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

#151DaLaggaPosted 11/25/2012 12:54:03 PM
ADHDguitar posted...
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.


That isn't even what this topic is about. The Wii U version of CoD is in fact inferior to the x360 version. Therefore, Reggie was wrong. However, if you want to talk about ports, they even mention this in the DF article. The bottom line is, even a sloppy port should perform FAR better if the hardware represented any kind of generational leap.

Furthermore, you're dreaming if you think they didn't put any time into optimizing the game for the Wii U. Obviously there's room for improvement, but you make it sound as if they took 5 minutes to copy the game data over to a Wii U disc and just popped it in. And that's simply not going to be the case. CoD has been the fastest selling game every year for a long time and they have massive budgets for each game. To think that they didn't have the resources to do a proper Wii U conversion is absurd.
#152kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 12:56:22 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
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.


That streaming is not all that intensive. It just takes a little CPU overhead which is most definitely already reserved for that purpose on the system. So that really doesn't play into effect in this scenario. Only time performance is affected is when doing multi screen multiplayer but that is to be expected since that makes the game engine render two completely different images. However, the frame rate drops happen in the campaign thus the mirroring is not an issue. The drops also happens during CPU intensive scenes which points to a weak CPU thus the CPU causing a bottleneck.
#153super_luigi16Posted 11/25/2012 12:57:06 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.


Okay, here's what they said directly since you so blatantly rely on Digital Foundry:

"So let's recap. What we know of the Wii U spec strongly suggests that the new Nintendo machine should be something along the lines of an enhanced Xbox 360. We have a tri-core IBM CPU, an improved, more modern AMD Radeon graphics core, twice as much RAM available to developers and we even see a substantial boost in the volume of fast eDRAM directly attached to the GPU. "

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-wii-u-face-off
---
Luigi > Mario
Current Project: Paper Mario: Sticker Star FAQ/Walkthrough (co-authored with RedIsPoetic)
#154DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/25/2012 12:57:15 PM
First of all, it was pretty easily ported. Second of all, easily ported does not mean optimized. Please don't call people ignorant when you think day 1 ports are the potential of the system. Its quite a joke.

Also the Wii U hardware is hardly similar enough at all. Just a testament to how stupid people are in thinking that hardware thats been used by developers for 8 years is going to be about as optimized for developers who only have had a dev kit for 1 year. Not to mention that CoD is built for the 360 from the ground up so that further aggravates the issue.
---
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
#155endoflevelbossPosted 11/25/2012 12:59:53 PM
If you believe, I mean really believe... Then that belief can become true. Reggie's absolute faith could just boost that CPU performance.

BELIEVE.
#156kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 1:00:26 PM
super_luigi16 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.


Okay, here's what they said directly since you so blatantly rely on Digital Foundry:

"So let's recap. What we know of the Wii U spec strongly suggests that the new Nintendo machine should be something along the lines of an enhanced Xbox 360. We have a tri-core IBM CPU, an improved, more modern AMD Radeon graphics core, twice as much RAM available to developers and we even see a substantial boost in the volume of fast eDRAM directly attached to the GPU. "

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


If you read the REST of the article, it then goes on to explain that the bottleneck is the CPU. If you actually knew how to build a computer, you would know that if your CPU is the bottleneck, it's much harder to exploit the GPU because the machine will choke at the CPU. THIS is EXACTLY what is being pointed out by Digital Foundry.

It is absolutely hilarious how you took that quote completely out of context and then went in to completely ignore the MAIN CPU concern that the article is ultimately pointing out.
#157kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 1:05:15 PM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
First of all, it was pretty easily ported. Second of all, easily ported does not mean optimized. Please don't call people ignorant when you think day 1 ports are the potential of the system. Its quite a joke.

Also the Wii U hardware is hardly similar enough at all. Just a testament to how stupid people are in thinking that hardware thats been used by developers for 8 years is going to be about as optimized for developers who only have had a dev kit for 1 year. Not to mention that CoD is built for the 360 from the ground up so that further aggravates the issue.


The Wii U is designed basically like the Xbox 360. Basically same CPU actually (CPU ultimately dictates the architecture of the machine) actually except slower that the 360 CPU. In turn, they are deigned like PCs. If this whole optimization being of utmost importance on machines which are ultimately designed mirroring PCs, then according to your logic, NOTHING would run well on PCs then seeing how they are all of vastly different configs.

PS3 was essentially the odd man out, why? Because that was NOT designed like a PC.
#158BrasenPosted 11/25/2012 1:04:29 PM
DaLagga posted...
Brasen:

I'm sorry, but your "argument" falls apart on two levels. First, it has been confirmed that the Wii U version does not look better. 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. So they look virtually identical and that's not an opinion.

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. 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.

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. Therefore, it is a simple fact that the Wii U version is technically inferior to the x360 version. Therefore, his claim that it is "dramatically better" is a blatantly false. Like the other guy said, there's only two possibilities. Either Reggie is unaware of this fact and is therefore just making ignorant statements, or he is aware of it and told a lie. Which do you think is the case?


My "argument" was anecdotal from what I've personally seen. Fair enough if the Wii U is using the exact same assets ported over from the 360, then no, there isn't an argument from me there or was.

I didn't watch the interview so was only going from what was written in the topic title here. He used the term "look" and the detail is the first thing that came to mind not the frame rates and game-play. I'm surprised both the interviewer and Reggie would discuss and compare differences on games ported with the exact same assets. If that truly is the case then the whole context wasn't going to prove anything in the first place. Straight ports seldom look better (or play better) than the originals even on more powerful systems. But your right, Reggie should have defended some other way or stating what I just previously said. And knowing Reggie, i wouldn't put stupidity past him....
#159DaLaggaPosted 11/25/2012 1:10:42 PM
super_luigi16 posted...
Source? Confirmed by who? Or are you just going to make an ignorant sentence to make your flawed argument seem stronger?


How many times does the DF link have to be posted before you'll click on it?

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.


No. Even LoT demonstrated that the graphics were virtually identical to the x360 version. What you did is only looked at the first page where they compared CoD to the PS3 version which does look blurrier because of their AA method. However, the texture quality itself is still a match.

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.


Both DF and LoT prove my point. Look at the comparisons. DF even stated that the graphics are the same and they're the most reliable source for tech comparisons around.
#160DaLaggaPosted 11/25/2012 1:10:54 PM
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.


Brasen is trying to argue that Reggie didn't say anything false. However, as my second point demonstrates, Brasen is objectively wrong.

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.


This is irrelevant. The point of Reggie's comment was to argue that CoD proves that the Wii U is more powerful than the x360/PS3. However, CoD indicates that the opposite is true. It doesn't matter if the Wii U is as fast as a super computer from 10 years in the future. As far as CoD is concerned, the Wii U version is technically inferior and that is all that matters in so far as Reggie's comment is concerned.

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.


It's not my fault that you can't click a link.