Reggie: Third party games like COD look dramatically better on our system.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=137X2LcF-wM

This was on CNN so the reporter asked some serious and relevant questions and for some reason Reggie made this ludicrous and entirely untrue statement.

That said, I do wish more journalists in gaming would follow suit and ask some of these harder questions, even if the responses would be similar PR bullcrap.

#2 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=137X2LcF-wM

This was on CNN so the reporter asked some serious and relevant questions and for some reason Reggie made this ludicrous and entirely untrue statement.

That said, I do wish more journalists in gaming would follow suit and ask some of these harder questions, even if the responses would be similar PR bullcrap.

Grammaton-Cleric

CNN isnt reliant on gaming companies to send them preview content/ interviews/Doritios/Mountain Dew. They have no fear of angering these entertainment companies with legit questions.

Back to topic, its amazing how Nintendo is able to just blatantly lie about these things, there are websites that do side by side comparions and the general consensus is that the Wii U is very close to the 360, and its multiplats are on par at best, many even have performance issues that arent present in the 360/PS3 versions.

#3 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

OMG it makes me so furiuos when people act like the controller is competition to ipad's and android pads. And Nintendo does nothing to make it sound different! "Why would someone buy a WiiU when they have an ipad?" I don't know. Why would someone buy a smartphone when they have a PS3?

#4 Posted by Archangel3371 (16250 posts) -
Meh. I don't know. I really haven't seen anything yet that was "dramatically" better then on the 360 myself. Regardless though when I get a Wii U it'll mostly be used for Wii U exclusive games as there's a number of reasons I'd opt for the 360 version instead.
#5 Posted by hiphops_savior (8065 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=137X2LcF-wM

This was on CNN so the reporter asked some serious and relevant questions and for some reason Reggie made this ludicrous and entirely untrue statement.

That said, I do wish more journalists in gaming would follow suit and ask some of these harder questions, even if the responses would be similar PR bullcrap.

Grammaton-Cleric
I'd give it a half true rating. Reggie never said it performed better, and although Black Ops 2 does have native 720p support and 2x AA, it also had frame rate issues. While it was true that third party games do look better, it was carefully worded and doesn't necessarily factor in performance and frame rate.
#6 Posted by hiphops_savior (8065 posts) -

OMG it makes me so furiuos when people act like the controller is competition to ipad's and android pads. And Nintendo does nothing to make it sound different! "Why would someone buy a WiiU when they have an ipad?" I don't know. Why would someone buy a smartphone when they have a PS3?

NaveedLife
To be fair, the interviewer in question is coming from the average layman angle rather than from your typical video game forum user.
#7 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

OMG it makes me so furiuos when people act like the controller is competition to ipad's and android pads. And Nintendo does nothing to make it sound different! "Why would someone buy a WiiU when they have an ipad?" I don't know. Why would someone buy a smartphone when they have a PS3?

hiphops_savior

To be fair, the interviewer in question is coming from the average layman angle rather than from your typical video game forum user.

lol, I hear ya, but that is when Reggie should correct her. Or when she should take a look at it and do the TINIEST bit of research :P.

#8 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

From everything I can tell based on what I've heard about how the launch games turned out, Reggie just flat fvcking lied and wasn't called out on it.

#9 Posted by hiphops_savior (8065 posts) -

From everything I can tell based on what I've heard about how the launch games turned out, Reggie just flat fvcking lied and wasn't called out on it.

Shame-usBlackley
Performance and visual are two completely different things. Reggie omitted the technical problems while emphasizing on the visual. If a screenshot was released comparing the Wii U to the 360, then there might be a significant difference. It's a spin, and usually spins are designed to emphasize one issue and gloss over another.
#10 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

From everything I can tell based on what I've heard about how the launch games turned out, Reggie just flat fvcking lied and wasn't called out on it.

hiphops_savior

Performance and visual are two completely different things. Reggie omitted the technical problems while emphasizing on the visual. If a screenshot was released comparing the Wii U to the 360, then there might be a significant difference. It's a spin, and usually spins are designed to emphasize one issue and gloss over another.

And Call of Duty on the U doesn't best the 360 in either department. From most accounts, it is at parity with visual fidelity and sub-par when it comes to performance.

He used the clarifying statement: "Much more graphically intensive" [games on the Wii U].

And then followed it with: "If you do a side by side comparison, you would see that third-party games like Call of Duty look dramatically better on our system."

That's a complete and utter fabrication, no matter how you'd like to parse it.

#11 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

CoD would have been a 360 port even if Wii U would be in the same league as high-end PCs.

It does not run in 1080p/60fps like it was promised tho.

#12 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -
Reggie: Third party games like COD look dramatically better on our system.Grammaton-Cleric
Human eyes: "Third party games look equal or worse on the Wii U".
#13 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=137X2LcF-wM

This was on CNN so the reporter asked some serious and relevant questions and for some reason Reggie made this ludicrous and entirely untrue statement.

That said, I do wish more journalists in gaming would follow suit and ask some of these harder questions, even if the responses would be similar PR bullcrap.

hiphops_savior

I'd give it a half true rating. Reggie never said it performed better, and although Black Ops 2 does have native 720p support and 2x AA, it also had frame rate issues. While it was true that third party games do look better, it was carefully worded and doesn't necessarily factor in performance and frame rate.

Actually, none of the launch games look better than the 360 versions and as a point of fact many look noticeably worse.

Black Ops 2 in particular looks the same on both consoles but with a significantly lower frame rate on the Wii U.

Any way you spin his comments, they are a blatant and disprovable lie. Currently Wii U ports look, at best, like XB360 games with worse performance.

And that's assuming I agree with your postulation that something like frame rate shouldn't be considered when measuring visual fidelity, which I don't.

#14 Posted by c_rakestraw (14793 posts) -

It's PR. What do you expect? They're not about to make themselves sound worse than the competition.

#15 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

It's PR. What do you expect? They're not about to make themselves sound worse than the competition.

c_rake

PR and lying are not the same thing.

#16 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

It's PR. What do you expect? They're not about to make themselves sound worse than the competition.

crimsonman1245

PR and lying are not the same thing.

It is when it's Nintendo's PR "Wii U will be 19 times more powerful than the PS3" Link Turned out it's not even as powerful as 1 PS3.
#17 Posted by D3s7rUc71oN (5180 posts) -

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

It's PR. What do you expect? They're not about to make themselves sound worse than the competition.

Black_Knight_00

PR and lying are not the same thing.

It is when it's Nintendo's PR "Wii U will be 19 times more powerful than the PS3" Link Turned out it's not even as powerful as 1 PS3.

:lol:

is it even 19x as powerful as the N64?

#18 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1325 posts) -

You can't compare systems where devs have 6-7 years experience working with to one that they've had there hands on for 6 months-1 year.

Truth is we aren't really going to know the capabilities and limits of the WiiU until 2nd or 3rd generation software starts to come out, either way we all knew that the difference between 360/PS3 and WiiU was going to be more like a half step like the Dreamcast was compared to N64/PS1 and PS2.

#19 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

You can't compare systems where devs have 6-7 years experience working with to one that they've had there hands on for 6 months-1 year.

Truth is we aren't really going to know the capabilities and limits of the WiiU until 2nd or 3rd generation software starts to come out, either way we all knew that the difference between 360/PS3 and WiiU was going to be more like a half step like the Dreamcast was compared to N64/PS1 and PS2.

Gamefan1986

They said the same thing about the Wii and it kept looking like a Gamecube until the (upcoming) end of its life cycle. To end this cyclic argument once and for all: we have the Wii U hardware specs. Numbers don't lie.

#20 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

They said the same thing about the Wii and it kept looking like a Gamecube until the (upcoming) end of its life cycle. To end this cyclic argument once and for all: we have the Wii U hardware specs. Numbers don't lie.

Black_Knight_00

Hardware specs mean nothing if the software isn't written to utilize them effectively. You can do a line-by-line comparison of the hardware specs and benchmarks between the Wii U, the PS 3 and the Xbox 360, but it would be largely meaningless. I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS 3 and the hardware specs and benchmarks are better for the Xbox 360, but I don't notice any significant difference between the the two when I play games. Most of the problems I encounter are with the games themselves. I suspect the same is true for the Wii U.

#21 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -
Hardware specs mean nothing if the software isn't written to utilize them effectively. You can do a line-by-line comparison of the hardware specs and benchmarks between the Wii U, the PS 3 and the Xbox 360, but it would be largely meaningless. I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS 3 and the hardware specs and benchmarks are better for the Xbox 360, but I don't notice any significant difference between the the two when I play games. Most of the problems I encounter are with the games themselves. I suspect the same is true for the Wii U.capaho
So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.
#22 Posted by wiouds (5535 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

They said the same thing about the Wii and it kept looking like a Gamecube until the (upcoming) end of its life cycle. To end this cyclic argument once and for all: we have the Wii U hardware specs. Numbers don't lie.

capaho

Hardware specs mean nothing if the software isn't written to utilize them effectively. You can do a line-by-line comparison of the hardware specs and benchmarks between the Wii U, the PS 3 and the Xbox 360, but it would be largely meaningless. I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS 3 and the hardware specs and benchmarks are better for the Xbox 360, but I don't notice any significant difference between the the two when I play games. Most of the problems I encounter are with the games themselves. I suspect the same is true for the Wii U.

You are right that programmers can come up with different ways to improve the use of the hardware but the limitation in hardware is still there. A CPU speed is key to the a computer system. There are tricks you can pull to make better use of it but there only some much that those tricks can pull out.

#23 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.

Black_Knight_00

Marketing hype aside, how well the game is written to use the hardware resources of the platform effectively is far more important than the specific hardware specs or benchmarks of the platform itself. Most game performance issues are a problem with the game coding, not the platform.

I haven't yet taken a look at the hardware specs, but I'm curious to know what the specs are that you consider to be not good at all.

#24 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.

capaho

Marketing hype aside, how well the game is written to use the hardware resources of the platform effectively is far more important than the specific hardware specs or benchmarks of the platform itself. Most game performance issues are a problem with the game coding, not the platform.

I haven't yet taken a look at the hardware specs, but I'm curious to know what the specs are that you consider to be not good at all.

Without delving into technicalities (you can easily find a comparison chart under any stone), the Wii U has some components which are slightly better than 7 years old X360, while most of the rest is worse, simply cheap and outdated. Can you still do good games on a syste like that? Hell yes! Can you bring the industry forward by a considerable margin? No.
#25 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
lol reggie.. only way to hype the wii u is to lie
#26 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

It's PR. What do you expect? They're not about to make themselves sound worse than the competition.

Black_Knight_00

PR and lying are not the same thing.

It is when it's Nintendo's PR "Wii U will be 19 times more powerful than the PS3" Link Turned out it's not even as powerful as 1 PS3.

lol

#27 Posted by c_rakestraw (14793 posts) -

It is when it's Nintendo's PR

"Wii U will be 19 times more powerful than the PS3" Link

Turned out it's not even as powerful as 1 PS3.

Black_Knight_00

Good lord, Nintendo... really? Ugh.

#28 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
Actually from all that I have seen it is the best looking version graphically. The colors and textures are much more rich and crisp, it doesn't seem as "jaggy" either. Reggie is right. What he fails to mention however, are the framerate problems due to the systems terrible ram and cpu. My laptop i'm posting this on is more powerful than the Wii U- by a fair amount too, and costs about the same.
#29 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Without delving into technicalities (you can easily find a comparison chart under any stone), the Wii U has some components which are slightly better than 7 years old X360, while most of the rest is worse, simply cheap and outdated. Can you still do good games on a syste like that? Hell yes! Can you bring the industry forward by a considerable margin? No.

Black_Knight_00

I did some delving into technicalities and I couldn't find anything that warrants panic. I don't think that Nintendo can truthfully claim any technical superiority over the other consoles, but the Wii U should at least be on par with the Xbox 360 and the PS 3. I suspect the upcoming Xbox 720 will have hardware specs that will blow the doors off of everything else, but I don't see any reason why the Wii U hardware should be cause for concern for anyone who is interested in that platform. I still think the onus for any game performance issues is on the game makers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6465/nintendo-wii-u-teardown

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/21/wii-u-review

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/wii-u-hardware-review-gamepads-tilt-sensitivity-rocks-two-screen-gaming

#30 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

I guess Reggie hasn't seen Digital Foundry's most recent article.

Egg, meet face.

#31 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1325 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]Hardware specs mean nothing if the software isn't written to utilize them effectively. You can do a line-by-line comparison of the hardware specs and benchmarks between the Wii U, the PS 3 and the Xbox 360, but it would be largely meaningless. I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS 3 and the hardware specs and benchmarks are better for the Xbox 360, but I don't notice any significant difference between the the two when I play games. Most of the problems I encounter are with the games themselves. I suspect the same is true for the Wii U.Black_Knight_00
So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.

What do you expect though? It's his job to hype things, and it's not like he is the only one that does it, remember when PS2 was supposed to have Toy Story graphics?

#32 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="capaho"]Hardware specs mean nothing if the software isn't written to utilize them effectively. You can do a line-by-line comparison of the hardware specs and benchmarks between the Wii U, the PS 3 and the Xbox 360, but it would be largely meaningless. I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS 3 and the hardware specs and benchmarks are better for the Xbox 360, but I don't notice any significant difference between the the two when I play games. Most of the problems I encounter are with the games themselves. I suspect the same is true for the Wii U.Gamefan1986

So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.

What do you expect though? It's his job to hype things, and it's not like he is the only one that does it, remember when PS2 was supposed to have Toy Story graphics?

More recently, I remember when Sony was trying to pass off CG as gameplay (2005 IIRC). Consumers tend to react poorly when companies lie to their faces. Smart companies ought to avoid doing it. There are ways to talk around problems without lying about them. A PR flack can say 'We believe our system has enough power to allow creators to create fun games' or something to that effect.

#33 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gamefan1986"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] So your point is that high hardware specs alone don't make a good console, that's very true, but my point was that we have hardware specs for the Wii U and they are not good at all. Which makes the "19 times a PS3" boast a PR lie meant to generate hype.CarnageHeart

What do you expect though? It's his job to hype things, and it's not like he is the only one that does it, remember when PS2 was supposed to have Toy Story graphics?

More recently, I remember when Sony was trying to pass off CG as gameplay (2005 IIRC). Consumers tend to react poorly when companies lie to their faces. Smart companies ought to avoid doing it. There are ways to talk around problems without lying about them. A PR flack can say 'We believe our system has enough power to allow creators to create fun games' or something to that effect.

Remember when microsoft and molyneux wanted us to believe Project Milo was interactive while it was just a scripted video to hype kinect? That was shameful.
#34 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

FIRST Party Games look better on the Wii U for sure!!!

Well, given the circumstance that when you try to flop a Nintendo Disc in your PS3 or XBox360 it'll just will result in a black screen.

But hey, ANYTHING looks better than a black screen, amirite? :D

#35 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

Well they don't look dramatically better now but they will eventually. All the ports are using 360 assets and the Wii U has a completely different architecture, same reason why PS3 ports use to be not as good.

#36 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

You can't compare systems where devs have 6-7 years experience working with to one that they've had there hands on for 6 months-1 year.

Truth is we aren't really going to know the capabilities and limits of the WiiU until 2nd or 3rd generation software starts to come out, either way we all knew that the difference between 360/PS3 and WiiU was going to be more like a half step like the Dreamcast was compared to N64/PS1 and PS2.

Gamefan1986

You can when the tech being used is essentially from 6 years ago.

Also, the Dreamcast offered a massive leap over the PSONE/N64 in terms of visual fidelity.

The system launched with Soul Calibur, which looked better than just about anything else on the market at the time, PC included.

#37 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

Reggie raises: "X720 and PS4 will have to react to Wii U"

http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-720-and-playstation-4-have-react-wii-u-fils-aime-says/

To me this sounds like saying that hurricane katrina has to react to a cocktail umbrella, but hey, he can swim in denial all he likes.

#38 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I did some delving into technicalities and I couldn't find anything that warrants panic. I don't think that Nintendo can truthfully claim any technical superiority over the other consoles, but the Wii U should at least be on par with the Xbox 360 and the PS 3. I suspect the upcoming Xbox 720 will have hardware specs that will blow the doors off of everything else, but I don't see any reason why the Wii U hardware should be cause for concern for anyone who is interested in that platform. I still think the onus for any game performance issues is on the game makers.

capaho

I agree with you entirely but the problem was that Nintendo and certain developers were claiming the Wii U actually had a significant power advantage but, as it has turned out, that isn't the case.

At best the Wii U will enjoy relative parity with the XB360 and PS3 and that parity will keep them relevant for about however long it takes MS and Sony to launch a new console.

#39 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I just bought BLOPs 2 on the Wii U and i can say that it definitely looks better than the ridiculously blurry PS3 version. There are some frame drops especially during big battles but nothing like KZ3 online framerate issues or the legendary Crysis 2 framerate issues on the 360. It almost never drops below 30fps so it's not bad at all.

I wish I could say it controls better with the tablet but it does not. The tablet is just too big, the analog sticks too far apart. I will try some MP and see how it translates to quick shooting but after two missions I'm still adjusting to the controller.

#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19138 posts) -

I just bought BLOPs 2 on the Wii U and i can say that it definitely looks better than the ridiculously blurry PS3 version. There are some frame drops especially during big battles but nothing like KZ3 online framerate issues or the legendary Crysis 2 framerate issues on the 360. It almost never drops below 30fps so it's not bad at all.

S0lidSnake

See but that's the thing: you can make any game look better by sacrificing framerate, even on the xbox. A wild guess here: with all these third party games having framerate issues on the Wii U, it almost smells like Nintendo pushed to have slightly boosted graphics at the cost of a few frames, which, again, can be done on any current console.

If anything this makes Reggie's lie even bigger.

#41 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I just bought BLOPs 2 on the Wii U and i can say that it definitely looks better than the ridiculously blurry PS3 version. There are some frame drops especially during big battles but nothing like KZ3 online framerate issues or the legendary Crysis 2 framerate issues on the 360. It almost never drops below 30fps so it's not bad at all.

S0lidSnake

Considering the XB360 version looks identical and enjoys double the framerate I'd venture to say that is a huge issue.

#42 Posted by Bigboi500 (31309 posts) -

PR people lie, that's common. I'm not sure to what purpose that was said, because most people who are interested in the Wii U will be buying it for Nintendo franchises and/or the tablet, not for best graphics or to be compared to other systems' technical or graphical capabilities, this gen or next.

#43 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Reggie raises: "X720 and PS4 will have to react to Wii U"

http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-720-and-playstation-4-have-react-wii-u-fils-aime-says/

To me this sounds like saying that hurricane katrina has to react to a cocktail umbrella, but hey, he can swim in denial all he likes.

Black_Knight_00

That's some of the biggest BS I've heard in a long time. Nintendo, which finally after 6 years comes out with a system that is HD capable and has specs similar to the current gen HD twins, now says the next Xbox and PS4 have to react to them? For what, using a tablet controller? That is the only thing the system has going for it, if you're a believer in the dual screen approach (which I am not). Reggie is talking up the Wii U as a legitimate contender, meanwhile accounts are currently tied to the Wii U's they are created on! It's laughable. From what I've seen of the Wii U I fully expect the next Xbox and PS4 to blow it out of the water.

#44 Posted by o0squishy0o (2774 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

Reggie raises: "X720 and PS4 will have to react to Wii U"

http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-720-and-playstation-4-have-react-wii-u-fils-aime-says/

To me this sounds like saying that hurricane katrina has to react to a cocktail umbrella, but hey, he can swim in denial all he likes.

Vari3ty

That's some of the biggest BS I've heard in a long time. Nintendo, which finally after 6 years comes out with a system that is HD capable and has specs similar to the current gen HD twins, now says the next Xbox and PS4 have to react to them? For what, using a tablet controller? That is the only thing the system has going for it, if you're a believer in the dual screen approach (which I am not). Reggie is talking up the Wii U as a legitimate contender, meanwhile accounts are currently tied to the Wii U's they are created on! It's laughable. From what I've seen of the Wii U I fully expect the next Xbox and PS4 to blow it out of the water.

You can't expect a PR guy to come out and say "You know what, we are not as powerful, we still have the same character line up for the past 20 years, we are still producing incredibly similiar exclusives... however we have thought maybe we should have COD now".
#45 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I just bought BLOPs 2 on the Wii U and i can say that it definitely looks better than the ridiculously blurry PS3 version. There are some frame drops especially during big battles but nothing like KZ3 online framerate issues or the legendary Crysis 2 framerate issues on the 360. It almost never drops below 30fps so it's not bad at all.

I wish I could say it controls better with the tablet but it does not. The tablet is just too big, the analog sticks too far apart. I will try some MP and see how it translates to quick shooting but after two missions I'm still adjusting to the controller.

S0lidSnake

I read elsewhere that the blurry video problem on the PS 3 was fixed with an update.

#46 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

I just bought BLOPs 2 on the Wii U and i can say that it definitely looks better than the ridiculously blurry PS3 version. There are some frame drops especially during big battles but nothing like KZ3 online framerate issues or the legendary Crysis 2 framerate issues on the 360. It almost never drops below 30fps so it's not bad at all.

Grammaton-Cleric

Considering the XB360 version looks identical and enjoys double the framerate I'd venture to say that is a huge issue.

It's an issue if you are looking to gauge the power of the system, yes, but it's perfectly playable since it stays over 30fps even during framedrops.

I am not saying this makes it a powerful console, just pointing out that it does look better than the PS3 version which Treyarch has been developing on for the past 7 years.