Which console launch was handled worse, PS3 or Wii U?

[curl-6]

Mazty said:

curl-6 said:

Mazty said:

Lolwut, how'd you come to the conclusion that the CPU based parts are better on the Wii U?! The article clearly stated that the Wii U is not good with CPU intensive games...

Because the article clearly says that the more advanced physics of the PC build are present in the Wii U build, but not on PS3/360.

The article's claim that the Wii U isn't good at CPU intensive games is based on CPU intensive games so far, which have all been rushed, badly optimised launch ports built on crappy devkits. That's like using Half Life 2's often single-digit framerate on PS3 to say the Cell is weak.

Way to warp the article. It clearly states the CPU intensive games are not good for the Wii U. Because of this lack of potential, sales are very, very low.

And what are they basing this assumption on? The performance of rushed, sloppy launch ports made with subpar devkits. (Arkham City, Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3) That's not an accurate measurement of a console's potential.

 

Criterion had this to say about the CPU: "When they first looked at the specs on paper a lot of developers said, 'Well, you know this is a bit lightweight' and they walked away. I think a lot of people have been premature about it in a lot of ways because while it is a lower clock-speed, it punches above its weight in a lot of other areas." 

"So, I think you've got one group of people who walked away, you've got some other people who just dived in and tried and thought, 'Ah... it's not kind of there,' but not many people have done what we've done, which is to sit down and look at where it's weaker and why, but also see where it's stronger and leverage that. It's a different kind of chip and it's not fair to look at its clock-speed and other consoles' clock-speed and compare them as numbers that are relevant. It's not a relevant comparison to make when you have processors that are so divergent. It's apples and oranges."