By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JazzB1987 on 17 June 2014
Edit Thread
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
gcube2000 said:

I'm not just talking about these 2 companies but they're the ones that do it the most, but I am getting fucking tired of EA and Activision putting half assed ports on Wii U. Damn, maybe it would sell way better if 3rd party wasn't always on their ass saying, just because wii u isn't selling much hardware we should make it cheap as shit. Well they better buck up, I want do stick a damn CD up their ass everytime they do this lazy shit. Ubisoft delaying Watch Dogs, that's bullshit. EA making no games because no one wants to buy their shit ports, Activision being lazy as hell with Call of Duty Ports. Making it fucking 19 FPS comapred to everyone else having 30 or 60 FPS.


But but but....    having all ports make use of the hardware would defeat the purpose of those bad ports (having an excuse to not make good ports and to boycott Nintendo)

If all you do is make good games it doesnt work anymore. If 50% of the games you make are good and the other are shit the userbase still does not trust you so you can keep saying "see even our good game doesnt sell" and you hope people forget that you have to regain trust after burning the customers so often.

Activision also wants people to forget that not Nintendo users  but Activision itself is at fault when it comes to COD not selling "superb" on Nintendo platforms they delaying the most important COD ever for 1 year (modern warfare that made the series huge)  killed COD on Nintendo  not the userbase itself. (COD 3 sold almost identical on Wii as it did on 360 even tho there were more 360 consoles out during that time!)


but who determines what games are "good" or "bad" who determines which ports are bad or not? See how subjective it all is? what isnt subjective is support, fact is the games that were put on Wii U  did not sell well. Whether they were "bad" or not is not really relevant as other systems (PS3) got "bad" ports but still sold decently.

THe COD thing is a lie. It didnt sell identical to 360. And the games on the system sucked, which is why people stopped buying them. Do you really believe if they got it on time it would have sold just as well? doubt it. Hell DS got that oh so important game didnt stop the sales for dropping. And that still doesnt explain the WIi U CODs

I dunno how this is hard to determine.


if WiiU has a better GPU than PS360 and 4x the ram then make the games run faster or look better. If they look worse = bad port.  If they look the same = bad port.

If the hardware is not used properly its a bad port. If WiiU cant do effect X but has a substitute effect that serves the same purpose   just deactivating the unsupported effect without adding the new one = bad port. (splinter cell on gamecube looked better than COD and most other third party games on Wii because instead of replacing the effects they had to remove for the Wii version with other similar ones that worked on Wii they just left them deactivated and didnt bother = bad port)


Its as easy as that. SplinterCell, AssassinsCreed, COD, etc all looked worse or ran with lower FPS.
(and if a game runs at 24FPS on WiiU and on PS3 and 360  runs at only 20  the WiiU version is still a bad port even if its better because no action game etc should ever drop below 30. Turn based JRPGs etc. can run at 25fps but neither racing nor action games should ever do that!)

Third parties can stick their support to their asses when everything they do is bullshit IMHO. Id rather have NO game at all then shit that just serves as an excuse. I mean if I get a worse game for no reason other than they saying "the fanbase is not worth the effort (yet)" then their game is not worth my money (yet) and I buy it on steam 12 months later for 5 bucks instead of 60.

If they would go  "okay here this game is okayish but subpar  you just have to pay 40 instead of 60 bucks" then I would have no problem.


Rofl at the COD thing being a lie.....

DS has no analog stick and has PS1 graphics and was choppy and almost another if not another game. You cannot compare this to the Wii version wich was just a 360 version running on low  thats totally different.

And just look at the sales of COD 3 360 = 2.6m vs Wii =2.2m  PS3 =1.44  (Wii had a smaller userbase back then compared to 360!)  then look at ModernWarfare 360 = 6.06m   Wii =1.49m. PS3 = 6,46m

The mainstreamers found out about that game and everyone bought the 360 and PS3 versions (no Wii version was available so noone bought it)  then after the hype was over and everyone that had interest in the game bought it and even some former Wii COD players found a new home. Then when the next COD was coming the Wii version came out and just the remnants of the old COD Wii community bought the game on Wii and some peopel extremely late to the party. There was no fresh COD "players" on Wii  and thats why its failing on Wii.  The COD hype skipped the Wii console.  And then activision even decided to skip the Wii with some of its COD games.  If you make a game come out 1 year later and another one skips the system  then you kill your community it cannot recover because its never certain whether your next game comes out or not etc. 

Also even Ubisoft says stuff like "we cant release rayman legends on Wiiu PS360 owners will feel its old and not buy it"     but then they do it with WatchDogs WiiU and whatnot etc.   Double standards and dumb people everywhere rofl.