So how is that NEW Zelda game working out for you now that Wii U has had sometime to mature and E3 is over?

Looks like Zelda WW is all we’ll see before “the next best thing from Sony/M$. LOL! Like I said jackass…. who gives a S*** about past Zelda games! Sheesh… fanboys sometimes. LOL!

Can you play Halo 4 on your PC? No? How about Uncharted 3? Mario Galaxy 2? Skyward sword? Xenoblade? Metroid Prime?

Nintendo wanted to make a huge net profit on each unit from day one and they made a lot of shortcuts.They used the same die for both the cpu and gpu and for the cpu they used ibm power pc 750 cores that were made back in 1997 and used in gamecube and wii….The r700 based gfx card is not bad through nothing to write home about as it is equivalent to a 4770 ati card…that is already 3 generations behind what currently is used.

To save 5$ for a seperate die and another $5 for a seperate heatsink they had to clock the cpu cores really really low to avoid any temperature problems.
And all the bullshit that GHZ do no matter ,please do some homework before posting bullshit like that.Yes a state of the art IVY Bridge I7 (3770k) at 3.5 Ghz can kick the ass of a simpler Amd fx clocked at 4.0 GHz or even 4.2 GHz… But that accounts for a 20% of performance increase not a 300% which is the variance of a 1.2 GHZ with a 3.2 GHZ xbox 360 cpu core….

And lets not forget that the xenos ibm power pc cores are of the 3rd or 4rth generation that is years ahead of the old 750 cores…Even if wii u used generation 7 ibm power pc cores they still had to clock them at 2.4-2.6 GHZ to be equal or surpass the xbox360 cores…

And about the GPGPU ….Its not a magic hidden cheap on the wii u pcb…Its just the ability in the last generation of video cards to be able to calculate things outside graphical commands to lift some work from the cpu.There is the reason why the cpu is called like that…(Central processing unit…) and there is a limit to how much work you can lift from the cpu before the Gpu is unable to properly do its native job…..to render graphics…

The wii u is lackluster.I hoped for a kick ass new console ,because healthy competition moves technology,lower prices and brings more reason for companies to make that killer exclusive game.Yet the wii u is simply too slow…Digital fountry checked all new games like black ops 2,mass effect 3, assasins creed 3 and batman archam city and all were running much slower than on xbox 360 and ps3.

Hell black ops 2 runs on average with 55 fps on xbox360 and 50 on ps3….but barely runs on 35 on the brand new “state of the art” Wii u….And it looks the same …with some effects missing altogether like hand animations while climbing and some trucks/trees removed in some places to help with fps….

There is even a game that was supposed to be the killer game for wii u as stated by its developers …Darksiders 2…They said it will be the best version and initially it seemed that it was with longer draw distances and some cleaner image quality because of 2x aa.But as Digital fountry proved they removed a lot of trees and foliage especially on large areas and completely removed many lighting effects to keep framerates smooth….It runs smoothly without any problems but when half of the scenery is removed that is unacceptable…

Do not forget that Wii u is a brand new console and a very very expensive one for what it is.Here in europe it costs 350 euros for the deluxe model and that converted is 450 dollars !!!! And with only the minigame collection adventuland….

At the same time you can buy a super slim ps3 with the 500gb hdd ,a working blue ray you can watch 3d blue ray movies and 3 free AAA games .

I believe the frame rate for Blops 2 on the U is even worse than the PS3 version. There are scenes on the U version that are missing random things such as your hands when climbing a ladder and trucks driving by.. I bet they were left out to keep the FPS as close to 60 as possible in those instances. In all honesty, because the U makes using a headset a hassle if you want to use the pro controller and the lack of online content makes this the inferior version. Not to say it isn’t playable and if you only have a U you can’t go wrong, but if you have a choice it should be the last.

Well, I unlike you, I will attest that I own and played what I am talking about. I know you don’t own anything other than a wii and a U by your own admission. I also know you don’t own the game in question and I’m pretty sure you have never played it. There are also reviews on the net to support what I am saying. You on the other hand are going off misinformation from reports that came out months before the release(I can see your activity btw). May I suggest you just not comment on things you know nothing about. Better yet, give it a rest for a while.

I’m finding it hard to believe you’ve played the Wii U version. I doubt you or your ‘buddy’ have a Wii U. All it takes is to look at a mass of comparison videos and photos and you can see that the Wii U version of most of the ports are better. Besides probably Arkham City and Mass Effect but those are down to the developers but I guess regarding the frame rate issues on a few of the ports is the fact that it’s hard to upscale the game that’s usually why PS3 releases aren’t as good as 360 releases since it’s the weakest HD console.

Actually, I own 2 versions(360 &PC) of the game and had my buddy’s u copy for a couple of days. Even he admitted to the U’s shortcomings. You on the other hand don’t have a single version, yet you’ve been claiming this idiotic nonsense even before the game was released. Now what?

That’s because it is the best in the past 10 years, mainly because survival horror doesn’t get a lot of releases these days. If you can name one that’s better I’ll admit I was wrong.

Have you got both versions of the game?