Honestly, to me it sounds like an excuse from the DS2 game designer as to why the game will be graphically the same across all consoles. While it's a lame excuse, it does make perfect sense from the developer's standpoint.

Based on even the most modest WiiU tech rumors, we all know that games could look and run at least a little better, but why would the developers put in the extra effort for a game that will almost certainly sell less; if nothing else due to a much smaller install base? The fact that they are utilizing the controller and the game will probably still run smoother with the same level of graphics is all that we can realistically expect from 3rd party multiplats in the first year or so, unless Nintendo specifically offered special incentives to devs for a graphically superior WiiU version (and let's be honest; DS2 hardly warrants that).

Come E3, if Nintendo shows 1st party games such as Pikmin, Waverace, Metroid or a new Galaxy that are indeed in a league of their own graphically, then we'll know for sure that these guys were just lazy, and hopefully we can expect more effort from 3rd parties in the future.

Dreamcast is the winner. I'm not joking, in my heart it is clear the Dreamcast was the best console of it's generation and even compared with this generation. It had great games, a great hardware - and was doomed.

Judged with nearly every possible fact-based metric the Dreamcast was a totally losing. If we resort to such vague definitions, every console wins. Even the Virtual Boy had a unique experience for it's players. My heart bleeds to admit it, but on an objectve standpoint the Dreamcast lost in nearly every perspective. (Hmm, most Shenmue-games.) And objective the Wii has won in many categories (by far not as good as the PS2) while the competitors are behind.

If the Wii U was significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3 they'd use the PC version assets (why not? They have to make it for PC too) or at least let the game run at 1080p.

Pikmin, Metroid, Mario etc. will look great on Wii U ... but not neccesarily because the hardware is in any marginal way that much better than the 360/PS3. It's just because Nintendo's artists are pretty darn good, if they can make nice looking Wii games, the jump to even 360/PS3 level power is going to be huge for them and they'll make some eye pleasing stuff.

Miyamoto already said he didn't think the Wii U would neccessarily be much more powerful than the PS3/360, so these comments aren't even anything out of the relam of what we've heard before.

Most likely in horse power 360/PS3 = GameCube/XBox and the Wii U = Wii. Slightly better in certain ways, more RAM, but certainly "on par".

That doesn't really make sense though even if they were being lazy they could bring PC assets to the Wii U version if it was powerful enough. Obviously it's probably not.

Mr. Miyamoto said all this months ago, maybe people should've actually listened.

Wii U is going to more powerful. The third party support will be all ports but will have extras b/c of the tablet. Nintendo will have one or two in house titles ready for launch. But except for about 5 million hardcore N-fans and about 10 million semi, the price of the console + accessories + software is going to keep it from being the success that they hope.

yea its gonna be another decade behind. but it means nintenfanboys can see what they have been missing i guess.
the good news is the wii u is extremely dev friendly so games can be made easily unlike sony consoles.

1.  You're forgetting, though, that if the game's utilization of the controller involves displaying the game twice (which WiiU is capable of), it would limit the resolution output, as was brought up in a WiiU article a couple of weeks ago.  Perhaps they feel that the console res is good enough considering what extras the controller brings (or, they're just lazy).

2.  Agreed; if more Wii games looked even close to as good as the Galaxy games, the Wii wouldn't have as bad of a rap as it has concerning visuals.

3.  Miyamoto (and Nintendo in general) have been known to play it conservative when it comes to graphics boasting.  They downplayed the Gamecube's graphical performance too, until Factor 5 got ahold of it and publicly praised its capabilities.  In any case, we'll know more at E3.

4.  If the rumors are indeed true, then your comparison here is terribly inaccurate:  The GC/Xbox to Wii difference is much closer than a PS360 to a POWER7 CPU & custom R700 GPU with much better RAM/eDRAM is.

I think the bottom line is you really want all those next-gen Unreal Engine 4 games and need to play in 1080p or whatever ... simply put, buy a PS4 or XBox 720. The Wii U is not going to be a "game changer" in this respect.

If you're satisfied with current visuals (which are pretty good), like your Nintendo franchises, and also like to play Wii style casual games when family/friends are over ... Wii U is for you.

Because Nintendo specifically designed the Wii U to be easy for 3rd parties who are used to primarily working on 360 and PC as their lead platforms to develop for.  The fact that many developers are able to get full games up and running on the system in mere weeks is a testament to that.

Of course, Nintendo could have taken the Sony route and went with bleeding edge technology and a custom CPU / GPU architecture that takes years and a ton of money for developers to become familiar with... but we all know how that would work out.

Oh, I forgot about the Atari-era. As vgchartz doesn't offer numbers for these times, I have to trust the numbers you present. That makes my previous statement incorrect, but my point stands, that PS3 and XBOX360 are incredibly successful for consoles that lose in sales to the Wii.

Thanks for your correction and the numbers that are not covered by vgchartz.