'Batman: Arkham City' Looks Worse On Wii U Than PS3

Forbes editor Erik Kain writes. Despite the fact that the PS3 is seven years old and the Wii U isn’t even out yet, the PlayStation version of the game looks more detailed and realistic.

4427d ago
live2play4426d ago

what is LOL is that ps3 fans know that lazy ports on their system doesnt show the true systems power

and also that as the consoled life goes on games start looking better

see uncharted 1 and 3
kilzone 3
last of us

why are you guys so double sided?

yes it looks better but what do you expect out of a port? AT LAUNCH?

Kamikaze1354426d ago


You have no idea why I'm laughing; relax buddy, no need to have a heart attack. I'm laughing because they (the site) show two screenshots and base the entire game's quality on it. You make way too many assumptions.

KonaBro4426d ago

The fact remains that the game looks bad. Period. For a system Nintendo is going to great lengths to try and say is more powerful than the PS3/360, it's sure doing a bad job at showing it. A port like this should be nothing for the Wii U but evidence has shown us otherwise. I'm sure we'll see better looking games later on in the generation but Wii U is looking more like a stop-gap consoles and not a true next gen leap.

live2play4426d ago

im so sorry but can you blame me? xD

i apologize

nitendo is going through great lengths to say wiiu is MORE POWERFUL THAN THE WII

developers words and fanboy fanning started the whole more powerful argument

Hisiru4426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )


Neko_Mega4426d ago

Don't know what you are smoking, Batman mostly looks better on PS3. Games like Skyrim and COD are the main ones that copy and paste to a bluray.

Besides this isn't a shock, I bet Nintendo wants to make a system that can do HD. But won't cost as much as a PS3.

WagFanger4426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

You say the exact same thing every comment - do you have nothing better to do?

And why are you spouting off about 'Oh, but but but but.. Nintendo says the WiiU is more powerful than the *Wii*'

It better f*cking well be! Nobody's going to pay money to downgrade their console.

Face it, nothing shown so far about the WiiU is impressive - no need to keep defending it.

fatstarr4426d ago

I dont get why people mock the WIIUs graphics when they are playing games on the ps3 and 360 still...

this is the base of wiius graphics, lazy ports and not trying...
now when devs try 3 years from now it will be a different story.

silly to know the specs of the wiiu and not expect great graphics when the shitty specs of the ps3 and 360 make good looking games that we see today... logic use it.

Optical_Matrix4426d ago

Problem is with your argument, what little Nintendo did show of 1st party games on Wii U weren't impressive either. I'd argue they were lazier than the 3rd party games. Hell, New Super Mario Bros. U looks like a Wii game running in Dolphin, except it isn't 1080p.....

Nintendo's lucky that Rayman Legends and Pikmin 3 are launch/launch window games. That'll get a fair few 'core gamers' on board pretty early on, myself included.

CommonSense4426d ago

saying that wii u's first party titles weren't impressive is the understatement of the year.

there were downright disappointing. nintendo started this current generation a generation behind. looks like they are kicking off the next generation even more than a generation behind.

in fact, it's not even fair to say they are starting the next generation. if anything, they are finally entering the current gen...sorta.

bobtheimpaler4426d ago

Saying that the hardware is new is not an excuse. It uses a similar processor to the 360. This isn't some fancy new and intricate to program for architecture. It's a 4 core power pc for crying out loud
You people need to get your minds out of 2006 lol.
Also with how small the console is, it would either have low TDP, slow or a noisy as hell fan to stop the components from melting.

If anything there's no excuse for the Wii U not looking better.

ProjectVulcan4426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

Does it look worse? The guy picked 2 useless shots to base that opinion on. Try these:

WiiU: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net...

WiiU: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net...

WiiU surely looks better. Not by a lot, its subtle. But it has better fine detail and better anti aliasing quality. In the first one look at the pattern below the scales of justice- or even finer, the tiny poster of uncle sam on the far right hand side wall. The writing is sharper.

Look at second picture and the anti aliasing on the base of the water towers on the left, or the spikes on the bottom of the main building, or the brickwork and cornices on said building. Undoubtably better in the WiiU shot.

I don't know how anyone could these look worse on WiiU.

corrus4426d ago

Now i;ll show you're very wrong

Resistance Fall Of Man

Uncharted 1

Kilzzone 2

This are first PS3 games and looks awesome

SugarSoSweet4426d ago

So what if its Launch the Hardware is SIX YEARS NEW..... SIX!!! it should be doing Batman Arkham @ 1080p 60fps EASY but because the Wii-U is a piece of it actually looks worse then 6 year old hardware what a joke

ProjectVulcan4426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

@SugarSoSweet To be fair Arkham City in DX11 and Physx is pretty demanding. It takes a proper high end card to break 60FPS at 1080p and max settings with say 4x AA, and only the very fastest cards can boast a 60FPS minimum framerate at those settings.

However it doesn't take quite as much to do 30FPS. A Radeon 7850 could do it.

DG904426d ago

... You make us PlayStation fans/owners look bad.. Calm down all the dude put was lol.

STONEY44426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

My GTX 560 Ti also gets 45-60fps maxed out in DX9 (not sure if DX11 is still broken), 1080p, 8xCSAA, Physx, and V-sync. If I lower the AA, it doesn't go below 60fps at all. Arkham City isn't that demanding of a game, at least in my opinion since it's a mid-range GPU and not all that high-end.

Computersaysno4426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

What are you on with STONEY4 you say arkham city isnt demanding and you dont turn on DX11 which was patched and sorted 6 months ago? If you arent running it close to maximum how can you even comment about how demanding it is? POINTLESS!

Thats like saying Metro 2033 wasn't demanding I ran it on Medium settings with DX11 off no MSAA and no physx!!!!!!!!!! Yeah runs piece of piss it does! Lets all just turn off the high end features on games and claim they arent demanding


Turn on DX11, turn Physx on to max, turn proper MSAA on then come back and tell us how undemanding it was and how easily your system ran it. LOL

GTX560Ti will be lucky to scrape 30 frames minimum in 1080p with everything on and 4 MSAA

WetN00dle694426d ago (Edited 4426d ago )

Yeah id rather take Eurogamer words for it rather than a NO NAME POS fanboy site! The fact of the matter is WiiU will be an amazing console!

BY the way it seems that the Pic was removed!
That only tells me that that guy was FULL OF SH!T!

Hellsvacancy4426d ago

The 360 doesnt even get mentioned "move along people, nothing to see here" lol

DrJones4426d ago

The PS3 came out in march 2007 here in Europe. Stop saying it's seven years old, just to overstate some anti Nintendo point.

guitarded774426d ago

Here's the funniest part of the whole thing...

(from article)
"However, I do agree that we should withhold judgment until more screens are available."

(My reply to author)
DUDE!!! You do realize you just wrote an article titled "'Batman: Arkham City' Looks Worse On Wii U Than PS3"

stragomccloud4426d ago

Wow. The number of disagrees you got really prove your point. From 2006 to 2009, PS3 received the laziest of ports from third party developers. Furthermore, 1st party developers didn't even really start getting a hang of the hardware until about that time.

ThanatosDMC4426d ago

Weird. I thought the WiiU version (based on the pictures) had much more detail and textures. Just look at the clothing. Doesnt look as good as my laptop's textures, but comparing the two consoles WiiU's looks better.