By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Digital Foundry: Most Wanted U beats PS3/360 versions

RazorDragon on 31 March 2013
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:

considering how small the upgrades were i'm sure, the 360/ps3 version could look just as good with extra dev time, the only thing i noticed in the direct feed captures for DF is thr better reflection mapping on the road, and before people get riled up, just look at ninja gaiden RE 3 on 360/ps3 its runs so much smoother and looks better then wiiu version, not to mention it looks and runs better then vanilla ninja gaiden 3, extra dev time always helps a game look better, just look at forza horizone it looks much better then then need for speed most wanted on any console.


Higher-resolution textures take a huge space in RAM. So, no, it wouldn't look as good no matter how long the dev time was on PS3/360. Also, to run at a better framerate with higher-resolution textures and higher reflection mapping draw distance, you certainly need a better GPU than what the PS3/360 offer. NG3 case was very different, as the dev didn't had a finalized dev kit and it was a launch window game, so it was probably a rushed port. It's not like NG3 is a graphical masterpiece to use it as a benchmark for the graphical capabilities of multiplatform games, Darksiders 2/Assassin's Creed 3 had way better graphics than it and were also launch window Wii U games.

forza horizone looks much better  then need for speed wiiu much better lighting textures and clean aa, need for speed MW had a dead line, and a small budget compared to horizone, the frame rate is on par, its a bit better by a very small margin, you do know that 360 versions of MP have bigger advantages then need for speed wiiu does that mean ps3 or 360 can't pull it off, with more dev time, just looks up some faceoffs between 360/ps3 the advantages in some games are much bigger then need for speed wiiu has on 360/ps3. better textures, huge frame rate advantage, higher resolution. your talking about a game where even direct feed captures it hard to see a differnce and the frame rate is pretty much on par with wiiu having a very small advantage.

I agree that Forza Horizon looks much better, but texture-wise it's not even a competition. Forza Horizon's environments are much more open than NFS MW's, it simply can't produce better textures with 360's/PS3's GPU. It's always a tradeoff, if you do something bigger/better, something will have to be worse. The truth is, Wii U has more RAM than PS3/360, therefore it'll always have an advantage texture-wise if used correctly. Sure, some 360/PS3 multiplat games have bigger differences than the one described in NFS MW, but when you take in account that these systems are on the market for 7 years and Wii U is just in 4 months, it's clear that devtime is not a matter here. If it were to look better on these consoles, it would've looked better because PS3/360 hardware is already known for 7 years while Wii U is a new hardware, therefore, the best way to utilize it's capabilities is still not known by developers. 



Around the Network
Viper1 on 31 March 2013
VGKing said:
hsrob said:
VGKing said:
curl-6 said:

 

Having just played this one for myself, I can report that it looks absolutely gorgeous on Wii U. The lighting, textures, and reflections are exquisite, and there's barely a hint of slowdown.

The only other Wii U game so far that even comes close to it visually is Trine 2 Director's Cut. 

Criterion has put devs like Treyarch and Rocksteady to shame with this title. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you port a game to Wii U.

 

You do realize the only reason this port is so good, even superior to the others is because of the extra dev time right?
Both the Batman and COD game were rushed ports for launch.

Says you.  The developer says it was because of the extra RAM and alluded to the fact they actually got to work with finalised dev kits.

Of course. But obviously they benefitted greatly from the extra development time. Are you saying this isn't true?

It would only be EXTRA TIME if the gme was initially developed side by side with the X360/PS3 version.  Which it obviously wasn't.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

ninjablade on 31 March 2013
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:

considering how small the upgrades were i'm sure, the 360/ps3 version could look just as good with extra dev time, the only thing i noticed in the direct feed captures for DF is thr better reflection mapping on the road, and before people get riled up, just look at ninja gaiden RE 3 on 360/ps3 its runs so much smoother and looks better then wiiu version, not to mention it looks and runs better then vanilla ninja gaiden 3, extra dev time always helps a game look better, just look at forza horizone it looks much better then then need for speed most wanted on any console.


Higher-resolution textures take a huge space in RAM. So, no, it wouldn't look as good no matter how long the dev time was on PS3/360. Also, to run at a better framerate with higher-resolution textures and higher reflection mapping draw distance, you certainly need a better GPU than what the PS3/360 offer. NG3 case was very different, as the dev didn't had a finalized dev kit and it was a launch window game, so it was probably a rushed port. It's not like NG3 is a graphical masterpiece to use it as a benchmark for the graphical capabilities of multiplatform games, Darksiders 2/Assassin's Creed 3 had way better graphics than it and were also launch window Wii U games.

forza horizone looks much better  then need for speed wiiu much better lighting textures and clean aa, need for speed MW had a dead line, and a small budget compared to horizone, the frame rate is on par, its a bit better by a very small margin, you do know that 360 versions of MP have bigger advantages then need for speed wiiu does that mean ps3 or 360 can't pull it off, with more dev time, just looks up some faceoffs between 360/ps3 the advantages in some games are much bigger then need for speed wiiu has on 360/ps3. better textures, huge frame rate advantage, higher resolution. your talking about a game where even direct feed captures it hard to see a differnce and the frame rate is pretty much on par with wiiu having a very small advantage.

I agree that Forza Horizon looks much better, but texture-wise it's not even a competition. Forza Horizon's environments are much more open than NFS MW's, it simply can't produce better textures with 360's/PS3's GPU. It's always a tradeoff, if you do something bigger/better, something will have to be worse. The truth is, Wii U has more RAM than PS3/360, therefore it'll always have an advantage texture-wise if used correctly. Sure, some 360/PS3 multiplat games have bigger differences than the one described in NFS MW, but when you take in account that these systems are on the market for 7 years and Wii U is just in 4 months, it's clear that devtime is not a matter here. If it were to look better on these consoles, it would've looked better because PS3/360 hardware is already known for 7 years while Wii U is a new hardware, therefore, the best way to utilize it's capabilities is still not known by developers. 

why are textures a gpu problem, i thought it was memory, and i seen textures quality go up along with detail in many games, so i don't what you mean by this, post pics from df or look at the comparison, your talking about about the game looking better by a 5% differnce at best, just look at ninja gaiden 3 for 360/ps3 the enhanced port seems to have better graphics more detail and better frame rate, just because of more dev time, i'm comparing ninja gaiden 3 vanialla to ninja gaiden RE3 for 360/ps3.



hsrob on 31 March 2013
Viper1 said:
VGKing said:
hsrob said:
VGKing said:
curl-6 said:

 

Having just played this one for myself, I can report that it looks absolutely gorgeous on Wii U. The lighting, textures, and reflections are exquisite, and there's barely a hint of slowdown.

The only other Wii U game so far that even comes close to it visually is Trine 2 Director's Cut. 

Criterion has put devs like Treyarch and Rocksteady to shame with this title. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you port a game to Wii U.

 

You do realize the only reason this port is so good, even superior to the others is because of the extra dev time right?
Both the Batman and COD game were rushed ports for launch.

Says you.  The developer says it was because of the extra RAM and alluded to the fact they actually got to work with finalised dev kits.

Of course. But obviously they benefitted greatly from the extra development time. Are you saying this isn't true?

It would only be EXTRA TIME if the gme was initially developed side by side with the X360/PS3 version.  Which it obviously wasn't.

This!  The Wii U version actually had a far SHORTER development cycle.

Anyway, the usual suspects trying to rain on other people's parade.  It would be nice if this site was more about people talking about the games they liked to play rather than downplaying games that they don't like or have no interest in playing. The whole place is just drowning in negativity at the moment.



RazorDragon on 31 March 2013
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:

considering how small the upgrades were i'm sure, the 360/ps3 version could look just as good with extra dev time, the only thing i noticed in the direct feed captures for DF is thr better reflection mapping on the road, and before people get riled up, just look at ninja gaiden RE 3 on 360/ps3 its runs so much smoother and looks better then wiiu version, not to mention it looks and runs better then vanilla ninja gaiden 3, extra dev time always helps a game look better, just look at forza horizone it looks much better then then need for speed most wanted on any console.


Higher-resolution textures take a huge space in RAM. So, no, it wouldn't look as good no matter how long the dev time was on PS3/360. Also, to run at a better framerate with higher-resolution textures and higher reflection mapping draw distance, you certainly need a better GPU than what the PS3/360 offer. NG3 case was very different, as the dev didn't had a finalized dev kit and it was a launch window game, so it was probably a rushed port. It's not like NG3 is a graphical masterpiece to use it as a benchmark for the graphical capabilities of multiplatform games, Darksiders 2/Assassin's Creed 3 had way better graphics than it and were also launch window Wii U games.

forza horizone looks much better  then need for speed wiiu much better lighting textures and clean aa, need for speed MW had a dead line, and a small budget compared to horizone, the frame rate is on par, its a bit better by a very small margin, you do know that 360 versions of MP have bigger advantages then need for speed wiiu does that mean ps3 or 360 can't pull it off, with more dev time, just looks up some faceoffs between 360/ps3 the advantages in some games are much bigger then need for speed wiiu has on 360/ps3. better textures, huge frame rate advantage, higher resolution. your talking about a game where even direct feed captures it hard to see a differnce and the frame rate is pretty much on par with wiiu having a very small advantage.

I agree that Forza Horizon looks much better, but texture-wise it's not even a competition. Forza Horizon's environments are much more open than NFS MW's, it simply can't produce better textures with 360's/PS3's GPU. It's always a tradeoff, if you do something bigger/better, something will have to be worse. The truth is, Wii U has more RAM than PS3/360, therefore it'll always have an advantage texture-wise if used correctly. Sure, some 360/PS3 multiplat games have bigger differences than the one described in NFS MW, but when you take in account that these systems are on the market for 7 years and Wii U is just in 4 months, it's clear that devtime is not a matter here. If it were to look better on these consoles, it would've looked better because PS3/360 hardware is already known for 7 years while Wii U is a new hardware, therefore, the best way to utilize it's capabilities is still not known by developers. 

why are textures a gpu problem, i thought it was memory, and i seen textures quality go up along with detail in many games, so i don't what you mean by this, post pics from df or look at the comparison, your talking about about the game looking better by a 5% differnce at best, just look at ninja gaiden 3 for 360/ps3 the enhanced port seems to have better graphics more detail and better frame rate, just because of more dev time, i'm comparing ninja gaiden 3 vanialla to ninja gaiden RE3 for 360/ps3.


A nice example would be trying to run Crysis with the highest-res textures on a 1GB HD 4670 and then on a HD4870 512MB. Which one of those will offer better framerate? It's quite obvious it'll be the 512MB HD4870. To be able to use higher-res textures, you need more RAM, but to use them and also run the game at a better framerate you need a better GPU. About the DF comparison, they were able to notice it and from what I've looked on the internet, many gamers were also able to see the difference in texture quality and reflection draw distance, so if it was better only by a "5%" difference nobody would notice. The difference was noticed, so I'm inclined to believe it is a considerable difference. About NG3 RE running better than Vanilla, I tried to find some kind of comparison between the two versions on Google but it seems nobody did it. However, since RE graphics didn't improve from the Vanilla version, I'm not sure if framerate will be any better.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 31 March 2013
VGKing said:
curl-6 said:

 

Having just played this one for myself, I can report that it looks absolutely gorgeous on Wii U. The lighting, textures, and reflections are exquisite, and there's barely a hint of slowdown.

The only other Wii U game so far that even comes close to it visually is Trine 2 Director's Cut. 

Criterion has put devs like Treyarch and Rocksteady to shame with this title. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you port a game to Wii U.

 

You do realize the only reason this port is so good, even superior to the others is because of the extra dev time right?
Both the Batman and COD game were rushed ports for launch.

The developers have stated that it's better because of the Wii U's extra RAM and horsepower. And it's not like they started where the PS3/360 versions left off; this is their first game for Wii U, they had to come to grips with new hardware.



curl-6 on 31 March 2013
ninjablade said:
VGKing said:
hsrob said:
VGKing said:
curl-6 said:

 

Having just played this one for myself, I can report that it looks absolutely gorgeous on Wii U. The lighting, textures, and reflections are exquisite, and there's barely a hint of slowdown.

The only other Wii U game so far that even comes close to it visually is Trine 2 Director's Cut. 

Criterion has put devs like Treyarch and Rocksteady to shame with this title. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you port a game to Wii U.

 

You do realize the only reason this port is so good, even superior to the others is because of the extra dev time right?
Both the Batman and COD game were rushed ports for launch.

Says you.  The developer says it was because of the extra RAM and alluded to the fact they actually got to work with finalised dev kits.

Of course. But obviously they benefitted greatly from the extra development time. Are you saying this isn't true?

considering how small the upgrades were i'm sure, the 360/ps3 version could look just as good with extra dev time

No amount of dev time is going to magically turn less than 500MB of RAM into 1GB.



ninjablade on 01 April 2013
RazorDragon said:


A nice example would be trying to run Crysis with the highest-res textures on a 1GB HD 4670 and then on a HD4870 512MB. Which one of those will offer better framerate? It's quite obvious it'll be the 512MB HD4870. To be able to use higher-res textures, you need more RAM, but to use them and also run the game at a better framerate you need a better GPU. About the DF comparison, they were able to notice it and from what I've looked on the internet, many gamers were also able to see the difference in texture quality and reflection draw distance, so if it was better only by a "5%" difference nobody would notice. The difference was noticed, so I'm inclined to believe it is a considerable difference. About NG3 RE running better than Vanilla, I tried to find some kind of comparison between the two versions on Google but it seems nobody did it. However, since RE graphics didn't improve from the Vanilla version, I'm not sure if framerate will be any better.





ninjablade on 01 April 2013
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:
RazorDragon said:
ninjablade said:

considering how small the upgrades were i'm sure, the 360/ps3 version could look just as good with extra dev time, the only thing i noticed in the direct feed captures for DF is thr better reflection mapping on the road, and before people get riled up, just look at ninja gaiden RE 3 on 360/ps3 its runs so much smoother and looks better then wiiu version, not to mention it looks and runs better then vanilla ninja gaiden 3, extra dev time always helps a game look better, just look at forza horizone it looks much better then then need for speed most wanted on any console.


Higher-resolution textures take a huge space in RAM. So, no, it wouldn't look as good no matter how long the dev time was on PS3/360. Also, to run at a better framerate with higher-resolution textures and higher reflection mapping draw distance, you certainly need a better GPU than what the PS3/360 offer. NG3 case was very different, as the dev didn't had a finalized dev kit and it was a launch window game, so it was probably a rushed port. It's not like NG3 is a graphical masterpiece to use it as a benchmark for the graphical capabilities of multiplatform games, Darksiders 2/Assassin's Creed 3 had way better graphics than it and were also launch window Wii U games.

forza horizone looks much better  then need for speed wiiu much better lighting textures and clean aa, need for speed MW had a dead line, and a small budget compared to horizone, the frame rate is on par, its a bit better by a very small margin, you do know that 360 versions of MP have bigger advantages then need for speed wiiu does that mean ps3 or 360 can't pull it off, with more dev time, just looks up some faceoffs between 360/ps3 the advantages in some games are much bigger then need for speed wiiu has on 360/ps3. better textures, huge frame rate advantage, higher resolution. your talking about a game where even direct feed captures it hard to see a differnce and the frame rate is pretty much on par with wiiu having a very small advantage.

I agree that Forza Horizon looks much better, but texture-wise it's not even a competition. Forza Horizon's environments are much more open than NFS MW's, it simply can't produce better textures with 360's/PS3's GPU. It's always a tradeoff, if you do something bigger/better, something will have to be worse. The truth is, Wii U has more RAM than PS3/360, therefore it'll always have an advantage texture-wise if used correctly. Sure, some 360/PS3 multiplat games have bigger differences than the one described in NFS MW, but when you take in account that these systems are on the market for 7 years and Wii U is just in 4 months, it's clear that devtime is not a matter here. If it were to look better on these consoles, it would've looked better because PS3/360 hardware is already known for 7 years while Wii U is a new hardware, therefore, the best way to utilize it's capabilities is still not known by developers. 

why are textures a gpu problem, i thought it was memory, and i seen textures quality go up along with detail in many games, so i don't what you mean by this, post pics from df or look at the comparison, your talking about about the game looking better by a 5% differnce at best, just look at ninja gaiden 3 for 360/ps3 the enhanced port seems to have better graphics more detail and better frame rate, just because of more dev time, i'm comparing ninja gaiden 3 vanialla to ninja gaiden RE3 for 360/ps3.


A nice example would be trying to run Crysis with the highest-res textures on a 1GB HD 4670 and then on a HD4870 512MB. Which one of those will offer better framerate? It's quite obvious it'll be the 512MB HD4870. To be able to use higher-res textures, you need more RAM, but to use them and also run the game at a better framerate you need a better GPU. About the DF comparison, they were able to notice it and from what I've looked on the internet, many gamers were also able to see the difference in texture quality and reflection draw distance, so if it was better only by a "5%" difference nobody would notice. The difference was noticed, so I'm inclined to believe it is a considerable difference. About NG3 RE running better than Vanilla, I tried to find some kind of comparison between the two versions on Google but it seems nobody did it. However, since RE graphics didn't improve from the Vanilla version, I'm not sure if framerate will be any better.

first of all the wiiu version uses some pc textures, second of all, you have pics and comparison videos from DF these are direct feed captures not crappy quality, its very hard to spot the differnce unless your really looking hard for it, and here are impressions from neogaf  on ninja gaidenRE3 demo, they all claim it looks much better then ninja gaiden vanilla, and has much better fram rate not to mention you cut limps in this version, plus it has more detail then vanailla.  http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50123265&postcount=245



curl-6 on 01 April 2013
ninjablade said:

Look at the intersection. Once again, 360 has a blank lack of reflections and shadows while the Wii U doesn't. (And then there's the kerb texture, which DF pointed out in this particualr comparison)