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

Forums - Gaming - Splinter Cell Blacklist Performance Comparison – PS3/Xbox360/Wii U

crissindahouse on 26 August 2013

i like the reasoning why they didn't use the 360 version with installed hd textures. "because we didn't get the recommendation on-screen when we first started the game".

you have to recommend it to them as developer when they start the game or they don't install it.

seriously? they could at least test the 360 version without and with hd textures because most people are obviously interested to know how it looks with hd textures.

they don't show 360 players the version most of them will play and only the version very few will play lol.



Around the Network
unaveragejoe on 26 August 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
once again a wiiu multi- platform game is on par with current gen, once again the same posters scream lazy ports

More than twice as much RAM. Textures not much better. Proof positive of laziness.


remember the ram is way slower then 360/ps3 ram, the only 3d game to take advantage is need for speed and its not exactly a fair comparison because its an ehnaced port that came out months later, the lazy port meme need sto be banned, especially when the majority of MP games are still inferior. 

The ram isn't slower. Don't believe me? Find one article of a developer complaining of slow ram. One that actually used it, not one with a dev kit sitting on the shelf never touched. Find two and I'll write your name in big letters. 



Conina on 26 August 2013

Additionally to the loading times "out of the box" they should also measure the loading times of the discless versions, since most new games can also be bought as digitally distributed versions in XBL, PSN and eShop

Having said that... like every other Splinter-Cell-game before, I will buy the superior and cheaper PC-version. ;)



curl-6 on 26 August 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

Just like any other console, Wii U's power will be unlocked by experience and effort. We won't see games that push it in its first year, just like no game in the first year of any modern console pushes the limits of the hardware.

i won't agree with you, the wii was a modern console and i never really thought the games looked that much better then xbox and gamecube. 

Though the Wii did pull off games the Gamecube and Xbox could not, that wasn't the point I was making.

The Wii wasn't really pushed hard until several years into its lifespan. Same goes for PS3, 360, Xbox, PS2, PS1, N64... and the Wii U will be no different.



curl-6 on 26 August 2013
unaveragejoe said:
curl-6 said:
WagnerPaiva said:
In indisight, Nintendo should have made sure everything on its system was better than the 7 years old HD twins, it would spare then a lot of criticism and would not cost that much more.

Backwards compatibility is the primary culprit; in order to ensure the system could play Wii games, they had to pick a CPU from the same product line, instead of a newer and more powerful design.

That's not accurate. It could use more than one processor to be backward compatible. Is it the most powerful CPU in all the galaxy? No, but you can't just add multicore , change the die size and increase the cache 10 fold by just saying Hokus Pokus. Regardless the Wii U was designed for the load to be shared not just by the CPU or GPU to get the most out of it.

It was most convenient for Nintendo to keep it PPC750 based though, that meant that to run Wii games they just had to use one of the three cores, downclock it to Wii speed, and use only 256kb of its L2 cache.

I do agree that it is an underestimated part though, and that with its GPGPU the console was clearly designed for share the load of traditionally CPU-assigned tasks.



Around the Network
unaveragejoe on 26 August 2013
curl-6 said:
unaveragejoe said:
curl-6 said:
WagnerPaiva said:
In indisight, Nintendo should have made sure everything on its system was better than the 7 years old HD twins, it would spare then a lot of criticism and would not cost that much more.

Backwards compatibility is the primary culprit; in order to ensure the system could play Wii games, they had to pick a CPU from the same product line, instead of a newer and more powerful design.

That's not accurate. It could use more than one processor to be backward compatible. Is it the most powerful CPU in all the galaxy? No, but you can't just add multicore , change the die size and increase the cache 10 fold by just saying Hokus Pokus. Regardless the Wii U was designed for the load to be shared not just by the CPU or GPU to get the most out of it.

It was most convenient for Nintendo to keep it PPC750 based though, that meant that to run Wii games they just had to use one of the three cores, downclock it to Wii speed, and use only 256kb of its L2 cache.

I do agree that it is an underestimated part though, and that with its GPGPU the console was clearly designed for share the load of traditionally CPU-assigned tasks.

From what I understand  Powerpc 476fp could have been used as well and be compatible. At the end of the day it is a custom power based chip so maybe a little of this and a little of that could have been used. Also, in development of the Wii U they pondered a 1+1 design but, chose not to. So I think the CPU they decided on was strong enough without the need for that when used properly.



curl-6 on 26 August 2013
unaveragejoe said:
curl-6 said:

It was most convenient for Nintendo to keep it PPC750 based though, that meant that to run Wii games they just had to use one of the three cores, downclock it to Wii speed, and use only 256kb of its L2 cache.

I do agree that it is an underestimated part though, and that with its GPGPU the console was clearly designed for share the load of traditionally CPU-assigned tasks.

From what I understand  Powerpc 476fp could have been used. At the end of the day it is a custom power based chip so maybe a little of this and a little of that could have been used. Also, in development of the Wii U they pondered a 1+1 but, chose not to. So I think the CPU they decided on was strong enough with out the need for that when used properly.

If it's strong enough to run games like Bayonetta 2, X, and Pikmin 3, then it's strong enough for me.



ryuzaki57 on 26 August 2013
anthony64641 said:

I heard from people on Miiverse saying the exact same thing about Splinter Cell Blacklist on Wii U having better graphics, and less screen tearing than the other console versions of the game. There is no doubt about it. The Wii U version of Splinter Cell: Blacklist is the definitive version. 

Not sure about that. It lacks trophies and offline coop.



 

Blog -> https://ryuz4ki57inenglish.wordpress.com/

globalisateur on 26 August 2013

Well the fact that the WiiU has no tearing is good news.

Somebody knows why?



Angelv577 on 26 August 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
once again a wiiu multi- platform game is on par with current gen, once again the same posters scream lazy ports

More than twice as much RAM. Textures not much better. Proof positive of laziness.

We don't know the development time they had for the Wii U version compare to current gen version plus it's still a new hardware so maybe it was a matter of time.