksiders 2 was a bad un-optimized port, which failed to move all assets during active development.

 

None of your "examples" rightfully prove your "ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically" theory.

 

Exclusives prove graphical superiority, not badly crafted ports. Try harder next time.

[Poptartboy]

He absolutely won't try harder, he will again be talking the same nonsense about how the launch games didn't look great.

And when you mention how each exclusive looks better then there is some excuse as to why that is, such as saying Pikmin 3 looks that good because its so 'simple'. You may notice he consistently fails to provide an example of a similar game on PS3 that looks as good though.

[3Dude]

He absolutely won't try harder, he will again be talking the same nonsense about how the launch games didn't look great.

And when you mention how each exclusive looks better then there is some excuse as to why that is, such as saying Pikmin 3 looks that good because its so 'simple'. You may notice he consistently fails to provide an example of a similar game on PS3 that looks as good though.

Or that all the miiverse pics people were taking while playing pikmin 3 were pre rendered cg cutscenes. That was hilarious.

[ElderKnight77]

Or that all the miiverse pics people were taking while playing pikmin 3 were pre rendered cg cutscenes. That was hilarious.

 

The way DesertPunk trolls is very similar to how another Sony fanboy behaves; you might know him as NinjaBlade.  The guy is absolutely crazy and firmly believes Red Dead Redemption is superior to Nintendo/Monolith's 'X' !!!

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.

 

Great stealth trolling, almost believed you if it wasn't for your predictable history of trolling Nintendo.