The word of a developer with a track record of PS3 and 360 experience of ... zero. Shin'en is as close a third party developer could get to be first party. What with having only developed games for Nintendo platforms since its creation in 1999.  I'd be really surprised if he ever got his hands on a PS3 or 360 dev kit.

So you'll excuse me if I don't take his comments as anything other than cheerleading PR.

dood, read what you bolded :P a lot of it are RAM based, and I already said it'd be missing some stuff but it'd run, the game was running on the PS3 KZ engine man, hence why I said it can run, you'd just tone down the poly count and the lighting wouldn't be as good. You literally said the same thing I did lol.

So Nano Assault neo runs in 720p @ 30fps, and your saying this games is an example of what cannot been done ont he 360/PS3, while Stardust HD a 2008 game on the PS3 runs in full 1080p @ 60fps. FYI Stardust has a tone of shit happening on screen in later stages both in particles and geometry.

I dunno, the article claims "Harnessing the power of the WiiU", you use it as an example of what the WiiU can do which the 360/PS3 can't do. I just figured that if the console had 'power' to harness that the same game should have come out in 1080p @ 60fps without breaking a sweat....so either this developer did a bad job harnessing the WiiU's power, or maybe they did their best, hit a limit and had to cut resolution and framerate to gain back performance to achieve the look and feel they wanted for their game, the latter seems the most convincing to me as this is what all developers seem do when faced with a compromise.

Just my opinion from a different perspective, take it as you will.

The PS3/360 are known inside out by the whole world by now, you don't need to have made games for them to know their capabilities.

Shin'en don't have a history of lying. They do, however, have a history of performing great technical feats across a range of different hardwares.

Nano Assault Neo runs at 60fps, not 30fps.

As for 1080p, they said: "We had the game also running in 1080p but the difference was not distinguishable when playing. Therefore we used 720p and put the free GPU cycles into higher resolution post-Fx. This was much more visible. If we had a project with less quick motions we would have gone 1080p instead"

Oh, please.  You will always take the word of the people that say positive things about Nintendo, no matter what. No questions asked. They say what you want to hear, you believe them. And whoever doesn't talk positively about them, you filter what you don't want to believe. 

That's your own track record here.

Because I'm totally not a PC gamer and not in the field and don't know what I'm talking about right? :P The size you listed is the process, not the actual size of the chip, and no, I don't think it will beat PS4 or Xbone by a long shot, I just know that the feature set isn't too different but there is a raw power difference, high->low settings if devs bother is about it, but I doubt they will.

The PS4 couldn't handle the real UE4 engine, nor can it run Samaritan at the level of that demo, which was more demanding than the UE4 demo, you got it reversed, and your analogy still doesn't work, as you can't dynamically change the amount of lanes you drive on like a sci-fi movie and that's what scalable engines or game creators can do. You make software makers sound like lazy idiots, which a lot of them actually are now that I think about it.....

The demo was partly PC and partly on Wii U, the PC one is the one with the higher FPS and the Wii U one is the 24-30FPS one, you can see the Wii U gamepad button at the 7 some minute mark. You'd get better lighting and better tessllation with DX11 level feature sets. Wii U doesn't have DX11, it's more DX10 level with a tessllator most likely, which would be just like DX11 but not as efficient, the difference would be settings, and they are most likely under NDA and can't really share tech info about the Wii U anyways, Nintendo is very asshole-istic about that.

There is no chitchat neccessary about it: eDRAM gives a hugh advantance in power for a console and even the lead PS4 developer confessed that, but they decided not to use eDRAM on PS4 because programming would be more complicated for average programmer.

eDRAM is not so efficient on PCs, because to really utilize its possibilities it must be really used by the program code, but no PC programmer will assume that there is eDRAM on a graphics card. But in the future some high end graphics card will feature eDRAM and special logics will automatically use this eDRAM even if it is not in the program code and so will give a performance boost. Of course this boost could be higher if the program (game) is coded to use eDRAM.

The jury is still out on that samaritan demo... You're just assuming here. With proper optimization and probably some compromises, I wouldn't be surprised if it could run on the PS4.

And the demo they showed suring the reveal event wasn't fully optimized and Epic said they could have made it better if they had more time with the hardware.

Anyone who isn't purely a fanboy or a massive troll knows that the Wii U is next gen, and was the first "Next Gen" console to release. Saying otherwise is outright lying. The other two consoles are going to be more powerful, basically a "no shit" kind of statement. But the Wii U itself is still hardly a weak machine, and it's GPGPU especially has plenty of muscle, and will be able to provide HD graphics on par with the competition.

And before "on par" gets a bunch of fanboy flaming, what I (obviously) mean, is that when considering the Wii vs. PS360 phenominon last gen, it was less of an enticing prospect for some 3rd party developers to port games to Wii, because they would have to practically redo the games from scratch. The gap was far more noticeable.

The gap THIS gen, will be almost neglegable. That doesn't mean to imply that there won't be some later gen games that Wii U simply might not be able to do. But it IS implying that the gap between the Wii U vs. PS4/One will be much smaller this gen, and most modern gaming engines SHOULD be built to scale, meaning that making Wii U versions of games should be much easier. It's already been said that CryEngine 3 and Unreal Engine 4 can run on it just fine, and it's very likely that even though EA are acting like babies, if it can run THOSE engines it could certainly run the new Frostbite. Regardless, the Wii U has the hardware to compete, whether it's weaker or not, it will still be able to "keep up" where it counts.

And everyone knows that at the VERY least, Nintendo's own games, the BEST of them (3D Mario, Zelda, etc.), will absolutely be just as impressive graphically and otherwise as what the other consoles have to offer. A game like Mario Galaxy, despite Wii's weaker hardware, was STILL one of the prettiest and most impressive/innovative games of it's gen. The same could be said for games like Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3, etc. There will undoubtedly be games for Wii U where that will once again be the case.

After all, tech specs are nice, but the games are what ultimately matter.