Maybe you should check the forum out before you post. Beyond 3D isn't just a normal forum site and they tend to have high level tech discussions with knowledgable users. The majority of VGChartz posters would probably be banned for simply being tech ignorant, but it's a useful starting point if you want to educate yourself on tech.

"Perhaps more controversial than the rebooted storyline is the fact that Capcom enlists UK developer Ninja Theory for the new game, choosing a 30 frames-per-second update over the smooth 60FPS presentation of past titles. " http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dmc-face-off

"Previous games in the series, such as Devil May Cry 4, run at 60 FPS on consoles. " http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/05/why-dmc-runs-30-fps-on-consoles-according-to-capcom/

If you've played DMC4 you know Nero fights anywhere from 3 to 6 enemies at a time. I could only find screens of 2 enemies on Eurogamer, they offer the best quality captures so I stuck with that one. Bayonetta 2 seems to be doing the exactly the same.

Draw distance - yes, though its simulated. You cant run into that distance and explore it. Just like you cant explore Nepal in Uncharted 2 or the city in Final Fantasy XIII-2s boss fight.

More objects on screen- No, what objects?

The textures  are standard 7th gen fare. You cant argue about that in any way. Point out any screenshot or any scene in any footage of this game that proves otherwise. Theres no obvious difference like the difference in Most Wanted U for example.

Bayonetta 2 is 720p man. Have. You. Seen. The. Video? You can pause at literally any point and see them 720p jaggies

Limititng myself to DMC4 because its the only 720p60fps hack n slash game I know of bar Bayonetta 1. Again, a game from so early in the 7th gen can hold up so well to the U. And yet somehow the gap between the U and the X1/PS4 "isnt so big anymore".

Whats to stop me from saying the EXACT SAME thing about the PS3 and 360? The 360 has a tesselation engine afterall, it had a superset of Direct X 9.0c bringinig it close to DX10 (in theory). The PS3 could use its SPUs to pull off fast MLAA which until recently hadn't been used even in the PC space. I could point to The Last of Us and Beyond and scream "diminishing returns", that doesnt change a damn thing.

Why does the WiiU get a free pass despite being in the exact same performance level as the 7th gen HD twins? Because of no screen tearing? Because of nice splashes in Trine 2? Are you for real?

Like I said RAM will just allow for more scale (Bayo 2 uses) and better textures (which Bayo2 does not use). Same can be said for X. Fantastic scale, everything else is standard fare, will probably be 720p30fps. The WiiUs raw GPU horespower is in line with the 7th gen period.

It shows in mutiplats. It shows in first party games. It shows in HD remasters (Wind Waker vs ZOE). You cannot escape that simple fact.

"The PS3 and 360 are capable of producing graphics similar to the PS4 and X1. The gap isn't that big" said no one ever

The Wii U can though, so what's your point?

I guess he didn't realize that it was a good thing considering that makes PS fans the least ignorant on tech ...

A year later and the Wii U is still competing with the visuals and performance of the 360 and PS3, thats my point.

Its only real advantage is its RAM, which will add to scale but wont affect visuals in the slightest bar textures. RAM doesnt allow it to handle complex geometry. RAM wont allow it to push 1080p. RAM wont allow it to run advanced lighting. RAM wont allow it to run advanced shaders. RAM wont allow it to render thousands of particles on screen at a smooth framerate. Thats all bound to the GPU.  As mentioned above its GPUs raw throughput is in the same league as the playstation 3 and 360, even if you pick the 352 gflops.

DigitalFoundry accurately predicted that the Wii Us GPU is equivalent to a 4650HD in PC terms. This explains NIntendos own games being 720p60 rather than 900p60 or 1080p60. This explains 3rd party games sticking to 720p30. The 4770 and 4850 are out of the question otherwise every 7th gen port would be 60fps easily. Nintendo could hit 900p60 easily with that power. The WiiU simply does not have it.

Nintendoland, 3D World, NSBU and DKTF are all 720p60. Pikmin 3 is 720p30. WWHD is 1080p30 a game with high res textures (hello RAM) and bloom. PS2 HD remakes by inhouse studios on the PS3 managed to be 1080p, 60FPS with bloom, alpha, AA, VSYNC and Bokeh DOF (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-konami-remade-zoe-hd-remaster). Im detecting a pattern here. What more proof do you need?

Theres a huge difference between a 4650(WiiU) and the 7790(X1) and 7870(PS4). Theres just no way of spinning it. The systems graphics and performance will be in a completely different leauge. DirectX11 and GPGPU extentions wont magically increase its performance by a factor of two or anything, the 360 GPU supported tesselation for example but it was still bound by its base power. 

CPU intensive games or scenes with lots of NPCs or action on the screen cause its framerate to plummet in most games, its CPU is on par if not slightly worse than the 7th gen. At least 3 different high profile developers have said this on the record.

Ive watched the 600MB 60fps Bayonetta 2 video. It has great quality, and shows the games excellent framerate and scale. However, it has standard 7th gen textures and geometry. No antialiasing to speak of and based on the jaggies I think another so called 1080p Wii U game will end up being 720p. The flashback from Bayo 1 in the begining of the trailer doesnt look out of place in the slightest, like seriously.

How people can claim that a machine so close to the 7th gen can produce visuals similar to the X1 and PS4 is beyond me. If you truly believe that then the same holds true for the PS3 and 360, since they are in the same league afterall. It cant be true for the U and not be true for the 7th gen HD twins. Of course no one says that about the 7th gen HD twins but people continue to insist with the Wii U, it doesnt make sense.