The one liborex posted. It's a bird flying over water in a Japanese garden. With absolutely no game play.

There have been several reports of missing partials and looking worse than the other consoles. Which could be the case because it's streaming video to the Gamepad, eating processing power while doing so.

...have I been trolled?  Is this a troll thread?  What is going on in here?

I don't know if you can really say Wipeout is graphically intensive.  F Zero and Wipeout are very similar, I would say, and both run with pretty decent graphics and are running 60fps.  I think it gives the illusion that it's doing more than what it is, while in Puddle you actually have a lot of particles moving with the fluid itself.  The physics look much more complex.  

You're grasping at straws. The PS3 isn't really that much more powerful than the XBox 360. Slightly, probably, but not a XBox vs PS2 difference.  
Now, I didn't take the Dreamcast in account, but even if I did, I'd advise you to go get your eyes checked.

Sure, the leap is smaller from N64 to the Dreamcast, but it is gigantic compared to what the Wii U is compared to the PS3.

Here's a quick reminder:

Among the N64's best:

Among the Dreamcast's best:

It's not even comparable.  The leap between the 2 was the "normal" gen leap.

First, having no gameplay doesn't mean the system can't accomplished that, and second, you doubt that the video wasn't in real time, which makes no sense, why would Nintendo showed a pre-render cutscene? If it was pre-render even the Wii could do it...There's also the Zelda tech demo (which looked amazing imo) and that was definitely in real time because you could change the camara and the lights.

Almost all developers have praised the graphical capabilities of the console (comparing it the current gen mind you), the only thing negative they have mentioned is the "processing power", because it almost pretty certain the processor have a low clock speed, that's why the system have a GPGPU which will comprise for the low clock speed and will help in other stuff, it's something new for the devs so it takes time to get used to and make the most out of it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/06/10/batman-arkham-city-looks-worse-on-wii-u-than-ps3/
http://wiiudaily.com/2012/08/assassins-creed-3-wii-u-missing-features/

A few examples I've managed to find. I guess well know for sure when Lens of truth get's of hold of them.
Check out the Forbes article for sure, cause the Wiiu version looks pretty bad.

No offense here. I'm just stating the facts that your argument is entirely made up. I'm sure all the people you know would say that, because they would say a CG movie looked worse than a PS3/360 game if it were running on the Wii U. Their opinons are based on bias, not fact. I doubt they even analyzed the graphics.

What I"m saying, on the other hand, "IS" based on fact. All Wii U games at least demonstrate higher resolutions textures even when running at the same resolution as the PS3/360 untop of more fluid animation.

In the forbes article: 

"UPDATE: Eurogamer has a more extensive look at the Wii U and has a couple comparison screenshots for Batman: Arkham City. There are some definite, though hardly revolutionary, improvements in the shots over their current-gen counterparts."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-wiiu-e3-2012

They explained in the article the improvements over the HD twins. Not extremely big but still noticeable. They also mentioned the Wii U version of Batman have Anti-aliasing: 

"We're also fairly sure that the basic console 720p presentation has been augmented with FXAA or some equivalent post-process anti-aliasing, which is present in all the gameplay clips, but disabled when "detective vision" is in play. The PS3 and 360 versions feature no anti-aliasing at all."

In the AC article:

"Masters says that the Wii U version is “99% identical” to the other consoles."

Most likely because of time constraints.

The Zelda demo looked great, and I really hope that's what they go for with the next Zelda. I couldn't get into the two the where released this gen.

Looking at specs it's should, but it won’t hold that title of best looking for long, and gloating over little things like puddle, is kind of pointless. The game looks fantastic on vita as well. But it isn't a fun game to play.

Sorry, I'm just not impressed with the Wiiu's graphical capabilities, yet. I’ll know for sure next month. I’m half temped to pick up a multi-platform game on both Wiiu and PS3 just the see the difference for myself.  

Who knows why, maybe to say see we can look good too. To build hype and get people believing that it’s more than what it is. Besides it’s a focused demo, It know what’s it going to render and when, Several ticks could have been used to make that video look fantastic, but if you added game play to it, it would crumble. That’s why it matters.

The Forbes one is a great example. Try reading the update. Troll journalism at its finest.