I'm a programmer too and there's nothing going on in that game that looks impressive, even the lighting, or rather especially the lighting.  I just noticed what you're talking with the shadows, but the overall lighting model, shading, it's all average.  Even from the looks of trailer, they're not even using a deferred rendering but a global illumination model which takes your argument down another level.  Add to the fact the game's texture work is very poor, low polygon counts, baked physics, there's nothing impressive looking about that game.  Gameplay on the other hand, looks pretty fun.

Not a good one apparently. You failed the test of understanding before you finished your first senence by stating the exact same thing as they, ie. "looks impressive". Doesn't matter whether you like it or how you think it looks. Those are matters of opinion. How it appeals to you is not a matter of the system's technical strength or what is phsycially being done. Thats a matter of the developers design choice and your own desire.

All objects in that games have convex and concave features. How does that translate to a low polygon count? They must be using steep parallax mapping or tesselation the likes of which the world has never seen.

The texture work is very poor? Please explain this because its not saying anything.

Baked phyisics? How?

Impressive? That is 100% your opinion and speaks nothing for the technical side of the game.  Over 90% of your post is your on personal opinion. We are talking about tech, not appeal.

Well let's talk about lighting shall well, since you want to talk technical, the game uses a global illumination model to light the scene.  Light isn't bouncing off of anything, there's no indirect lighting, there's no local lighting.  This is nothing above what current generation of consoles can do, and if you wanna get more technical, Killzone, God of War, Uncharted, Gears of War, Battlefield, all use a form of deferred rendering so you can have local lights and a global lighting all at the same time, both sets of lighting interacting with each other.  P-100 isn't using a deferred lighting and shading, it's using a basic global illumination model.  The game uses phong shading to shade polygons, which is very impressive, which is also what Half Life 2 uses, and did it 10 years ago.  If you can be so kind as to post up a youtube clip that demonstrates dynamic physics modelling in that game, then I'll concede on that point.  The most I've seen are the characters moving around, which we've all seen since 3D modelling first happened in real time 30 years ago.  There are no stage physics, everything that crumbles are pre determined animations.  And as far as you concave models are concerned, here's a screenshot of a bigger model:

Notice the simple textures on this model; there's very little designs in the textures, most of the textures are gradient colours.  There's no parallax mapping, there's no noticeable normal maps, depth maps, or any other form of bump mapping.  Notice the square polygons on his left shoulder, the lack of tesselation.  And on your last point, notice how there's very little concave pieces.  The only thing impressive are the specular highlights, which isn't new tech.

So if you're going to counter argue, bring up some screens supporting your claims that this game is using anything that can't be done with the current set of hardware.  And if you're going to doubt my knowledge, atleast counter argue my points on the lighting and shading, which you've still failed to do.

i will agree about the shadows though.

lol well this has turned into something delightful now hasn't it...even though I don't get what you guys are talking about for the most part, it makes for a fascinating read

What is this implying?

I don't think P-100 is supposed to be a graphically powerful game anyway.

from what i've read CPU speed is much less important when it comes to the performance of the hardware nowadays anyways--though i'm not quite sure why--so yes this topic is basically flamebait

Oh I was just trolling with the lego screens lol that's why I used the RTS mode, after your Uncharted comments I thought this conversation had devolved to that.Tho it does use deffered lighting as seen here http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/20968/519472_full.jpg and here http://s.gamestar.ru/1280/35/lego_star_wars_3_the_clone_wars_286236.jpg. 

You have showed me a bunch of Wii games and then made claims like "it  has heavy physics in use over the whole level" which is not true there are a lot of objects moving arround but none appear to be actual real time physics. The enviromental destruction is all baked, the enemy attack effects throw up heaps of objects but they seem to just be animated as they move the same way each time and disapear before they interact with anything. So no you havent shown me anything that shows a Wii U game that has physics beyond anything this gen. 

As for normal maping you are probably right it probably is using normal mapping rather than bump. I see no evidence of displacement mapping but I can't really tell that from watching a trailer. But you claim that P-100 has texture effects way beyond Uncharted 2 (as a why of dodging my example of baked physics in the building falling over) but Uncharted 2 has normal mapping in fact it also has Parallax Mapping which is more advanced again. It also employs sub-surface scattering and SSAO, as well as a deffered lighting system with HDR rendering. None of which I can see in P-100. And then you wrote off the realtime physics in Uncharted 2 as it uses the same physics simulation that Valve and Havok developed for Half-Life 2 which also happens to be used in Elebits for a handful of objects. But that scene in uncharted has over 100 objects simulated in real time from furnature to losse roof tiles and swinging ligh fixtures, all that while also running Naughty Dog's unique animation blending system that dynamically blends mocaped animations with procedural animation so that Drake shifts his weight and ajusts his footing to the slope of the floor so that he doesn't appear to be floating. All of which is far more advaced technically than anything in P-100. Tho I suppose you could say P-100 looks better to you but that means nothing to your origonal argument.

I'm not going to get into the main argument, as I'm more than willing to admit that I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to make solid arguments on all of those points - I can see that there's more going on that some of you admit, but I'm weak on the details.

But on the part I've quoted, I wanted to make a few points. First of all, if that model didn't have detailed textures, it would have looked plastic, not metallic. That it looks metallic means that it has detailed, albeit fairly monochromatic, textures.

Second of all, you can't pick out a single still image, criticise the design of one model, and then claim that all models are like that.

The ship in that image has a lot more detail, in terms of texture, lighting, maps, and polygonal shaping.

I love how off topic everyone is getting. Then again, the topic was really dumb to begin with, since we already know that lower clocked =/= weaker...