Quantcast
Locked: Digital Foundry Face-Off: Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition on Wii U

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

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).



Around the Network
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.



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



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



Maybe I was watching the video wrong but the WiiU version actually looked better visually. Especially the eyes of Batman and Catwoman, and the neon letters on signs and such. Less jaggies all around. The pattern I seem to be noticing is that games tend to look better on Wii U while suffering some frame rate problems. In the case of Blops 2 I never noticed the frame rate issues but some have.



Games are fun.

Around the Network

The problem is not the developers, it is the Wii U.

It simply has no potential to tap. It is just weak.



So basically none of the multi-plat titles so far are definitively better on the Wii U visually? Sounds like every ... single ... one struck out, lol.

Looks like we might have to wait until next fall when Mario Universe (EAD Tokyo) or Retro's game come out to actually see a game that really is optimized for the system and is graphically intensive.

Third parties don't give a crap, and Nintendo doesn't have studios like Factor 5 and Rare working under them anymore that pushed the N64 and GameCube in the past, so that's out.



killerzX said:
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.

:) That's a good comeback.



Sensei said:
The problem is not the developers, it is the Wii U.

It simply has no potential to tap. It is just weak.

And you know that because you're a developer?



Nintendo and PC gamer

happydolphin said:
killerzX said:
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.

:) That's a good comeback.

indeed. 

getting bad ports from systems that are just 1 year older than the other system is much more understandable than a system that is 7 years newer than the older systems.

there is no reason for a system that has had 7 years to advance its technology over its predessors to be only marginally stronger (and in some of the specs, actually weaker), and on top of that get games that are graphically and/or performance wise worse than its 7 year seniors.