http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=166997

Already being discussed, even though different source.

Personally, I don't see how DF came to that conclusion as the only negative is the loading times. Everything else is better for Wii U, especially gamepad bonus.

Maybe that other thread is on to something. DF might just be anti-Nintendo/Wii U.

read thew artice, worse frame rate, worse textues and load times make it the worst version, and its really time to change your comparison chart, your using the 320 sp count count from the neogaf gpu thread, it seems everybody there has excepted that its a 160 sp gpu, yet you continue to use old info to make your console of choice look better, even though its false infromation.

Don't derail the discussion please

maybe you should tell him that since he's saying DF is anti nintendo-wiiu.

Also seems like DF would go with Wii U if it has a patch to fix what is obviously caused by their own statements as a rushed port by a team that was not he original devs.

aren't you not allowed to call people trolls, no matter how obvious? I got warned for this before.

they said they can't recomment the wiiu version over the 360/ps3, they didn't say it would be the superior version with a patch, but a patch to fix the textures and load times might make it on par.

I tend to ease off on both "Troll" and "Fanboy." I've never seen what the big deal was with either word

Just finished reading the full article.

The pop-in is not missing items... its simply full depth of an item. Its also far less worse than rampant screen tearing in the other versions.

Textures are not categorically worse. They are related to the pop-in issue and once the full item is there, it always looks better on Wii U which is why ALL screenshots look better on Wii U.

Then you have framerate, yes 20-25 is worse than 25-30 of the other two. However, I'd have to play it in motion to see if its an mere annoyance or a real issue.

You also can't forget that:
1) Wii U is putting it out in actual HD 720p while the other two are sub-HD to different degrees.
2) Wii U is also putting it out to an additional screen that the others don't have bogging them down.
3) Wii U doesn't have the mandatory install that would remove the pop-in issue and likely fix the load times too.
4) Wii U has a arguably best in class control option with the gamepad. (off-tv or 2nd screen option)

Finally, their summary clearly show they would actually prefer the Wii U version had it not been an obvious rush port and/or receives a patch to fix the FPS issue.

I think some of you haters are reading way too much into some details and cherry-picking/ignoring the other parts of the discussion.

"Looking purely at the console trio, there's no denying that tearing on PS3 and 360 is overbearing in this case, though these have been optimised with fast loading times, and higher quality assets missing from Wii U. The pristine presentation of this Wii U version is a major plus meanwhile, and extra GamePad features such as off-screen play and an intuitive grid system for selecting weapons are considerable, tangible pluses.

However, the Wii U's lower frame-rates, patience-testing loading screens and occasional freezing issues can't be ignored either, meaning we'd advise caution before buying this version. It feels rushed to market in these respects, and until a worthy patch arrives, the contest must be narrowed down to PS3 and 360 - a stalemate that itself can only be broken via your preference for either visual fidelity or performance."

That is the full final summary and it clearly suggests Wii U is their preference if it were patched for the frame-rates and loading screen issues. They also clearly consider PS360's screen tearing a far bigger problem than the pop-in asset issue Wii U has. All issues Wii U wouldn't have if it were built by the main team with same investment in time as PS360 received.