Anyone else a bit disappointed with the Wii U in terms of graphics?

The launch titles on the Wii U that also have 360 versions seem to be visually inferior. Even a game like Darksiders 2 which has had a team working on the Wii U version for a while had to remove geometry and features extra long load times. Its kind of annoying that the Wii U versions of games aren't the best looking versions when its up against 6 year old hardware. Its hard to convince me to buy games like arkham city again when they don't look as nice as the version I've already got.

Developers need time to get used to new hardware architecture that was only finalized merely a few months ago, launch titles are never the pillars of a successful console run. Give them time to familiarize themselves with it.

Speaking personally, visuals in general don't bother me at all anymore as long as the game itself is enjoyable.

Not disappointed at all. Knew it would look decent enough now. As soon  the other console guys bring out their things, Wii graphics will once again, look utterly outdated and cheap. U or not. Don't really care that much though. There were some great games on Wii. Mosty from Nintendo, once again. They will again promise lots of great 3rd party content, like they did with without U, but the big guns from big developers will once again not appear on the Wii or it'll get some special version/handicapped version.

Well, since Iwata took over didn't they give up on graphics competing anyway? Nintendo is now some guy in bar with 'appearance deficits' trying to hit on people with his great personality...yeah no reason to panic. He dont need  no shallow cunts anyway.

They'll be alright. Probably. But Nintendo's graphics kinda suck. I find it way too hard living in the past. Oh well. Here is an emoticon: :-(

I think the difference will be the Wii U will start looking better with time like consoles usually do, where PS3 and Xbox 360 are already being pushed to their limits.

Look at Skyrim for example. Compare Skyrim to Oblivion (which was touted as one of the best looking games available when it came out) and Oblivion looks pretty crappy in comparison. But run Skyrim on a PC at highest settings and the 360 version looks like a joke.

As for the next round of consoles, I don't know if it will matter. You can run a PC game, even an old one like Half-Life 2 for example, on its lowest settings and it's still doing things the Wii can't touch. That's why third parties avoided the Wii like the plague, you couldn't port anything to it, it had to be made from the ground up. The Wii U can be ported to, so when the PS4 and next Xbox come out, I think they'll look better than the Wii U but it'll be more like the difference between running a game at its higher settings and running a game at its lower ones. Textures, lighting, and aliasing will be lacking, but the game will still be able to run on the Wii U and be very cheap and easy to port over, so hopefully we won't see third parties doing what they did with Wii and giving token shovelware to Nintendo while putting real games on other systems, a la Resident Evil, Dead Space etc.

And if that's the case and slight graphics differences are all there is, then the Wii U can easily make up for lost graphics in better UI. Imagine in a year when Bethesda releases their customary collector's edition of Skyrim with all the DLC, if it's on Wii U that version will easily be the best just by having a built-in aversion to the awful user interface that game suffers from.

And I really, really hope Bethesda does exactly that, by the way. Their policy seems to be "if it can run it we want our games on it" so I don't see it being too much of a stretch.

I'm not going to go into detail, but most (not all) Wii U games look as good as the PS3/Xbox 360 - from developers who haven't had too long to work with the Wii U kit.

If a Wii U launch game looks just as a good (or better in some cases - see Call of Duty: Black Ops 2), who knows just how good it can look with a year or two with the system?

The feeling is that the 'U is a 360 "v1.1", and thus the visuals are already pretty much topped out. We'll see in time. They'll get better, but then only in the same way that 360/PS3 graphics are still getting marginally better.

I don't think the Skyrim > Oblivion example will hold true for the Wii U. That example shows how new, powerful hardware gets tickled in all the right ways over a period of years. The 'U is not 'new powerful hardware', so you won't see a similar increase in fidelity.

What you'll see is basically PS3/360-equivalent graphics until the Wii 3 in 2018.

Martin_ said:
The feeling is that the 'U is a 360 "v1.1", and thus the visuals are already pretty much topped out. We'll see in time. They'll get better, but then only in the same way that 360/PS3 graphics are still getting marginally better.

I don't think the Skyrim > Oblivion example will hold true for the Wii U. That example shows how new, powerful hardware gets tickled in all the right ways over a period of years. The 'U is not 'new powerful hardware', so you won't see a similar increase in fidelity.

What you'll see is basically PS3/360-equivalent graphics until the Wii 3 in 2018.

You're wrong though. The GPU and processor are custom made, never used before, they're brand new hardware.

justonesp00lturn said:

Martin_ said:
The feeling is that the 'U is a 360 "v1.1", and thus the visuals are already pretty much topped out. We'll see in time. They'll get better, but then only in the same way that 360/PS3 graphics are still getting marginally better.

I don't think the Skyrim > Oblivion example will hold true for the Wii U. That example shows how new, powerful hardware gets tickled in all the right ways over a period of years. The 'U is not 'new powerful hardware', so you won't see a similar increase in fidelity.

What you'll see is basically PS3/360-equivalent graphics until the Wii 3 in 2018.

You're wrong though. The GPU and processor are custom made, never used before, they're brand new hardware.

I think the issue is to take advantage of the GPU requires a lot of restructuring of game code. So multiplatform titles are rarely gonna make use of it. When the next Playstation and X-Box come out they're obviously gonna improve their current CPUs which will make it even more difficult to port games across.

That's true, but it's still a much, much cheaper and easier process than building a game from the ground-up as was required for Wii. A lot of developers will be making their games able to run on lower end computers, the Wii U will probably be able to handle the same for a few years.

That said, it's been my hope that Wii U is more of a stepping stone between Wii and a true next-gen experience from Nintendo, but I don't know how likely it is that Nintendo would release a $300 system they only expected to be around for two years. I don't want Wii U to spend a year playing catch-up and then fall behind the way the Wii did. At the very very least I hope Nintendo provides better first-party support. Two Marios and one Zelda alongside a billion party games is kinda lame.

It will be pretty lame again, sp00l. Hardcore gamers aren't going to be enticed by the Wii U, they will not migrate from their 360s/PS3s because there is no point. Same level of visuals etc, way less games. They'll hold out for MS and Sony's next platforms.

What you'll get is more party games and casual tat. At the moment you're getting some cheap ports of old 360/PS3 games, but when they fail to sell significant numbers, and new hardcore games are thin on the ground, that'll be that.

I personally just want Nintendo to enter a very difficult financial situation, as Sega did in 2001. I want Nintendo to be forced out of the hardware business, so that I can play Mario and Zelda again. The only way that can really happen is if the mothers and stuff don't bother migrating from their Wiis. There won't be enough support from hardcore gamers/developers to hold the system up.

I don't buy shitty consoles, and that's all Nintendo make these days. All these motions controls and other gimmicks.. nah.

I love Nintendo games, but their last machine and the current one leave much to be desired.

*looks at SFC, N64 and GameCube mournfully*

( Edited 22.11.2012 06:13 by Martin_ )

Martin_ said:
It will be pretty lame again, sp00l. Hardcore gamers aren't going to be enticed by the Wii U, they will not migrate from their 360s/PS3s because there is no point. Same level of visuals etc, way less games. They'll hold out for MS and Sony's next platforms.

What you'll get is more party games and casual tat. At the moment you're getting some cheap ports of old 360/PS3 games, but when they fail to sell significant numbers, and new hardcore games are thin on the ground, that'll be that.

I personally just want Nintendo to enter a very difficult financial situation, as Sega did in 2001. I want Nintendo to be forced out of the hardware business, so that I can play Mario and Zelda again. The only way that can really happen is if the mothers and stuff don't bother migrating from their Wiis. There won't be enough support from hardcore gamers/developers to hold the system up.

I don't buy shitty consoles, and that's all Nintendo make these days. All these motions controls and other gimmicks.. nah.

I love Nintendo games, but their last machine and the current one leave much to be desired.

*looks at SFC, N64 and GameCube mournfully*

If that happens the key figures at nintendo have already said they'll retire. It'd be like playing Final Fantasy without Sakaguchi and Uematsu or Resident evil without Mikami ultimately a hollow experience. 

Martin_ said:
It will be pretty lame again, sp00l. Hardcore gamers aren't going to be enticed by the Wii U, they will not migrate from their 360s/PS3s because there is no point. Same level of visuals etc, way less games. They'll hold out for MS and Sony's next platforms.

What you'll get is more party games and casual tat. At the moment you're getting some cheap ports of old 360/PS3 games, but when they fail to sell significant numbers, and new hardcore games are thin on the ground, that'll be that.

I personally just want Nintendo to enter a very difficult financial situation, as Sega did in 2001. I want Nintendo to be forced out of the hardware business, so that I can play Mario and Zelda again. The only way that can really happen is if the mothers and stuff don't bother migrating from their Wiis. There won't be enough support from hardcore gamers/developers to hold the system up.

I don't buy shitty consoles, and that's all Nintendo make these days. All these motions controls and other gimmicks.. nah.

I love Nintendo games, but their last machine and the current one leave much to be desired.

*looks at SFC, N64 and GameCube mournfully*

There are three Wii U games that have been out for more than two weeks on other systems at launch. Out of 23. Saying that's "all" that's on the Wii U is flat out wrong.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think for at least a year Wii U will be Nintendo playing catch-up. As with all Nintendo systems, they'll eventually release enough great first-party content to make the system worth owning, regardless of what third parties do. But it would be nice if they kept things stable for third parties, especially since Nintendo's games are getting sadly repetitive and way too few and far between.

I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere anytime soon. They're probably the most financially stable games company, probably because if Xbox or Playstation fail, Sony and Microsoft don't have to care. They're in all kinds of other markets. Nintendo does games and only games. Which is sad when you think about it, because as you and I have said, their games are getting weaker, favoring the more gimmicky parts of their systems. Nintendo usually does it way better than anyone else, but a gimmick is a gimmick, and unlike with Kinect and Move, Nintendo makes it mandatory.

Long story short, I almost agree with you. I'm not as adverse to the gimmicks as you are, but I too have wondered if maybe Nintendo going the Sega route wouldn't be so bad, it might cause them to focus more on just making great games again.

More than that though, I hope they promote Masahiro Sakurai and Hidemaro Fujibayashi into positions of more power. Those two guys know what's up; the older designers at big N, bless their souls, are too afraid to branch out and stop making the same games over and over. Skyward Sword could have been the best Zelda of all time, but with oversight from the higher-ups, it ended up being more like a really good Twilight Princess mod with terrible controls. And Sakurai can touch anything at Nintendo and turn it into gold, something he's been doing since he was 19. That guy has an incredibly bright future ahead of him. The only issue is he takes forever to make games, but it looks like with a bigger team, Super Smash is coming along a lot faster. Maybe Nintendo should give him one of their four development houses, he'd be spitting out killer apps left and right.

jb said:
I'm not going to go into detail, but most (not all) Wii U games look as good as the PS3/Xbox 360 - from developers who haven't had too long to work with the Wii U kit.

If a Wii U launch game looks just as a good (or better in some cases - see Call of Duty: Black Ops 2), who knows just how good it can look with a year or two with the system?

BLOPS 2 on WiiU is sub HD and has the worst framerate of the bunch according to Digital Foundry.

Visuals:
Quote:
the new version gets the same 880x720 native resolution, with the same sharp upscaling filter employed on the Xbox 360 release. There's even 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) - the first time we've seen hardware AA deployed in-game on a Wii U title (admittedly, it's early days there).

Despite the removal of the additional blurring added in the 1.02 patch, both Wii U and 360 are still a class apart from the more compromised PlayStation 3 version. One minor difference concerns v-sync - the Wii U version has no tearing whatsoever, while the PS3 and 360 games occasionally tear right at the top of the screen (this is basically unnoticeable during gameplay though).

Performance:

Quote:
While Wii U matches PS3 performance in a range of gameplay scenes, the more ambitious levels bring performance down to unacceptably low levels.

The Wii U version matches the look of the Xbox 360 game and thus gives it an edge visually over the PlayStation 3 release, but unfortunately it comes up well short in terms of performance - an aspect that is all-important to the playability of a COD title. The frame-rate variance is such that the PS3 game feels generally smoother, while the 360 release feels like an entirely different game in the more demanding levels. Bearing in mind the commonalities in hardware design between Wii U and Xbox 360, we can't help but feel somewhat disappointed that Black Ops 2 under-performs so noticeably.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-wii-u-face-off

( Edited 24.11.2012 17:30 by Linkyshinks )

Linkyshinks said:

BLOPS 2 on WiiU is sub HD and has the worst framerate of the bunch according to Digital Foundry.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-wii-u-face-off

This article can't seem to make up its mind. Over and over again it's basically "The Wii U holds up just as well, except sometimes it drops below the Xbox, but usually still outperforms the PS3 except in certain cases, making it easily the worst out of all three". Not sure how that works. Then it says things like "the opposite is true with Wii U, which struggles palpably in any scene where a lot of characters are in the area, or when taxing effects work is at play" but when you watch the side-by-side vid there's a scene with like two dozen people at a rave and the Wii U version is actually performing the best. It also seems like it handles the scenes involving water a lot better.

I plan on getting the game for Wii U and 360 (but probably not for a while) so maybe it's one of those things you have to see for yourself, but that article really doesn't do a very good job of presenting its case, and a more accurate summary would be "the controller sometimes lags in campaign mode", not "the Wii U version of this game is unacceptable".

( Edited 24.11.2012 18:46 by justonesp00lturn )

That is odd. I don't think a game journalist would lie or do shoddy reporting on purpose though...so there's probably truth to it. Maybe some console names got switched around accidently?

God said:
That is odd. I don't think a game journalist would lie or do shoddy reporting on purpose though...so there's probably truth to it. Maybe some console names got switched around accidently?

I think their main point is that the controller becomes laggy, which is something you can't tell just by watching the video. They also complained about the framerate because with Wii U it'll drop really low and then immediately pick back up, which they argue is worse than the PS3 dropping low and staying there for a while because then you get a chance to compensate for the change, where with Wii U you don't. I guess I see the point, it just seems really stupid and I wouldn't call that anything close to "unplayable".

It's a pretty cool article overall though, they show some of the lighting and texture differences used to make the different versions work on their respective platforms.

Also, for the record, American game "journalists" do shoddy "reporting" all the time. Go to any Wii or Wii U game on ign and compare the ign score to the user score, you'll see what I mean. Case in point, the ign review for ZombiU saying the graphics are bad because things clip sometimes (but we can give Skyrim 9.5/10 even though it sometimes spawns trees in the sky or bad guys underground) and that there aren't any items worth putting in your backpack, which is utter bullshit; I've spent a good hour of that game just trying to decide which item I should drop in favor of taking another with me.

Well, I didn't get that from the article. I got that the image is on par with 360, but the framerate can't even match the PS3 version, which up to now was the worst. The reason why this matters so much is that COD is all about keeping to that 60fps target as much as possible. That's your handshake with the game, and it's what makes COD feel so different to other shooters on current gen platforms. They mention the weak CPU as a possible cause, along with Treyarch being new to the platform.

Campaign-wise, this arguably makes the Wii U version the worst. That all-important multiplayer probably fairs much better. It does on PS3, where multiplayer is silky-smooth. It's unfortunate that that new hardware can't comprehensively beat old hardware. It's not like 360/PS3/Wii U are all new consoles battling it out. The former two are seriously long in the tooth, and the Wii U can't ever seem to manage anything more than 'slightly better'.

Given that it performs the worst and the online community is puny, I'd say the 'U is the wrong platform to get the game for if you have a choice. Why you'd get it for 360 an Wii U is kind of beyond me. Just make a choice for one or the other and go for it, sp00l.

Martin_ said:
Well, I didn't get that from the article. I got that the image is on par with 360, but the framerate can't even match the PS3 version, which up to now was the worst. The reason why this matters so much is that COD is all about keeping to that 60fps target as much as possible. That's your handshake with the game, and it's what makes COD feel so different to other shooters on current gen platforms. They mention the weak CPU as a possible cause, along with Treyarch being new to the platform.

Campaign-wise, this arguably makes the Wii U version the worst. That all-important multiplayer probably fairs much better. It does on PS3, where multiplayer is silky-smooth. It's unfortunate that that new hardware can't comprehensively beat old hardware. It's not like 360/PS3/Wii U are all new consoles battling it out. The former two are seriously long in the tooth, and the Wii U can't ever seem to manage anything more than 'slightly better'.

Given that it performs the worst and the online community is puny, I'd say the 'U is the wrong platform to get the game for if you have a choice. Why you'd get it for 360 an Wii U is kind of beyond me. Just make a choice for one or the other and go for it, sp00l.

If you actually watch the videos they posted, you'll see how much they stretched things to say "it can't keep up with the PS3 version". It's the same most of the time, and sometimes the Wii U version drops and sometimes the PS3 version drops; the difference is the PS3 version tends to stay low or high for longer periods and the Wii U version corrects itself faster, which they say is a mark against the Wii U version.

I'm getting both because most of my friends will have it for 360, but I prefer it on the Wii and Wii U. I know I'm in the minority there, but I always liked the controls with Wii Remote and Nunchuk better than the Xbox controller when it comes to call of duty.

Also it'll be cool to still be able to play when I decide to stop coughing up $60 a year for Xbox Live.

Edit: right here: "Lower frame-rates translate directly into muggier response from the controls, but players can "acclimatise" to higher levels of input lag and it won't bother them so much - generally speaking, consistency is the key. The problem with Black Ops 2 on Wii U is that the variance is so dramatic and changes so often that poor response becomes that much more apparent than it does on the other platforms." Like I said, it might be something I have to feel for myself and is just hard to put into words, but it really seems weird that they're saying the Wii U version is the worst because when it lags it doesn't lag as long as the other versions.

( Edited 24.11.2012 19:22 by justonesp00lturn )

I guess it's the serious drops that create a weird feeling in controller response. I'd like to say you're a fool for buying it twice, but then I paid £70 for the Hardened Edition, so I should just shut up. Of note - is the 'U version getting the DLC?

I finished the campaign yesterday, and I'm halfway through my second prestige in multiplayer (still yet to get stuck in to zombies). I maintain what I said last week when I got it - seriously awesome game. Best COD yet. The campaign no-longer has such a strict 'walk in a line' feel about it. It's still pretty linear, but there's branching paths, and even on the most linear bits, there seems to be more areas/rooms to explore.

Sometimes the choices in the campaign are blatant where it says "do this, or do this", and sometimes it isn't. Like in one level, there was a tank I was supposed to destroy. I didn't bother straight away, and decided to have fun on horseback shooting goons for a bit when I notice 'Objective Failed' on the screen. Crucially, the game didn't punish me with a checkpoint restart, it simply went in a slightly different direction.

The multiplayer is amazingly-balanced for a brand new game, and it can only get better. Best COD by miles, although World at War will always have a place in my gaming heart

Martin_ said:
I guess it's the serious drops that create a weird feeling in controller response. I'd like to say you're a fool for buying it twice, but then I paid £70 for the Hardened Edition, so I should just shut up. Of note - is the 'U version getting the DLC?

I finished the campaign yesterday, and I'm halfway through my second prestige in multiplayer (still yet to get stuck in to zombies). I maintain what I said last week when I got it - seriously awesome game. Best COD yet. The campaign no-longer has such a strict 'walk in a line' feel about it. It's still pretty linear, but there's branching paths, and even on the most linear bits, there seems to be more areas/rooms to explore.

Sometimes the choices in the campaign are blatant where it says "do this, or do this", and sometimes it isn't. Like in one level, there was a tank I was supposed to destroy. I didn't bother straight away, and decided to have fun on horseback shooting goons for a bit when I notice 'Objective Failed' on the screen. Crucially, the game didn't punish me with a checkpoint restart, it simply went in a slightly different direction.

The multiplayer is amazingly-balanced for a brand new game, and it can only get better. Best COD by miles, although World at War will always have a place in my gaming heart

Well, more likely the Wii U version will be a Christmas present and my brother will buy the Xbox version  with allowance money.

The back of the box says it includes "add-on support" but Activision hasn't confirmed any, so I don't know on the dlc (I almost never get the dlc anyway). If I recall the instruction manual for Black Ops on the Wii also said it had add-on support, but that never happened. Apparently Activision says they're working out a few kinks, and people who pre-ordered didn't get the Nuketown 2025 map other consoles got (but retailers are apparently confirming a download code solution to this when asked). Details are a little fuzzy at the moment. If I cared more about the dlc I would definitely be sticking with the Xbox 360 version just in case. Hopefully there will be some clear answers by xmas anyway.

A little bit more comforting, there's supposedly not going to be any dlc for ZombiU, but the game updates itself constantly. I'm still skeptical that Wii U will be as open when it comes to online connectivity, but the developers are able to change graffiti in the safe house on the fly (yesterday there was a message saying nobody had beaten survival mode, today there was one giving the username of the guy who finally did). Today there's a graffito that says "if you're still alive, meet us here on Wednesday". Not sure what that means, I'm wondering if Ubisoft is going to do special in-game events from time to time. I'm pretty interested in what's going on.

Ok I did not go to IGN. I do not want to go looking for evidence on such a big site to see if your argument holds up. That is not my job. But also, your post about it looked angry or bitter to me. You might be right though, but you did not came across objective enough to me. Therefore I will disregard both parties for now. My original thought and assumption stays up.

God said:
Ok I did not go to IGN. I do not want to go looking for evidence on such a big site to see if your argument holds up. That is not my job. But also, your post about it looked angry or bitter to me. You might be right though, but you did not came across objective enough to me. Therefore I will disregard both parties for now. My original thought and assumption stays up.

If I looked angry or bitter regarding the Black Ops article, I just thought it was really weird the way they were justifying what they were saying, but I'll have to play it myself I think. I wouldn't say they're lying, I just think they're being a little hyperbolic, calling the game "unacceptable" because its framerate in campaign mode is sometimes slightly lower than others.

Regarding ign, I am angry about their review of ZombiU because it's full of shit. It's verifiably, objectively wrong. It's not even an opinion, the reviewer says things that just aren't true. He claimes the game has "no storyline" (not true), he says there's never any reason to add items to your bag because most are useless (I've yet to see a "useless" item), he says the graphics are bad because of clipping (which is no worse than it is in Left 4 Dead, and ZombiU looks a lot better than that game in general). Other US-based game sites gave it similar scores, with one giving it a 4.5 out of 10. Every other major publication in the world and ign's viewers all heaped praise upon it.

There's a huge anti-Nintendo slant when it comes to American game publications, especially ign and Game Informer. It's always been there, but I couldn't believe what I was reading in that review because it's not remotely true. So I tend to be on the defensive when it comes to ign and Game Informer, because they're big and usually the first to break news, but they're far from fair or honest most of the time.

Martin_ said:

I personally just want Nintendo to enter a very difficult financial situation, as Sega did in 2001. I want Nintendo to be forced out of the hardware business, so that I can play Mario and Zelda again. The only way that can really happen is if the mothers and stuff don't bother migrating from their Wiis. There won't be enough support from hardcore gamers/developers to hold the system up.

It feels like a horrible thing to say, but I think I concur. The focus would surely return to those core franchises, time would be spent making a lot of them much better too instead of sticking to rigid formulas that haven't really changed properly since the 64. During the GCN/early Wii era I remember some people touting the possibility that Nintendo would leave the home console market and stick with handheld market: but now that area is equally desolate (in terms of future outlook). From a consumer point of view, if I could have my Xbox 720, play all those MS franchises I love, plus all those Nintendo franchises: that would be a console generation of pure bliss for me.  

If Nintendo is going anywhere I'd almost prefer they move to PC gaming. Being able to mod the shit out of Zelda and Super Smash would be really cool. Don't think Nintendo will ever allow that though, they're so traditional :C

Scared tiny penismen.

Hey I will take you're word for it now about american game thingies. It could make sense with all the corruption going down there. Are they favorable to xbox more? Its sad. I love that country...thanks for your detailed response