Why does that make it a ‘bad example’? The game is on all platforms and the Wii U received the superior version in terms of content. Note I said content and not superior in the general sense. The PS3 version has less screen tearing compared to the 360 version while the 360 version has a slightly better framerate than the PS3 version. However, both versions are superior to their Wii U counterpart since it has the worst framerate, by far. Furthermore, they sport better textures and graphical effects too. Let's not forget Nintendo sent a team to Team Ninja to assist them with development.

As for Batman AC

Look carefully at this video and you will see missing textures on the Wii U version.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/jxkcvl/batman--arkham-city-armored-edition-wii-u-graphics-comparison

Here is what Digital Foundry had to say about the Wii U ports.

“To kick off with, let's take a look at a triple-format gameplay comparison encompassing a range of combat scenarios along with some open-world traversal. Xbox 360 comes off best here, doggedly maintaining its 30FPS target with only minor screen-tear issues during Batman's tour of Arkham City. In those same sections we see PS3 significantly more affected by the increased rendering load. Wii U appears to be a fairly close match for the Sony platform, but with none of the tearing problems. However, in combat it's a completely different story - decent performance on the existing current-gen platforms but noticeably sub-par results on the Wii U. In common with Mass Effect 3 and Black Ops 2, once again Wii U has trouble processing multiple characters on-screen at any given point - more evidence that the CPU is simply not up to scratch for straight PS3/360 ports without some extensive optimisation” (Digital Foundry, 2012).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-batman-arkham-city-wii-u-face-off

Here’s another from about Darksiders 2

“And so another Wii U launch title arrives that doesn't quite hold its own against the existing PS3 and 360 versions. In addition, with the poorer performance and reduced visual quality, it also means that there's little reason to pick up the Wii U version at full price when the PS3 and 360 versions can be purchased new for as little as £20 online (though obviously the DLC packs are not included). In the final analysis, the PS3 version remains the most impressive version of the game with higher-quality textures in places and superior performance, followed by the 360 release, while the Wii U sits in last place.”

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-darksiders-2-on-wii-u-face-off

This is for Assassin’s Creed 3

“As an optional extra, the ability to remote play a blockbuster console release purely on a handheld does give the Wii U version a slight edge over the competition. It's only unfortunate that the frame-rate doesn't quite hold as steady compared to the 360 rendition, being more in the ballpark of the PS3 when chasing down the city streets, and marginally lower during some cut-scenes. This makes it the weakest of the trio in the crucial performance stakes, though they all have issues in achieving a sustained 30FPS where it's needed.”

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-assassins-creed-3-wii-u-face-off

If you looked at videos of the Wii U version of Batman AC you will notice the frames are very unstable. It is higher than the PS3/360 versions by 2 to 4 frames when there’s not much going on, but during combat it dips as low as 18 frames per second.  With that said I disagree with you on the Wii U version of those games playing more smoothly and better. The only games that are superior on Wii U are that Sonic racing game (marginally) and NFS: Most Wanted (because the devs had to hold it back and polish it for several months before releasing it). So that goes back to my original point. The PS3/360 played ports with ease and had superior graphics to the last generation systems at the time. Why is the Wii U struggling to play ports of 6 and 7 year old technology?

Here’s a quick run through of some of the launch games the Wii U had (ports) in comparison to their PS3/360 counterparts. But this video is more trolling than anything else. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvpKqWxLgE&list=UU6NhV2JOJr6pPGj1Q5m2eHg&index=76

Okay next

“To me Wii U is to PS4 what PS2 was to Gamecube.”

My response … No way man. It is definitely larger than that. :D But I’ll let the games speak in the next gen. Watch Dogs will be the first test since it is the first multiplatform game between the Wii U and PS4. We will revisit this issue over the next few months. I will book this page and message you.  

Next

Do I care about graphics? Not so much, but do I like realism? YES! And in order to get realism better hardware is needed, in my opinion. Apart from graphics I look for things like AI, physics, scope, scale, interaction, framerate consistency, characters that convey strong emotion and facial expressions, etc etc etc. All of these things expand with better hardware. The thing with Killzone, if it can deliver on those fronts I will be happy. Killzone 2 was a GREAT game for many reasons. It was quite challenging and the way they enemies interacted with the player was very believable. Even the way they responded to getting shot was well done for its time. If GG can go beyond that with the PS4 I will be very pleased. The visual fidelity will just be a bonus.

PS ...  As always I respect your opinion, and as we established before it is okay to disagree.

Yes!  I think we are all a little spoiled because the last gen was such an amazing leap in graphics.  I actually, say it was more like two or more, if you look from beginning of the gen to now, just in the quality of the images.  Plus, TV screens got wider and bigger.  So it was like a double-double leap to begin with.  This gen coming 8th is still a bigger leap than what I remember from 2-3-4, or similar spans.

I know I am a little impatient, as now we can also see how good CG can be, in say in the movie Avatar (made on 2008 equiptment) or the NYC Battle in The Avengers.  It's a complete digital world; build on top of natural reactions and people's faces, that looks real.  I want consoles to be that visually delicious.

 It will be an exciting gen, and I think more people will be moving into the ‘virtual world.’ There will be a down side as more media psychologist coming up with 'Non-Game-a-phobia’ and other such names for the new syndromes they will for people that only want to play.

(Think about how about in another 5 years or so when developers complain about the ‘tiny 8gb of ram they have to squeeze a game down to run on a console.)

Doom 3 was Xbox1 game, launched on April 3, 2005. However, you're most likely right for the screenshot, it's probably from BFG edition for 360 - not that it matters much in this case, I always thought Riddick looked way better than Doom. Not sure for GC versions, but I know Splinter Cell looked best on Xbox - I think whenever there was lot of lighting involved, Xbox1 stood out above it's competitiion.

I concur - as I said in one of my earlier posts, Xbox1 to 360 was just 4 years, and then we got 8-10x leap. Between 360 and PS4/NextBox we will have 8 years and pretty much the same 8-10x leap (as confirmed by EA) - so either this cycle should have been a lot shorter, or we should be looking at way bigger tech jump to keep same leap/year ratio (at least 7970, and not 7850 equivalent for some 60% more performance). (on a side note SD to 720p is 3x in pixels, 720p to 1080p is 2.25x)

But that does not mean per se that next gen jump is lower than previous one - because of length of the cycle, we just have better looking current gen tiltes to compare it with next gen release titles, so it might not look to some people as big of a leap as previous. My honest opinion is, that beacause of full real time lighting, tesselation and that huge pool of memory which allows for really big textures, we'll end up seeing even bigger jump at the end than we're expecting - specially if devs start, as time goes by, to lower native resolution (which I fully expect them to do) to squeeze out even more out of systems.

Have you been on holiday for a week or so?

The leap from SD to HD was big for consoles. The leap this time round will be substantial and noticeable, but it won't be as big of a difference.

You know I thought about this, and then I looked back...
Play Final Fantasy XII, Shadow of the Colossus, or Metal Gear Solid 3...
Then Play Enchanted Arms, Dynasty Warriors 6, or Call of Duty 3...

the graphical leap, while noticeable, was not very huge. But, as with ps2, ps3 (and shit even ps1) games, as the generation goes on, we'll see these graphics get even more refined and polished. 3 or 4 years from now, the jump will be VERY noticeable!

Oh you're right, not until the re-release, but that Doom 3 image wasn't an X-Box 1 image. I knew it looked too good. This is Doom 3 on X-Box



Compare that to Perfect Dark

My arguement still stands, X-Box to 360 is a bigger jump then PS3-PS4.

Smaller then 6 to 7, but bigger then 5 to 7????

THAT's UNPOSSIBLE!

I think you meant 5 to 6, and really? PS1 to PS2 or N64 to Gamecube was less dramatic?

or

to

Is not dramatic to you?

“To me Wii U is to PS4 what PS2 was to Gamecube.”

My response … No way man. It is definitely larger than that. :D But I’ll let the games speak in the next gen. Watch Dogs will be the first test since it is the first multiplatform game between the Wii U and PS4. We will revisit this issue over the next few months. I will book this page and message you. 

To me it is, I just don't see a big difference between X and Killzone. Yea games like Wonderful 101 are meh, but Wii U's best seem as good as PS4 to me.

-----

You care about realism? In all types of games? Are you big on FPS's and Racing games then? See I'm mostly an RPG fan, and except in Western RPG's where there is a lot of shooting mechanisms, there is no realism in RPG's. Especially JRPG's, you can't jump 30 feet and not break a foot, LOL. So for me it's mostly about ability to show beauty. Graphics can make games look more beautiful, but it's not always the case. XenoBlade was one of the best looking games for me next gen, and I know graphically it's nowhere nearly as good looking as FFXIII, but it looks a lot more inspired, and a lot more interesting then FFXIII.

Still good graphics are nice, I loved Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, and FallOut.

----

Wii U - wow, that surprised me. I never read a hardcore comparision by digital foundry, but in graphical comparision videos I always felt the WiiU version looked the best. Guess Wii U isn't strong enough to play enhanced ports of PS3/360 games.

Either way, we won't see how powerful the Wii U is until the more powerful exclusives or MP games made specifically for Wii U release. I wonder if Watch Dogs looks better on WiiU then PS3/360.

Wait till you see Battlefield 4.

That is all I have to say