Yes. It's all my opinion.

I guess you didn't read my last paragraph, I added to the power thing? Firstly, I said that it won't be impossible, it'll be a hell of a lot better and easier to port PS4/X1 to Wii U than porting PS360 games to Wii, but also recall that Wii U has a completely different architecture. The downporting part may be the easiest thing to do (easy is relative), but you have PowerPC vs Jaguar, very different architecture. The CPU needs to be coded for in a very specific manner, otherwise it will perform badly (unfortunately, it's likely what's happpening in the industry with Wii U). And Wii U's GPU is also extremely custom, while PS4/X1 use pretty much off-shelf parts with some modifications. The costliness will result from both the downporting (the least costly) and the coding for different architecture (probably more costly). If Wii U had more power, all the developers would need to worry about would be the architecture. Don't worry, I'm on your side and fully understand that scalability of engines are a key point for next-gen and Wii U will be able to run them one way or another. The question would be, if developers would want to invest in it. Costly is relative, depending on what the game is, and how much the developer or publisher estimate they'll receive from the game when it's out in stores. I'm talking "costly" in regards to what devs would consider expensive or not. Relative relative relative, because in some cases it won't be as simple as dialing down the work-load. 

you said it would be quite costly, wich it won't. the architeture difference is just the newest excuse for haters. first of all, the wii u doesn't have unkown alien tech, it's simply different. and porting is porting, if a game is made on ps4/xone with x engine and that engine is already meant for several platforms like wii u, then it's just a case of porting the assets.

I did, and I added to it by stating that porting among different architectures would be what makes it most costly. And newest excuse? Maybe for others, but ever since I've found out of the Jaguar architecture for PS4 / X1, I knew that it would be somewhat of a problem if they were to port to the PowerPC architecture the Wii U CPU uses. As Iwata stated quite a bit ago when asked about Unreal Engine 4,

I think that the Wii U will be powerful enough to run very high spec games but the architecture is obviously different than other consoles so there is a need to do some tuning if you really want to max out the performance.

Wii U's CPU is good for certain code, and not so good for other types of code (so you need to make sure it uses all of its power as efficiently as possible) and Jaguars strengths are pretty much Wii U's CPU's weak spots (SIMD, though not as bad as previously thought), and you REALLY need to make sure coding goes well with it because otherwise it'll end up performing terribly (making it more costly because you'll be trying many things time and time again). You must use the right kind of code for the CPU in order to make sure you get as high of performance as you can get, and offload several tasks to the GPU when necessary. Plus, you have to really understand all of the memory everywhere, including the large CPU cache, the GPU eDRAM and the rest of the memory laying around. It's probably easy to code for when making a game from the ground up, but coming from the PS4/X1 architectures could make this a costly process. Again, costly is relative, and again, power isn't the main issue (probably lesser of an issue than architecture). This is just based on what I know of the architectures, the whole thing might be less costly than I think, or it might be more, I'm only telling you what I think based on what I understand. 

No. You quite literally haven't "seen all the games coming out in 2014". If you're going to try and posit arguments, at least make sure they're remotely grounded in reality.

You're telling me this isn't lazy:

On a system that can do this:

I dont think Iits fair to call it lazy at this point. For all we know its been in delevolpent for a year while X 2+ years.

I'll personally tell you straight up that no, that is not "lazy". You can't compare complex, "realistic" graphics to simplistic, cute, cartoony graphics and call one "lazy" over the other. "Lazy" is what Nintendo did graphically with Mario Kart Wii, where the game really looked no better at all than Double Dash.

Mario 3D World is not "lazy" by any stretch of the imagination. It looks far better than 3D Land, and for that matter, while the ART STYLE is not as flashy (more basic, simplistic), the actual fidelity of the graphics themselves are in fact better than Super Mario Galaxy. We have yet to see more than a handful of clips/images from 3D World, so it's not fair to judge a what was obviously not-final-version footage of a game, nor have we obviously seen any of the TRULY impressive level designs, as traditionally as far back as Mario 64, Nintendo likes to keep those kind of levels a surprise if they can.

But regardless, the graphics are not "lazy". Could they be flashier, like Galaxy, with more realistic textures for the landscapes and objects, etc? Sure. But are the graphics NOT better than what Wii or 3DS could produce? Hell no, they're definitely superior visuals. You're right, "X" looks gorgeous. But that isn't to say at all that Mario 3D World ISN'T itself a pretty game. It has a more simplistic, cartoon look than Galaxy did. And that's fine. But the models themselves, and everything I've seen in the game so far, looks very smooth, very well made, great lighting, particles, shading, etc. I think the final product will impress you more than you think. And if not, well........you've always got "X".  But like I said, intentionally "realistic" graphics are a different beast than intentionally cartoony, it's not always a matter of actual graphical fidelity, but art style. You're basically arguing that you think 3D World needs a more sophisticated art style. But honestly, while you're welcome to your opinion, it looks fine.

Art style's not a good enough excuse, there's plenty of cartoonish games that fantastic.

It's simple, yes, but it's simple to the point where there's virtually nothing there, hardly any interesting or eye-catching effects.

Obviously we can only go on what we've seen so far, and I'll happily admit I was wrong if we get some awesome footage in the future, but even the level design we've seen to date looks like it was designed for the 3DS with its very basic layout, lack of scale, and fits-on-a-small-screen nature.

Yes, that's right. Graphics whores do have a very shallow understanding and apreciation of graphics.