curl-6 said:
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." |
Yeah I'm going to stop here and just say you obviously don't understand how hardware works. Both articles have now reaffirmed that while the GPU may be better than what's in the PS3/360, the CPU is weaker, which drastically limits the consoles capabilities. Note in the first bolded sentence "OTHER AREAS", not "all", but "other".
Either way we have yet to see any game that looks "next gen" on the Wii U and because of this, the launch has been worse than the PS3 because we have to just work on the belief that it's next-gen rather as we have no evidence that it is (and frankly other sources believe it not to be).







