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
What would your guess be as to what component is responsible for the ostensible "bottleneck"?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.
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!
I wasn't aware ME3 Wii U was rendering at 4k resolution.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.
See above.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 ?
If I had to guess? CPU FP performance.What would your guess be as to what component is responsible for the ostensible "bottleneck"?
I would have thought anyone who wanted to play Mass Effect 3 right now would have bought it already.... especially people on NeoGaf but I digress.
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?
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.
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.
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
You must have missed tony hawk and gunIf the system was more powerful than 360 and PS3 by any significant margin, why is this an issue? I don't remember 360 struggling to play Xbox ports.
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.
What he's saying makes perfect sense, your rage is preventing you from reading correctly. He's talking about ports, not backwards compatibility.
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 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 ?
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.
You must have missed tony hawk and gun
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 must have missed tony hawk and gun
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 ?
I wasn't aware ME3 Wii U was rendering at 8640*4860.
See above.
If I had to guess? CPU FP performance.
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."
This is a bad port, the Wii U has more powerful hardware.
End of story.
I remember when people were hoping at least for a port that ran in 1080p 60 fps.
hahaha....
Its not the same game
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.
Are you ignoring the elaborations being made; in some aspects, as stated, it may be weaker.This is a bad port, the Wii U has more powerful hardware.
End of story.
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.Sorry, this isn't an answer sir. Your point is that it's not more powerfull because it performs worse.
Yes, and without any effort from the devs, it still runs at 30 FPS compared to 10 (so 3 times better) in Blighttown. QEDAlso, Dark Soul (without) your patch is locked at 720p and 30fps, even on a i7 2600k and a GTX680.
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?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)
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.
They apparently had about a year. One of the interviews states that they started on it before the original versions were finished.CoD for Vita appearantly just took 5 months
I wonder how much time they had for this one
It really is. The Wii U has more powerful hardware so there's no logical reason the 360 version would run better.
Welcome to the next generation of console gaming.
It was sarcasm... I know a PS3 is more capable than a 360.
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 ?
quoting a gaffer who asked this question:
so the wii u will have the problems the vita's having, but in console form.
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?
Yes, and without any effort from the devs, it still runs at 30 FPS compared to 10 (so 3 times better) in Blighttown. QED
Ha! We meet again, hater.
I'll start counting your hit-and-run comments on Nintendo threads from now on, should be fun.
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 ?
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.
Well, the answer is obvious. It's clearly not more powerful than PS360 in at least one aspect relevant to porting.
Considering ZOE2 was sub 480p on PS2 it might as well be.
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.