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

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

Around the Network
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.



osed125 said:
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?


No, because of previous generations' graphics evolution (or lack of) during a console lifecycle. There isn't such thing as the "magic of console power unlocking" that will suddenly make the games look twice as good or an engine that makes them run much faster or smoother.

The launch lineup is a very strong indicative of how the console will fare over its lifetime. It will improve, but it will not be a very dramatic improvement.

In case of Wii U, by the time developers "learn to unlock its untapped potentialz", PS4/Orbis and X720/Durango will be out and put Wii U multiplats to shame even if devs can push 100% of its power (assuming it will maintain 3rd party support, that is).



At least the Wii U has the best version of Tekken Tag 2.



Darc Requiem wins. If Nintendo fans are to show that the U gives added value, graphics aren't the way to go. Added features make the U shine, because the graphics are, to the average gamer, very comparable. It's not an inconsistency in framerates that will affect most players, rather most won't even notice it.



Sensei said:
osed125 said:
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?


1) No, because of previous generations' graphics evolution (or lack of) during a console lifecycle. There isn't such thing as the "magic of console power unlocking" that will suddenly make the games look twice as good or an engine that makes them run much faster or smoother.

2) The launch lineup is a very strong indicative of how the console will fare over its lifetime. It will improve, but it will not be a very dramatic improvement.

3) In case of Wii U, by the time developers "learn to unlock its untapped potentialz", PS4/Orbis and X720/Durango will be out and put Wii U multiplats to shame even if devs can push 100% of its power (assuming it will maintain 3rd party support, that is).

1) We've been over this multiple time on this forums but the first 360 games didn't looked better than later tittles in the previous gen. The only reason some games looked slightly better was because the old ports were in SD while the 360 ones were in HD, the Wii U doesn't have that advantage. Just compare 360 launch games with the first Gears of Wars, it's night and day.

2) Again look at Gears.

3) Again, how do you know this without being a developer? It's obvious the PS4 and the next xbox will be more powerful than the Wii U, but does that mean the system won't get 3rd party support? We don't know that, this is a wait and see game.



Nintendo and PC gamer