http://www.product-reviews.net/2012/06/18/zombiu-on-wii-u-puts-resident-evil-6-to-shame-in-realism-stakes/

As for "cartoony looking game", you're clearly very, very ignorant if you think cartoony means not difficult to do graphically. Try actually watching it, and thinking about all of what is necessary to produce such graphics so smoothly.

thanks for the link.

I  found a funny comment on there:

I checked the vids featured in that website and the game looks worst than RE6 really.   It looks even worst than the target render the showed at e3.  Here I put the videos so everyone can compare RE6 and ZombieU graphics: EDIT: VIDS NOT WORKING.  SEARCH FOR THEM IN YOUTUBE LOL.

"As for cartoony looking game, you're clearly very, very ignorant if you think cartoony means not difficult to do graphically. Try actually watching it, and thinking about all of what is necessary to produce such graphics so smoothly."

P-100 is a crappy cartoony looking game, which looks like an original XBOX game in HD.   Even though I dont know why you began talking about "difficulty", In this case considering that the game does not look any good, I would think it is not difficult to do.   RAINBOW MOON ON PSN has graphics on par with this game.

Here is the official video of P-100 and some screens, taken in HD, from it.

Video of Rainbow Moon (a turn based RPG)

Strawman argument. Fallacy use failure. No where did I say or infer that I was talking about the trailer. Any form of common sense would point to me talking about the gameplay.

The Art Style doesn't alter the level of graphical fidelity or technical capabaility in use. Shading, phsyics and effects on that scale are not possible on the 360 and PS3.

You apparently don't even know how to discern graphical detail. Why is it always people like this who are the most vocal about graphics? Its boggles the mind how people can be so ornery in regards to something when they know next to nothing about what they are talking about.

I'll just chauk it up to a failed attempt at trolling.

Check my previous post for P-100 "AMAZING" graphics.   RE6 and ZombiU vids are not working, but if search for gamplay videos for both games on youtube, there is absolutely no way in hell you would say that ZombiU looks better than RE6.

I rest my case. You know nothing about grahpics.

Whether or not something "looks better" to you is purely your opinon and a matter of design choice/art direction.

We are not talking about what you prefer. We are talking about the techincal aspetcs. The number of shaders in use, the fluditiy of the animation, the number of frames in the animation, the frame rate being rendered altogther, lighting diverity, polygon count, geomtric complexity, amount of different effects running at once. Those are all technial aspects. Thsoe are what decides how powerful a system is.

Whether or not ZombiU looks as good as RE6 has absolutely nothing to do with technical power.

On the P-100 stuff, I won't bother responding, because if you can't see why the graphics of that game, as generated, aren't trivial to generate, and why your comparison isn't a fair one, then no amount of presenting evidence on this forum will enlighten you. So I'll go right to the main issue...

They weren't target renders. Not sure where you got that from. Pretty sure that Ubisoft even said in an interview that it was generated using the actual engine and actual game assets, but it's late and I can't be bothered finding it.

And you seem to fail to understand what we're talking about. We're not talking about overall feel of the game, but technological quality. You know, the one that puts The Conduit ahead of Metroid Prime 3? It's a question of how difficult it would be to replicate it with the other systems, and as much as you might think that ZombiU looks aesthetically low quality, it's rather clearly higher quality in terms of technical elements.

We know the amount of cores, we know the amount of cache memory and we know the architecture being used,so...

Apparently Power 7 uses 8 instructions per cycle, per core, based off 12 execution units and using 4 threads per core. Assuming 3 GHz, the Wii-U theoretically could pack 24 GFLOPS per core and 72 GFLOPS total, just about the same the X360 manages with the Xenon - setting it's extra vector units aside - but with twice the amount of possible physical threads and twice the cache. So... maybe is a bit slower but more versatile? It could surely use the extra punch in the GPU to cover it's deficiency on number crunching compared to the Xenon at least.

Also, someone posting earlier in the thread got it wrong. The Xenon and the CBE weren't "low CPUs with high clocks"; their design was pretty much top of the line when they released, but their clocks were relatively low compared to what the Power architecture usually achieves. The same, to an extent, goes for the Wii-U.

The funniest thing about these people is that they'll also reject something like Super Mario Galaxy because it's "not HD", and therefore can't have good graphics. As though resolution is what controls how good something looks.

The video in the Nintendo E3 conference is a target render.   You can see that the quality of the graphics and animations in the trailer are way better than in the gameplay vids.

I understand what you are talking about, but what is the point on having better technical elements if the game does not looks like it.  I still think that P-100 could be easily ported to the 360 or PS3.