Off-screen WII U footage vs. PS3 direct feed....
A closer look...
I can't understand how you expect to do a comparison, when the content being used isn't from the same source? I'm not really fussed over it, but if you'll try to show similarities/differences, least wait till both are direct?
You know what this proves is nintendo can pretty much make all of the PS3 exclusives graphic wise Yaaaaaaaay! It really is too bad Edarkness was cancelled though. Nintnedo should just release an game call the gun engine and just let every one put of map packs and mods for it LOL... then it would take one game disk to play all the cod, Mw, battlefields LOL. Hey guys pro tip.... if you use the same models even UR egnine 4 will look pretty much the same... hint now one uses dynamic light in there level design right now... even that difference won't be much.
Not a very good comparison. The Wii U versions SHOULD BE smoother and cleaner than 360 and PS3. After all, it's been 6 to 7 freaking years. However, like with Batman:AC, there's little to no difference between them.
LOL...this article is a joke. You need to do a lensoftruth type comparison to get anything relevant.
Wii U footage isn't direct feed and PS3 footage isn't HD quality. So, it doesn't really work as a comparison. One thing I will say is that the Wii U version looks incredibly dark. The shadows look very very harsh, I actually thought it was night time gameplay for a moment. Other than that, I am pleasantly surprised at how good it looks.
The Wii U version looks way better and it's not even direct feed footage.
Man... Ac3 is a huge step up from Revelations... it is officially my most anticipated game of the year... since Bioshock Infinite got delayed
This along with Batman only goes to show that the Wii U is just catching up nintendo to what the 360 and PS3 can already do. Wii U is going to be going up against the next xbox and Playstation, and right now it does not look good for Nintendo
"OFF-SCREEN WiiU footage vs PS3 direct feed" Nothing to see here. Not a very good comparison video.
I laughed when i read off screen.
It still looks better off screen. Look at the lighting on the wall and the far off window down the ally. On PS3 it's jaggies and the lighting is yellow. On Wiiu it looks much better off screen or not.
Clearly a steadier frame rate with more lighting effects then ps3's version. Think the textures look a bit smoother too. The point to really pay attention to is the scene with the woman calling over the guy. Not only is their rain in the wii one(maybe a random weather system) the ps3 clearly stutters with each action. Something the wii U doesn't show at all. It just looks smoother. One is direct feed one is off screen. The direct feed SHOULD look better but it doesn't. This either shows that wii u is more powerful or that ps3's version is in an earlier build. Tough call.
Its looks playable and enjoyable on BOTH screens. KEEP IT MOVING PEOPLE!
DEM HITS. Thats why. This video shows nothing and from the looks of it there seems to be a glare..oh....oh...
Well I will only take a comparison when the game is actually out this means nothing to me.
It might just be me but it seems like the Wii U version is better or at least the same. It just seems like the lighting in the Wii U version is more crisp and clean looking than the PS3 version along with everything else. Then again it could be the tvs and the fact that ones off screen. But either way all those articles about how the Wii U isn't as good because of some Batman screenshots seem too be disproved.
The only ones who are disproving this information is Nintendrones. Honestly it doesn't matter because UNTIL Nintendo releases actual specs of the system no one will know exactly how powerful it is. When developers are saying things about how the Wii U is on par with 360/PS3 that is something to be worried about. If Nintendo wants to debunk this theory they should just release the specs so everyone can get the truth and fanboys of all consoles can just SHADDUP. You are comparing 2 completely different types of video which completely discredits any type of "proof" that one is better than the other.
What about when devs like Epic, Crytek and Gearbox it's more powerful...
What companies say, what fanboys say, what screenshots say. blah blah blah. The only one who can SAY anything is Nintendo, until they actually give us a spec sheet we will not know what it is capable of. My point is some developers say its better some say not as good, some say just as good. Who cares?! The only real way to find out is by getting Specs, and for whatever reason Nintendo isn't letting that happen. If this console is suppose to release later this year how much longer do we have to wait for this information. OH and a release date, price point would be nice as well.
svoulis based on the specs which card is faster? geforece 680 or the R79 TFlops Gb-bandwidth GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1.4 134 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 1.3 152 GeForce GTX 580 1.6 192 GeForce GTX 680 3.1 192 Radeon HD 5870 2.7 154 Radeon HD 6970 2.7 176 Radeon HD 7870 2.6 154 Radeon HD 7970 3.8 264 Well tell me why the 7970 beats the GTx 680 where it counts in some bench marks? What you don't know why? You just need the specs and you can just eye which one is better. Its not as simple as looking at what is bigger which is why most console gamers prefer console gaming. Most gamers dont even know what open GL is supported by the Ur4 engine or the fact it now runs on one damn Gtx 680, you see how code optimization works now? It went from 3 cards to one card just like that. No nintendo isn't going to tell you how powerful it is because they know you will not be able to understand why it is more powerful by looking at specs, because you don't program and you wouldn't even know where to start to get a normal map. Just sit back and understand it does real HD graphics right now and it is taking ports with out the need to optimize the code. So effectively it is taking the torch that Sony and MS carried then it will expand on it. Oh and P-100 looks really good and its fun. Oh another fun fact the Gtx 580 is better at particles than the 680. Next gen is going to be fun, so much info was held back though E3 was suppose to be epic yet fanboys will fanboy.
Where are the Wii u vs 360 comparisons?
That will not work the port came from the xbox 360 version LOL, no difference... Just a solid frame rate.
Man i like you typos you explain things good and u know what you are talking about.
have a bubble dear sir
I have a question shouldn't the ps3 have the advantage? because its direct feed instead of off screen cause I see reflection and it still looking better on wii-u!
There is no way you can tell from that. But what I can tell from the Batman comparisons it that in some area, Wii U has the edge. But still not that amazing for a next gen console. But Nintendo needs not to hunt for amazing graphics because they want to make a cheap console which is vital for it to do well.
I wonder what mario one would look like ported to the PS3? I bet we wouldn't see too much of a difference either. Well maybe mario bro 3 will prove the PS3 is more powerful than the Wii. The biggest difference you will see is the frame rate will be better until things are made using the new sdk and it's features. Just like no one has any dual gamepad games yet it is supported. Not even nintendo has that in a showable game.
For me the wii u version looks far better especially the lighting and particle effects.
Don't care anymore who's better and who is not
All i'm going to say is that off screen WiiU version is looking fine to me. Sure is. Shame on anyone concluding about WiiU based on that Batman nonsense of an "article".
Wow, I'm impressed with that footage of the Wii U version, especially considering it's one of the first bunch of titles for the console, meaning I am very much looking forward to future Wii U titles.
...not to mention,it's a port and it seemingly looks better simply running on the wii u hardware
thank you guys for answering my question without turning it in to a fight.this site would be amazing if we could just talk like this!
No prob :)
It's really hard to tell the differences but they are there nonetheless... Despite the Wii U version being off-screen it still manages to significantly edge out the PS3 version in terms of AA, I also noticed that they used different filters on the Wii U version. The PS3 was a direct feed and still looked blurry and had muddy textures, which there shouldn't be any of that by today's standard. I'm not sure if the PS3 version was terribly compressed or not so I'll wait to judge. Also what most people don't understand is that almost every game this gen has a native resolution between 540/620p and upscaled to 720/1080p which is ridiculous! Look at BF3 on consoles then look at the PC, huge difference... It's still impressive that all games are developed with a native resolution of 720p on the Wii U from the beginning. This leads me to believe that the system is more powerful than what most people think. If Nintendo can make games run at 720p/60fps, then I believe that they'll eventually be able to do 1080p 60fps. What this means is that developers could still cut the fps down in half to 30fps, lower the native resolution and upscale it to 1080p and pump out some powerful, powerful games that these systems could never do. The question is this; will anyone ever do this? Third party might, but first party games will never do this, as Nintendo strives to perfect games at 60fps. (Edit): I always found it ironic how the least powerful system, (being the Wii or 3DS), always strive to run at 60fps, yet we're lucky enough if we could get a game on 360/PS3 to stay at a steady 30fps. I never understood why developers for this generation find it acceptable to run games under 30fps. It boggles my mind!
Wii U may have wonderful guts but if not put to use by anyone other than them, whats the point? Sure there will be the few games that happen to be really good but the majority of the good games will be coming from them. The new systems that come out will make the wii u look like the 6 year old machines its competing against.
Sure, but unless you work for Microsoft or Sony we won't truly know that. In the latest buzz I read an article from epic developers that the PS4 or "Orbis" is only slightly more powerful than the existing PS3, this is according to a couple of developers with next-gen, "dev-kits". This is of course a rumor from so called developers from Ubisoft and Epic. Plus Epic already said that no current gen console or next gen consoles will be able to run the UE4 to its full extent, which really bummed me out. Either way the standard for resolution is 1080p which will remain the standard for another 10 years or so. No one in the near future will invest in a 4K TV until the price is reasonable. The Wii only pumped out 480p, look how that turned out... Sure it was a phenomenon but so was PS1 and PS2. The fact is that history has revealed to us that the weaker system usually wins the war. (PS1 to N64, PS2 to GameCube/Xbox, Wii to PS3/360, DS to PSP, and currently 3DS to Vita...) These are just some examples that time has shown and unless something major has changed, history may repeat itself. This is just the way the industry works, I don't know why but it does. I think it would be smart for Sony to actually make a profit and stay within the boundaries of current gen, just with a little more RAM and newer current tech, that way this generation of gaming would be a solid 1080p experience with a fluid 60fps; but that's just me!
Apparently, Ubisoft couldn't get ACIII on PS3 to look anywhere close to inFamous 2... That's a shame. :/
While it's hard to gauge a lot from the video, it is clear that the Wii U version looks great! :) That's comforting.
Wii U should SMASH ps3s visuals if its a next gen console.. I seen pics where the textures & AA were sharper but it was missing background details.. Givith & takith away.. It needs more than that for it to be next gen power wise.. Slight visual upgrades in the beginning is a good sign but w/o the software to use on it, its useless I wonder what the native resolution is on Wii U & PS3.. If its the same then im not interested but if PS3 does 640 & wii u does 720, its a start.. Do more!!
Why always Wii U vs PS3 and never Wii U vs Xbox 360?
Even if PS3 is direct video you can tell that the Wii U version looks better
This is getting ridiculous
Someones upset about the Batman comparison.
I think the PSVITA Version is the way to go
2 different stories dude
the frame rate looked better in the WiiU version than the PS3 one unless that was just stuttering video?
very good. these ports are looking great. AC3 is many years into the cycle of ps3/360 where hardware is used very well, so what would a wii u game look like built from scratch to push the limits if even just ports are much better
When PS4 comes out, Wii U can stay busy competing with Vita.. Sony will have a handheld that can make similar games (though may be weaker) but still same ball park while real next gen moves on
um vita cannot even compete with 3ds, or the psp which are both weaker than the wii. the ps4 will spend more time trying to sell itself than compete with the wii u if the ps4 will be any repeat of the first 3-4 years of the ps3
I think this is fake, this maybe just the 360 version. There's no proof showing that this is the Wii U version. Wii U and 360 both have A B buttons.
You are right except that the B button was never used to jump in ANY of the AC on the Xbox. So why would they change it now?
Roughly the same, better lighting in the Wii U and perhaps framerates. Still,2012 console should do that. Though I fear that this gen would be a repeat for the Wii when PS4/Xbox3 releases for 3rd party games from Square/Epic/Ubi/EA.
PC version for me..
looks better on Wii u
Looks good, ps3 version day 1!