Most people don't see PC as a console....and it isn't. Most people prefer consoles for games.

Also, Battlefield 3 on PC isn't next-gen. It's on PS3, its on 360, its current-gen. This brings us to the big question, is Wii U current or next-gen? Technically, its part of the 8th generation of consoles, but it doesn't have next-generation techology. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is current and 10 is next-gen, Wii U probably falls around the 3 mark.

People keep saying how next-gen games don't look that much better than current-gen. That's is false. This however, does apply when talking about the Wii U. 

I disagree. Games today look plastic, fake and static.

We are nowhere near good graphics. Its just good compared to the past but look at games they don't even have proper lighting and the dynamic lighting is dumbed down to run on todays Hardware. All the tricks programmers have to use are complicated and timeintensive and often precomputed. Its much easier and faster to just have everything let an engine do.

Games today are often like watching videos and controlling a character inside the video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JPDtDfxf6w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WZZARzpckw

This is what awaits us and its far from perfect, implementing it can be done effortlesly once its part of an engine. I doubt this will come large scale this coming gen (atleast the water) but if everyone is just fine with the status quo we will never withness what future holds. 

And on the lighting front we can massively improve graphics over todays standard. Yes Games look pretty today but they are all faked and look artificial. Its ok for certain styles but we are still limited by technology. There is so much stuff nobody can do because Hardware is way too weak. If I hear that argument "But todays graphics are good enough" I always ask myself if people really want no progress and are fine with everything staying as it is. Or if they just have a hard time seeing the limitations of hardware today and imagening new exiting developments. TBH I don't want to die before I see perfect VR, perfect Graphics Holoprojectors, people walking on Mars and Cybernetic Ocular Implants. But to get there we need babysteps its not just going to happen suddenly.

And noone sees a difference ? How do you know you haven't seen games of the future. We don't know what way everything will go and with what new technologies we might get surprised. I am pretty sure even if you have no clue PS4/720 games will look less fake to you and going back will make you realize that there is a big difference. 

Waste money for almost nothing ? All the developers will.

I remember when people were disappointed by the SNES Graphics saying its almost like NES. The only time people were impressed at the start of a new gen was 2D to 3D or 16bit to 32/64bit.

Its the same every gen since, people are blind and can not see potential in technology unless its presented to them on a silver plate.

make it happen reggie

Nah. All the current consoles have horrible graphics, maybe it's because I've been spoiled? :P

I do! I actually built a small processor when I was at university, mind you it was only 4 bit, but it was a good learning exercise.

Also no "r" in my name.

Lets be honest, the biggest and most noticeable thing between any generation that people can notice is generally the graphics.

Battlefield 3 on the consoles running at 720P or lower with 30 FPS, with half the map size and player count and comparatively low/medium graphics settings is almost a completely different game compared to what's on the PC where people are running it all on ultra with 5-10x that resolution and double the framerate, bigger maps with more players.
Having the larger maps with more players can really change the dynamics in multiplayer, making it far more hectic.

Graphically I would consider Battlefield 3/Crysis 3 graphically to be the start of next gen, which is nothing to sneeze at, they look incredible on the PC, especially at a 7680x1440 eyefinity resolution, that's very much in stark contrast to the consoles where to me they look like a muddy mess.

Also, technically wouldn't the PC always be Next Gen? I mean, yearly upgrades and all means it's always the most advanced platform.

I already had the idea that it was secretly in development for next gen platforms in the back of my head when the release date was shown to be so late in the game, and a staggered PC release was all but inevitable... But a Wii U version?

I guess I'll believe it when I see it. It's not like it'd be that hard to port over the 360/PS3 versions which is probably the only reason it's even a possibility, but they've always been so adverse to Nintendo platforms. Smart if Nintendo really did reach out though, I always thought it was bizarre they didn't make more of an effort to get GTA on-board their consoles no matter what.

bolded1: lie

bolded2: lie

His comment still doesn't make any sense, it's like saying that higher clocks on your CPU means a superiour computer experience.

Elaborate.

with pleasure. on bolded 1 you imply the only reason a wii u version is possible is because there will be ps360 versions. in other words, you are saying the wii u is uncapable of receiving ports from games built with the future consoles in mind. so it's a simple lie based on nintendo hating.

on bolded 2: rockstar never had a problem with nintendo, with the wii receiving games like manhunt and bully. GTA never came to a nintendo home console for technical reasons: disc size on GC and system power/architeture on wii.

Nope, said probably.

Fair enough, disc size really shouldn't have been such a problem as to keep the games off their system entirely, though... And if they could get that piece of shit China Wars (the only GTA to ever be on a Nintendo system, hence what I said), they really should've money balled a proper installment.