Assassin’s Creed 3 on Wii U is missing some graphical features, didn’t have enough time to properly port

[menx64]

zarx said:

lilbroex said:

That is completely bogus. Every comfirmation says the Wii U version is way better.

A bad capture vs off screen both from a bad quality streaming video is a worthless comparison. And as much as I like shane his opinions on graphics have been worthless ever since he argued that CoD4 looked better than Crysis. The sources for 1080p from what I have seen are from a Nintendo fan site that in the same article said that the Wii U version would be "60fps like the PS3/360 version" which means they are full of shit as the PS360 versions are both 30fps, and the other is a forum post on GameFAQs which claims that Nintendo PR reps told him that AC3 and Batman: AC are both "True HD" which he took to mean they were 1080p native, which is stupid because PR reps don't usually know technical details on games unless they are marketing points.

The only official word is the one in your OP

" the Wii U version will be missing some technical features that are available on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Because the developer didn’t have enough time to properly port Assassin’s Creed 3 Wii U to Nintendo’s new console, the game won’t include some of the lighting and particle effects present in other versions."

"Masters says that the Wii U version is “99% identical” to the other consoles."

Which basically shows that Kotaku are full of shit as well as they claimed that the lighting was better on Wii U. 

And also from your OP "Assassin’s Creed 3 was playable at GamesCom both on the PS3 and Wii U, and those who played both versions reportedly saw clear advantages on the PS3 version." which mirrors the story from gamesradar which was posted after the story from your OP. 

So we have 3 sources that say it's better, 2 of which are worthless and the other questionable. Vs 3 that say it's currently worse and will be 99% the same at launch, which includes an actual dev working on the game...

So much for your "Every comfirmation says the Wii U version is way better."

EDIT: and I found another interview with a Ubisoft dev saying it will be the same and no better than PS360 http://www.computerandvideogames.com/363428/assassins-creed-iii-interview-alex-hutchinson/?page=3#top_banner

"Wii U is visually the same as the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, and we're adding a little bit on the tablet controller."

And another person that says it looks the same as any multiplat PS360 game

http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/16/assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-3-shown-playable-on-wii-u-%E2%80%9Cthe-same%E2%80%9D-as-360-ps3-pc/

"In what may well be the first showing of a third-party game on the next-gen Nintendo hardware, Assassin’s Creed III certainly looked no different to anything you’d expect to see on 360 or PS3. Graphically, I could see no difference."

there are a few reports that say it has some better textures, which is to be expected with the extra RAM in the Wii U. But nothing to suggest that it's higher res or better framerate.

 this post explains a lot and I thank you for taking the time to put all of this together. 

 However, a question raised within me right after I read lilbroex´s post and your answer...

 Why is everybody only talking about framerates, textures, particles and those things instead of talking about who good/fun the games looks? It bugs me to think that gaming boards nowdays are sites where what it matters is how good the game looks in comparison to fill the blank, or how many particles, the amount of ram, technical specs an such.  The worst thing is that all gaming boards are pretty much the same, while I enjoy some debates here and there, I am really getting tired of people "fighting" this imaginary gaming war.

 @zarx: I hope my post doesnt offend anybody, I am taking it as an example of what I dont like about gaming boards these days.