What if The WiiU's rumored AAA Game is Kingdom hearts 3?

[Kami]

sc94597 said:

Kami said:

We haven't played Xenoblade X and being bigger doesn't mean it's more populated and such. Skyrim didn't need to be big because you either walked everywhere or fast traveled. The world of skyrim was full of villages, different regions, monuments, quest, caves etc. The first Xenoblade... ehhhh not so much it was mainly exploring from point a to point b. Smash isn't graphically impressive and it has no real time effects, physics or post processing affects, no AA or hyper simulated textures... In other words it's a very simple game so having 8 playing on one screen is easy. League of Legends runs really well on the HD4670, I have a friend with an athlon notebook and he runs the game on low at 60 fps all the time. 

If the Wii U GPU really was pushing 550 gigaflops then it would be than enough to render Wind Waker HD, Bayonetta 2, and evn Xenoblade X at 60 fps. The Wii U CPU could easily handle a GPU pushing around 700 gigaflops but that's the limit. If the Wii Us GPU was really more powerful than what people are claiming then we would see it. We haven't yet, multiplats perform terrible and the only HD games running at 60 fps are simple cartoon games.

With all of that said it's not a problem with the Wii U I'm happy with my purchase but I'm not gonna over estimate it. The Wii U is about as powerful as my phone in reality. 

Who said anything about bigger? Xenoblade X obviously has higher resolution textures, larger animated models with plenty more polygons than Skyrim's Dragons or Mammoths, very dense forests, and similar texture quality when it comes to character models. You said low-level game by the way. I gave you smash, which is more impressive than League of Legends which also lacks pretty muchall of those things you mentioned, and has low polygon characters and lower resolution textures than Smash. Additionally, it drops to around 50 fps consistently on an HD 4670. 

Also, the limiting factor for the Wii U in terms of frame-rate is its CPU not its GPU. If it had a CPU that didn't bottleneck the system it would run Xenoblade X at 60 fps, and Windwaker HD would likely remain at 30 fps, even with a better CPU, because the original played at 30fps, and often you can get glitches by increasing frame-rate (see Dark Souls PC version.) Bayonetta 2 already runs at 60 fps (with drops.) An HD 4670 would likely see similar performance. A 4670 only runs DMC4 at 40 fps 1080p, 56 fps 800p, a game which is much uglier than Bayonetta 2 with similar assets. 

The rest of your post is pulling bullshit out of your ass, sorry. Where are you getting all of these conclusions from? 

Pulling out of my ass? Ok lol I'll play a long. Bayonetta 2 does not run at 60 fps by the way just becasue you hit 60 fps every now and then when things are not happening does not make it 60 fps. If that were the case tomb raider uns at 60 fps on the PS4 which it does not.

Lets compare a Wii U to my phone (G3)

The Wii U GPU runs at 550mhz, my phone runs at 578mhz. (G3 wins)

The Wii U has 320 ALUs, the G3 has 128. (Wii U wins)

The Wii U GPU can handle 4.4 GPix/s, the G3 has 4.64 GPix/s. (G3 wins)

The Wii U most likely handles 350 gigaflops, the G3 GPU  handles 166.5 (Wii U wins)

Before I even continue do you know how GPU and CPU specs actually add up or do you just know the internet defintion of all of these? If you were to open up the Wii U would you know what your looking at and how to analyze it? I'm asking because if you do then we can actually get somewhere with all of this spec talk. If not, well I'm more than happy to explain :)