Rofl? WiiU to PS4 will be like PSVita to PS3 (at worst)
The Vita is alot weaker but that does not matter since it can support almost every effect etc. that the PS3 could handle. Having a lower "main" resolution helps alot.

The WiiU is closer to a PS4 than a Vita is to a PS3 in terms of effects etc.  Even a 3DS's  Revelations looks okay compared to a PS360 game. Because the 3DS supports alot of shader stuff etc.

The time of  "X looks like stoneage compared to Y" is long over.

There is like no visual effect left that exists in real life that we dont already have in our PS360 games at least to some extend. The only differences will just be nuances.  Great shadow on PS4 vs okay shadow on WiiU etc.  If devs come up with better methods for lighting etc for the PS4 then Wiiu can still use todays methods.

When a game on PS4 runs in 1080p 60FPS ultra/high it will most likely run in 720p 30FPS medium on WiiU.   (for example AI calculations can also be cut in half if the framerate is cut in half)

BTW: Xb1 to PS4 will be like Dreamcast to PS2.   high vs ultra  or reduced FPS  thats it.

Rofl rofl

Most of your argument is repeated every single console transition. Only time it didn't happen (as much) was 2D to 3D.

See first off you are way off in your understanding of how the Vita compares to PS3. Per pixel, the Vita is actually STRONGER than the PS3. Its why games like Golden Abyss and Killzone seem to look better than anything PS3 got in its early years. Power to power though, PS3 crushes it(except for ram). Blow up a Vita game on a 65' screen and it looks horrible compared to PS3 counterparts. Blow up Revelations and it looks almost like Wii games.

As for the bold, rofl rofl rofl. The way the brain works, people can't imagine what they haven't seen. Again people say the exact same thing every gen (and with film since the 20s). Long story short that's very naive and wrong.

As for the underline, that sounds to me a lot like how the Wii compared to PS360.

BTW: At launch, sure. Few years down the road, no no no.

Since this is all stuff that can only be proven with time, care to make some bets?

I think in the end, art style and design are more important, in my opinion anyways. We are talking about a company that made SMG based on Wii limitations and raped the scores with those 2 games(Still waiting for a Wii U one.... come on Nintendo.....) While the gap isn't as bad as something like the Wii to a 360 or PS3(The Wii was seriously underpowered compared to the other 2 7th gen consoles, by A LOT,) the Wii U can't exactly pull a Second Son without taking a lot of things out at the current devkit state, Bayo2 has me way more excited because the gameplay is much more exciting and dat ass.

Oh I fully agree with vision over power. What I really like are artistic games that CAN'T look better; they're perfect. Like minecraft for example. Sure people have fun with HD texture packs, but it's not a game that could look any better with more power. Mario 3D is finally the same way. The galaxy games (in dolphin to fix that resolution problem) look just as good as 3D world.

Mario kart though, that's still not reaching the 100% artistic limit. 8 looks by far better than the wii version in dolphin.

Bayo has a good mix of artism but dat ass would look so much better on PS4/stronger hardware.

With Bayo2, it's actually the background that could look better, if you have time to look at that shit during gameplay anyways(which you don't, shit is too crazy). The character models actually look really good even for a game that's not final yet. I'd know, I just played it less than a week ago lol.

Considerably smaller.

Wii to PS3/360 was a gap of both SD to HD, and fixed function shaders to programmable shaders.

The PS4/Xbone offer no such fundamental shifts over the Wii U.

Have Wii U specs even been confirmed? The only break down I saw they looked over half the chip, didn't know what those areas were for and just ran with what they did know.
I am looking for an article now that talked about the GC chip having an area dedicated to shaders, etc. that most developers never used. I did find this article though that discussed the GC CPU chip to the Xbox CPU
"Also this whole processor thing is quite twisted considering Xbox and GameCube are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT architectures (32/64-bit hybrid, PowerPC native compared to 32-bit Wintel). GameCube, having this architecture, has a significantly shorter data pipeline than Xbox’s PIII setup (4-7 stages versus up to 14), meaning it can process information more than twice as fast per clock cycle. In fact, this GCN CPU (a PowerPC 750e IBM chip) is often compared to be as fast as a 700mhz machine at 400mhz. So GCN could be 849mhz compared to Xbox’s 733mhz machine performance wise.
Now if GC at 400mhz was equal to 700mhz then Wii U at 1.2 is around 2.1ghz to a nonPPC based chip.
Here is link. http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479

Sadly I am unable to find the article I original looked for. It explained how the GC had a separate area for shader support that few developers actually used. I was curious if since the Wii U chip goes back all the way to GC then this area must still be there. I remember in the one break down I saw of Wii U they didn't know what some areas did so they dismissed them.

176GFLOPS people still are on with that? Please explain to me how you got that number without referring to people from GAF or B3D..... and how would 352GFLOPS be "calculated incorrectly"? Explain it because you seem so sure of yourself....

As for the graphical gap, it's much smaller than Wii to PS360. Wii had a similar GPU to Gamecube, and was clocked higher, but still within the same architecture. Wii U may only have 2x the graphics power over the PS360, but it has a newer GPU with more modern features, not the same situation. Wii was 10ish times less powerful than PS360....nothing on PS4X1 would make them 10x more than Wii U.....

So is the Wii U .176 TFLOPS or .352? Answer is: only people who actually know the number are higher ups in Nintendo or under NDA. Not that I measure my enjoyment of games in FLOPS, but people should at least get their facts straight.

Whats the point of this thread? We all know the graphical difference between Nintendo and everyone else will insanely huge, as always.