That's true. Then again it is also the beginning for the U, so odds are its juices have yet to be squeezed out of it, so to speak.

And yes it is exciting when you think of the possibilities for PS420.

@Rafux. I know, but my argument is diminishing returns, which means that as time passes there will be less of such instances of "oh, if only we could do _this_". Also, there comes a point where simulation may not be the best answer for a given scene, or where detail may not be required (due to objects being out of focus). With all that in mind, I'm not sure the future will require such intensive requirements.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page but what I'm saying is that is not only graphics but other things that the WiiU will not be able to handle in the future and will make ports change too much from the original vision.

Just another thing. 3ds is about the same raw power as wii (realy underpowered against the x360), but thanks to similar architeture and programable shaders it can receive downgraded versions of games built for the x360. the most recent case was castlevania, wich was developed in hd,high polygon and texture quality, and then reduced to fit 3ds capabilities.

Now just a hint: wii u is A LOT closer to ps4/nextbox than 3ds is to 360, of course it will receive multiplatform games with small to moderate (but still irrelevant) downgrades. third party's would have done that to wii if they could, thinking they'll waste the money oportunity on wii u is wishful thinking.

That's probably because I'm torn myself. I'm not even sure with all this we exchanged whether I'm right or you are to be completely honest.

I just don't know. To be totally honest, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Simulation can only do so much, eye candy IS nice, and WiiU can offer a scaledown version without making the games unplayable or completely undesirable (though even this one is subjective and depends on taste/ability to spend). An exception might exist in what Cage is attempting to do, that is offer true human emotion using Computer Graphics. Less detail would hinder that.

We don't know that though. Except what David Cage showed that requires the detail to convey human emotion 1 to 1 (if that's even possible, we still don't know), there is really nothing shown that says "it altogether can't be done on WiiU". To be on the same page, I'm not talking about losing certain features due to lack of graphical capabilities. I'm talking about not being able to have the game running in any way, shape or form that resembles the original game.

David Cage is only one example of what next gen will offer. In a way you're correct that we don't need the best graphics to make story based games that touch people like the Walking Dead game from Tall Tale (not that shitty survival instinct). Cage wants to have the full effect of storyline, gameplay and graphics, so essentially the full package. I think he needs to take a look at Walking Dead and understand what made that game GOTY over theirs and bring that into next gen. Beyond is a real looker though and maybe they've learned their lesson after Heavy Rain. The job is never done.

Action games after the Final Fantasy and Epic tech demos look like something not possible in the current gen. Actually not even graphically capable truly. Killzone 4 looks in games animations and graphics look beyond that of their CG cut scenes in KZ3. its astounding that this is just a launch title. By the time the PS4 and 720 are squeezed of their resources we will be seeing some unbelievable games that could not be fathomed on last gen tech.

The Japanese even on the Wii never pushed the tech on the Wii animationwise. PS2 had better games that pushed animations and graphics. The Wii U will be the same. Nintendo doesn't need UE4 because they dont push tech outside of sandbox titles like Zelda and metroid.

I guess it all depends on how real is real enough for this or that user, how much is enough. The excitement I get from avatar is as good as the excitement I get from watching Disney's Tarzan. Both are made with very different techs with very different requirements.

David Cage is a proponent of emotion. Does emotion truly require 1 to 1 simulation for absolutely everything to convey the meaning and world of the game?

That's where I believe there may be some exaggerated emphasis on the technological side of the medium versus the communicative side of the medium (what it tries to convey).

We don't know that though. Except what David Cage showed that requires the detail to convey human emotion 1 to 1 (if that's even possible, we still don't know), there is really nothing shown that says "it altogether can't be done on WiiU". To be on the same page, I'm not talking about losing certain features due to lack of graphical capabilities. I'm talking about not being able to have the game running in any way, shape or form that resembles the original game.

That's interesting.

@bold. Is it because the launch 3rd party ports failed to sell? If so that's understandable, you'd think that the core would not buy it on the U anyways. But what about bridge gamers (those who buy a WiiU down the line, when it has a bigger install base, and would be interested in those games)?

I dont mean just graphics. Its not just the presentation that benefits from power. Rendering techniques like ray tracing could make the job of  gamedesigners alot easier and faster. Alot of work would just fall away they then instead could do more stuff..

Also I want to do unreal things in life like graphics. Stuff that can't happen in the real world but looks like reality. We are far from reality what graphics are concerned. So for me its never enough.

But not just that. Imagine new games taking place in a persistent complex world  that goes on without you even if you are not there.  At one point a game could be able to tell infinite stories because unexpected game changing stuff happens without your influence. 

Or freedom at another scale imagine what consequences for games it would have if everything follows our physics every time.  

Or take a  GTA like title for example populate it with 100000 Characters add Battlefield physics and let other people build the City in realtime in a Sim City like game while you play as a criminal with a tank destroying the city in a 1st/3rd person perspective.

Thats just one random thought but I think that performance helps to make unexplored gaming concepts. Power is not just there for cosmetics or else Bethesda could have made Fallout 3 and bring it out in PS2 level graphics in 2001

This is noh a judgement over Wii U  because I am pretty sure it will turn out fun but without someone in the console space pushing for technological advancement videogames would get boring after a while.

sorry, I didn't understand the question. is it about wii or wii u? i meant that games would have to be made from 0 to wii because it couldn't get downgraded. but third party's would downgrade if they could, just like they do with 3ds.

Nobody on here seems to have considered one thing that could be very important to how games scale. Native Resolution.

NextBox and PS4 are targeting 1080p as native resolution for all games, where as Wii U is targeting 720p Native for it's games.  It is entirely plausible that ports of PS4/Xbox games will be able to run on the Wii U's more modest hardware because games will be less resource intensive when running at lower resolutions, with either more compressed or lower res textures needing significantly less RAM.  It is afterall how most PC games are actually scaled.

My laptop is a perfect example. It is nowhere near the performance of say a high end gaming PC, it has a 1.5Ghz Quadcore AMD, an HD7670M and yes, admittedly 8GB of RAM, however; even when running games i've never used more than 3 GB and that is with a bloated Windows OS running.  I cannot hope to run games at max settings @ 1080p. Witcher 2 for example i get about 12FPS, but if i drop the settings to medium and the resolution to 1366x768p @ 30FPS i get something that looks inferior to max settings but is still a gorgeous looking game to play.  A game that at those settings (and even on low) still looks much better than the Xbox 360 version, running on a laptop whose specs are close to what is inside the Wii U.  In fact in a closed console environment the Wii U probably out performs my laptop games-wise.

So my question is if PC developers can scale games across such a huge divide in technological capabilities then why can't they for the "Next Gen" consoles?

Here are the specs for Metro Last Light http://www.destructoid.com/optimum-metro-last-light-specs-recommend-an-nvidia-titan-251890.phtml Now if 4A can scale across such a massive technological chasm then surely it is not asking too much for scaled ports on Wii U, yes they will be graphically "inferior" but not to the degree that people probably think and it will certainly not be a Wii vs PS3 situation this time round.  On paper the PS4 and Xbox will be 2-3x more powerful than Wii U, yes, but people don't seem to realise that the law of diminshing returns has kicked in for games developers, meaning that 2-3x on paper will not be 2-3x in practice because 1; large increases in computational power are only producing small visual gains and 2; devs (outside of those SONY or MS  funded) are quickly finding that they cannot be profitable with the amount of time, effort and money it takes to make games that will push PS4 and NextBox to the limits.  It gets to the point where things become so detailed that it takes too much time and you would be looking at Disney Pixar sized budgets, which EA and Square-Enix are finding simply not feasible.   

But we won't have to wait long really to begin seeing how things shape up.  The release of Watch Dogs on PS4 and Wii U will be a good barometer as to whether the gap between the two is as big as some are saying.  The ultimate comparison will be when Retro's new game (Metroid) is compared with something like KZ Shadowfall.  Only then will we see just how big this gap will be.