It's a good comparision specially if you saw the orignal gt video on high res. dont just go and judge libro's video alone.
While i agree kotaku is full of shit, it's missing lighting effects not all of it,  just like the ram thing the extra power of wiiU could enhace the already eeffects it has even when missing some of them ( i doubt they will be many considering a port form this gen consoles). Hence probably the 99% comparision with could include downgrades and upgrades. Something i tought of is that the game actually applies some good MSAA so people just confuse resolution with smooth edges.

Im pretty sure it probably wont have 60fps, but also some one who is saying textures and edges are better on ps3 while having some videos shwoing otherwise doesnt really add to the credibility of such guy.

I am pretty sure that AC3 uses a differed lighting system so that rules out MSAA, as they don't work together. I would guess that the Wii U version is probably lacking the postprocess AA at the moment which would explain the comments about smother edges and more pleasing textures (to some people) on the PS3 version as postprocess AA blurs everything giving it a smooth look, that would also explain why some people thought that the Wii U version looks sharper. Some people don't like the soft look that post AA gives the image where as some people love it. I would assume that if AA is missing from the Wii U version it will be added by launch. But without direct feed capture of the Wii U version it's impossible to tell.

 I have seen true direct feed of the PS3 version and it looks a lot better than the crappy stream, hence the stupididty of comparing the crappy stream. 

The video I posted was using the differt feed, not a stream of it. Capture your own photo from what you think is your "true" direct feed and I guarantee you the differences will still be the same. The Wii U version was more fluid which means it was running at a higher frame rate and the Wii U version had higher res textures.

If the rest of what you said it true then that would mean that they are intentionally nerfing the Wii U version keep from Alienating the PS3 owners.

Im sure it was allowed in later version of AC in PC at resoultion below 1080. For the textures difference it would have to be more th texture filter rather than the AA to give such diference. And i belive most people prefer the smooth of AA than the jaggied edges even in post proccesing , but this would be assuming about the "masses".

Also it looks better in quality but the differences are still noticeable, specially textures, so the comparaision itself its fine for me. Resolution and framrate will pe possible to tell once we saw they real directfootage.

FXAA really blurs everything 

http://images.eurogamer.net/articles//a/1/3/8/0/0/0/0/test1_noAA.png

http://images.eurogamer.net/articles//a/1/3/8/0/0/0/0/test1_FXAA.png

Look at the rock on the left side, the version without AA looks a lot noiser while the FXAA version makes everything look smooth and blury. The console implementation won't be as strong as that but it is the same basic effect. 

I gave you plenty of reasons why PS4/720 won't be a huge generational leap.

It's a launch title. It's forgivable.

Not all is lost, as I mentioned in another thread:

I have a friend who works in QA for Ubisoft and he told that last week they got the AC3 PS3 version to test (they have been working on the 360 one for a few weeks now) but the Wii U version has not arrived yet, that means that the development team is still working on it and since it would most likely release 2 or 3 weeks later than the other ones makes sense.

That is good news because bugs and freezing errors are going to be removed and missing effects and other graphical problems can also be fixed.

Now that is also bad news, because it could mean a small delay for the game depending on the final release date, or a compromise between making the framerate really smooth or adding the effects instead of both.

Im not saying your wrong, but im not saying your right either, especially since you cannot see into the future. Ive seen some arguments and reasons why it will be a generational leap.  BUt this isnt about PS4/720, this is about Wii U which you've pretty much said is not a generational leap which is all ive been trying to say anyway

It is amazing to me how if games look different on the PS3 and Xbox 360, it is sometimes attributed to developer issues and sometimes attributed to hardware differences.

Meanwhile, with developers having issues programming games the WiiU -- thought to be 1.5x to 2.5x times more powerful (graphically) than the current consoles -- compared to systems that they have been working on for six years -- the conversation of some turns to "Nintendo sucks" or "Nintendo is doomed."

As for Ubisoft's commitment, at least it is bringing its current games to the console -- even if they are ports. That is more than some other publishers. And they will have 2-4 weeks after the PS3/X360 version is done to try to fine tune the WiiU version.

I plan on buying this game for the WiiU 1 -- unless I hear it is broken. Instead, I have heard some commentators say the WiiU version is the one to buy.

Mike from Morgantown