Arkham and Madden run far worse on PS3 and 360 than Warriors Orochi on Wii-U.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Arkham and Madden run far worse on PS3 and 360 than Warriors Orochi on Wii-U.

User Info: EternalWolf

4 years ago#1
I dont see reviewers bashing those games for their engine problems and/or repetitive gameplay. TBQH, I havent even run into any performance problems with WO3H on the Wii-U outside of the draw distance, which has been a problem in the Warriors series ever since DW2. That game got good reviews and had more performance problems then this, so what the f***?

To be fair, I have only done four battles in story mode and only post-patch, but I have yet to run into any screen tearing or framerate issues. The only slow-down in the entire game so far is when you use the triple character attack(whatever it's called), but I cant tell if thats slow down or a slow motion effect as the framerate is smooth the entire time and never jumps. I haven't experienced any stuttering of any kind, so I dont see where these performance complaints are coming from. If the draw distance actually effected gameplay, I could see complaints, but it doesn't.

The thing is, reviewers will completely ignore framerate problems and screen tearing for other games like Batman, GT5, Sigma 1, Halo Anniversary etc... but bash others even if the "problems" are far less noticeable and problematic than that in others. They will lower scores for this, as well as lowering scores for a game being a clone? That also makes no sense, Lords of Shadow gets it score lowered for being a God of War clone, yet Sypmphony of the Night doesn't for being a Metroid clone. God of War doesn't get bashed for being a Lament of Innonce clone or a mix and mash of Soul Reaver and Devil May Cry that removes the entire point of the gameplay features used in those games, and doesn't make up for it. Not to mention, sequels never get bashed for being clones, which is just hypocritical.

Reviewers rarely review a game for what it is, they review it for what they want it to be and/or what it isn't which makes little sense. They never stick to their word and all you have to is look at their past reviews for proof of this. Almost everything is opinion based and a lot of it is opinion based on technical facts, which is stupid. God of War 3 "technically" has better graphics than Lords of Shadow, but looks nowhere near as good as it. Gran Tursmo 5 technically can look better than Hot Pursuit, but Hot Pursuit looks better than GT5. Plus HP actually, well you know... runs properly despite having a far shorter development cycle, far smaller budget and was only designed to run on one platform.

It just pisses me off to see these reviewers nitpicking at things. Arkham Asylum and City have tons of screen tearing on PS3 and stutters across both the PS3 and 360. It also has tons of op-in as well. It likely has those same problems on the Wii-U, but only the Wii-U version gets mentioned when talking about these problems. Warriors doesn't have stuttering, doesn't seem to have framerate issues, has tons of stuff going on at once and that game is talked about as if it runs worse than some AAA exclusives on the PS3 and 360, which it doesn't. Halo Anniversary and Gran Turismo 5 have far more performance issues than a literal port of a demanding game that has always had issues.

These complaints just arent valid, nor do they make any sense.

If anyone is on the fence about buying games you havent played because they are "bad ports", then I would implore you to look at some YouTube videos to see if any issues such as a supposed unsteady framerate, screen tearing etc... are actually issues to you. And before some idiot comes in and says you wont be able to see framerate problems on YouTube because it doesn't display at 30FPS, just ignore them. You will be able to notice any FPS drops in recorded footage posted, whether its 30 dropping to 26, 60 dropping to 48 or 120 dropping to 75. And to those that think there isnt a gigantic difference between playing games at 120FPS and 60FPS, just dont talk.
As We Go...

User Info: Nice_Kirbyfan9

4 years ago#2
Sounds like you're upset.
If you disagree with the views expressed in this post, feel free to put me on ignore.

User Info: SlimeSwayze

4 years ago#3
Lots of words, but not a single point was made. Either you're incredibly bias, or you simply don't know anything about what you're talking about.
Currently Playing: Too many to report.

User Info: Pendragoon

4 years ago#4
Every single thing you said was a valid point. Professional reviews have been a joke for a long time. Just look up Dorito Gate, it revealed just how big the problem has become. It is pretty much impossible to tell when a review is bought off or not these days.
Know Japanese? Post your advice in the topic below!

User Info: 2wingedangel

4 years ago#5
I read your entire post, and I honestly agree with you. Nintendo games and consoles tend to get picked on a lot by reviewers, and I rarely think that they're reasoning is fair.

I watched this one talk-and-play review that said WO3H "is an absolute piece of crap". He then goes nitpicking about the graphics and how it runs at 30 fps. From what I saw, there weren't any graphical issues whatsoever. After that, he says that the game has you just press the same button over and over, after which he briefly mentions some features of the game. One of said features? Special moves. WELL GEE, MAYBE YOU COULD'VE TRIED THOSE SPECIAL MOVES INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING THAT IT'S A BUTTON MASHER.

tl;dr, I'm with you, TC.
Lover of all things cute and pretty. <3
Black 2 FC: 4213-1800-0462

User Info: AllConsoleLover

4 years ago#6
Yeah, SS got like a 10/10 from IGN, it does show that reviewers are easily payed
I'm a fan of every console

User Info: TechniMyoko

4 years ago#7
I played arkham on ps3 in 3d and it ran fine. Amazingly so.

User Info: TechniMyoko

4 years ago#8
SlimeSwayze posted...
Lots of words, but not a single point was made. Either you're incredibly bias, or you simply don't know anything about what you're talking about.

The word is biased.

User Info: FFXIgaiaknight

4 years ago#9
AllConsoleLover posted...
Yeah, SS got like a 10/10 from IGN, it does show that reviewers are easily payed

except according to some reviewers nintendo is not one to buy reviews Rich just really enjoyed the game remember on IGN scale 10 doesnt mean perfect it means masterpiece. SS was only the second wii game to ever get a 10 with he first being mario galaxy 2.
Currently Playing: Aliens: Colonial Marines (PC)
NNI: Gaiaknight

User Info: ChipChipperson

4 years ago#10
I just got WO3 for the hell of it because it's only $30 new at Gamestop. Based on reviews I expected to be playing some stuttering flip book. What I got was a sharp looking game that has the same hallmark quibbles that the series has pretty much had since its inception, regardless of the hardware its on.
As long as you're in my house, you'll do what I do, and believe what I believe. So butter your bacon... and bacon up that sausage, boy.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Arkham and Madden run far worse on PS3 and 360 than Warriors Orochi on Wii-U.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived