Assassins Creed 4: Black Flag for Wii U? Really?

Is that really gonna work out? I mean will the Wii U be able to handle AC4? Will the Wii U have to run AC4 at a lower quality than the other consoles?

You do realize the game was released for 360 and PS3 as well, right? Oh who am I kidding, we all know you're just a troll.

Yeah of course I know that but is the Wii U powerful enough to handle Assassins Creed 4? My real question is how powerful is the Wii U?

You smell like a troll.

The Wii U is more than capable of playing Assassin's Creed 4 because its hardware is slightly superior than the 360's and PS3's. Please take some time and search up some video comparisons before making yourself look ignorant. Actually, I'll do you the favor.

Thats what I was wondering. We all know that the Nintendo Wii was the lesser console during it's generation, but the Nintendo Gamecube was the most superior during it's generation. I was just wondering if the Nintendo Wii U was a stronger console in comparison.

In terms of hardware, the Wii U is in the same position as the Wii during their respective generations. It's more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but not as powerful as the XBone and PS4.

That never happened

Hardware wise....it was at least bette than the PS2 and Dreamcast, not sure about Xbox though. Persoanlly I thought it had alot of great games too. The sales were just meh though.

@Jaysonguy: Actually, Gamecube was more powerful than ps2. Xbox........ I'm not too sure.

The Xbox was more powerful than the Gamecube, which was more powerful than the PS2/Dreamcast.

Actually, it did. Raw numbers fool people, Gamecube was *slightly* more powerful than Xbox, and was a many times more efficient. It was a console made from the ground up for gaming, compared to a PC dressed like a console. Which at the time, having a unique from the ground up console mattered.

No it wasn't, not at all

The Xbox was the most powerful console. Nintendo's mistakes actually made an already weak product weaker. The Gamecube should have been closer to the Xbox but Nintendo thought they were knowledgeable enough to design an efficient platform. They ignored help from the outside and the Gamecube has a big bottleneck in it that made it harder to develop for.

The WiiU handled AC3 perfectly well. I'm sure AC4 is the same.

The CPU was significantly stronger. All Xbox had for RAM was regular old DDR memory, which paled in comparison to the gamecube's main memory and also had eDRAM which was super fast. The GPU while not having programmable shader's, could do anything the xbox gpu could through fixed functions.

Xbox may have had more RAM, but it was so inefficient with it. It took 16mb's just to cull a Z-buffer, where as the GC's eDRAM took care of that.

Also if you look at the spreadsheet's, that makes things even muddier. MS massively fudged numbers are of course going to look better than Nintendo's ultra conservative estimates.

Lastly, read this - http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479

Xbox being the most powerful console is pure myth and misunderstanding. All that said, they were in the same ballpark of course, GC only had a slight lead.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about these "mistakes", but the only thing I can think of which isn't really a mistake is that the GPU could've had programmable shader's, but by the time that option was available the gamecube was too far into development. So it's more like a "what if".

And like I said the fixed functions could do anything Xbox could, even if that something was easier to do on Xbox.

Alright, so the question I asked in this thread was if the Wii U was as weak in comparison as the Wii, using Assassins Creed 4 as an example (a very horrible one, my bad). I felt that Nintendo began to have a reputation as the "lesser" console during the X360/PS3/WII generation, but this surely wasn't the case during the GC/XBOX/PS2 generation. I was wondering if Nintendo stepped up their game and decided to focus more on the hardware and power of their console rather than all the accessories. So far, it seems that the Wii U is a pretty impressive machine.

That's a really good read. Nice find!

Considering the PS4/X1 versions are just slightly prettier versions of the same game that HAS to run on lower hardware like PS3/360, and the Wii U is more powerful than those two, than no the Wii U will have little issue running it at all.

@Chozofication: Power on paper means exactly nothing. If you can't get it on screen, no one will know, or care. You could make a valid argument that on paper, the Atari Jaguar was much more powerful than a SNES, a far bigger gap than exists between Xbox and GC. Yet the Jaguar couldn't actually put that on to a screen with enough regularity for anyone to actually notice or care. GC wasn't able to produce games into the wild that looked much better than the average Xbox game, and the first and second party games looked notably better than anything on the GC.

Wii U is a crap ton stronger then the mass amount of gamers thinks. Sure PS4 is the strongest, and Xbox One is abit stonger. Yet You cant use a damn multiplat to judge a systems power. Wii U has more 1080p and 60fps games in the line up as of right now. Xbox One is having BIG issues getting a game to run at that. PS4 also hasn't got much.

Though I suspect your trolling.

@IAAGguy: I really don't know what are you expecting for, other than calling for certain troll to bash on Nintendo.

AC4 works just fine in the Wii U, is a GREAT looking game for the most part as it has some weird shadows and some reported a unstable framerate. For me it looks and plays great so, if you hadn't see the comparison video you can as well go out and rent it.

Again, you already know the Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 and 360, and Ubi themselve said this version (as well as the Watch Dogs one) look better than the last gen versions but not as good as the other two next gen consoles.

@Chozofication nice link very interesting read