ME3, NG3:RE, Batman, EM2, WO3, BLOPS2, Darksiders 2 have technical issues on Wii U

Wait

So you compare the backwards compatibility of the 360 to the ability of Wii U to play current gen games because EA just don't give a shit to invest much into the new platform? Do you really think that the 360's ability to run Xbox games (because it's from the same company) is the same thing like the Wii U being able to run 360 games?

THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE
Calm down, Nibel. You just had a brain fart. We'll all ignore your display and pretend it never happened.
 
Hey I hear PS3 can't properly handle BLOPS2. That's what it gets for being a sub-par system that can't even match hardware that came out a whole year before it did. How embarrassing for Sony, mirite? And they had the gall to charge $599 USD at launch when it's clearly far and away inferior to the 360? WTF!
Because Sony tried the PS2 method of having devs work with exotic hardware and it bit them in the ass this gen.
 
I just have a question.
Considering ZOE HD performs worse, or Silent Hill HD looks worse than the PS2 versions, does it mean PS3 and Xbox 360 are clearly not more powerfull than PS2 ?:)
 
Oh man, you don't know the half of it. I was playing GoW collection the other day and that framerate was stuttering MAD crazy. I mean, who would of thought Sony would put out sub-PS2 hardware for its successor? Sure was a bold move.
I wasn't aware ME3 Wii U was rendering at 4k resolution.

I just have a question.
Considering ZOE HD performs worse, or Silent Hill HD looks worse than the PS2 versions, does it mean PS3 and Xbox 360 are clearly not more powerfull than PS2 ?:)
See above.

What would your guess be as to what component is responsible for the ostensible "bottleneck"?
If I had to guess? CPU FP performance.
 
sorry of this has been talked about, but have ea said why they aren't releasing the trilogy on the wii u like they are on the playstation 3?

it's an odd decision by ea not to release the trilogy on wii u, what better way to introduce new players to the series and universe?
quoting a gaffer who asked this question:

EA did not expect Wii U owners to buy Mass Effect, anyway, so no point in porting over three games. If ME3 sells gangbusters, they'll consider it a proper summer home for Mass Effect.
so the wii u will have the problems the vita's having, but in console form.
 
Oh man, you don't know the half of it. I was playing GoW collection the other day and that framerate was stuttering MAD crazy. I mean, who would of thought Sony would put out sub-PS2 hardware for its successor? Sure was a bold move.
If we're going to do this lol: My beast of a gaming PC with an i7 2700k and dual 7850 GPUs is also inferior to the 360. Damn you Saints Row 2 for exposing this
In this thread: Wii U fanatics putting on tin-foil hats saying EA doesn't wanna make money hand-over-fist in a new demographic.


L
O
L
It's a bad launch port, dudes. No need to get your knickers in a twist. This isn't an industry first.
 
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.



Then you confirm PS360 aren't faster than PS2 in all aspects ?
 
What he's saying makes perfect sense, your rage is preventing you from reading correctly. He's talking about ports, not backwards compatibility.
So let me get this straight great Durante

There are not many Xbox -> Xbox 360 ports, I only remember Gun and maybe a few Activision/EA titles like Tony Hawk (?)

Now, I assume that the 360 has in some way a similiar architecture to the Xbox which should make it easy to port games from the XBox to the 360

But now he's "wondering" why the Wii U can't run ports from the 360 - consoles of two different companies and not 1:1 same architecture

Maybe I'm wrong, so please enlighten me how this is the same thing (serious question)
 
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.
Yes because all those shitty unoptimized console-to-pc ports prove the point that better hardware fixes lazy developer problems.
 
I just have a question.
Considering ZOE HD performs worse, or Silent Hill HD looks worse than the PS2 versions, does it mean PS3 and Xbox 360 are clearly not more powerfull than PS2 ?:)
No, but Bayonetta and the Black Ops series run like shit on a PS3. Sony released the system a whole year after the Xbox 360 and they still couldn't put better hardware than a 360 inside it.
 
If we're going to do this lol: My beast of a gaming PC with an i7 2700k and dual 7850 GPUs is also inferior to the 360. Damn you Saints Row 2 for exposing this


It's a bad launch port, dudes. No need to get your knickers in a twist. This isn't an industry first.

Not sure why you are saying it to us--we don't have the fin-foil hats on.


The company has been working on this since before ME3 even launched.
 
You must have missed tony hawk and gun
I played TH. But the graphical improvement was there, at least it ran in HD and shit. It's not quite the same as "the exact same game with the exact same graphics" is it? The graphical boost can, to an extent, explain why it didn't run too smoothly. Although honestly I barely remember the game now.
 
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.
I know you're a bit of a wiz with computers, but is there really some quantifiable level of power where you can just go "Yep, let's dump this, it'll run fine and we can all go home."
 
You must have missed tony hawk and gun
Haven't played Tony Hawk but Gun runs better on Xbox 360...


I just have a question.
Considering ZOE HD performs worse, or Silent Hill HD looks worse than the PS2 versions, does it mean PS3 and Xbox 360 are clearly not more powerfull than PS2 ?:)

Replicating the PS2's fillrate at higher resolutions is too much for consoles and modern PCs. Today's games aren't designed like ZOE2 on PS2.
 
I wasn't aware ME3 Wii U was rendering at 8640*4860.

See above.

If I had to guess? CPU FP performance.



Sorry, this isn't an answer sir. Your point is that it's not more powerfull because it performs worse.
Should I conclude, going with your point, that PS3 and 360 can't run a PS2 game at 720p withouth sacrifices ?
Also, Dark Soul (without) your patch is locked at 720p and 30fps, even on a i7 2600k and a GTX680.
Does it mean my PC is just on par with PS360 ?
 
I know you're a bit of a wiz with computers, but is there really some quantifiable level of power where you can just go "Yep, let's dump this, it'll run fine and we can all go home."
If the architecture is the same but at a faster clock speed.

This is a bad port, the Wii U has more powerful hardware.
End of story.
Well I think it's more appropriate to say that the Wii U is more powerful so long as you effectively utilise its different architecture. But yeah, pretty much.
 
No, but Bayonetta and the Black Ops series run like shit on a PS3. Sony released the system a whole year after the Xbox 360 and they still couldn't put better hardware than a 360 inside it.
Nah, Cell is a much faster CPU if it's used for the right tasks.
The main strengths of the 360 Xenos GPU are its super-fast 10MB eDRAM and unified shaders. Otherwise in terms of fillrate it's the same as RSX in the PS3.

Also the PS2's 4MB eDRAM was 2560-bit in width and had a crazy fast 48GB/sec of bandwidth. That's likely what made it difficult to emulate on PS3.
 
Sorry, this isn't an answer sir. Your point is that it's not more powerfull because it performs worse.
It performs worse while trying to do the same thing. Some PS3 HD ports perform worse while trying to render at ~6 times higher resolution. You'd have a point if all these Wii U ports were running at 4k.
Also, Dark Soul (without) your patch is locked at 720p and 30fps, even on a i7 2600k and a GTX680.
Yes, and without any effort from the devs, it still runs at 30 FPS compared to 10 (so 3 times better) in Blighttown. QED


So let me get this straight great Durante

There are not many Xbox -> Xbox 360 ports, I only remember Gun and maybe a few Activision/EA titles like Tony Hawk (?)

Now, I assume that the 360 has in some way a similiar architecture to the Xbox which should make it easy to port games from the XBox to the 360

But now he's "wondering" why the Wii U can't run ports from the 360 - consoles of two different companies and not 1:1 same architecture

Maybe I'm wrong, so please enlighten me how this is the same thing (serious question)
It's the same thing. If, say, the 360 had a 3-core 1 GHz in-order processor instead of a 3-core 3.2 GHz one, then I'm sure people would have had issues porting from Xbox1's ~700 MHz OOE chip. However, it was just so much faster overall that this was not an issue. This is not the case for Wii U. Clear now?
 
Nah, Cell is a much faster CPU if it's used for the right tasks.
The main strengths of the 360 Xenos GPU are its super-fast 10MB eDRAM and unified shaders. Otherwise in terms of fillrate it's the same as RSX in the PS3.

Also the PS2's 4MB eDRAM was 2560-bit in width and had a crazy fast 48GB/sec of bandwidth. That's likely what made it difficult to emulate on PS3.
It was sarcasm... I know a PS3 is more capable than a 360.
 

JJConrad

Sucks at viral marketing
CoD for Vita appearantly just took 5 months

I wonder how much time they had for this one
They apparently had about a year. One of the interviews states that they started on it before the original versions were finished.

But performance statement like those in the OP don't mean anything without a side-by-side. The original game wasn't without its issues but memories tend to be forgiving.
 
Sorry, this isn't an answer sir. Your point is that it's not more powerfull because it performs worse.
Should I conclude, going with your point, that PS3 and 360 can't run a PS2 game at 720p withouth sacrifices ?
Also, Dark Soul (without) your patch is locked at 720p and 30fps, even on a i7 2600k and a GTX680.
Does it mean my PC is just on par with PS360 ?
I think it's time for gamers to realize the strengths of the PS2 hardware. ZOE2 was one of them.
 
quoting a gaffer who asked this question:



so the wii u will have the problems the vita's having, but in console form.
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.
 
It performs worse while trying to do the same thing. Some PS3 HD ports perform worse while trying to render at ~6 times higher resolution. You'd have a point if all these Wii U ports were running at 4k.


It's the same thing. If, say, the 360 had a 3-core 1 GHz in-order processor instead of a 3-core 3.2 GHz one, then I'm sure people would have had issues porting from Xbox1's ~700 MHz OOE chip. However, it was just so much faster overall that this was not an issue. This is not the case for Wii U. Clear now?


I don't remember ZOE HD running 6x times the resolution considering it's running at 720p.
May I recall you that Wii U is running a second screen too ?



Yes, and without any effort from the devs, it still runs at 30 FPS compared to 10 (so 3 times better) in Blighttown. QED



Any effort but a 15 times, if not more, powerfull hardware.
So we can consider this a no effort port, but with ME3, this is hardware fault ?
Why can't my PC run this game at 1080p without being patched by a modder ?
 
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.
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.
 
Well, the answer is obvious. It's clearly not more powerful than PS360 in at least one aspect relevant to porting.
you gon die now. they are coming.



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
 
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.
Darksiders 2 runs way, way worse on my PC than the console versions, with constant frame rate stuttering at completely random intervals.

Rage had textures that were blurrier than the console version until I spent a significant amount of time tweaking the .ini file.

LA Noire is also completely unplayable on my PC due to frame rate instability.

I couldn't get GTA IV to look even comparable to the PS3 version until I upgraded my hardware a couple years later. (And this was with a Q6600 and a 5770 which smokes either console)

I respect you as a programmer but sorry, this line of reasoning is total bullshit.

Can we at least wait until we get some DF analysis with side by side comparisons before we use an EA title as a referendum on Wii U's hardware power?