"Looks better" is 100% a matter of opinion. What is actually being done technically is not.

You are making an analysis based on design bias. That garden was, in fact, playable at E3 on some machines. There were sections where the bird would stop and people would look around with it using the Upad as its eyes while the main TV stayed focused on the bird and the environment around it, so you are wrong. It was real gameplay.

Your definiton of next gen is not defined and seems to be based entirely upon your preferred graphics style rather than technical knowledge.

It doesn't matter if that tech demo was playable it still was a tech demo not a real game which like I said has characters, enemies, AI and gameplay mechanics. And I did said that "personally" U3 and GOW3 looks better and in real gameplay. So far Nintendo hasn't even announced a game that really looks next gen like for example Star Wars 1313, why?

You can argue that the Samaritan, Agnis philosophy and Unreal Engine 4 demos didn't have gameplay, AI or any other mechanic, so it's the same as the Wii U's bird demo (In fact you could used the GamePad in the bird demo). Besides, to my knowledge all those engines were shown on high end PCs, that doesn't guarantee the next xbox or PS4 will be able run those exact graphics without scaling down.

I know, thats why I said only time will tell, the last part I wrote "but the answer is yes" was a joke. Tech demos are tech demos not real games.

lol ok ;)

The PS3 vs 360 argument was brought in because you said I was comparing "this gen's best" with the Wii U's launch titles. The PS3 and 360 are called HD twins for a reason. So I could put 360 games into the account if needed. 

Still, looking at vids of Soul Calibur and Sonic Adventure, and comparing those games to N64's best, the results are the same. There's a huge gap between the 2 gens.

Now, looking at that bird tech demo from Nintendo, and comparing it to what we see right now on current consoles, not a really big leap. 
When I look at tech demos from years past, like the one from Squaresoft where they rendered the dancing scene from Final Fantasy VIII using the PS2, that was showing a huge leap.  Nintendo's one, not so much.

Sure, it is better than current gen consoles, but not the leap we're used to see.  I look at Resistance 1 for the PS3, a launch game, and I look at ZombiU, and I see an improvement in some parts, but certaily not one as great as the ones from prior gen to gen jumps.

I hope that atleast all of the smaller games are 1080p60 next gen .. I think it's laughable even games like Mahjong were being made in 720p this gen

Your point is still valid but to be fair to the comparison, Ubisoft admitted they were not trying to push ZombieU graphically at all as they wanted to keep costs down whereas Insomniac were indeed trying to push the PS3 very hard.

Again, your point is valid, but there also exists and intentional reason why the gap isn't very big.

That's because your TV is 720.

I have a 1080 Samsung 42" that I play from about four feet away, and yes, I can tell when something's in 1080. The difference between Gran Turismo 5 and Burnout or NFS in graphical quality is noticeable. Hell, I can tell the difference on the XMB menus - in 1080p, the fonts are smaller and the options take up less space. It's like the picture's been 'zoomed out', because more 'space' has been freed up by on the 42 inches by using more pixels per inch.

Well I'd hope it was 1080p 60 fps.

Heck in my opinion this just reminds us how small (relatively) the gap is between 360/PS3 and Wii U. Wii U games are looking on par if not better than their current gen ports (which is impressive because the Wii U game isn't optimized as much due to being new architecture) but at the same time all games should be 1080p 60 fps if they aren't pushing graphics. There is absolutely no excuse for Pikman 3 or even COD to not run at full resolution and 60 fps.