What's so impressive about the Zelda tech demo? You do know its a tech demo right? The actual game won't look that good when it comes out in 2015.

Anyway for all we know the dev kits used to make the Zelda tech demo were more powerful than the ones they have now. It happens all the time that they lower the specs of a console. It happened with the PS3 and that still ended up at $600.

@bold
The only people not believing it are Nintendo fans. So I guess it keeps the thread from being boring.

Well to me both demos didn't look better than God of War 3 so...

That has nothing to do with the graphical capabilities of the system. How the GoW devs used the PS3 to offer such amazing visuals is something they will be able to do on the WiiU (even more easily), using their Santa Monica magic. The same could be said about Naughty Dog. Put them on WiiU and you'll see fancy visuals too. The Zelda demo wasn't there to show hyper-realism, since Zelda is still very cartoony in the demo (when compared to the likes of drake or Kratos).

Rather, the emphasis was on lighting, reflections and particles. But that's something a Nintendo fan knows because we actually listened to the guides explain the tech demo. Also keep in mind it makes use of the controller in advanced ways, and we know such software will not be able to make use of the system's power to its maximum capability. The Zelda tech demo simply shows what the system can offer, and by it you can tell it is above most current HD game software. To compare with the biggest games like GoW, you would need an apples to apples comparison. Put a full game on the WiiU with realistic graphics (non-cartoony) and then compare.

I'm not saying you're wrong, as it's obviously possible, but history would suggest otherwise.

Easy to look good when you have no collision detection,no AI and no input to handle.

But... but... you're a Nintendo fan. :(   You're not supposed to make sense or be right.

Even if you show me these pics, I refuse to consider the facts!

Then how could someone see that the demos are more advanced than anything on PS3 and Xbox 360 when there is hardly anything comparable to it (for example a SMG type game)
I know what the demos were trying to show, but saying that lighting, reflections and particles are much more advanced by (purposely) sacrifying detailed models and textures is hardly an excuse.
So from what I can see. The full product "God of War 3" looks better than the demos. That doesn't meant that some individual effects might look better in the Wii U demos. However I'm not yet conviced that Wii U graphics are that much better than PS360 judging from the demos.

Last gen we got a Killzone 2 trailer that blew anything available out of the water and it fully delivered. As I said in a different thread, the Samaritan demo is the only one so far that truly looks like next gen to me and that was still done with a modified UE3. UE4 will deliver even more.
Though I'm saying that Wii U will be unable to run UE4 games.

I was about to point out the same thing ...

Sony and Nintendo have very different approaches to tech demos. While Sony often shows off pre-rendered footage of what they expect games to look like, Nintendo tends to show off the capabilities of early builds of their new graphics technology running on early builds of their hardware. While it can be argued that Sony's games almost match their tech demos in the middle of the generation, Nintendo's games usually surpass their tech demos at launch.

1. Contradictory information from developers that have publicly given their names.

2. Component details that suggest more power.

3. HTPC based market products that are more powerful.

4. Bulk manufacturing of products with more power (means lower costs of more powerful products).

5. Anonymous quote lingo sounds fishy (developer tech heads don't speak like the quotes do).

6. Simple logic of known technical facets do not agree with anonymous quotes (shader 4.1 producing fewer shader capabilities than shader model 3.0 at same clock rate?).


Do I need to go on?

Of course, this question of power is stupid...

DS, Wii, 3DS, less powerful what rivals systems and we know the results !

Most important is the game and the creativity. And in this way, Nintendo is always the better (after, you like or not, it's an other question).

I saw the PS4+Vita could make the same result Wii U ? Ok, but how much to buy these two systems ? 250 (or 300) euros + 600 euros (perhaps more) ? Thr Wii U will be probably avalaible for 300 euros or a little bit more ! And I don't speak of the Games cost...

I think Nintendo is really in good position with this HD System...