Reggie lies on CNN: "3rd-party games like CoD look dramatically better on Wii U"

#141ADHDguitarPosted 11/25/2012 1:40:00 PM
Since when is something looking good a scientifically measure fact?

And if you're talking about technological superiority, you're lying more blatantly than Reggie.
---
Still waiting for Diddy Kong Racing 2
#142gumbyxcore99Posted 11/25/2012 1:40:24 PM
actually there is no way to objectively prove that the wii u version is inferior in any capacity so your whole argument goes right out the window but thanks for trying
#143GoldenSun3DSPosted 11/25/2012 1:42:37 PM
Lol. Opinions aren't false advertisement.
---
Camelot asked for your support of Golden Sun 4!
http://ipetitions.com/petition/operation-sunrise/ | http://facebook.com/pages/Operation-Sunrise/371417546251291
#144necro00Posted 11/25/2012 1:44:26 PM
Reggies body wasn't ready
#145kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 1:48:37 PM(edited)
gumbyxcore99 posted...
actually there is no way to objectively prove that the wii u version is inferior in any capacity so your whole argument goes right out the window but thanks for trying


Why do you people just flat out ignore the Digital Foundry findings? It's objectively proven right there that the Wii U uses the same assets as the 360 version and even runs at the same native res. In laymen terms, that means the two are IDENTICAL. Identical does not mean better, it means identical. The inferiority comes in the form of average frame rate drop in the 20s (as in 60 minus roughly 20 giving you an average of roughly 40 FPS, this is terrible especially when it jumps around from high 50s to 30s so frequently) and quite frequently for the Wii U version in the campaign. As I have mentioned, this does indeed mess up your aiming and overall controls significantly especially when you are use to CoD playing at 50-60 FPS all the time.

So your apologetic excuses for Reggie goes right out the window but thanks for trying, Reggie's body is ready for you now.
#146ADHDguitarPosted 11/25/2012 1:49:36 PM
kissdadookie posted...
gumbyxcore99 posted...
actually there is no way to objectively prove that the wii u version is inferior in any capacity so your whole argument goes right out the window but thanks for trying


Why do you people just flat out ignore the Digital Foundry findings? It's objectively proven right there that the Wii U uses the same assets as the 360 version and even runs at the same native res. In laymen terms, that means the two are IDENTICAL. Identical does not mean better, it means identical. The inferiority comes in the form of average frame rate drop in the 20s and quite frequently for the Wii U version in the campaign. As I have mentioned, this does indeed mess up your aiming and overall controls significantly especially when you are use to CoD playing at 50-60 FPS all the time.

So your apologetic excuses for Reggie goes right out the window but thanks for trying, Reggie's body is ready for you now.


You really don't understand the technology behind ports do you? If you just port a game over to a console with a different architecture without optimizing it, it's going to suffer from frame-rate drop.
---
Still waiting for Diddy Kong Racing 2
#147DaLaggaPosted 11/25/2012 1:49:55 PM
ADHDguitar posted...
Since when is something looking good a scientifically measure fact?

And if you're talking about technological superiority, you're lying more blatantly than Reggie.


No body said anything about measuring whether or not something looks "good". This is about two things that look identical because they're both using the exact same assets. In which case, a simple screenshot comparison can be used to determine if there are any differences. And in this case, there aren't. What it comes down to is performance, and in this area, the Wii U version is dramatically inferior to the x360 version.

gumbyxcore99 posted...
actually there is no way to objectively prove that the wii u version is inferior in any capacity so your whole argument goes right out the window but thanks for trying


It's called a framerate benchmark. We know the graphics are the same from screenshot comparisons, and we know that the performance is crap by analyzing and comparing the framerate.
#148DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/25/2012 1:52:07 PM(edited)
There is very little difference between the Wii U version and the Xbox version which implies the Wii U version is much better as the Wii U is actually streaming another 480p image while providing a near identical experience as the 360 and at anytime you can display the entire game on both screens with ZERO latency.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#149kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 1:52:46 PM
ADHDguitar posted...
kissdadookie posted...
gumbyxcore99 posted...
actually there is no way to objectively prove that the wii u version is inferior in any capacity so your whole argument goes right out the window but thanks for trying


Why do you people just flat out ignore the Digital Foundry findings? It's objectively proven right there that the Wii U uses the same assets as the 360 version and even runs at the same native res. In laymen terms, that means the two are IDENTICAL. Identical does not mean better, it means identical. The inferiority comes in the form of average frame rate drop in the 20s and quite frequently for the Wii U version in the campaign. As I have mentioned, this does indeed mess up your aiming and overall controls significantly especially when you are use to CoD playing at 50-60 FPS all the time.

So your apologetic excuses for Reggie goes right out the window but thanks for trying, Reggie's body is ready for you now.


You really don't understand the technology behind ports do you? If you just port a game over to a console with a different architecture without optimizing it, it's going to suffer from frame-rate drop.


You really don't understand how ridiculous it is if you can't easily port games made for a 7 year old system to a system that has just been released do you? You also don't understand that the architecture of the Wii U actually mirrors that of the 360 so your architecture argument makes absolutely no sense. Why do people like you come on here trying to use your minimal knowledge on the technology as your main points for arguments? You clearly have absolutely ZERO of an inkling of n idea on the subject.
#150super_luigi16Posted 11/25/2012 1:54:02 PM
DaLagga posted...
First, it has been confirmed that the Wii U version does not look better.

Source? Confirmed by who? Or are you just going to make an ignorant sentence to make your flawed argument seem stronger?

DaLagga posted...
That is a simple objective fact. It would be one thing if there were tradeoffs, like reduced shadow quality and number of characters on screen in favor of higher quality textures or something like that. Then it may be an opinion as to which version looks better. But in this case, the Wii U version is just using assets straight from the x360 version.

Again, I reiterate, source? Also, using some of the same components that the 360 might've used--which so far you have absolutely no proof whatsoever backing up your conjecture--does not change the fact that Nintendo could've, I don't know, increased the graphical output. So far, sites like lensoftruth and so on have shown that Nintendo's textures DO look better, yet you completely ignore that in vice of your flawed argument.

DaLagga posted...
So they look virtually identical and that's not an opinion.

So you use a qualitative opinion and state it as fact? Until you can quantitatively give data or statistics that SHOW the graphics are worse than the 360/PS3, you have absolutely no grounds claiming on such dubious logic. So far, you've proven nothing.

DaLagga posted...
Second, the entire point of his quote was to dispel the interviewer's comment about the Wii U being only about as powerful as the PS3/x360. So in context, the entire point of his statement wasn't meant as an expression of personal opinion about the look of the game, it was to claim that CoD proves that the Wii U is more powerful than the x360/PS3.

Yet, every single post that has been directed at Brasen thus far has been taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. So, attempting to bring context into the argument and claim that he's lying when others are also out of context is complete bull. Furthermore, you still have no grounds for claiming that the 360/PS3 does in fact look better.

DaLagga posted...
However, on a technical level, the complete opposite is true. The graphics are the same as the x360 version, but the framerate is horrendous. So on a technical level, which is what Reggie was trying to refer to, the Wii U version is complete crap compared to the x360 version.

And yet we don't know the technicalities of the Wii U completely, so attempting to claim something that none of us know is absolutely ignorant. Unless you have knowledge that everyone else in the world does not have--which is highly unlikely given your lack of ability to construct an argument--, you frankly cannot claim that the Wii U is "complete crap" objectively. And that's the whole basis of your post.

DaLagga posted...
For those reasons, especially reason #2, Reggie's statement is simply objectively wrong. It is not an opinion. It is something that can be scientifically measured. It is not open to interpretation.

Yet you're trying to prove your point with... opinion. So far, you've shown no data, no quanititative measurements, and no statistics that show that Reggie's claim is objectively false. Your logic is based completely on air and has no grounds whatsoever to be claiming that Reggie is wrong. So far, you've attempted to use a bunch of loosely based accusations and you've been trying to pass them off as fact. It's completely and utterly wrong.
---
Luigi > Mario
Current Project: Paper Mario: Sticker Star FAQ/Walkthrough (co-authored with RedIsPoetic)