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

Forums - Nintendo - is Digital Foundry biased?

 

So is Digital Foundry biased?

Yes they are a bunch of anti-Nintendo fanboys 43 31.62%
 
Maybe a little bit but Ni... 13 9.56%
 
They don't prefer one ov... 12 8.82%
 
Maybe they like Sony more 14 10.29%
 
Maybe they like Microsoft more 37 27.21%
 
Of course Ninjablade secretly works for them 16 11.76%
 
Total:135
oni-link on 27 August 2013
Barozi said:
Most of the time it was the case that the WiiU version looked the best but performed the worst.
Looking at Splinter Cell Blacklist, the same happened again.

It's really not hard to make a game look better, but if the performance suffers from it then it shouldn't be done.


Isn't the reason for the performance due to the fact that these games were optimized for the PS360 first and then ported to the Wii which had a diffrent set-up and needs to be re-optimized for the hardware.  In regards to SC:Blacklist loading time I think has to do with the mandatory (in the Wii U's case lack-of) install of the game which would give advantage to the system that had the install then the one that didn't.



Around the Network
pokoko on 27 August 2013

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the Wii U version of Blacklist doesn't have worse framerate drops than the other consoles? Because, in my opinion, that trumps everything else in terms of negatives. Loading times being much worse is also a serious negative.

If you're saying that this isn't true then I'd like to see some proof or evidence that contradicts what DF states.



IsawYoshi on 27 August 2013

There have been cases when they have seemed a bit biased, but that might be just because I'm biased :p Also, people make mistakes from time to time.

It irritates me that they often make Wii U versions seem sub par though. All multi plats I've played on multiple systems (the exception being Fifa) have looked either just as good or better on Wii U.



Shinobi-san on 27 August 2013
oni-link said:
Barozi said:
Most of the time it was the case that the WiiU version looked the best but performed the worst.
Looking at Splinter Cell Blacklist, the same happened again.

It's really not hard to make a game look better, but if the performance suffers from it then it shouldn't be done.


Isn't the reason for the performance due to the fact that these games were optimized for the PS360 first and then ported to the Wii which had a diffrent set-up and needs to be re-optimized for the hardware.  In regards to SC:Blacklist loading time I think has to do with the mandatory (in the Wii U's case lack-of) install of the game which would give advantage to the system that had the install then the one that didn't.

It doesnt matter what the reason is for the performance differences. Doesnt change the fact that the WiiU version performs worst.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

milkyjoe on 27 August 2013

I thought they were biased against Sony, or was that just last month?



VGChartz

Around the Network
Suke on 27 August 2013

I'm not one of those people who says "their against Nintendo" or anything, but there's time where their comparison are a bit.....odd.



“Don’t follow the hype, follow the games”

— 

Here a little quote I want for those to keep memorize in your head for this coming next gen.                            

 By: Suke
oni-link on 27 August 2013
Shinobi-san said:
oni-link said:
Barozi said:
Most of the time it was the case that the WiiU version looked the best but performed the worst.
Looking at Splinter Cell Blacklist, the same happened again.

It's really not hard to make a game look better, but if the performance suffers from it then it shouldn't be done.


Isn't the reason for the performance due to the fact that these games were optimized for the PS360 first and then ported to the Wii which had a diffrent set-up and needs to be re-optimized for the hardware.  In regards to SC:Blacklist loading time I think has to do with the mandatory (in the Wii U's case lack-of) install of the game which would give advantage to the system that had the install then the one that didn't.

It doesnt matter what the reason is for the performance differences. Doesnt change the fact that the WiiU version performs worst.

Well from what I interpreted they are blaming everything wrong due to the hardware.  Thus somewhat misleading to a notion that the Wii U is somehow deficient in terms of hardware; when in fact the GPU is quite strong (it's looking more akin to 5550 than the 4670) compared to the PS360 and it's Espresso CPU is overall comparable to the Xenos regardless of clock speed.



oni-link on 27 August 2013
Suke said:
I'm not one of those people who says "their against Nintendo" or anything, but there's time where their comparison are a bit.....odd.


yeah...blatantly odd.



fps_d0minat0r on 27 August 2013

They are biased.
If they compare a console and a PC the PC should be of the same value.
its stupid how they buy expensive parts and then tell us the PC is better......OB-f***ing-VIOUSLY it will.



ListerOfSmeg on 27 August 2013
dsgrue3 said:
oni-link said:
dsgrue3 said:
It's far more likely that you're simply upset by their verdict than bias having occurred on their behalf.


It's not that...I would respect their review if it made sense.  However, most of their comparisons mostly mentions the deficiencies in Nintendo's version while downplaying their advantages.  Would it kill them to say that SC:Blacklist and Trine 2 was superior to their sub-HD counterparts?

They consider more things than just the image itself. If that's all you base your decision on, then you probably won't agree. They factor in many aspects including frame integrity, aliasing, etc.

They did conclude that Trine 2 looked better on Wii U so I don't understand what upsets you there. With SC it came down to whether you put an emphasis on visual beauty or integrity - if you prefer better textures with some tear then Wii U is not the best choice. If you prefer worse textures with no tear, then it is.

Hmm that is odd because when I read it or about it, the parts linked said in some areas the PS3 textures looked better and in some they looked better on Wii U. How this has turned into completely bad textures on Wii U is beyond me but anyone that can take something that says its good on both at times and turn it into its completely bad on one but not the other is clearly biased.