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

#161kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 2:11:18 PM
Brasen posted...
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....


Problem is, frame rate is a big issue on the Wii U version AND they occur at CPU intensive scenes. This points to the CPU choking. The Wii U CPU is of the same deign as that of the 369 CPU except at a lower clock speed and is further impacted by part of it being reserved for video encoding for the game pad steam (aka, less of the available CPU resources for devs to use). BO2 being a port isn't the issue here, it's that the Wii U CPU is a noticeable bottleneck for the system. BO2s performance issue is not due to a bad port, it's due clearly to a CPU bottleneck (it's absolutely ridiculous to say it is a bad porting job when both systems run the same CPU architecture, it would be like blaming it on bad porting from one x86 machine to another x86 machine).
#162DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/25/2012 2:11:45 PM
kissdadookie posted...
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.


And thats a COMMON problem on PCs. The first game I bought for the PC in my rig had GPUs that were incompatible with the game. Basically anything you see running on PC could run a lot better if the game was made specifically for a certain set of hardware.

This is ESPECIALLY true of CPUs where only recently has 4 cores even been supported yet it is still mostly a waste whereas a console can have 6 or 10 cores and still drive more efficiency out of every single one.

How is this difficult to understand?
---
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
#163JonbazookabozPosted 11/25/2012 2:12:36 PM
Blops2 has better graphics than other consoles and wait till you see aliens: colonial marines on it and tell me the wii u isnt the best version. Its crazy good compared to ps3 and xbox. Played them all at a tradeshow. So technically he's not lying

Reposted
---
"If PAC-MAN had affected us kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music!"
#164kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 2:22:10 PM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
kissdadookie posted...
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.


And thats a COMMON problem on PCs. The first game I bought for the PC in my rig had GPUs that were incompatible with the game. Basically anything you see running on PC could run a lot better if the game was made specifically for a certain set of hardware.

This is ESPECIALLY true of CPUs where only recently has 4 cores even been supported yet it is still mostly a waste whereas a console can have 6 or 10 cores and still drive more efficiency out of every single one.

How is this difficult to understand?


That was the early days. Now ATI and nVidia GPUs are essentially a match ESPECIALLY for the 4000 series that the Wii U uses (it's ancient by PC components standards). In other words, the GPU architecture is a well known quantity at this point.

How is it difficult to understand that the Wii U is running a tri-core Power PC CPU which is essentially the same as the 360's CPU except at a slower clock? How difficult is it to understand that due to that very real fact, the argument of bad ports from 360 to Wii U all of a sudden becomes invalid because the two systems are essentially a match in terms of hardware architecture?

Reality and common sense is calling, you should pick up.

Funny thing is, you are just going to come back, post more uneducated nonsense, and then I'm just going to have to repeat the harsh reality back to you again and it will never end because you are completely out of your depth on the subject thus no amount of explaining to you would ever get through that ignorant skull of yours.
#165Shinobi120Posted 11/25/2012 2:21:34 PM
kissdadookie posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
kissdadookie posted...
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.


And thats a COMMON problem on PCs. The first game I bought for the PC in my rig had GPUs that were incompatible with the game. Basically anything you see running on PC could run a lot better if the game was made specifically for a certain set of hardware.

This is ESPECIALLY true of CPUs where only recently has 4 cores even been supported yet it is still mostly a waste whereas a console can have 6 or 10 cores and still drive more efficiency out of every single one.

How is this difficult to understand?


That was the early days. Now ATI and nVidia GPUs are essentially a match ESPECIALLY for the 4000 series that the Wii U uses (it's ancient by PC components standards).

How is it difficult to understand that the Wii U is running a tri-core Power PC CPU which is essentially the same as the 360's CPU except at a slower clock? How difficult is it to understand that due to that very real fact, the argument of bad ports from 360 to Wii U all of a sudden becomes invalid because the two systems are essentially a match in terms of hardware architecture?

Reality and common sense is calling, you should pick up.

Funny thing is, you are just going to come back, post more uneducated nonsense, and then I'm just going to have to repeat the harsh reality back to you again and it will never end because you are completely out of your depth on the subject thus no amount of explaining to you would ever get through that ignorant skull of yours.


Don't even bother. DesperateMonkey isn't worth it at all.
#166kissdadookiePosted 11/25/2012 2:22:43 PM
Shinobi120 posted...
kissdadookie posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
kissdadookie posted...
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.


And thats a COMMON problem on PCs. The first game I bought for the PC in my rig had GPUs that were incompatible with the game. Basically anything you see running on PC could run a lot better if the game was made specifically for a certain set of hardware.

This is ESPECIALLY true of CPUs where only recently has 4 cores even been supported yet it is still mostly a waste whereas a console can have 6 or 10 cores and still drive more efficiency out of every single one.

How is this difficult to understand?


That was the early days. Now ATI and nVidia GPUs are essentially a match ESPECIALLY for the 4000 series that the Wii U uses (it's ancient by PC components standards).

How is it difficult to understand that the Wii U is running a tri-core Power PC CPU which is essentially the same as the 360's CPU except at a slower clock? How difficult is it to understand that due to that very real fact, the argument of bad ports from 360 to Wii U all of a sudden becomes invalid because the two systems are essentially a match in terms of hardware architecture?

Reality and common sense is calling, you should pick up.

Funny thing is, you are just going to come back, post more uneducated nonsense, and then I'm just going to have to repeat the harsh reality back to you again and it will never end because you are completely out of your depth on the subject thus no amount of explaining to you would ever get through that ignorant skull of yours.


Don't even bother. DesperateMonkey isn't worth it at all.


He is desperate I suppose :P
#167DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/25/2012 2:28:10 PM(edited)
I don't know why I should try, KissDadooki is pretty stupid and doesn't even read my hardware. He says that my compatibility problems are only applicable to ancient harware... the 460 was released in 2010, only two years ago and a FAR more advanced and new compared to the 4000 series card in the Wii U.

Why does he insist on pretending to know what he is talking about?

Of course knowing Shinobi, just like before, he will pretend that "more opinions" = "right opinions" and will try to flood me with misinformation that he will pass on as factual if enough dumb people agree with him.
---
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
#168drothegreat0nePosted 11/25/2012 2:28:52 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
I don't know why I should try, KissDadooki is pretty stupid and doesn't even read my hardware. He says that my compatibility problems are only applicable to ancient harware... the 460 was released in 2010, only two years ago and a FAR more advanced and new compared to the 4000 series card in the Wii U.

Why does he insist on pretending to know what he is talking about?


To flame and incite others.
---
NNID - PeterTheGreat
Xbox Live - PeterTheGreat01
#169Shinobi120Posted 11/25/2012 2:32:03 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#170Shinobi120Posted 11/25/2012 2:36:50 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Of course knowing Shinobi, just like before, he will pretend that "more opinions" = "right opinions" and will try to flood me with misinformation that he will pass on as factual if enough dumb people agree with him.


Oh, can it. You don't know a damn thing about me.