First, it was a thread about a theoretical situation.

Then it became a 'let's bash Wii U' thread that requires a discussion about graphics and performance

If you take away all the "Wii U is weak, Wii U can't do this, can't do that, we're superior, your inferior, I must stroke my ego to make myself feel better" threads and posts, we'd be happy talking about nothing but games.

Really, any games can run on any platform. This is a graphic thread from Nintendo fans. I'm amazed. 

MK8 would easily run on both consoles; Bayonetta could too, but the resolution and framerate would take a hit. X is definitly a large scale game, which I doubt the  other sytems could run with only 256 mb or RAM (Though maybe they could, with a substantially smaller FOV)

No, the thread was trying to show how powerful the WiiU is al the sudden and things went crazy. I'm glad Nintendo fans are going to enjoy games like these, it makes a difference.

Not sure about that, 320 shaders seems more plausible actually.

One way or the other:

"By way of explanation, DICE technical director Johan Andersson claimed via Twitter that "FB3 has never been running on Wii U. We did some tests with not too promising results with FB2 and chose not to go down that path." Would EA now have the same technical problems with Frostbite on Wii U had the console been selling like hot cakes? Or was EA simply eyeing a less-than-spectacular return on Wii U releases? "It's both," Patrick Bach, executive producer of Battlefield at DICE told Eurogamer."

"If the Wii U was immensely popular we would probably put more focus into seeing how we could mitigate this, because it is a technical problem," Bach said. "It is a technical problem at its core because the Frostbite engine is not designed to run on that hardware, and the hardware is quite different from the next-gen consoles and the previous gen consoles."

But the Wii U is at least as powerful as current generation consoles and Frostbite 3 is designed to be scalable - we'll see current-gen versions of Battlefield 4, for example. With Frostbite 2 appearing to work on Wii U fine, does the argument about having technical difficulties really still stand up?

"From our perspective it's not as powerful as it should be to be able to run a Battlefield game," Bach responded. "Straight out of the box, as in Frostbite 3, it doesn't run that well on the Wii U, which means it takes a lot of time and energy from us that would then take from something else.

"So, we made the decision to say, no, let's not take away the focus from the PlayStations and the Xboxes and the PCs to do this. At the end of the day it's about focus and priorities. If we could press a button to move it over to Wii U, of course we could make a Wii U SKU, but it would take some substantial time to do it. I know some fans get very upset when we say that, but it's true. There's a reason why not all games are on the Wii U platform."

This pretty nicely explains dev's viewpoint of whole situation - WiiU is just in that terrible spot where it's not powerful enough for them to make ports easily, no matter the user base, AND it has small user base. If any of those two were absent, there would be much less problems in 3rd party support.

Some (maybe most) people here see me as Sony fan, but in all honesty, I was actually really bummed when it turned out that those old rumours of 4850 level GPU inside WiiU were not true - it would actually made WiiU 1/2x XOne and 1/3x PS4,and that would make porting next-gen titles alot easier. I need to get WiiU eventually for Zelda and MK8, but I would be way more happier if it had better innards, allowing for better 3rd party support (3rd parties are, no matter the platform, something I care most about).

Owning a 65" TV since 2008, I'm just happy to be able to play Nintendo games at 720 and 1080.  480p was getting a little blurry by todays standards to say the least.

Even some of the xbox and ps3 games werent at 720 (COD on the xbox i believe is less).  I'll be happy when 720 is the absolute floor, and welcome full native 1080 with open arms...

1. I think it common sense thats it a 160sp, just look at how many devs have said, its on par with currentgen,

2. look at how many ports have struggled,  

3. a 320 sp gpu  on pc can run most current gen games with better framerate and at 1080p,