Ubisoft has shown a playable, near-complete version of Assassin’s Creed 3 running on Wii U at gamescom in order to assure fans there’s exact parity between all versions of the game.
Ubisoft’s demo of the naval combat in Assassin’s Creed 3 stood out from the rest of the showings at gamescom yesterday not only for its stab at alternate mechanics, but because it was running on Wii U.
110°
220°
120°
100°
Ad 
40°
10°
20°
20°
20°
40°
Many people may continue to say, as a dig at Wii U is the whole "well for consoles 6-7 yrs old Wii U better be able to do the same thing"
Or any variation thereof. However, it you look at the launch games of the PS3/360 And compare it to AC3 You can see a huge difference in graphical fidelity. And this is a launch game for Wii U.
So take that as you will.
The Wii U probably wont be as powerful as the next Xbox or PlayStation, but the difference wont be as big as people are trying to make it seem. THIS generations differences are big, Nintendo didn't have an HD console, now they kick off the next generation with a new HD console.
We can only speculate about the power, but its a safe bet that if its on par with the PS3 at launch, there is definitely more power to be had from it.
Just take a look at early PS3 or Xbox 360 games, they didn't look that good, so if Wii U is launching with games that look slightly better or at 60fps and 1080p, I'm sold.
Really looking forward to the first HD Zelda and Metroid games, those games looked so great without HD, I can only imagine what they will bring to the table with full HD versions.
So what you're saying is that we could be waiting 6 months / a year for the Wii U to start striding ahead of the PS3 and 360. By which time the next Playstation and XBox will be demoing their launch titles.
The trouble is that if you're a graphics fan you may as well stick with the current gen HD consoles and wait to see what launch titles for the NeXtBox720 and PS4 look like.
The Wii U doesn't launch with Zelda or a proper "Full Fat" Mario so there's no incentive to buy at launch.
ZombiU looks cool, as does Pikmin, but they aren't in the same league as Mario or Link, and certainly not worth the price of a console purchase.
I have the cash. All it would take for me to purchase a Wii U is a slight upgrade in graphics so I have a stop gap until the next gen Playstation and XBox come out.
If there's no graphics upgrade for that first year and there's no Mario or Zelda, why buy?
Edit: This is me playing devil's advocate. This is N4G - after all - the only thing that matters to us here are graphics.
Nintendo has more to announce in the WiiU conference, so let's wait.
The PS3 at launch gave devs a rough time, and it still does. But those same devs who got experience with it, they wont face much problem with the PS4 hopefully. So I'm GUESSING that the games would be so much better at launch for the PS4 and the Xbox720.
So, your argument is not acceptable. Graphcis dont matter really, and i love the Wii but if you're gonna base your argument for the Wii U vs any console, and you pick the Graphics department, then you lose.
It's a very acceptable argument as most games are build from early dev kits.
"and you pick the Graphics department, then you lose."
LoL we havn't even seen a game that makes full use of the console.
Your nick name suites your horrible argument.
Everyone predicted that the Wii/NDS would fail, though it didn't happen. The Wii U posses a threat to the competition because Nintendo exclusives (which cannot be disputed) sell a lot, and if people can get those same 3rd party titles on the Wii U that they usually get elsewhere...
What the N4G community doesn't understand is that, there's a world outside this gaming-centric one, which consumers dictate whether a product is worth the investment or not.
Looks like you don't even know what you are talking about lol. Devs needs to get used to the WiiU's new architecture. Also, as I mentioned before, Ubisoft already confirmed they aren't using he WiiU's fullcapabilities because they aren't spending a lot of money with initial ports.
Most of the games are using old dev kits and are unfinished.
The console isn't not even out yet.
Seriously, let's not act as ignorants trying to find something to downplay the WiiU before it's even out, shall we?
Now when you talk about most of the games are using old dev kits. That may be true however the final product isn't going to be vastly different otherwise the dev kit is pointless to the developers.
I am not downplaying the Wii U. I was arguing against his point for a reason why they look the same. Big difference
By the way at launch sony ps3 had Resistance fall of man which received rave reviews not only because it was truly next gen at the time with better than ps2 graphics, physics, lighting etcc but also because the online was also next gen allowing up to 40 ppl online flawlessly which was unheard of at the time
Not only that MGS4 released shortly after which is considered one of the best games of all time by many and Heavenly sword which although not a great game graphics screamed next gen all the way through!!!
Now tell me again what games does Wii u at launch have that screams next gen or is going to have the effect a say resistance fall of man or Mgs4 will have on consumers?
Pppl keep ranting and saying that xbox and ps3 didnt have any games at launch that looked better than ps2 games that is a bold face lie they had a few.....
and i quote from Brink review of res fall of man...
"When you kill an enemy it doesn't disappear and when you blow up part of the near fully destructible environments the pieces don't go away either. The obvious power of the PS3 and the masterful coding work of the developers let everything stay on screen all the time while never taking a frame hit. This is an incredible accomplishment for a launch game on any system. [JPN Import] "
Def next gen feel to it and if u need further proof plz go here http://www.metacritic.com/g...
Throw any of the 360 launch games onto 480i, I assure you they won't look too much better than high-end Xbox/PS2/GCN games.
Seems they just love paying for outdated tech as long as it carries the right company name on it.
"I ask SOny fans that all the time when they bring up Vita/PS3 cross play. Seriously why pay more for 720p when you can pay less and get native 1080p out of the box?
Seems they just love paying for outdated tech as long as it carries the right company name on it."
here is the thing though, Unlike Nintendo recently, Sony has shown it's dedication to the level of hardware that you get in the system's to be advanced at the time, more so than Nintendo has.
I am not saying , the game experience revolves around the hardware, because it does not.
What i am saying is, the Nintendo platforms are great system's i have no real problem in playing or having fun with the Nintendo systems.
What i do have a problem is when Nintendo releases a system , they fail to tell the consumer exactly what is in the system, while Microsoft and Sony both have no problem in that. it's not really some PR about boasting on the product, its about informing the consumer's what is in the product you buy.
the Wii was a 800 MHz cpu machine, which was pretty cool for such a box, but Nintendo did not disclose that while Both Microsoft and Sony were more than upfront with their CPU speed's.
take the 3DS for instance, Nintendo is USING ARM Holding's ARM Cortex 11, which is way older than the ARM Holding's current A9 arm cortex cpu's that are used in pretty much every smartphone, Tablet and even the PSVita. the ARM Cortex A9 absolutly crushes the Arm 11 cpu, add in the fact that Nintendo put in the 3DS only 6 MB of dedicated VRram, which you can do a lot with it, no doubt about that, Hell the Orig. PSP only had 4 MB of Dedicated VRram, but when every smart phone is running with 64 MB or higher VRram, Hell even the PSVita is running with 128 MB of dedicated VRram, For the Money that Nintendo was asking for their product,Hey the 3DS is once again a great gaming machine, i have bought Nintendo handhelds eversince the gray scale game boy!, I have a DS,DS lite,im saying that due to Nintendo's polocy i wait for quite a reduction in what they are asking for their hardware, not the Wii U may be more advanced than what Nintendo has disclosed about their system, but i wait for tear down's to see what's in the system's due to Nintendo's failure to disclose attitude toward the consumer, that's in my opinion exactly why many people wait to buy, or not purchase the recent offering's of Nintendo, way too much into today's market over and above, than what everyone else is giving you for your Money.
Now granted, it's more than the sum of what the hardware is for the game experience, which Nintendo has some very good games, but when Nintendo does what they have been doing lately about what you are getting for your money, myself i will see what im exactly buying before i do so with Nintendo. I do that with every product anyway. but I think you get the drift of it.
In fact you went on to talk about tech as if it was all that matters. Well then you wont be one of those people bragging about the PS3/Vita combo because its such a last gen effort then and my post wasnt directed at you.
Now if you would like to cover what I actually said then feel free to respond but we do not know what tech is in the Wii U.Nintendo has never released specs before and considering it does things PS3/360 cant so to act like its outdated is childish.
Now the PS3/Vita combo is outdated tech because the Cell was made in 2004. There is no debating that fact.
Rather than get upset and hurt and try to turn that into something its not why not stick to what I actually said and explain to me how its not outdated when the hardware in the PS3 is almost 10 years old?
Reading your post again it is clear to see that this is obviously your first gen of gaming. To claim Sony's consoles are always top of the line shows you are completely clueless to all their other consoles being inferior to what was on the market.
Please take the time to actually learn what you are talking about before responding because when you respond with lies and BS it does not add credit to your opinion.
If you want superior tech then get a PC like most of us do who want top of the line stuff. Even the PS3 launched with outdated hardware even if it was slightly better to other consoles at the time,the PC had already surpassed it.
What I see from your post is you took my comment personally and though you couldnt argue against it, you've done your best to put it off on another company without dealing with the real issue and with no real knowledge to base it off of. That's not going to sway me in any way.
@puddle
First off Sony fans aren't paying more for less because they already have a PS3, hence why they are "Sony fans." Unless the Wii U is going to cost under $250, Sony fans aren't paying more for Cross play whether or not it's "less."
Second, the Vita/PS3 cross play is just one of many things the Vita can do. When you buy a Vita you aren't buying it just for cross play. Hell, I'd even make the argument that isn't the reason why you should even consider buying a Vita. Cross play is good when you already own the system, but to buy the system just to have that one feature is stupid in my opinion. The Vita has it's own library of games. That should be the reason why you buy the Vita and once you already own one that is when you should take advantage of the cross play/play as you go feature.
***"Seems they just love paying for outdated tech as long as it carries the right company name on it."***
Isn't the Wii outdated tech compared to the PC? Doesn't that mean you love paying for outdated tech as long as it carries Nintendo's name on it? Or am I making too much sense here?
Either is gets a crappy downgrade, or no game at all.
I'm not so sold on this Wii U thing.
I'm thinking Wii won't.
Nintendo needs to come up with a new system seller. Pikman looks nice, but not something I'll buy a console for. I love Nintendo, and have supported every console they've released, but they need to get on the ball.
It's a Nintendo platform and like any console, it will probably get a killer app (other than ZombiU) somewhere down the road. The ports and overall 3rd party support is something completely unlike the Gamecube and Wii.
Or is it only fair to give it a chance when it's not a Nintendo product?
My comment sparked such posts. However, to those who replied with the infamous Eurogamer quote of Wii U being on par with PS3 (which was found to be a blatant misquote) I feel no need to say anything further to you guys, as you want to parade around looking for any negativity surrounding the yet to be released console.
To others replying with well its 6-7 yrs later it better be more powerful..Just read my first post, you've proven my initial point.
To those revising history as if 360/PS3 were the first time devs dealt with HD visuals, PC says hi..from the 90's btw.
Every console in history launched with ports, additionally look at the first CoD for 360 or PS3 and look at the newest one, look at Resistance and then look at Uncharted 3 or The Last of Us. Gears of War was the game that I remember as being touted as the 360's breakout tech game. I believe it was MGS4 that was the PS3's. What do these games have in common? Being built from the ground up utilizing the full tech potential of the console.
I look forward to the other console companies releasing consoles that don't significantly jump in graphics like we had from the PS2 era to this one. Its not financially sustainable.
Also, how many PS3 ports were inferior to their 360 counterparts? Even though the PS3 was supposedly much stronger? You guys have too many sacred cows, I'm not even sold on a Wii U, I just can't stand the flip flopping and childish hypocrisy that's rampant on this site.
Stop making up shi* and wait for the facts of things. And even worse, like Eurogamer has shown, we can't even trust that any more. Best to wait til Consoles are released and you personally get some hands on time.
There's really no need to jump in trying to defend this unless you've got some kind of agenda.
Why is it people like you get so offended when someone points out things that other people obviously do not know?
Why does their post bother you so much when it is well thought out and informative yet the people who are posting totally ridiculous claims are okay in your book?
If someone wants to offer a different opinion or set the record straight, that is totally up to them.
I see no reason for you to try to attack them or discredit them. It honestly shows that you have some security issues. You are not the only one that does it but it's still childish in so many ways.
Looks like you are the one getting offended. Your post is pretty hypocritcal: doing the exact thing you are trying to condemn.
Take a chill pill.
SHOCKING!
Edit:
This youtube split screen gives the best indication of how much more detailed the WiiU version will be, but the experience is there on all versions.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Wait, I forgot that this is N4G and common sense went out the window in 2006!
lol....no console game has been the "same" as the pc version all this last/current console generation
all ps3/360 games have been low res, and have jaggies and run at 20-30 frames, pop-in, screen tear, all the usual console suspects
pc is 1080p, 1200p, 1400p, 1600p
tons of AA and WAY better particles, shadows, physics, HUGE upgrades in framerate, draw distance, motion blur, hdr
don't act like console game that are also on pc even compare
pc and ps3/360 aren't even in the same gen and have not been since 2007
ac3 on pc will DESTROY ps3/360 versions, just like all the other games before it have
Think of it like this.
PS3/360 are a 10 gallon bucket
PC and Wii U are 20 gallon buckets.
When developers make this games they are essentially filling up the PS3 and 360 to capacity. Then they just "pour" into the 20 gallon bucket and call it a day. They arent using the extra 10 gallons the PC and Wii U offer. It doesnt mean the PC cant do more. We all know it can, but they started out aiming for PS3/360 visuals not PC/WiiU visuals.
the pc just "is" more
while the console version will be limited to low res 720p, a standard for gaming from 9 years ago, the pc will do 1080p, 1200p, 1400p, 1600p, multi monitor support
the console version will have jaggies and agitated shadows, the pc version will have MAJOR anti aliasing and perfect shadowing
the console version will run between 20 and 30 frames with dips into the teens during intense action sections
the pc versions will run between 60-120 frames
a console game compared to a pc game, even when the dev makes almost zero effort to make the pc better, will just, by fact of it being on pc, be better
just resolution and AA alone make the console version sub-par comparitivly
i know what you are saying though, when devs go all out like the witcher 2, the results are amazing, but even a game like gtaiv, which had a sloppy trasition to pc, was a full generation beyond anything on console, the console version of gtaiv literallly looks like a psp game to me, and i loved the 360 version i played, then i played the pc version maxed later on, going back to the 360 version was like going from a vita to gameboy