If you could choose between 720p60 or 1080p30?

[the_randomizer]

What FPS is it?

When there are huge areas or a lot going on, often times <20 fps, also, you can see this on many YT videos as well. It's a bad and rushed port, graphically, it looks pretty darn good, but framerate...Ubi rushed the port.

 

[DarkFlare69]

When there are huge areas or a lot going on, often times <20 fps, also, you can see this on many YT videos as well. It's a bad and rushed port, graphically, it looks pretty darn good, but framerate...Ubi rushed the port.

Yeah, I've seen comparison videos, including IRL experiences.

Can the Wii U handle GTA 5 at 1080p30?

 

[the_randomizer]

Yeah, I've seen comparison videos, including IRL experiences.

Can the Wii U handle GTA 5 at 1080p30?

It would be somewhat toned down graphically, but given enough time to optimize it, I don't see why not. Most ports' bad framerates could have been avoided if the companies actually had time to optimize them.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

I don't think its ubisoft's fault. I think its nintendo's for making it hard for developers to develop for their system.

What do you mean by "making it hard for developers to develop for their system"?

If you mean that it's hard to develop games for the Wii U, I beg to disagree. Numerous sources claimed that developing for Wii U is actually easy...

Now if you mean that Nintendo couldn't make the Wii U a very desirable platform to develop game for, I completely agree with you.

 

[BullyWiiPlaza]

Voted for: 720p60

There's barely a difference between 1080p and 720p but the 60 frames are pretty important for the vividness of the video in general.

 

[grossaffe]

I don't think its ubisoft's fault. I think its nintendo's for making it hard for developers to develop for their system.

That's just a cop-out lazy developers use to excuse their lazy ports. We're not dealing with the Cell Architecture here.

 

[aofelix]

Why would they devote time to optimising a port for the Wii U when its foreign, uses weird gamepad technology AND will sell like shit because of a low install base?

I'm sorry but in no right mind is it worth devoting resources to perfect and optimising a title for the Wii U at this current moment in time and definitely not before when Rayman was first released.

 

[emigre]

What do you mean by "making it hard for developers to develop for their system"?

If you mean that it's hard to develop games for the Wii U, I beg to disagree. Numerous sources claimed that developing for Wii U is actually easy...

Now if you mean that Nintendo couldn't make the Wii U a very desirable platform to develop game for, I completely agree with you.

Google "Wii U difficult to develop for."

 

[RodrigoDavy]

Google "Wii U difficult to develop for."

I did this and while I found some results, almost all of them were very vague citing annonymous sources, making vague statements like "The Wii U CPU seems underpowered" and most of these results are from 2012 or the beggining of 2013 when most devs didn't have any experience with the Wii U.

I don't think those sources reliable, it's not because it show up in Google that it must be true

 

[aofelix]

Is the Wii U x86? I don't think so.

Is every other next gen console? Yes. Are most games now developed on the PC and ported over? Yes.



They went with shitty old architecture for cheapness and because it allowed backwards compatibility. Sadly thats bitten them in the ass.

If it was easy to port games over to the Wii U with little need for too much financial outlay and optimisation, developers WOULD do it because its a financially sound decision. However its too difficult and unlike the Wii, the number of people owning a Wii U is too low for developers to bother.

People should just be thankful that ubisoft release anything on the Wii U since a lot of developers have pretty much abandoned it. I don't blame them either. You have the gamepad, you have the myriad of different controllers to support.. its all just such a mess. Fuck, even Nintendo struggle to support all their controllers and hardware. And you think third party developers will?

Throw into the mix that the Wii U is underpowered compared to the other next gen consoles and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[grossaffe]

Is the Wii U x86? I don't think so.

Is every other next gen console? Yes. Are most games now developed on the PC and ported over? Yes.



They went with shitty old architecture for cheapness and because it allowed backwards compatibility. Sadly thats bitten them in the ass.

You're calling PPC a shitty old architecture while praising x86? x86 came out in 1978 and is based on the archaic CISC design. PPC came out in 1991 and is based on the more modern RISC design. Even if developers were coding to the metal (which is very unlikely these days as they're dealing with OSes and APIs to handle things), given the choice between the coding in assembly for the CISC x86 ISA and RISC PPC ISA, I'd choose the PPC ISA every time.

 

[aofelix]

You're calling PPC a shitty old architecture while praising x86? x86 came out in 1978 and is based on the archaic CISC design. PPC came out in 1991 and is based on the more modern RISC design. Even if developers were coding to the metal (which is very unlikely these days as they're dealing with OSes and APIs to handle things), given the choice between the coding in assembly for the CISC x86 ISA and RISC PPC ISA, I'd choose the PPC ISA every time.

Its not about age, its about relevance. I must have written my point incorrectly in the previous post.

PC is where its at. Thats x86. Thats where games are developed. Therefore that should be the preferred architecture if you want to work with third parties.

Its a pretty easy to understand common point and people's fanboyism of Nintendo is really really retarded. The proof is in what we see now. The Wii U has missed out on a myriad of third party titles and is 99% going to lose this generation.

Nintendo historically have gone out of their way to always be different and make life hard for third parties. This gen, its really caught up with them. Just thank god for the 3DS + amiibos.

 

[grossaffe]

Its not about age, its about relevance. I must have written my point incorrectly in the previous post.

PC is where its at. Thats x86. Thats where games are developed. Therefore that should be the preferred architecture if you want to work with third parties.

Its a pretty easy to understand common point and people's fanboyism of Nintendo is really really retarded. The proof is in what we see now. The Wii U has missed out on a myriad of third party titles and is 99% going to lose this generation.

Nintendo historically have gone out of their way to always be different and make life hard for third parties. This gen, its really caught up with them. Just thank god for the 3DS + amiibos.

Only one console in the history of game consoles (at least that ever mattered) before this generation was ever x86, which was the original Xbox (big surprise that Microsoft entered on PC architecture). What suddenly makes that architecture superior after all these decades that THIS generation it is the obvious choice and anyone who doesn't use it is dumb? It's not like PCs suddenly took off.
If working with an architecture that developers are familiar with is what's important, then how is PPC a poor choice when that is what every console last gen was using?

CPU architecture is not the reason third parties aren't bringing their games to Wii U. Third parties already had a strained relationship with Nintendo and this is just a continuation of it. Before the Xbone and PS4 released, they still weren't bringing multiplats to the Wii U with a few exceptions that generally released much later, with fewer features, poor framerates (completely at the fault of lazy developers), etc., and then blamed Nintendo when their crap ports didn't sell. Considering that the 360 and PS3 each had PPC architecture, the PS3's Cell was the one convoluted and hard to work with, and the Wii U was easily more powerful than those consoles, there was no excuse architecture-wise for the developers to not be able to bring the games to the Wii U.

 

[aofelix]

The fact that games are now being developed on the PC first and then ported over. Sony learnt from their mistakes last gen. Their first priority this year was to make it easy for developers to port over. It was smart.

Third parties aren't bringing games to the Wii U because its underpowered, more difficult to port over and the install base is too small.

Third parties last gen loved Nintendo because the Wii was selling by the bucketload. Theres no strained relationships, its all about money.

 

[grossaffe]

whatever you say, boss.

 

[aofelix]

Let me also reiterate, the difficulty in porting games over COMPARED to the Xbox One and PS4 is NOT the main reason games aren't being ported over to the Wii U.

The main reason is the install base is way too small and it's not worth developers time and money to port them over. Add into the mix a different type of architecture compared to the other platforms, a messy situation with the gamepad/controller support and then we see why third parties just aren't bothered.

 

[MegaV2]

I'd take fucking 480p60 over anything 30FPS.

 

[CrimzonEyed]

Completely depends on what kind of games it is for me. Fast shooter/action game? 720 60fps all the way. If it is a rpg/adventure game I could go for 1080 30fps.

 

[Spectro87]

I can't play games in 30FPS. It just looks terrible.

 

[Disco]

Higher FPS always better than higher resolution!