U have been really good at random ranting tonight lol compare Perfect Dark Zero, Resistance and ZombiU. Gears of War, Uncharted and Bayonetta 2. Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 and X. To me it looks like Wii U graphics are better. And when Wii U successor is about a year away then compare the best looking Wii U game to Halo 4 and Last of Us.

X's draw distance and detail put it comfortably out of the PS3/360's reach. 1GB RAM vs <500MB.

Its not that I need to show you early game pictures, don't manipulate things. The Wii U is seven years too late to have that argument because it has started the gen late with a slight edge in graphics but even more of an edge in ram. The Wii U generation will not last as long as the coming consoles as this next gen is bridging a gap to an even more powerful generation. The level of graphics will be so great towards the middle of the next gen that Nintendo will start development on the next console a.s.a.p. The Wii U is being pushed early because it has to edge out with current gen and save the best for last when the next gen consoles come to the dance. Guaranteed by the time mid next gen  Nintendo and third parties will have blown their load with the Wii U (let alone that the Wii U will not get the mass majority of the multiplats next gen). The multiplats are telling of the Wii U's power and scalable nature opposed to PC, which is basically just closer to the current gen consoles. Much like the GC the gamer are much shinier like they have gloss on them. That seems to be a Nintendo style graphical element that makes even a multiplat uniquely Nintendos.

The problem that you're not seeing for the Wii U is that its multiplats are nearly at parity with the competition with a slight edge. If what you guys are saying is true about the superior the multiplats should be near parity with current gen PC versions of games or at least close to it. 

How are you going to make your argument to me when the Wii U is nearly at parity graphically with seven year old consoles?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuDuQXN5ZC4

Yes...but that will mean absolutely nothing when the next gen consoles come. The Wii U from the start will be way out of reach in Ram. 500MB differential vs a 5GB differential. The best thing I could tell you is that Skyrim should've definitely been on the Wii U with 1GB RAM available for games because their draw distance would've been better with less laggy FPS. The graphics wouldn't have been far off though. The Wii U on the exclusive end is going to be pushed from the very second the next gen consoles come out, which means basically after its first year and walking int othe second. By the time the next gen HD twins get to the middle of their power the Wii U will have already been exhausted from being pushed too damn hard and it wont matter anymore. Same thing happened with the Wii. The graphics got pushed for far so quickly that it didnt even matter. In the end all you can do is just enjoy the games.

Im not disputing the graphical power of Wii U, simply stating its an unfair comparison to show games that came out 7 years into consoles life and take full advantage of hardware vs a game less than 2 years into the life of another console.

I have had so much more than enough of the Wii U graphics debates.

Someone tell me, is weak hardware the reason the Wii U isn't getting SoulCalibur II HD? How about Castlevania Mirror of Fate HD?

Oh no, low sales are the reason for that. Even though Mirror of Fate is an HD port of a 3DS game, just like Resident Evil: Revelations HD, which Capcom deemed suitable for a Wii U release. Mirror of Fate was even made with an eventual HD port in mind -- hell, it came out about 5 months ago. It would take three dollars and ten minutes to port it to Wii U. Konami just doesn't feel like it.

And SoulCalibur? Check the game database. The GameCube game is still the third-best-selling SKU in the history of the series, and it's pretty easy to see why. That shit had Link in it -- not just any Link, Ocarina of Time adult Link, with the original voice actor and everything. And every Wii U owner and his dad would fork sixty dollars over to Bamco in a heartbeat to have that in HD.

My point earlier with the other guy was that if X was multiplat the Xbox 360 and PS3 could handle it, the problem though is that like Skyrim's actual ram (which is the equivalent ram requirement for the WIi U) for PC, the draw distance and loading and framrate issues will occur, unlike what is expected of the Wii U version and the graphics would be slightly less favorable (but not by much since its made for Nintendos unique architecture). The PS3 and 360 would never be able to bring out that shiny gloss that the Wii U had. 

The Wii U came to the dance towards the end of the gen and they are competing graphically from PC ports with current gen consoles. The multiplats are the truest showing of competition. What you want me to do is tip the cards in the Wii U's favor when technically the cards already laid out seven years past since the launches of the PS3 and eight years for the Xbox 360. Being that they are so close in power, technically I dont need to go that far back, because nintendo and third parties development schedule has already negated those possibilities. We cannot know what the games would've looked like without seeing what the Wii U would've looked like at that point in time.

Its too little too late to be talking about the Wii U and the current gen games at launch, because you all know full well Nintendo would have been more than supported by third parties if the Wii U had been the Wii HD. Same specs, wii motes, farrrrrrrrrrrrr more third party exclusives and multiplats. Third parties would've taken the Wii HD seriously instead of going for cheap cash grabs with casuals. Most of them couldn't even fathom how Nintendo first party could figure out how to make a good game with the Wii, which Nintendo did many times over.

Because the Wii U has already started the gen catching up with the best current gens have to offer instead of easing themselves in (when the current gen started), the console will get maxed out easily within the next three years. Sure, we'll see some gorgeous games and believe me, because Nintendos games are about art style over amazing graphics so theres plenty to be excited about regardless. Much like with X its really about art style theres not much sophistication to the main character, but the mechs look great and its good to see a beautiful JRPG in real-time action. I will be getting that day one aside from buying a boatload of Wii games digitally that I missed out on.

You guys know where Nintendo stands graphically. Fuck that...just enjoy the fun games because that is what Nintendo is trying to provide and they do it differently than the competition, which is more irreplacable than most can understand. The Wii U is more powerful than the Wii this means more room for Nintendo to creat possibilities. Thats all we should be worrying about. If we focus on that not one person has to dread next gen for the Wii U nor argue about its quality vs the competition, because it is innate in Nintendo.

The Wii was never maxed out, because the only dev that ever cracked the very core of its architecture, Factor 5, never finished a game for it.

Wii U will not be maxed out for a long time; sure, you can throw so much data at it that it runs out of RAM, that's not the same as maxing it out; to max it out is to fully exploit the power of all its components, not just RAM. To fuly utilise the ins and outs of its GPU will take time, especially for Nintendo, who are inexperienced with programmable pixel and vertex shaders and HD level graphics.

Nintendo won't be running out of RAM anytime soon either; their games so far are very conservative technically.

A) You're talking about multiplat ports that were mostly rush jobs. Some of them turned out to be fairly solid rush jobs, but rush jobs all the same. None of them were built to take advantage of Wii U's more powerful hardware. None. So obviously they're not going to look any better than the PS360 versions.

B) Again, you're comparing Halo 4 and The Last of Us, two not only late generation pieces of software for the PS3 and 360, at a time in most console's lives when especially 1st party developers are squeezing the utmost out of their hardware, to a first gen Wii U game.

C) What's more, you're comparing, as earlier stated, verly likely a pre-alpha/alpha build of "X", a very early demo of an unfinished game, to two games that are completely finished, polished, and released.

I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I trying to come off that way. But you just can't say that TLSU looks so much more impressive than "X", when what you and I and everyone else has seen of "X", which by the way in incredibly little, was very very early, completely unfinished, unpolished game footage/shots. Not a fair comparison by any stretch. So it's not a completely valid comparison on several levels, first that you're comparing software that is taking full advantage of and pushing hardware, and software that is just now still feeling out what this new hardware is capable of. And secondly, comparing 100% demo to 100% finished and polished product. It just doesn't work.

At the very least, wait until "X" is finished, polished, and released, before attempting to give it any sort of fair, valid comparison.

bolded: like 3ds?

bolded2: now that made my day. good laughs here.