The Wii U vs PS360 launch comparisons may be misleading.

[Soundwave]

osed125 said:

Soundwave said:

osed125 said:

Soundwave said:
The PS3/360 were future proofed because of their bleeding edge specs for the time.

They were bred to be marathon runners.

Wii U is definitely not that. It needed a good start much moreso.

Imo the games will decided that, not the graphical advantages. 

Even if that were true, which I don't think is entirely accurate (games like CoD, BioShock, Battlefield, etc. would not be the same experience on lesser hardware), Nintendo is out of luck here because third parties don't give two hoots about them. 

And Nintendo is somewhat their own worst enemey here because they refuse to let go of the Mario/Zelda/DK/Pokemon safety blanket. Are they willing to invest real marketing and development dollars on an IP to attract new audiences now that the casual gaming bubble looks to have burst for them?

We'll see. 

I will keep saying this and I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but games are the most important, not graphics. 

Nintendo will need to play a big part in accomplish that, that's for sure. Looking back at the PS2 (the weakest console in terms of power during that gen) and the console took all of the third parties attention and people didn't care the graphics were worst (just to give one example: RE 4). I'm not saying history will repeat itself with the Wii U (after all I don't have a crystal ball), but last gen brought us so many surprises that anything could happen, nothing is set in stones.

The thing is you're assuming graphics simply = a prettier image. 

That's really not the case though, a console's horsepower dramatically impacts things like frame rate, animation, on-screen characters, scope of the world, physics, dynamic effects (explosions, weather, rain particles, etc. etc.). 

Would you want to play Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube or on the DS' chipset?