The developer said these games are very CPU heavy and they've yet to learn the full ins and outs of the system.  So using brute clock speed in a PS3/X360 can work but not on Wii U.  You have to rework that part of your game engine to utilize the work flow across each CPU cycle* which can be a tryign task when tryign to reach a console launch deadline.

* to illustrate how this works, I'm going to use a series of figures purely for demonstrational purposes.   They in no way accurately depct the real figures but it can give you a sense of how to handle the work load.

Say the PS3 and X360 can handle 6 operations per clock cycle.    At 3.2 Ghz, that's 19.2 billion operations per second.
The game engine is designed around that clock speed.

Now say the Wii U can handle 10 operations per clock cycle but clocked much slower at just 2 Ghz.   That's still 20 billion operations per second.
But the game engine as it was designed is expecting a much faster clock that isn't there.   So the game engine can only operate at 62.5% of it's design capacity.  Now they have to rework the game engine to enable the more efficient clock cycle which is what they promised to be working on but apparently couldn't manage in time.

This example is greatly simplified but should give an easy to understand reason why the game turned out like it did.

Yeah I feel kinda bad, I was always behind the PS3 when people were comparing power between the 360 and PS3, but this is kinda sad when I know the Wii U is obviously more powerful than those 2 and I see all these PS3 people talking shit about it. It's almost like people are desperate or something. tsk tsk.

If the WiiU is really more powerfull than both consoles, then Nintendo is quite stupid for not releasing the specs.  And that is why I think that the WiiU is on par with current consoles.

The developer said these games are very CPU heavy and they've yet to learn the full ins and outs of the system.  So using brute clock speed in a PS3/X360 can work but not on Wii U.  You have to rework that part of your game engine to utilize the work flow across each CPU cycle* which can be a tryign task when tryign to reach a console launch deadline.

* to illustrate how this works, I'm going to use a series of figures purely for demonstrational purposes.   They in no way accurately depct the real figures but it can give you a sense of how to handle the work load.

Say the PS3 and X360 can handle 6 operations per clock cycle.    At 3.2 Ghz, that's 19.2 billion operations per second.
The game engine is designed around that clock speed.

Now say the Wii U can handle 10 operations per clock cycle but clocked much slower at just 2 Ghz.   That's still 20 billion operations per second.
But the game engine as it was designed is expecting a much faster clock that isn't there.   So the game engine can only operate at 62.5% of it's design capacity.  Now they have to rework the game engine to enable the more efficient clock cycle which is what they promised to be working on but apparently couldn't manage in time.

This example is greatly simplified but should give an easy to understand reason why the game turned out like it did.

If the WiiU is really more powerfull than both consoles, then Nintendo is quite stupid for not releasing the specs.  And that is why I think that the WiiU is on par with current consoles.

Just like the PS3 released in 2006.   It is on par with the 360, but with different technical stuff, that is why porting was hard.

Now in 2012 the WiiU is released, with power on par with the PS360, but with different technical stuff, that is why porting is hard.

If the WiiU is as the powerfull as you say,  then it would not even matter if the developer is lazy or not because there is so much power under the hood that it would not matter.

If the WiiU is really more powerfull than both consoles, then Nintendo is quite stupid for not releasing the specs.  And that is why I think that the WiiU is on par with current consoles.

Just like the PS3 released in 2006.   It is on par with the 360, but with different technical stuff, that is why porting was hard.

Now in 2012 the WiiU is released, with power on par with the PS360, but with different technical stuff, that is why porting is hard.

If the WiiU is as the powerfull as you say,  then it would not even matter if the developer is lazy or not because there is so much power under the hood that it would not matter.

Nintendo doesn't release specs. Period.

That only happened since the Wii, because it was less powerfull than the PS360, and now because it not more powerful than the PS360 when it should.   If I remember right, they revealed the specs for the gamecube.

The WiiU is just like the PS3 was in year 2006, but in 2012.   The PS3 is on par 360 (with a bit more power here and there), but back then when games were released at the same time, the PS3 always had the worst ports by a lot; but for ports made for console launch window, the PS3 games where better like Oblivion.  (Not like today, because Hitman, AC3, and many other are better on the PS3, but there are still a few developers that are still having a hard time).

Now, the WiiU has performance on par with the PS360, but it is technically different and that is why developers have a hard time to make ports released almost at the same time for the PS360, just like with COD:BLOPS2.     When developers are not lazy you get things like ME3 or Batman on the WiiU, that run on par with the 360 and both consoles respectively, but you would expect them to have better perfomance considering all the time BIOWARE and Rocksteady had to make the port.

If the WiiU is as the powerfull as you say,  then it would not even matter if the developer is lazy or not because there is so much power under the hood that it would not matter, and games like COD:BLOPS2 would be much better on the WiiU, and Warriors Orochi 3, Ninja Gaiden 3, etc would also had a better performance.

So how we're those ports from Xbox from 2006-2009 ish?