Assassin's Creed IV Wii U Footage (Looks great!)

Weaker than PS4 and XB1, but not Cell or whatever 360 has. Gigaherts isn't everything, and the CPU in PS4 and XB1 is actually really pathetic. RAM is slower than PS4, but not 360/PS3. GPU is stronger and supports more features. We don't know the amount of gflops it is, that was never confirmed by anyone. Not to mention that gflop count isnt universal.

Yea, the only major publisher giving Wii-U any decent support is suddenly untrustworthy when it comes to statements on wii-u's hardware.

Come on man, that was just in the last post. Stop going in circles.

I don't need to acknowledge any of the other "bonuses" because we have been arguing over the technical aspects of the game, not if the gamepad features have any merit. This is what you quoted me saying. " I'm talking about resolution, framerate, load times, aliasing, etc." Stop changing the subject, please.

Leap is a very broad term. Is a leap the same as significant, marginal or is it somewhere in-between? You never quoted them, so I'm not sure what they actually said, but, the Watch Dog dev painted a clearer picture. If current gen and next gen are at both ends of the spectrum, then wii-u would fall somewhere closer to current gen than next gen.

Uh, that's not how games with long tails work. NSMB2 is outselling 3d land per month based on averages, so in time it should outsell 3d land if they continue at their current pace.

FYI Watch dogs lead platform is PC. All consoles versions are ports. Porting is split between three different teams: 360/ps3, wii-u and ps4/xb1. Ubisoft is actually putting more resources into the game by having 3 different console versions in production. The easy and cheapest route would be using the ps3/360 code as the base for the Wii-U version.

You need to acknowledge that the issues surrounding launch ports is either the result simply being a launch title or a rushed and lazy job, and games like AC4 and Arkham Origins is what happens when you put a dedicated team on it.

Leap, noticeable improvement. They've said it once and we haven't even seen if their claim is true. We know the 360/PS3 version of Watch Dogs looks like ass because of that Aisha trailer, and we've seen the PS4 version has some downgrades from the PC version. Why not wait until the game is out to see if their words hold any weight instead of clinging onto them as some sort of definitive truth? If the Watch Dog dev painted a clear picture of what the Wii-U could do, then a lot of technical questions people have had about the ability of Wii-U's hardware would've been answered (surprise, none were.)

That's what they say but we never know if it's true. For all we know they could pull an EA and switched lead to consoles. The 360/PS3 version is a port of the source that's used for PS4/XB1/PC, but we don't know which one the Wii-U is. The cheap and easy route would be to use the last gen version, but then it doesn't take any advantage of the newer features of the GPU or CPU and therefor gimping what could be done. The PC version will probably just be the same as XB1/PS4 with the standard additions as well as TXAA and other effects Nvidia has them add in.

I can see how you can misconstrue my statement, but my quote was very clear that the person I quoted was a watch dog developer, not Ubisoft as a whole. You were the person who originally said "Why trust what Ubisoft says though?" In regards to the quote. Implying that that one person represented Ubisoft when I never did.

Assassin's Creed IV is the only game I'm getting for my PS4 at launch. Was considering Killzone but I've decided to wait for a price drop on that.

If I wasn't getting a PS4 though, I'd be getting the game for Wii U.

We're still missing any comparisons from reputable sources that support your "best console version" claim. Keep in mind that we're talking about origins. I noticed that you're having issues staying on topic again.

Actually, we don't know how the game will look on ps3/360 because they never specified(based on my quick research) which version that trailer was running on. Here's a thread on it with twitter responses from the creative director of the game. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=639303 It could have been the Wii-U or xb1 version for all we know. We've have only seen the ps4 and pc versions running thus far. The only people still left pretending Wii-U is comparable to next gen consoles are a subset of sheep who feel the need to defend their purchases. Don't worry, it took awhile for your type to admit wii wasn't a gimped pos, too. The phrase looks like 360 games in sd was used a lot. Lol fun times.

We have numerous quotes from devs going on record about Wii-U's hardware shortcomings. Devs like Gearbox, 4A Games, tekken team, Ubisoft Montreal, and Dynasty Warriors team. So, this notion that there's any question about Wii-U's hardware capabilities is unfounded. We know that Wii-U is better at somethings(GPU and RAM amount) and worse at others( CPU and possibly RAM speed).

Well, we do know that the game has been in development for 5 years. Started on ps3/360, then switched to PC as the lead platform a year or two later. The team focused on high-end pc hardware because they didn't know how next generation hardware would turn out. I don't see why they would lie about which platform is lead. Ubisoft never has sucked up to pc games after all, so would they start now. As you said, their brand is based on consoles(360/ps3).

Target is having a buy two, get one free special on PS4 software. If you live in the states.

Any professional analysis? I wouldn't be surprised if it looked better, though I feel the PS4 version is the one to get...

For consoles... Muahahaha!

@MFDOOM1983: I saw that last night and I really want to go after that deal, but I live a ways away from a Target. There may be a chance for me to take advantage of it with some manipulating of events... Thanks for reminding me!

The Wii-U is by far superior to the Wii, This is well known, so it should not come as a shock that these visuals can be accomplished. Do not stand against Nintendo. Nintendo will win.

The only thing a reputable source would do is use that neogaf thread as a source. Keep denying something so minor. I'm trying to make a point, but you're in complete denial about anything positive for the Wii-U. Also important to remember what Nintendo screwed up the early SDKs, which was a huge, well-known issue.

We aren't talking about the Wii and I don't remember saying that. Quite hypocritical of you to go off-topic (again.)

Funny Gearbox says that, cause it ended up getting the definitive version of A:CM. That quote was also said before the final specs were even out (it even says so on that page,) but no one is denying it's an inbetween console. 4A devs are disappointed with the Espresso but never denied it couldn't run anything. They just didn't have the resources for it. All the Tekken dev said is that the clock was kinda low, and if Marcan is correct than it is kinda low. His team is also helping work on SSB, so his opinion will probably change. Your AC3 quote was talking about the quality of the game, not the hardware. Dynasty Warrior lead said the CPU was a challenge and the FPS was suffering, but then goes on to say that it's a challenge to overcome, not that it's impossible to fix. If you want some insight as to why the early ports had issues you can check out this thread. (IIRC this guy is a programmer but doesn't work on games, at least not Nintendo platforms.) I think the people who spent their own money just to get die shots for everyone would know something. DF doesn't even know everything contained on the chips. We can't figure it out and only one dev is willing to give hints at what it can do. (which you refuse to acknowledge their credentials.)

Ubisoft gave PC gamers a different version of GRAW and completely removed their DRM in favor of a much better, cross-platform alternative. PC isn't their largest market, so why would PC still be lead?

Well yeah, the PS3 and 360 version's look great as well. Why would the Wii U be any different? Now......................will sheep buy it?

Nope, sites like digital foundry do not use neogaf as a source for their findings. All of their testing is done with their own equipment and I know that the can be trusted on involving technical analysis. Random posters I don't know, not so much.

I'm pointing out the similarities between the conversations had with wii and are having about wii-u, now. It was merely a quip. You bringing up launch titles or AC4 is off-topic. I don't need to "acknowledge" issues about launch ports when we're arguing over the validity of your claim. 'Wii-U has the best console version of Origins.'

Gearbox - A:CM never came to wii-u. Definitive imaginary version?

4A Games - Not relevant to what was said. We have multiple devs saying the same thing about Wii-U's cpu being inferior to CPUs found on 360/PS3. Which explains the why games chug on wii-u during CPU intensive scenes.

Tekken - Evidence building about wii-u's CPU. Working on SSB doesn't change the clock-speed, so, no, his opinion wont be changing because it was a factual statement, not opinion based.

AC3 - "Wii U "stronger in some areas" than 360, PS3" Given the context you provided. His statement wouldn't make sense. "Stronger in some areas, but the game will technically be identical, including framerate." Bolded the important part. (Hardware is) stronger in some areas, but the game will be technically identical across all three platforms. Software is stronger in some areas? Sense, it makes none. hehehe

Dynasty Warriors - Once again, this is evidence building about wii-u's hardware capabilities. Specifically, the CPU.

We have multiple devs working on games for the HD twins and Wii-U, and they all have an issue regarding Wii-U's CPU. Better GPU, worse CPU. As you have said, we know Wii-U is a stop-gap, tweener, in-between gens console. The question is by how much? Judging by the games released thus far, not much. So consider me skeptical when a dev that only works with Nintendo hardware suggests that the Wii-U is considerably more powerful.

Um, PC gamers loathe u-play(performance hits, not being able to access games, additional steps to launch software, etc.) and the fact you had to back to the year, 2006, speaks volumes about how much love Ubi has shown PC gamers in recent memory.

The gap between the wii eww and the 360 and ps3 is less than the gap between the ps2 and xbox/gamecube.

I already have a PS3/XBOX360........

Between all four platforms, the main point of difference comes down to the way the artwork is handled on each system, particularly where streaming is concerned. A look at our captures reveal that assets are loaded in more quickly on the 360, followed by the PS3 and then the Wii U, with lower-quality artwork left on screen for longer on Nintendo's system. There are also a few cases where lower-resolution art is deployed on the PS3 and Wii U on a permanent basis, but thankfully this is only appears to be apparent on some minor background objects and thus doesn't stick out too noticeably when playing the game.

The situation is considerably worse on the Wii U. On the plus side, screen-tearing is completely eliminated due to the inclusion of a locked v-synced presentation, but disappointingly the result of this is a frame-rate that fluctuates somewhere in the mid-twenties on a regular basis, producing constant judder and a serious reduction in the responsiveness of the controls. The number of enemies and the inclusion of a weaker CPU seems to be the cause for this on Nintendo's system - perhaps the console simply can't keep up with handling all of the AI and physics routines under load. The result is that gameplay is heavily compromised to the point where we found the experience far less enjoyable as a result. At times the PS3 version suffers to a similar degree, but this happens far less frequently compared to the Nintendo platform.

Credit Digital Foundry

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-batman-arkham-origins-face-off

Not even close.