| kain_kusanagi said: If the Wii U was twice as powerfull then all the games would easily run in native 1080p, but they don't they run in 720p. Halo 4 runs in native 720p and looks crazy good doing it. Lots of games on Xbox 360 and Ps3 run in native 720p. Where are the 1080p Wii U games? The Wii U has more modern parts than the PS360, but Nintendo picked those parts because they were inexpensive and effiecent. The Wii U is only marginaly more powerfull than the PS360, not twice. "That's a lot of numbers, but it's safe to say that more and more evidence is placing Wii U alongside Xbox 360 and PS3 versus a drastic leap over the current generation. Developers are definitely coming to terms with what Nintendo's new system will be capable of, but it's also clear that Nintendo's divergent approach has once again focused on finding innovation in control and software versus attempting to compete in terms of raw power." http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/wii-u-cpu-gpu-details-uncovered |
I don't know why I'm replying.... I gave you actual technical details that should prove to you the WiiU is basically twice the power of PS360 and your rebuttal is 3rd party ports?
Ports that were rushed by teams that didn't even design the original game or have any history with the WiiU hardware. Think about that for a moment. I don't know if you know anything about software development, I do as that's my profession for the last 10+ years. But, there is a steep learning curve when you A) know nothing about the software you're walking into and B) have to use all new tools and hardware.
Then on top of that, these teams were able to port over a fully functional and identical game in a drastically shortened time frame on hardware and SDKs that were continuously changing until a few months prior to their deployment dates. Its fucking amazing any of those games got done let alone with EXTRA features, nearly identical visuals/fps, and a whole new set of controls for the gamepad. THen on top of all that, they were able to get it to stay stable while displaying to TWO SCREENS with zero lag. Do you really think PS360 could put out AC3 on two screens and keep it an average of 50+fps?
I mean hell.... devs have the same team, same time, and plenty of knowledge and sometimes still don't make the PS3 version equal to the 360 version simply because they are different hardware. Now imagine they had 1/3 the time and no knowledge of the system.
As for IGNs post... 2x does not equal "drastic leap" in any language. So yes, they are still correct. But any level-headed person would say its about 2x the power of PS360.
