• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

tkscz
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:40 AM)
tkscz's Avatar
Normally I wouldn't give in to this purposly failing thing, but EA isn't proven anyone wrong here. This was the big game from EA on Wii U, but they release a Triology for the other consoles before it, it has technical issues, it doesn't include the newest DLC on disc, and it's more expensive. What reason would anyone have to get this? No marketing department would say this was A-OK. It just seems like this is being done purposely to make sure sales are bad.
DonMigs85
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:41 AM)
DonMigs85's Avatar

Originally Posted by AniHawk

it would also back up the reasoning why the game is in a poor state. they never had faith in it, so they didn't devote too much in the way of resources to it. i don't think we can blame the porting company here- they probably did the best they could with what they had.

rumor also has it that ea wanted the wii u to be origin-exclusive. when nintendo said no, shut down whatever extra projects they were planning and basically pulled most support.

it sounds crazy, but this is the same company that wouldn't make any games for the dreamcast because sega had the nerve to develop their own line of sports games.

Isn't it also because they were burned by the Saturn's failure?
TheGreatDivide
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:41 AM)

Originally Posted by tkscz

Normally I wouldn't give in to this purposly failing thing, but EA isn't proven anyone wrong here. This was the big game from EA on Wii U, but they release a Triology for the other consoles before it, it has technical issues, it doesn't include the newest DLC on disc, and it's more expensive. What reason would anyone have to get this? No marketing department would say this was A-OK. It just seems like this is being done purposely to make sure sales are bad.

Maybe they just want to make a game fitting of the Mass Effect legacy.
StevieP
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:42 AM)

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

Maybe they just want to make a game fitting of the Mass Effect legacy.

LOL now this is the best post you've made.
Qurupeke
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:43 AM)
Qurupeke's Avatar
lol EA
Christberg
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:44 AM)
Christberg's Avatar

Originally Posted by tkscz

Normally I wouldn't give in to this purposly failing thing, but EA isn't proven anyone wrong here. This was the big game from EA on Wii U, but they release a Triology for the other consoles before it, it has technical issues, it doesn't include the newest DLC on disc, and it's more expensive. What reason would anyone have to get this? No marketing department would say this was A-OK. It just seems like this is being done purposely to make sure sales are bad.

I wouldn't go that far, EA usually sucks ass at console launches in general. They don't seem to give 2 shits until end of year one at the earliest even when it's MS and Sony.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:44 AM)
Thunder Monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Durante

No. If the Wii U was unquestionably faster than PS360 in all aspects (as was the case in previous generational transitions -- except for Wii) then this wouldn't be happening.

What he's saying makes perfect sense, your rage is preventing you from reading correctly. He's talking about ports, not backwards compatibility.

I just don't see why any of them bother.

It was never going to be that powerful. All rumored GPU's were marginal at best improvements. Newer featureset GPU with similar overall capability. Twice the usable memory, with a slow and lacking brute CPU. Should see for easier porting (if only because the thing was designed after 1999) but especially going into next gen, no guarantee that just because the engines are scalable, that the software will be feasible.

Potentially rosier than the Wii situation, but marginally so.
guek
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:45 AM)
guek's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

Who the hell are you and why are you talking to me so sinisterly?



despite how much i dislike your posts as well, i couldn't help it :-P

anywho, I'm not surprised some people seriously can't imagine why ME3 would run poorly on wii u other than wii u being inferior to PS360. I can see that that singular train of faulty logic cannot be derailed though so why even bother discussing it. Wii U is evidently sub-current gen, folks. You heard it here first.
JJConrad
Sucks at viral marketing
(11-16-2012, 09:45 AM)

Originally Posted by Clay Davis

absolutely stupid reasoning from ea. do they not realise by having the trilogy as a launch title, more people might be inclined to buy it as launch titles are often snapped up by the bucket load.

their loss I guess, but the decision is a very stupid one.

The other systems' trilogy are designed to fleece people in a different way. A Wii U trilogy would have required porting 3 games instead of 1. It would have cost more, been more rushed, and the final results would have been even worse. Just be patient, this game's price will collapse just as fast as the originals' did... it also doesn't preclude a Wii U trilogy from being made in the future.
AniHawk
Cranky. Very cranky.
Rather sarcastic to boot.
(11-16-2012, 09:46 AM)
AniHawk's Avatar

Originally Posted by DonMigs85

Isn't it also because they were burned by the Saturn's failure?

maybe. i can't find the exact quote, but the whole madden issue was the particular sticking point for their support.

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

Maybe they just want to make a game fitting of the Mass Effect legacy.

damn, this is what i should have said.
wsippel
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:47 AM)

Originally Posted by Durante

If I had to guess? CPU FP performance.

Sounds more like a fillrate or bandwidth issue to me, considering it supposedly runs perfectly fine on the GamePad.
Erethian
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:47 AM)

Originally Posted by Thunder Monkey

I just don't see why any of them bother.

It was never going to be that powerful. All rumored GPU's were marginal at best improvements. Newer featureset GPU with similar overall capability. Twice the usable memory, with a slow and lacking brute CPU. Should see for easier porting (if only because the thing was designed after 1999) but especially going into next gen, no guarantee that just because the engines are scalable, that the software will be feasible.

Potentially rosier than the Wii situation, but marginally so.

Unless Sony and Microsoft release consoles so powerful that they price themselves out of the market, the disparity in power will be infinitely better than it was for the Wii vs the PS3/360.
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:47 AM)

Originally Posted by Christberg

I wouldn't go that far, EA usually sucks ass at console launches in general. They don't seem to give 2 shits until end of year one at the earliest even when it's MS and Sony.

Fight Night Round 3




Next Gen Wii U downports should be really interesting.
Durante
Come on down to Durante's drivethru PC port fixes. 15 minutes or less. Yelp: ★★★★★

Fixed Souls, Deadly Premonition, Lightning Returns, Umihara Kawase, Symphonia, Little King's Story, PhD, likes mimosas.
(11-16-2012, 09:48 AM)
Durante's Avatar

Originally Posted by Thunder Monkey

I just don't see why any of them bother.

It was never going to be that powerful. All rumored GPU's were marginal at best improvements. Newer featureset GPU with similar overall capability. Twice the usable memory, with a slow and lacking brute CPU. Should see for easier porting (if only because the thing was designed after 1999) but especially going into next gen, no guarantee that just because the engines are scalable, that the software will be feasible.

Potentially rosier than the Wii situation, but marginally so.

That's actually slightly worse than I would put it. I still believe that the GPU is significantly ("2x"?) more capable than the one in PS3/360.

Originally Posted by wsippel

Sounds more like a fillrate or bandwidth issue to me, considering it supposedly runs perfectly fine on the GamePad.

That would be true, but I just can't see how the system would be more ROP/bandwidth limited than PS360. Just 8 ROPs and low frequency after all?
Also, I wasn't aware games actually render at lower res for the gamepad, I thought it would just be downscaled, to get some free supersampling.
MormaPope
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:49 AM)

Originally Posted by guek



despite how much i dislike your posts as well, i couldn't help it :-P

anywho, I'm not surprised some people seriously can't imagine why ME3 would run poorly on wii u other than wii u being inferior to PS360. I can see that that singular train of faulty logic cannot be derailed though so why even bother discussing it. Wii U is evidently sub-current gen, folks. You heard it here first.

You somehow twisted other people's words into something they never said. All Durante said is the Wii-U is inferior in potentially one way when compared to current gen systems when it comes to the porting process.
moniker
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:49 AM)
moniker's Avatar
Wasn't the PS3 port pretty bad also? I remember getting serious frame rate dips, especially in some cutscenes.
Zoramon089
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:49 AM)
Zoramon089's Avatar

Originally Posted by Durante

No. If the Wii U was unquestionably faster than PS360 in all aspects (as was the case in previous generational transitions -- except for Wii) then this wouldn't be happening.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I guess the PS3 must not be faster than the PS2 because the ZOE2 HD port has slowdown. Please...Crappy ports happen, especially at launches and especially when done by no name developers
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:49 AM)

Originally Posted by moniker

Wasn't the PS3 port pretty bad also? I remember getting serious frame rate dips, especially in some cutscenes.

For Unreal Engine 3 on PS3 it's par for course.


Originally Posted by Zoramon089

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I guess the PS3 must not be faster than the PS2 because the ZOE2 HD port has slowdown. Please...

Or if you ignored the SIGNIFICANT lack of fillrate in the PS3 compared to the PS2...
TheGreatDivide
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:50 AM)

Originally Posted by guek

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/F3W6L.jpg[/IMG

despite how much i dislike your posts as well, i couldn't help it :-P

anywho, I'm not surprised some people seriously can't imagine why ME3 would run poorly on wii u other than wii u being inferior to PS360. I can see that that singular train of faulty logic cannot be derailed though so why even bother discussing it. Wii U is evidently sub-current gen, folks. You heard it here first.

No one said sub-current gen, but "not much better than current gen with a weaker CPU and better GPU" is a fairly levelled and reasonable critique at this point. The issue will be in a couple of years when inevitably everyone is focused on the "HD-Twins" (I guess we need a new nick); chances are Wii U will end up just like Wii when it comes to multiplatform games. Maybe it won't. But this isn't really a good sign. If a reasonable amount of work is required to port a last gen game, how much work is required to port a next-gen game down to Wii U?
Hanmik
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:50 AM)
Hanmik's Avatar
So Nextgen Nintendo is actually not so nextgen after all..? So for now the only reason to get a wii-u is for nintendo's own games..? Hmmm where have I seen this happen before..?
Rezbit
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:51 AM)
Rezbit's Avatar

Originally Posted by Reiko

Fight Night Round 3

Oh man, now THIS is a game that made me think "NEXT GEN IS HERE!" Was it launch though? I've already forgotten, yikes.

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

No one said sub-current gen, but "not much better than current gen with a weaker CPU and better GPU" is a fairly levelled and reasonable critique at this point. The issue will be in a couple of years when inevitably everyone is focused on the "HD-Twins" (I guess we need a new nick); chances are Wii U will end up just like Wii when it comes to multiplatform games. Maybe it won't. But this isn't really a good sign. If a reasonable amount of work is required to port a last gen game, how much work is required to port a next-gen game down to Wii U?

I agree with you mostly with being able to critique the specs, but at this stage we still don't know how much "reasonable amount of work" has been put in to any of the ports. I also think we should just back up a bit with the presumptions about the next Sony/MS consoles too, seeing as they could be anything.
MormaPope
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:51 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

Fight Night Round 3


Next Gen Wii U downports should be really interesting.

A lot of people in this thread have bad memory when it comes to EA launch titles for the 360 and PS3. A lot of EA launch period titles for 360 looked very good and performed very well, the shitty thing about those games was a huge list of missing features. The games themselves ran perfectly fine.
Rapstah
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:52 AM)
Rapstah's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zoramon089

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I guess the PS3 must not be faster than the PS2 because the ZOE2 HD port has slowdown. Please...Crappy ports happen, especially at launches and especially when done by no name developers

The PS3 isn't unquestionably faster than the PS2 in all aspects.
zroid
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:54 AM)
ME3 deserves technical issues >:(

still slightly bitter, couldn't you tell?
Sandfox
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:54 AM)
Sandfox's Avatar
A lot of people on both sides are jumping to conclusions.
Pikma
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:54 AM)
Pikma's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

Who's ran?

Who the hell are you and why are you talking to me so sinisterly?

Nah nvm, I think you're mostly trolling, keep it coming then.
Anth0ny
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:55 AM)
Anth0ny's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rapstah

The PS3 isn't unquestionably faster than the PS2 in all aspects.

wat

Someone explain please. That kinda blows my mind.
grimshawish
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:55 AM)
Why even bother EA?
fabricated backlash
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:56 AM)
fabricated backlash's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShockingAlberto

Yep.

Don't buy launch-window EA games for the Wii U.

Just...trust me. That path is fraught with regret and tears.

Don't buy EA games period. You'll save yourself a lot of trouble, and you won't reward a shit company.
Margalis
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:56 AM)

Originally Posted by Anth0ny

hey guys this is just a bad port job, i'm sure this totally won't be a problem in the future, especially when ps4 and 720 drop

Wii U 2 is going to blow away PS4 so I'm not worried.

Derp!

Edit: Just today I was listening to best of 1up 2006 and they were complaining that the launch 360 version of Madden was worse than the PS2 version in terms of both gameplay features and frame rate. Lol.

You somehow twisted other people's words into something they never said. All Durante said is the Wii-U is inferior in potentially one way when compared to current gen systems when it comes to the porting process.

Given the fog in Silent Hill HD I think it's safe to say that both PS3 and 360 can't do transparency properly compared to the PS2. Foolproof logic.
Writer_Head
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:56 AM)
Writer_Head's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chanser

Would be funny if EA publish all their Wii U discs with non-curved edges. Just to show they don't care.

Well played.
StevieP
Banned
(11-16-2012, 09:57 AM)

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

No one said sub-current gen, but "not much better than current gen with a weaker CPU and better GPU" is a fairly levelled and reasonable critique at this point. The issue will be in a couple of years when inevitably everyone is focused on the "HD-Twins" (I guess we need a new nick); chances are Wii U will end up just like Wii when it comes to multiplatform games. Maybe it won't. But this isn't really a good sign. If a reasonable amount of work is required to port a last gen game, how much work is required to port a next-gen game down to Wii U?

Current HD twins have CPUs that are poor general purpose performers but are great at floating point calculations. Next gen HD twins are going to likely be using CPUs that are good general purpose performers but poor at floating point, where the GPU would be much better at that and the system would be more heavily skewed toward its GPU.

These CPUs are currently heavily speculated to be a customized variant of AMD's Jaguar (4 cores or 8 cores depending on the console and rumour). These CPUs are similar to Intel's Atom stuff, IBM's 47x/A2 stuff, or ARM cores - very low wattage, low clock, low power - meant for netbooks and other smaller applications. The Wii U also is speculated to have this type of CPU, though obviously only 3 cores and probably even lower power than the prospective Jaguar. This doesn't mean games are going to have a magic port button, or that it will be easy for Bethesda to port their next Elder Bugs game to a system with less memory, CPU power, and GPU power than the other consoles. Just that the design paradigm is the similar and that it's not a gargantuan task like it would've been for the Wii. There's also the amount of resources dedicated to such ports, and the level of technical mastery (i.e. this is probably just a bad launch port, as is not uncommon - not to mention that UE3 is probably not as heavily tested on Wii U as it is for the other consoles).

Whether they do or not is still up to the publisher, however, and that's where things get murky. Engine support will likely be there for the Wii U. Publisher support is a different story, according to folks like ShockingAlberto. Does this make more sense to you?
Rapstah
Member
(11-16-2012, 09:57 AM)
Rapstah's Avatar

Originally Posted by Anth0ny

wat

Someone explain please. That kinda blows my mind.

Hardware doesn't compare 1:1.
TheGreatDivide
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:00 AM)

Originally Posted by Rezbit

Oh man, now THIS is a game that made me think "NEXT GEN IS HERE!" Was it launch though? I've already forgotten, yikes.



I agree with you mostly with being able to critique the specs, but at this stage we still don't know how much "reasonable amount of work" has been put in to any of the ports. I also think we should just back up a bit with the presumptions about the next Sony/MS consoles too, seeing as they could be anything.

I really just can't imagine Sony and MS not pushing tech like they always have. Games like CoD or Uncharted still remains their big sellers, and the system is gonna need to give people who play those games a reason to upgrade. Not to mention both platform holders are probably terrified they'll be upstaged by the other. It's a nuclear arms race, baby.

I think both MS and Sony see consoles as a long term plan, both will keep 360 and PS3 on the market and supported to some degree until they can sell the new consoles at an affordable price. This gen has shown you can launch high and eventually sell a good number of systems. Look at the recent PS3 thread.
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:01 AM)

Originally Posted by Margalis

Wii U 2 is going to blow away PS4 so I'm not worried.

Derp!

Edit: Just today I was listening to best of 1up 2006 and they were complaining that the launch 360 version of Madden was worse than the PS2 version in terms of both gameplay features and frame rate. Lol.

I wonder why...






wsippel
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:01 AM)

Originally Posted by Durante

That would be true, but I just can't see how the system would be more ROP/bandwidth limited than PS360. Just 8 ROPs and low frequency after all?
Also, I wasn't aware games actually render at lower res for the gamepad, I thought it would just be downscaled, to get some free supersampling.

Could be. I think bandwidth issues are even more likely though, if engines aren't properly optimized for the Wii U memory layout.

Another potential issue might be audio. If the game outputs to the TV, it uses a six (5.1) or eight (5.1 + 2.0) channel mix. On the GamePad, it's stereo only. Less channels, lower CPU load. If Mass Effect 3 uses a software pipeline that is.
StoppedInTracks
Member
(11-16-2012, 10:02 AM)
StoppedInTracks's Avatar

Originally Posted by Game-Biz

I remember when people were hoping at least for a port that ran in 1080p 60 fps.

hahaha....

:(

lol

There's even more:

- people are hoping next gen PS4/ 720 games will run in 1080p @ 60 fps
- people are hoping other PS360 games ported to the Wii U will run 1080p @ 60 fps
Margalis
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:02 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

I wonder why...

Are you saying that rendering more pixels takes more power? Think carefully before you answer!
DonMigs85
Member
(11-16-2012, 10:03 AM)
DonMigs85's Avatar
Need for Speed Most Wanted on 360 didn't look dramatically better than the Xbox 1 version other than being 720p and had an unstable framerate.
PS3 Fight Night 3 ran at half the framerate of the 360 version.
They have a history of lousy launch titles.
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Margalis

Are you saying that rendering more pixels takes more power? Think carefully before you answer!

Take a good look at the texture resolution...

The graphics took a bit hit on Xbox 360 when it moved to 60fps...
Fafalada
Fafracer forever
(11-16-2012, 10:05 AM)

Originally Posted by Durante

No. If the Wii U was unquestionably faster than PS360 in all aspects (as was the case in previous generational transitions -- except for Wii) then this wouldn't be happening.

Someone will now come and tell you how architecture is the problem and programmers don't know how to optimize for OOOe cpus in Wii-U yet...
StevieP
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:06 AM)

Originally Posted by Fafalada

Someone will now come and tell you how architecture is the problem and programmers don't know how to optimize for OOOe cpus in Wii-U yet...

Somebody already did, and I corrected them. And I don't even know 'anything'. Reading is fun. This has nothing to do with oooe vs ioe. It could also, you know, be a port that isn't the best port in the world.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
(11-16-2012, 10:06 AM)
blu's Avatar

The real advantage to the GamePad, however, is the fact that the game looks much better on its smaller screen. I don't know if it's the flaws being obscured by the pad's screen when they're shown more clearly on the higher-performance LCD of an HDTV, or if it's simply a benefit of the pad's lower resolution requiring the system to render fewer polygons, but the game plays noticeably smoother on the GamePad screen. The stiffness of the characters doesn't come across as readily, and the compactness of the visuals makes the environments seem far more beautiful and detailed.

Come on now. Computer graphics literacy 101.
Margalis
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:08 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

Take a good look at the texture resolution...

The graphics took a bit hit on Xbox 360 when it moved to 60fps...

You didn't answer my question.
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:08 AM)

Originally Posted by DonMigs85

Need for Speed Most Wanted on 360 didn't look dramatically better than the Xbox 1 version other than being 720p and had an unstable framerate.
PS3 Fight Night 3 ran at half the framerate of the 360 version.
They have a history of lousy launch titles.

Need for Speed: Most Wanted:
Lighting and textures plus object based motion blur put it ahead of the Xbox 1 version.
Playing the game in 480p gives you a near 60fps framerate with tearing.

PS3 Fight Night 3 ran in 30fps just like the Xbox 360 version. EA cut back on the per pixel motion blur for higher resolution textures.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:09 AM)
Thunder Monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Durante

That's actually slightly worse than I would put it. I still believe that the GPU is significantly ("2x"?) more capable than the one in PS3/360.

That would be true, but I just can't see how the system would be more ROP/bandwidth limited than PS360. Just 8 ROPs and low frequency after all?
Also, I wasn't aware games actually render at lower res for the gamepad, I thought it would just be downscaled, to get some free supersampling.

I go into Nintendo hardware like I do meeting new people.

They are trying to murder and/or rape me.

If they don't I'm pleasantly surprised.

Or mildly disappointed depending on the person or situation. On a scale of N64 to Xbox I put it's capability at M2. Marginal at best improvements under the best of conditions. Meaning something different now than before.

Beyond+ versus UE4 isn't as stark as M2 Castle demo and Enclave.

I'm more than willing to buy (when something I must have is there of course) and understand the motives behind it's "weakness".

But I also don't expect too much more than 360+ with an iffy CPU and more memory in a system that tiny, with almost nonexistent cooling.

It's still a very powerful videogame console. But limited in comparison to what could be made. And to what Sony and MS are likely making.

I just don't know if that's all that important anymore. The geek in me will always love seeing 3D rendering achieve and surpass the once insurmountable, but at the same time... I'd be okay with 360 class models with realtime GI at a much higher res, with some high quality AA. Most of this stuff looks acceptable. Not everything, but most. Just clean up the overall image for now. It's striking what a focus on IQ can achieve for most well designed software.

Dolphin is living proof of what producing a better image can accomplish. As long as the source is of quality.
KillerTravis
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:10 AM)
The discussion has shifted from the shitty ME3 port to Wii U specs, which already has an specific thread for anyone interested http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490844
Reiko
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:10 AM)

Originally Posted by Margalis

You didn't answer my question.


Does that even look like the same graphics engine to you?

Add that. Plus rendering in 720p... Plus adding insane texture details.

Framerate was cut in half. But the performance was good. With tearing of course.
guek
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:11 AM)
guek's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheGreatDivide

If a reasonable amount of work is required to port a last gen game, how much work is required to port a next-gen game down to Wii U?

Probably the same amount of work or more that it takes to properly port from 360 to PS3. And yet, plenty of devs screw the pooch with that on a regular basis. Or maybe the same amount of work it takes to properly up-port from PS2 to PS3, and yet many of those up-ports are riddled with issues. I can't believe I have to spell this out, word for word like this. I'll concede that if the Wii U somehow blew away the HD twins, this would all be a non-issue. But it doesn't, and no one is pretending like it does. Instead we're pretending like developing between multiple consoles is a drag and drop matter.

Really, that's all I have to say about this. We're talking about a company whose pedigree consists of an iOS game and another title called funky barn and a publisher who is openly giving the platform the shaft. This isn't hard to piece together. It should be obvious. The answer is right in front of everyone, but nope. Instead, we have to assume that the wii u is clearly deficient in some capacity. Because that's the story some of us want to tell.

But I understand your skepticism, even if I think it's woefully misguided. I also don't have any interest in arguing about whether or not this is bodes poorly for the wii u, so I guess I have no real place in this thread. I don't want to muck it up and get involved so I'll just leave.
Always-honest
Banned
(11-16-2012, 10:11 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

With 1GB of RAM... Unreal Engine 3 is choppier on Wii U?


What... The... Fuck?

Maybe it's not that simple, but yeah, THIS.

Thread Tools