There's a huge difference between Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario 3D Land.

Besides, I never said I didn't care for graphics. Gameplay is just more important.

Owh, when I'm buying a Wii U it will be the Wii U bundle with Zelda: Wind Waker HD(never played Wind Waker on the GC). It's 289 euros in my country, so the Wii U only costs 230 euros for me. Just can't buy it right now, too busy with university and not enough cash. 

Ps: I didn't like Super Mario 3D Land!

When a producer of a franchise which is mainly released on Sony platforms says something like this, take it with a grain of salt.

The dev was talking about GPU metric. PS3 GPU has roughly 0.180TF when PS4 GPU has 1.84TF hence the 10 times more powerfull.

But I agree with you that many games on PS3 look better than some PS4 games. Like many great looking PS3 games look better IMO than the blurry fest with uninspired artstyle Knack. And even TLOU, AC4(PS4) and Tomber Raider Definitive edition are all better looking than Killzone too even if Killzone is more technically advanced than those 3 former gamers.

Killzone is too much cartoony, the excessive FXAA with temporal stuff creating nasty artifacts and adding a awful vaseline filter. All those games, Knack, Killzone, BF4 and COD with this strong FXAA applied are for me like some of the first PS3 games with this horrible Quincunx used.

But games like AC4, Resogun, Tomb Raider DE and all the high resolution/low compression footage I have seen of Infamous, Dying light, DriveClub, Thief give me a lot of confidence for a bright PS4 future notably because none of those game use any cheap blurring AA.

The most notable difference between PS4 and PS3 version of BF4 is gameplay... BF4 on PS4 is the first time this franchise reach the PC level of gameplay on consoles... BF3 on PS3 is a joke in terms of gameplay.

I agree that we'll be seeing much better looking games in the future. But if a developer says the PS4 is 10 times more powerful than the PS3, I want to see an extremely good looking game from him. And not what I've seen now. As of now, it just sounds like big talk. Put your words where your mouth is and prove it with an amazing looking game. 

Have you actually played a ps3 game like killzone 3 and then a game like killzone shadow fall or are you just relying off videos you've watched on the internet? It certainly sounds like the latter rather than the former.  There's  a world of difference between watching videos and playing actual games.

Also, bear in mind that the ps3 has been on the market for 7~ years whereas the ps4 has been on the market for 3~ months. Accordingly, developers were able to improve the visual fidelity over that 7 years. Play Uncharted and then Uncharted 3 to see what a difference can be made in games. It will take some time for the ps4 to reach it's 'potential'. 

Lets say PS3 always ran at 720p/30 (which is not true btw) and PS4 will always run at 1080p/60 then it needs 4x the power to accomplish that resolution and framerate increase.

So then we have 6x the power of a PS3 left for bigger worlds etc.


Btw was the PS3 20x more powerful than a PS2? I guess PS5 will be 5x more powerful than PS4 then.

 So, there's a huge difference between 3D Land and 3D World, but not so much between Killzone: SF and Killzone 3? What's the major difference in gameplay between 3DW and 3DL, that makes it so much more significant than KZSF and KZ3? No offense, but that sounds more like a bias than anything.

Play both games and you'll find out why Killzone is just one of the many mediocre FPS games out there and Super Mario 3D World is actually quite a gem. Especially when you play it with 4 people which you can't on Super Mario 3D Land. 

That's not bias. It's clear which game took more effort and talent to develop.