News Article

Call of Duty: Ghosts Wii U Performance Reportedly Drops Below PS3 and 360 Standards

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry issues its verdict

Activision's Call of Duty: Ghosts may not have reached the standard series heights with its sales — perhaps due to a combination of wearied franchise veterans, a middling critical reaction and the impending arrival of the One and PS4 — but it's nevertheless one of the biggest releases of the year. With that comes the inevitable question of what version is best to buy, and our friends over at Eurogamer have applied their usual Digital Foundry analysis to the existing iterations on Xbox 360, PS3, PC and Wii U, which is pleasing considering that the latter two formats accounted for just 1% of final sales in the UK.

From a controller perspective, we've already made clear that we think Ghosts is best on Wii U, thanks to the lovely simplicity of the Wii Remote pointer. Naturally Digital Foundry has tackled the technicalities, and overall the Wii U has been found somewhat lacking compared to its contemporaries — Infinity Ward developed all versions bar that on Wii U, which was handled by Treyarch. The Wii U version comes in at a higher resolution than PS3 — 880x720 compared to 860x600 — yet despite this there are issues with textures (blurring and a noticeable loss of detail in some areas) on these two formats that are less prominent on the 360.

Quite why this is happening isn't immediately clear, but intriguingly the problem never really manifests on the 360, where a mandatory 2GB install is required before the campaign can be played. In comparison, on the PS3 and Wii U all graphical data is streamed directly from each system's disc drive, but at a slower rate than what is possible via a traditional hard disk. Perhaps the issues surrounding the artwork are caused by a bug in the game's streaming system causing incomplete assets to be displayed as the engine struggles to load in all of the relevant graphical data on platforms which rely on optical media to do so.

Beyond this, all three console versions are closely matched outside of a few barely notable variances which have little overall impact on the look of the game, such as the odd missing reflection on the Wii U or the use of lower-resolution specular effects on some surfaces on the PS3. However, the 360 version commands the overall advantage by featuring a more consistent presentation that lacks the blur surrounding the PS3 game, or the obvious texture bugs that appear on the Wii U.

In the frame rate comparison, such an important part of the series, the Wii U falls below its rivals, with DF referring to "an inconsistent level of performance" in the campaign. In the online arena where 60FPS is so treasured, the Nintendo system is unfortunately behind once again.

We had quite high hopes for the Wii U version in this area, too, given just how close Black Ops 2 is in this regard - despite featuring a few more interruptions, performance on Nintendo's console is comparable to that of the 360 and PS3 in Treyarch's title. However, it appears that the developers were unable to optimise the engine to quite the same degree with the new assets, and as such we find that a similarly consistent level of performance isn't demonstrated to the same degree on Nintendo's console. More Detailed maps - such as Tremor and Chasm - see overall performance clearly compromised, while introduction of alpha effects and explosions impact on performance more heavily than they do on the 360 and PS3.

The overall summary, in which it's taken for granted that a powerful PC comfortably bested these platforms, the Wii U comes in last place.

In the here and now, the current-gen Call of Duty experience is best delivered on the 360, followed quite closely by the PS3 version, where stable multiplayer performance is backed up by a campaign that still delivers a good slice of 60fps action, even if frame-rates aren't quite as smooth as on Microsoft's platform. However, the soft-focused look doesn't represent the game in its best light in comparison to the sharper and cleaner 360 release, while the texture bugs are disappointing to see. The real letdown comes with the Wii U version, which sees owners of Nintendo's console once again left with a sub-par experience marred by frequent frame-rate issues and some pretty striking texture quality problems that makes it hard to recommend when both 360 and PS3 offer up smoother gameplay and more enjoyable online play as a result.

We're in the latter stages of producing our own review — which should be with you relatively soon — but what do you think of this analysis? If you have Ghosts on Wii U, have you been happy with its performance?


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (114)



Squashie said:

I got my copy last week for Wii U and I've honestly found it pretty fun. I don't own 360 and PS3 versions to compare it to, but the graphics seem fine, the online is a tad sketchy, but its a stable experience in whole.



Azooooz said:

This is to be expected, as the Wii U's true potential has not been realized yet. I would prefer game delay for more optimization than release it with other console with low performance.



gaby_gabito said:

It looks like Black Ops II on Wii U looks a lot better than Ghosts on Wii U, which is a letdown.



millarrp said:

I haven't seen any of these issues yet, mind you I'm still early in the campaign...hopefully there will be a patch along the way to try and address some of these issues



Nintenjoe64 said:

These comparisons just put people off buying a game that doesn't have anything significantly wrong with it. I might have to upgrade to this if the community grows to a decent level....



Savino said:

@Amin_and_Azizah yeah, I've been only playing first partie for a while! As much as I love the off tv feature the lack of technical quality in the thirdies put me away from it.
So, the bottom line is that wiiu become my second wii, a videogame that I love but only to play nintendo games!

I will grab a ps4 in the next year for the thirdies.... Just waiting some good games (because the lauch line up is terrible)



Gerbwmu said:

This seems lazy to me....maybe someone with better knowledge of programming can correct me but shouldn't this be easier the second time already have a basis for the game with Black Ops 2....



ikki5 said:

Now... what gets me is that the Wii u has already be proven and said often enough that it can handle more then the X360 and PS3... and yet this happens.... so I am betting that this was more so a lazy port which is too bad because now you are jut going to have people go on about how it is weaker than the 360 and the PS3 when really, the system isn't.



gurtifus said:

Oh my ! What would be the result of this comparison if it's been released on the PS4 and XBOX ONE instead of PS3 and 360 !?!?
Poor WII U...



SphericalCrusher said:

I bought Call of Duty Ghosts for WiiU the other day and I am loving it. It looks and plays great on the platform.



MADGAZ said:

Has anyone noticed that there is a crap ton of negative Wii U news in the week leading to Xbox release? All of a sudden all of these devs and companies are coming out with quotes, doctored videos etc.

I have even spotted a negative Mario 3D review already! and it was a measly 6/10 Not Possible. Mario gets 8's just for the box art lol

We have seen Microsoft staff at Wii U events. Would they really snoop this low?



MADGAZ said:

The video on EG with frame rate drops is highly inconsistent also. For some reason their frame rate counter seems to increase when more textures are being loaded in the foreground, rather than just the action bits.

Watch it closely and you will see all three formats dip drastically and then a huge frame increase just when the frenetic action stops!.



Marshi said:

Sites like digital foundary really annow me. They make out the lesser version of a game (in this case cod for wiiu) is terrible and shouldnt be bought,when in actual fact the game has moments where the fps drops a couple of frames. THIS CANT EVEN BE SEEN TO THE NAKED EYE! Yet because its on a website fanboys explode with "360 so much better as it runs at an amazing and smooth 60fps,but those terrible ps3/wii u ver only runs at a super slow 58fps. 360 ftw yadder yadder yadder", its just stupid. If the wiiu ver ran at 30fps and stuttered down to 20fps THEN we'd have cause to complain. But its an fps running at 50-60fps! Thats still leagues ahead of most fps!
And at the end of the day its the game and how it PLAYS that matter. Gta 5 runs at 25fps,and most people rate the game as best of this gen



Flash-Jordan said:

Not graphics mainly frame rates an bugs i would say,that said being sold a product that isnt optimised properly is dissapointing to say the least



MAB said:

So the COD that I got last year and haven't played for a year is better than the new COD... I will just not buy the new one and continue to not play the one from last year again thanks



Ichiban said:

@MADGAZ I heard Microsoft planted a chip in Iwata's brain, which caused his mind to be controlled by them. And this is why Mario kart 8, Smash Bros 4, Bayonetta 2, and even DKC Tropical Freeze were all held back until next year! Those crafty buggers!



MADGAZ said:

Team Treyarch have already stated on their forums that a frame rate fix for Wii U is in the next update along with several bug fixes and a surprise or 2.



element187 said:

@MADGAZ Well that patch doesn't do this comparison any good because DF isn't going to do another test after the patch.

Streaming off the drive is a dumb idea anyways, seems like it would be a serious bottleneck.



gatorboi352 said:

Its looking like all versions of Ghosts are kind of craptacular in their own ways. I've definitely enjoyed BLOPS2 more in my experiences with the two.



heathenmagic said:

Just got Black Ops 2 and loving that. Didn't I hear that they were going to make Ghosts the best version in all areas on Wii U? I think BOps looks great though, but mainly the controls are what I get it on WiiU for. Not too fussed about DLC, but am starting to think I would like the option to get it now to be honest



Peach64 said:

It's not lazy. The Wii U is more powerful than those other two, but it's very different in its architecture. That means you can't just throw the same code onto the Wii U and expect it to work. We've heard devs say over and over how much rework has to be done, and nearly every publisher knows they will have to spend more money on that optimisation than the Wii U sales will bring in. If you think any company is lazy for refusing to spend 5 million on a project that will only make them about 3 million income then you're very confused. It's an unfortunate, vicious cycle. Publishers know it's not worth the spend to optimise, so you get inferior ports, and customers know it will be inferior so Wii U version sales stay low.

Games built from the ground up for Wii U can be technically amazing but you're not going to see that happen from 3rd parties when console sales are so low.



DarkCoolEdge said:

This issue is insulting. The most powerful machine gets the worst version. Way to go Activision, way yo go.



Nico07 said:

@Gerbwmu Most 360 and even PS3 consoles have large drives internally, so it is odd that only the 360 version would allow for a HDD installation. The game should offer an option for disc based gameplay or local HDD installation for the PS3 and Wii U. I would assume that many players would have this free space or have a connected hard drive. Despite this setback, the higher res and split screen on Wii U were reason enough for me to pick it up yesterday.



mercurio2054 said:

my copy is on the way, but my neighbor have the game (for wii u) and he doesn't have problems with low FPS



Quickman said:

Can anyone confirm this? I don't really take Digital Foundry as a credible source these days..



MadAdam81 said:

I can't tell the difference in frame rate for anything over 25 fps, and I doubt I'll notice much of the other issues. However, I don't know if I'll ever play two player local multiplayer (which is awesome on Wii U when one has the gamepad and the other has the entire TV) to warrant the higher price it is on Wii U in Australia (seen it for $64 for 360 and PS3, and $99 for Wii U).



Rafie said:

@Peach64 Exactly! The Wii U is more powerful than both the PS3 and 360, but because of how different and somewhat complicated it is, it got a shotty port.

Also everyone must keep in mind that the only reason why the 360 version is the definitive version is because it's developed ON a 360 and ported every where else. The 360 is graphically the weakest system, yet it beats the other 2 (Wii U and PS3) in graphics and gameplay.



MadAdam81 said:

@Rafie I won't be surprised if the PS4 becomes the primary console for developers in the next gen, as EB Games Australia staff have said PS4 has had more than twice the preorders that the Xbox One has. If that trend occurs worldwide, then developers will quickly clamour to the PS4.



The-Chosen-one said:

its really up to Nintendo to show everyone what the WiiU has to offer, both in Graphics & performance, and Gameplay wise.
Bring back Metroid Prime, with beautiful Visuals, and landscapes and Online.
Give us Geist from N-space. show more info of the New Epic Zelda, and more about Xenoblade WiiU. We need more of everything Nintendo. you cant affort to be lazy.
Also do more with the Eshop, More downloads etc, and also update the Browsers HTML5, so that we can play HTML5 browser games, and also flash games in our browser.
Its not the time just to sit back, and see when the sales go up. you have to work your buts of



IxnayontheCK said:

Anyone truly shocked by this? We KNOW 3rd parties arent taking time to get to know the hardware =/



MAB said:

What they need to do is release the more superior DIGITAL 4 LYFE version so it runs at a better framerate because laggy physical just doesn't cut it anymore... Not that I would buy it if they did anyway



Morph said:

I cant see nintendo ever winning back great 3rd party support. The issue is there really isnt much money in it for the devs and publishers to release multi format games on wii u, so they will either skip it all together or put out below par ports because they will have a small team working on it. The only great multiplat game that comes to mind is rayman legends, and that's only because it was made for wii u in the first place



larry_koopa said:

It really is too bad that the Wii U can't match the performance of 7 and 8 year old machines, but I have a Wii U just so I can play Mario games and Tropical Freeze. For those purposes I am completely happy with Nintendo's system.



Shiryu said:

Treyarch did the best they could in bringing this tot he Wii U. But the real fact is that Infinity Ward as become a shadow of their former self (original members left and founded a new developer, they are working right now on "Titan Fall") and this shows on every component of the game: The ideas are there, the core is there, but it as all been done before and it's not exactly executed in a formidable way. It still manages to entertain due to having so much new content, but let's face it: "Black OPS II" is the definitive online FPS experience on the Wii U. Simply putting both games side by side and you will quick notice just how better everything looks and runs on BO2. Disappointing, IW, you will need to step up your game. As for Treyarch, nothing but thumbs up from me, looking forward for their next entry in the series.



Doctor_Pancakes said:

@Marshi It can be seen, I posted a lot of ugly textures to Miiverse and I hope more people do the same so a patch is made. Textures on some character models, environments and random objects like monitors and junk piles of trash and old TVs look lifted straight from an N64 title. I was thinking they were that bad across all currently avaliable platforms but DF showed that to be wrong sadly. This is simply an awful port. Assassins Creed Black Flag look superior on Wii U(most textures look lifted from PS4 version), just lacking a few next-gen effects like Rain hitting the ship deck, water spilling onto the deck and running off which ever way the ship is tilted and moving foliage when sneaking in the grassy areas. The game is a beaut.



ACK said:

Guys, this is making mountains out of mole hills. I've played the Wii U version extensively with very little noticeable frame rate issues. Maybe I'm lenient, but playing through the campaign I never was bothered by the frame rate. Truthfully, I rarely recall any such issues. The game does look rough in spots, though spectacular in others... (Yes, I would compare the textures in some areas to the Wii ports.)

Without a doubt, the benefits (Wiimote controls, Off screen, Dual screen local multi, free online, etc.) far outweigh these very minor "drawbacks."

Also, I really can't say BO2 is overall a better game... (Though I agree it generally looks better, with a smaller scope and less compelling art, in my opinion). The multiplayer is much different and I appreciate the variation, rather than prefer one to the other. Also, the campaign is very different. BO2 was balls-to-the-wall action, while Ghosts is more like a mishmash of CoD and Bond.

Ghosts' straightforward objectives, open battlefields, varied paths, adaptable conditions, and shorter missions made for the kind of campaign I'm personally looking for in a CoD. It may not be critically acclaimed, but it's one of my favorite campaigns in the series. Granted, I usually find them overly narrow and tedious... MW and BO2 are the two exceptions for me, and I found Ghosts as enjoyable as either of those two campaigns. It doesn't reach the heights of MW, but it's generally less confined and rigid as well.

Thinking about it, this is the rare CoD campaign that I will look forward to playing again and again. There is just something about it that hearkens back to the earlier days of console FPS that I find charming.



Marshi said:

@Doctor_Pancakes You see thats the problem gamers have, So what if this cod WAS on the n64,would you still say its an awful game? So a few bits and peices in the game have low res textures. How does that affect gameplay?



Dorkvader said:

I lo``ve COD Ghosts, I haven't played Black Ops 2 yet. ( I really want to, I just got my system last week) But I have seen the comparison videos and I did notice the pixels drop a little in some areas and the frame rate dropped like in two levels but it was only for a little bit. But not when the big explosions happen or anywhere like that. The game runs smoothly. Although I haven't tried online, I loved the campaign. I love being able to play Multiplayer with bots. That also runs very smoothly. And I can see why Black Ops 2 whould be better. Treyarch has always done it's best for Nintendo, When they make there COD, They make it with Nintendo in mind. Ghosts was just a port. So they did their best. and to me. It paid off. I really hope that Nintendo sells well again and that third party developers come back. The Wii U has a lot to offer and it is a very powerful system that needs to be tapped into



Tsusasi said:

I've played quite a bit of the Wii U version of CoD: Ghosts, and nowhere... absolutely NOWHERE does the frame-rate or any other performance issues even remotely touch the level of the problems with the supposedly 'new gen' PS4 and XBONE. Hiccups at worst and rarely at that. I too have heard that Treyarch is already preparing an update to fix a variety of issues on the Wii U version.

This has become standard practice for most major title releases; what the public gets are very polished betas, for the most part. Day one updates, bug fixes, graphics updates... It's all part of being a gamer in 2013. It seems as though we will never again get a complete game with proper testing. Crazy publisher deadlines have been pointed to as the blame. Whatever the reason, these sort of analysis should also include any news or updates from the developer... they should be given the opportunity to explain and/or address the problems. Then gamers will get the whole picture and be better able to make their choices. The bottom line is, there have been other games released across all of the consoles and for the PC as well that have launched with choppy frame-rates and/or texture and other graphics issues that were subsequently fixed. We know this, the press knows this, and 'Digital Foundry' knows this. And yet even though the other systems (most notably the next gen and PC versions) have far more glaring issues that could be harder and possibly more difficult to address, they swing at the low-hanging fruit; The Wii U bashing won't stop.

I am not a Nintendo fan-boy (In fact, I was a Sega guy during the 16-bit wars), I own all of the current gen systems and I play them all as well . I am just tired of the Nintendo bashing. We all know Nintendo makes mistakes and for whatever reason can't put together even the most reasonable and coordinated marketing effort for the system, but they got the hardware right, they just botched the launch and haven't any idea in this post-wii world what the hell just happened to them or how to evangelize their own product.

Save for it's bi-annual flaw of repetitive, unimaginative gameplay and lack of innovation (I'm looking at you Infinity Ward), this game is no more broken than any of the other versions... and in fact according to the news from the other camps, less so. Add to that the far broader (and in many eyes, superior) control choices, the off-screen play, the use of the Gamepad features and even (if you must go there) parity with current gen systems with regard to resolution - No, strike that... superior resolution when compared to the PS3 - and you truly have the definitely version on the Wii U.

But that headline would never fly. Especially not with M$ and $ONY launching their new systems. Seriously... wth?



Doctor_Pancakes said:

@Marshi The thing is the bad textures pop up consistently through out the campaign and it is very distracting. The gameplay sadly is exactly as it has been since COD4. Why they haven't brought back Wager Matches in multiplayer is beyond me, that was a fun step in a new direction. The campaign? Am I the only one that finds them to overly dramatic. War isn't about slow-mo, big explosions and bad acting, it is about the life of you and your team, the mission and staying sane. Treyarch gets that to a point(still overly dramatic but they know how to put in a illusion that your life and sanity is on a dangerline) but IW makes it pan out like some Saturday morning cartoon, the characters feel bloody invincible. Over all it all just feels silly in the end.



mike_intv said:

These are interesting differences ... but are they noteworthy or significant?

If they interfere with the enjoyment of the game, then it is a problem. If it is just techno-heads investigating issues that in the end do not matter, then it is not.

The article really does not tell me that.

It is interesting how for decades film was 30 fps and no one complained. VHS tape can be 10 fps (slowest speed). But you could still watch the show.

Personally, I don't usually get these games because they are NOT realistic. No single person, outside of a movie, gets into, let lone survives, all of the situations found within them.



Krshna28 said:

All this proves are that the developers are lazy whenever it comes to Nintendo home consoles.



Doma said:

@Amin_and_Azizah "personally my resolution will be to buy ONLY Nintendo first party games"

Quickest way to ensure the console's premature death.

I approve.

@dumedum Why would you believe the analysis from 'chumps' to be more accurate? lol



marck13 said:

Sounds like it's just hot steam and the ones who actually played the game enjoy it.
Well so far the Wii U version is also better than the Xbox1 and PS4 versions.. nobody is playing them yet anyways ;-D



Einherjar said:

This has been said about SO many other games and never have i or others ive talked to / played with ever noticed anything major.
Even games labled unplayable due to its "cinstant framerate drops" (Orochi 3) play pretty well, even in Split Screen.
Something like that is just nitpicking at its best in my opinion. As long as a game doesnt run at a snails pace, there isnt a real problem with it.



Dreamcaster-X said:

I sold my copy yesterday. Out of my 26 retail/disc based games I own for Wii U this is the only title I have not kept in my library. I should have listened to the reviews. It's a mediocre shooter at best with the worst graphics I have seen on Wii U. YEAH IT's THAT BAD!! The textures look sub-HD quality on about 90% of the game. Character models looked great for the most part but everything else looked absolutely terrible & the story was just so meh with missions that ended just as they would ramp up.
BLOPS 2 is definitely superior both graphically & story wise.



Ryo_Hazuki-san said:

@Savino this is bullpoopsiedoodoocacapoop because i have the wii u version and my bro has the xbox one and he came over the other day n was like yo this doodoodoggiepoopledoopledoo plays better than the xbox one ! HE is a COD guy and would not lie so this is all BS..
Please watch the profanity — TBD



Dreamcaster-X said:

@unrandomsam Well, it backfired in my case as I want nothing to do with the new console versions. It actually had the reverse effect. It made me rent BF 4 for PS3 which I loved so I pre-ordered BF 4 for PS4 now.



Kaze_Memaryu said:

@ACK truth be told, these issues really don't affect gameplay quality in compairson, but the CoD community really loves to bash the WiiU versions as 'pity ports' just to reclaim the kiddy console image they love to hate on (of course, mot every CoD fan is like that).

Yet these minor issues still show how much Infinity Ward couldn't care about a clean WiiU version or even utilizing the consoles power. It might be different do develop for WiiU compared to PS3 and Xbox360, but it's definitely not harder, which is where some dev teams flat-out lie about performance (Frostbite, anyone?) just to avoid any extra work.
It's generally a bad trend to see these lazy ports crashing into the WiiU and diminishing it's capabilities just to save some money on porting effort, but we've seen this on other platforms, too.

But in the end it all boils down to the cheapest experience, which is offered on PS3, and that's where most of the fanbase is.



sadsack777 said:

again and again bad news no good news towards the wii u what the hell u doing Nintendo if u what to keep in the market keep up with the times



DrSlump said:

@Azooooz I'm starting to think that this "potential" will never be unleashed joust becouse, as well as Wii, there is not so much potential to unleash



Nintend0ro said:

Did anyone see comparison video? Wii U version looks better than 360 or PS3. Details sharper. It may not look as good as PS4 one but certainly a good looking game on Wii U. My biggest problem is that Wii U version is very hard to find to buy. No wonder all other versions are outselling



ACK said:

@Dreamcaster-X Of course the story is nonsense, I'd say the exact same about BO2 (and basically all the CoDs) which wastes far more time setting up it's plot through cutscenes.

I also agree that some missions are a little short (a bonus, in my opinion), but did you realize that many can be extended by not following the desired conditions?

For instance, in the Jungle if you get caught by the heli, you have to make a frantic dash through trees being toppled left and right by missile strikes. As opposed to leisurely strolling to the end of the mission. Anorher example is the arctic mission where if you don't follow orders and start firing, you have to take out something like 20-30 guards instead of simply walking through.

Just saying, some of the missions may seem to end prematurely because they adapt to your actions on some level.

This is something rarely accomplished in past CoDs, with their strict conditions leading to mission failure when skirted. To me, this is a huge benefit that separates it from the others and greatly increases the flow and replayability.



SCAR said:

I didn't notice a bad framerate during gameolay. The only time I see it having problems with data is in the menus.

There's no one to blame about this. I would assume if they made the game any better on Wii U, it would be like the 3rd version to make right now(which isn't practical), while it would only be version 2 when it, PC, and all 8th gen systems are the main focus.

2 versions vs. 3 versions of a game. That's what I see it coming down to.



ACK said:

@Hayabusa My experience has been the same with friends, but since I haven't witnessed the other versions I can't really verify their opinions.

But to reiterate, I have had two friends who were previously playing the 360 version the night before gush about how much they preferred the Wii U version. Granted, we were playing local co-op in Extinction and old-fashioned snipe wars, so they were fully in awe of the appeal of dual screen multi (as well as my considerable Wiimote skills). However, they also claimed it looked better, though that could be because they were likely indisposed the night before...



MrCharles77 said:

The WiiU version is far better...some of the small issues could be solved with a small patch (I have not noticed any framedrops nor low-res). Try the game.



WesCash said:

Yeah, I keep hearing how "developers don't understand the potential of the WiiU." I don't really think that's the case. The WiiU just isn't a powerful machine and everyone needs to accept that. Nintendo is a generation behind.



ACK said:

@Kaze_Memaryu I agree completely, but this is a case where whatever inferiority is being reported is far outstripped by the uniqueness of this version's features. Local multi and modes like Extinction have so much more appeal and value in the Wii U version (without dual screen support, they are mostly throwaways for me).

Not to mention, the Wiimote so greatly enhances the experience, it's really hard to resort to dual analog after you've become accustomed to the speed, precision, and flow of Wiimote controls (Deus Ex is giving me headaches for this reason... Then again I always turn off aim assist and that game is clearly designed around it). Honestly, I can't even play CoD campaigns without the Wiimote because they are too fiddly and sluggish without. (Again, I never use aim assist, period. Try Veteran like that with dual analog and it's nigh unplayable...)

That said, look at these responses and you'll see why they don't put in the effort. Nintendo gamers have such an inferiority complex that the littlest inkling of negative press is enough to make them dismiss otherwise extremely playable ports of solid games.

(Compare to AC4, which has some massive gameplay issues of it's own-particularly an extremely sluggish framerate-but simply because it looks better or more vivid, it's a great port. Look, Ghost never even comes within a hundred miles of those sort of frame rate hitches... Am I supposed to accept them because the game is rougher on all platforms? Ghosts, for it's part, runs comparatively smooth on all platforms and never bogs down on Wii U even close to being a relevant issue that affects gameplay...)

Fact is, we are getting features that are exclusive to our platform. Features that make the game more versatile, playable, and overall enjoyable for most people. Unfortunately, we can't apparently have it all but that's no reason to snub our noses when we get games which are very nearly as proficient as on the other platforms, yet more fully-featured.



FabioSMASH said:

I'll just copy/paste my mantra:
"No one buys a Nintendo console to play multi-platform titles. No one."



FabioSMASH said:

In related news:
How's the performance of Super Mario Bros, Super Smash Brothers, Metroid, Scribblenauts, The Wonderful 101, Mario Party, Donkey Kong Country, Zelda, Pikmin, Mario Kart, or any of the Mario sports titles on Sony's or Microsoft's consoles?



GraveLordXD said:

@URAmk2 I agree with @MrCharles77 because of co-op Wii u only features and off screen play not worried to much about a few drops in fps that you won't notice anyway unless you're playing both systems at the same exact time which BTW is impossible, that's not denial that's opinion and a damn good one I'm basing this off black ops 2 not this because I don't feel like spending more cash on basically the same game every year



GraveLordXD said:

@Thats-what-she lol they shouldn't unless its the only system they plan on owning in that case they shouldn't be worried about how it runs on other systems anyway not to mention if they are get a PC and play with out any problems what so ever but hey you know how people are



GraveLordXD said:

Gamers nowadays whine way to much maybe with preorders they should start handing out a box of tissues



URAmk2 said:


considering your basing your opinion off of BO2 it has no merrit. overall the wii u version of ghosts is the worst one. worst performance, sub hd graphics, no dlc, very small online community, by far the worst sales (ps4 preorders outsold wii u version). these are facts, but every is still has the right to thier opinions.



Tsusasi said:

This makes my point right here: We are playing betas... it's usually 6 months to a year before the software we buy is even remotely final. And this is nothing compared to some of the MW2 glitches. This is a reoccurring problem with CoD games, but look how ridiculous it is in Ghosts.

But I'm sure there will be a patch... there's always a patch.... smh

Now can we stop blaming Nintendo, the Wii U or even specific laziness directed towards this system? It's every system... and it's the state of gaming. Hell, you can't even use an XBONE for ANYTHING until you download (wait for it) an update. Games, systems... the age of out-of-the-box plug and play gaming/software is nigh on dead...



SeaCocumber said:

Am I the only one that still rages with these news (and I don't mean the articles, but the fact itself), no matter how many times it happens? I paid considerably more for my Wii U than I could have payed for an X360 or a PS3, yet I'm still bombarded with news regarding it's poor technical capabilities. Whether it's Nintendo's issue or not, I most definetly insist that we have a right to get better graphics and/or performance on our Wii U s.



GraveLordXD said:

@URAmk2 it very much so has merit because black ops 2 Wii u was supposedly the worst based off the same reasons but I much rather play it on Wii u than my PC that can run it maxed no problem because of the features of the Wii u version is capable of more and why reviews never add that into the final review score its like no one cares about that let's talk instead of like 4 frames per second



GraveLordXD said:

@Tsusasi yeah I realized how much of beta testers we are now to bad it took me this long to figure this out especially on PC I got Rome 2 day one been waiting years for it and wow what a mess....never again
Nintendo and maybe just a few others I trust to release a finished product day one its pretty sad really



AdanVC said:

This not because the Wii U is weaker cuz' of course it's not, it's because of the poor job from Infinity Ward to do a proper Wii U port. They were like: "Whatever is Wii U, let's do it but let's not polish it enough". If they want it, they could have made the Wii U version almost as good-looking than the PS4/Xbone versions.



URAmk2 said:

ok well i feel you on that. i personally was comparing them beacuse ive played them both on wii u ( owned BO 2 & renting Ghosts currently) its just funny to me that since the game launched people on this very site were making claims on how the wii u version of ghosts was superior to the ps360 versions in everyway from a technical standpoint. now that thats has been proven otherwise the excuses are flowing. thats all



PinkSpider said:

Sloppy programming and it doesn't help that more care is most likely taken with the 360 version above all else



GraveLordXD said:

@URAmk2 well technically it should run better on the Wii u than the 7 year old systems I agree with @Peach64 why it isn't the superior version
I have a feeling that the only developers to push the hardware for the most part is Nintendo themselves



takyon98 said:


i have the ps3 and wiiU versions..THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE
the wiiU version is droppping below 40FPS 75% of the time and half the textures dont even load... ghost on wiiU is fun but its very underwhelming..



Neram said:

They must not have dedicated as much resources to this version then. There are other examples of the Wii U versions of multiplatform games performing better than PS3, and sometimes 360. Need for Speed and Mass Effect 3 for example. That game runs like crap on PS3 compared to Wii U.



Tsusasi said:

From various answers posted by Treyarch personel:

'there’s a lot of work to be done. Not everything translates perfectly. Our first Wii U title was made from Treyarch code. This one is IW’s code, so that needed to be readied for the Wii U. That’s a lot of it. Then there’s GamePad support, Wii Remote adjustments, optimizations and more. While the Wii U is technically considered a port, we don’t approach it that way. We work hard to develop an experience that is catered to our unique audience. For example, no other platform supports this many controllers. I’m happy we chose to stick with the Wii Remote for the Wii U. It is a controversial subject on these forums, and I understand why.'

In other words: Here... take this code. We're going to do a Wii U version after all. Tag, you're it.

As you can see, there are many, many more factors in creating a game for the Wii U... if you want to play towards it's strengths/unique features. Those things take processing power. The PS3 and 360 aren't mirroring audio and video onto a second screen, for instance... swappable on the fly. The Wii U is a deep and powerful system. If this were a second Treyarch 'from scratch' build from the start using all that they learned from the last game, PS3 and 360 fanboys would be crapping themselves.

More here:

Sources at bottom of article page.



Savino said:

@Hayabusa so... Your brothers word worth more than a specialized websit who uses software to precise the FPS rate?



Tsusasi said:

@takyon98 I don't know what Wii U version you're playing... did you somehow manage to bypass the update? I have had no such problems... and I was looking for them. I was debating getting the 360 version because I'm pretty sure we're going to miss out on the dlc, but I love the gamepad, pro controller and off-screen play. There has been VERY minimal and VERY infrequent online frame-rate drops, but nothing prolonged or broken. And I haven't had any texture issues. Zero. I just started the single player and so far also no issues. Don't know what to tell ya, but things are fine on my Wii U.



Kaze_Memaryu said:

@ACK Now that you mention, it... that really is the case. But if you have a console and love it, regardless of which it is, you'd want the dev's of a multiplatform title to take your console seriously. Right here this can't be said...
But you're still right - the amount of hate from WiiU owners is just dumb. Activision/InfinityWard/Treyarch could've done much worse (no online, for example).



CaPPa said:

We have Ghosts on the 360 and it has horribly blurry textures and low resolution; so if the 360 is the superior version then it must be really terrible on the PS3 and Wii U! Honestly if the 360 one is 'sharper and cleaner' then PS3 and Wii U versions must be quite close to PS2 and Wii level graphics.

It seems strange because BLOPS2 looked ok on the Wii U.



Norik said:

@mariobro4 Not sure what you're trying to say here. Graphics are one thing, but the game running all choppy in a technically more powerful console is nothing shot of shameful on Activision's side.



Captain_Toad said:

@Norik Oh, I mean the "OMG Look at the detail on the helmet and the arm hair" level.
I didn't mean the "gun is clipping and draw distance is so short" level.
Hope that clears things up.



twistedbee said:

Whatever happened to just buying a game and enjoying it? Why does every little thing need to be scrutinized... So what if a frame rate drops every now and then... Does it really matter if a reflection isn't just right? As long as its not completely unplayable shouldn't we just enjoy the 60 dollar investment instead of breaking it down to some meaningless details?



QuickSilver88 said:

@ACK.....Actually not sure if U have played AC4 on WiiU but the really did a good job on it. i have tried it on ps3 and am playing in it on WiiU and WiiU framerate not nealy as slugish in vongested areas as ps3 was. Textures and effects are better as well. I have played a lot of AC on both xbox and ps3 and sligish framerates arr somewhat the norm in yhe cities. I saw an online video of wiiu ansd it kept showing hiccups in cut scenes but in my actual play there are zero hiccups. There was a huge 1.1gb update that I am sure is a core components install.....I am guessin some of the comparison sites didn't install this update or reviewed before it was available. AC4 on WiiU is a very good port and is the best version thise side on the ps4.



Zael said:

see this video

I think that the wii u version doesn't aim to the 60 fps but to the 40.
Pratically, you don't have too much slow downs, but yes the frate is slower.
But the wii u version runs at 1080p? ps3 and xbox 360?
I'm saying this from about 12 months, the wii u conversions have frame rate problems, but many of those games run at 1080p so can be this one the reason?
In batman ac, ninja gaiden and resident evil I see also slow downs and frameskipping, In call of duty I see only a slower frame rate, but if this is steady then probably you wil not notice during the gameplay



TrueWiiMaster said:

I wouldn't trust Digital Foundry. I used to think they were a good, reliable source, but lately it seems that they're goal is simply to bash Wii U versions of games. For example, they said Splinter Cell ran worst and looked worst on the Wii U, but based on actual footage, the Wii U version clearly runs and looks better than any other console version. Even when they say the Wii U version of a game is good, they try to convince you to buy a different version, usually on the 360.



AceTrainerBean said:

I can't find this game on Wii U in Ireland. It was the same with Batman which is rare to find. I also have not seen the wonderful 101 anywhere and I only saw splinter cell last week.



AceTrainerBean said:

I can't find this game on Wii U in Ireland. It was the same with Batman which is rare to find. I also have not seen the wonderful 101 anywhere and I only saw splinter cell last week.



AJPerko said:

It just stinks, because the Wii U nunchuk/pointer is so superior to dual analogs for these games.... what a shame the rest of it doesn't get the same effort.



tanookisuit said:

I think it's a bit of a mix of Activision again not putting enough true effort into the Nintendo platform again as COD is an easy cash in 'if it works' but also I think DF loves to be most critical and nitpicky of Nintendo too which is unappreciated.



Sir_Shagger said:

I Love COD, but GHOSTS would have to be as Lame as ever, it takes too long to rank up while your being sniped, maps way to big, there is no ping indication. you have to buy your perks.... lame.... when something isn't broke don't try to fix it. Really Activision if you want the younger players to stay interested there needs to be a carrot to persevere not constant despair as you try to rank up. I score the game out of all the COD's 3/10. Lost my interest. Just like Battlefield.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...