Black Ops II confirmed for Wii U

 @Aria1368  @Lach0121  @deadmonkey76 Aria, my original point was that BO2 wouldn't look worse on the Wii U, and I still stand by that - as you said many AAA titles look the same on all platforms now (COD always has) and the Wii U is theoretically better than either PS3 or Xbox....Lach, with regards to my "PS3 vs Xbox" comment, again I stand by it - any game that was designed for the PS3 will look (slightly) better than if it was designed for Xbox, If Gears 3 had been designed solely for the PS3 it would look better than it does on Xbox because the PS3 has more overall power.  

As for many multi platform games, in my experience it's Xbox all the way because as I think we've all said, games tend to be developed for Xbox then ported to PS3.... I just hope the developers will take the time to port their games to the Wii U properly...

Regarding ultimate power, I've yet to see anything on the Wii U that I would trouble a PS3, but it's early days.  The problem is once the Wii U gets into it's stride and people start to exploit it, the next Sony/MS machines will be looming.

 @Lach0121  @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76 Now we are reaching to a good point at this discussion, Yes, since more than %50 of the cross-platform games have been designed and coded around xbox architecture, which makes them looks bad when they get ported to PS3, it's a simple fact. Recently however many AAA companies are learning to make the codes around PS3 as well, ex:BF3, but again many as well ignore this and simply port the game to PS3, which is result in a lower fps/missing some graphics/effect, ex:Skyrim's disaster...  The reason uncharted or other ps exclusive looks very nice is simply because they were designed from ground up to take advantage from ps hardware... in a point of comparison between the 2 consoles, i'd say xbox gpu, has more resources than PS3's gpu and designed for better efficiency, but if the developers writes their code from ground up for ps3, they can reduce the over-head from ps3's GPU by sharing it's tasks with the CPUs/Cells, that is the time that PS3 will shine, and overall can produce more graphical effects and more power than xbox. about wii u who ever thinks that is less/equal power to current gen, is an ignorant, Wii U's CPU is however not so powerful and it's around what you get from xbox360's CPU, BUT it's GPU is much more powerful than xbox360/ps3, and wii u has a total 1-1.5 GB of shared Memory (still unclear) and it's overal new architecture make it, easily have better looking games than ps3/xbox, Simply fact!

 @Lach0121  @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76 of course for small games, but what i was point at, was the fact the Cell processor on PS3 can do graphics and physics.

 @Aria1368  @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76 Also when speaking about the ps3 doesn't even need the gpu to run, yes, this applies to small games.  Any game that has any amount of decent graphics is running it off the gpu.   That cell processor isn't powerful enough to do it all by  itself.  If it did expect a slideshow.

 @Aria1368  @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76 If this is true about the system RAM, then I stand corrected. But still the games codes will need to be changed to run the games, as I have stated before, because they are exclusive games, designed around specific hardware. 

Doesn't mean that they couldn't run on other hardware, just that things would have to be changed to run it. And they couldn't be run as they are, as stable as their "home" platform.   

I think this applies more towards ps3 exclusives, than it does to 360 exclusives, as Gears is the only one I could point out on the 360 that WOULD NEED  coding changes to work on the ps3.   However  games like Uncharted and MGS would need severe changes to run properly on the 360. 

Its not that one system is blatantly more powerful than the other.  They just cater to slightly different proprieties. But are so close in the bigger picture it isn't even funny. Though with multi-platform titles, they usually are run better on the 360, because that was the flagship system most games are designed for this gen. Then ported to other platforms.

360 can also handle Anti-aliasing better than the ps3, however the ps3's gpu actually has hardware dedicated to physics.   (albeit not as utilized as one would like)

But their GPU's as far as power goes, are so close it isn't even funny.

Yet the people that were arguing one system was so much more powerful than the other half a decade ago, are the same people who are saying the Wiiu is the same as the 360 now. The Irony.

 @Lach0121  @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76 PS3's CPU/Cell can access all the 512 memory, in PS3 GPU access only to 256 mb, but then again PS3's GPU works so closely with the CPU it's self, in fact PS3's CPU can run a game without even using the GPU it's self, so PS3 CPU can access all the memory. it's not like 256 mb of system is waste/can never be used for the game it self. They all works perfectly together, so PS3 does in fact use all the memory to run the game.

 @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76  @Aria1368 Its not graphics (per sey)  that is holding it back, its the use of the 512mb of unified RAM,  There are times when Gears needs more 256mb of VRAM, and less than 256 of Sys RAM.   Which the PS3 could not accommodate for that.  Not without changes to code or graphics.  To where it wouldnt need more than 256 of Vram at any given point.

Similar Uncharted, because both games are designed around specific architecture of their respected exclusive systems. (Uncharted is designed heavily with the Cell cpu in mind) Even more specific is Metal Gear Solid 4.

If you are curious to find out more google "Gears of War 512mb Ram xbox 360 design." Or something of the sort.

 @Lach0121  @deadmonkey76  @Aria1368 Well, Lach I'll happily admit you know more about the technical stuff than me.  How though can you say the PS3 couldn't run Gears 3 when it runs Killzone 3 perfectly - I'd say KZ3 is clearly better (graphically at least) than Gears 3.Like I said I don't have any preference, and you're right the difference is smaller than the fanboys will have us believe!

 @Hodge996  @deadmonkey76  @Aria1368 It goes both ways, the ps3 couldn't run Gears of War due to its RAM limitations. However, like you said the 360 couldn't run Uncharted for example because of its limitations.

It breaks down like this.  

360 has a slightly better "utilized" gpu. (the gpu in both consoles are so close in actual performance it isn't even funny)

The CPU in the ps3 is stronger, but hardly utilized fully. (some exceptions, Uncharted, Metal Gear etc) 

The PS3 has a much better sound processor. (period)

The 360 has 512 of unified RAM which allow. Which Gears of War would have to be significantly changed to run stable and smooth, on the 256 (sys) and 256 (VRAM) of RAM the PS3 has.

Architecture makes a difference too!

 @deadmonkey76  @Aria1368 Mr Monkey that's just not true.  I don't know the details of the individual components but the fact is that the PS3 has several games that just wouldn't be possible on Xbox - Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, God of War 3... there are probably others.  It's a widely accepted fact (even MS have unofficially admitted it) that ultimately the PS3 is more powerful, but it really is a small difference.  I have both and genuinely have no affinity to either of them, that's just the facts.

 @Hodge996  @Aria1368 the only thing ps3 has over xbox that is better is bluray even sonys video card is weaker than the 360 dont get me wrong ps3 still has some good looking games

 @Aria1368 I have played COD on a PS3 and it looked exactly the same as the Xbox version, I couldn't see any difference what so ever.  I agree, it doesn't take advantage of the PS3's slightly better hardware but it didn't look any worse.  I definitely agree that it won't look any better on Wii U but I can't see it looking worse.

 @Sgthombre  @shadow580  @Rovelius Lets hope so, performance wise, COD:BO was, AND STILL IS, broken performance wise, compared to ANY of the Modern Warfare games.