By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Digital Foundry Face-Off: Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition on Wii U

Mr Khan on 27 November 2012
Train wreck said:
happydolphin said:
Train wreck said:

Why are more players needed.  Did most nintendo fans laugh at online multiplayer during the golden era of the wii?  Why the change?

What are you going on about TW? Silly goose.

The Wii had online play, Brawl was touted as being the big online game for the Wii (despite underdelivering). I don't think anyone was laughing. More online players has always been desired by Nintendo fans.

I could have sworn that during 2008-2010 we would have threads about PS360 games and their main selling feature being online multiplayer and how the Wii crowd could belittle it; saying that local multiplayer was the perference of the many of Nintendo fans, evident by sales of games that focused heavily on local multiplayer compared to those that did not.

Wii also sustained a few healthy online communities. Monster Hunter Tri is a good example. Usually the community burned out through cheating, though.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
superchunk on 27 November 2012

I really don't see how any of these ports are less of the game as the PS360 versions when they all say its all there already. I mean seriously... its only a few pixels difference people.

I only have COD so far, but intend on getting Batman and AC3 soon. I doubt I'll enjoy them more or less than I would have on the PS3 I used to own.... hell, I wouldn't have enjoyed them more or less if hey had significantly improved the visuals... its just not a big deal.

Sure, I was excited at the prospect, but in the end, its the same game. A rushed port on brand new hardware, but the same game never-the-less.



superchunk on 27 November 2012
Train wreck said:

I could have sworn that during 2008-2010 we would have threads about PS360 games and their main selling feature being online multiplayer and how the Wii crowd could belittle it; saying that local multiplayer was the perference of the many of Nintendo fans, evident by sales of games that focused heavily on local multiplayer compared to those that did not.

Depends on the game.

Games with multiplayer as an important part, had multiplayer in Wii. COD, MarioKart, SSBB, MHTri, etc all had online and it worked well. Not as good as PS360, clearly, but it was fun and a good part of the respective games.

However, Nintendo's IPs are larely local multiplayer focused and that is where they destroyed others.

Now WiiU has a solid online functionality and games are identical where needed. Personally, I never played online for games like batman, AC, uncharted, etc as its not the point of the game. The story mode is where its at.

So I'd wager that any arguments about local had to do with someone's preferences for local vs online overall or about a specific game in question.



superchunk on 27 November 2012
pezus said:
superchunk said:
I really don't see how any of these ports are less of the game as the PS360 versions when they all say its all there already. I mean seriously... its only a few pixels difference people.

I only have COD so far, but intend on getting Batman and AC3 soon. I doubt I'll enjoy them more or less than I would have on the PS3 I used to own.... hell, I wouldn't have enjoyed them more or less if hey had significantly improved the visuals... its just not a big deal.

Sure, I was excited at the prospect, but in the end, its the same game. A rushed port on brand new hardware, but the same game never-the-less.

To some people, performance actually matters and as one of those who were claiming stable 60FPS in Blops II Wii U to be an advantage over the PS3/360 versions' framerate of 50-60, I don't know why you've done a 180.

I claimed 60fps because that was what was being released as official at that time, of course later its come out as fakes/user created. My point in the discussion was always to show that WiiU was more advanced... but I've also maintained, always, that it won't be proven with these first series games.

Personally, I think COD works perfectly fine and have zero issues with it in any way. Online and story mode work flawlessly and look great (as COD goes) as far as I'm concerned.

Also, its not performance anyone is even noticing. Its minor graphical differences. Hell, I had screen tearing, freezing, and other rare issues with my PS3 all the time with AC and Uncharted at least. So when I get AC3 for WiiU and it has a minor issue, meh, its still the same game.



chriscox1121 on 27 November 2012

Well, I bought Batman and thought it was a pretty good deal, because i got it 40% off at Toys R us. I assumed the PS3 and 360 were probably 20 bucks and i was getting at least 15$ in DLC plus the extra game pad features. I get my U today so I'm not sure how about the frame rate drop first hand, but i'm curious if it's as detrimental as some are making it out to be on here. But, yes I agree, Devs need to quit being so lazy on ports. Even BO2 for the PS3 looks like crap compared to the other 2 at certain times.




Around the Network
happydolphin on 27 November 2012
M.U.G.E.N said:
Can anyone remember when exactly they announced this game for the wiiu?

Googled it for ya. Apparently it was official Sept 13th, and rumors were in June.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/09/13/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-confirmed-for-wii-u



happydolphin on 27 November 2012
chriscox1121 said:
Well, I bought Batman and thought it was a pretty good deal, because i got it 40% off at Toys R us. I assumed the PS3 and 360 were probably 20 bucks and i was getting at least 15$ in DLC plus the extra game pad features. I get my U today so I'm not sure how about the frame rate drop first hand, but i'm curious if it's as detrimental as some are making it out to be on here. But, yes I agree, Devs need to quit being so lazy on ports. Even BO2 for the PS3 looks like crap compared to the other 2 at certain times.

For BO2, the DF tests ran above 30fps on the whole for all 3 plats, but the U's was the most inconsistent. The article is a great read by the way, look it up (ethomaz linked to it too).



killerzX on 27 November 2012
d21lewis said:
And before I leave you all to play Xbox, I'll say this: If the Digital Foundry were around back in 2001, we'd all be convinced that the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2 because of all of the piss poor Dreamcast ports we were getting.

Peace out, bitches.

...but the ps2 didnt come out 7 years after the dreamcast.



killerzX on 27 November 2012
pezus said:
superchunk said:
I really don't see how any of these ports are less of the game as the PS360 versions when they all say its all there already. I mean seriously... its only a few pixels difference people.

I only have COD so far, but intend on getting Batman and AC3 soon. I doubt I'll enjoy them more or less than I would have on the PS3 I used to own.... hell, I wouldn't have enjoyed them more or less if hey had significantly improved the visuals... its just not a big deal.

Sure, I was excited at the prospect, but in the end, its the same game. A rushed port on brand new hardware, but the same game never-the-less.

To some people, performance actually matters and as one of those who were claiming stable 60FPS in Blops II Wii U to be an advantage over the PS3/360 versions' framerate of 50-60, I don't know why you've done a 180.

not to mention the benefits of having an online community of about 500,000 players at any given time on the xbox/ps3 vs the less then 500 people on the wii U



DieAppleDie on 27 November 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3bYsSuCUok&feature=related
here they compare Mass effect
the WiiU holds up, but the 360 has the most stable framerate