When X releases, the WiiU will be how old, 2, 2.5, maybe 3 years?, and you're comparing the graphics of a game that late into the consoles life cycle to a small handful of launch titles?, okay.

Time's not the only factor; much more money, resources, manpower, and talent has been invested in pushing PS4 than pushing Wii U.

Time is a factor, games always look better the longer developers have had with the console, I can't even believe you're trying to downplay that point.

By all means, compare Bayo and X to what you'll see at E3, but comparing as of yet unreleased games released years into a consoles life cycle to rushed launch titles, drips with bias.

but that doesnt make any sense. if this is what you truly believe then their is no point to even discussing, as we would never be able to compare the two for that very reason you said. IMHO i think you are just making excuses, to not admit that the gap between the PS4 and WIi U is bigger than you intially thought.

There has not been a single game built from the ground up for the Wii U to be graphically intensive yet. Time doesn't help because nobody has done anything with that time.

PS4, on the other hand, has had Killzone, a game built from the ground up for the system, to be graphically intensive.

Here, you can use this one instead.

It makes perfect sense, see my last post.

You do not need to push a console visually from the start in order to learn how to better use that hardware in future games, you do not learn to read with complex novels you learn to read on childrens books and progress as your reading comprehension improves, just because they arent setting out to push the hardware graphically doesnt mean they are not improving with console experience.

They may well have coded Killzone shadowfall from the ground up (psst, they had to, they moved from PPC to X86), but to pretend that their next game, or future games on the system arent going to improve upon that further is absolute hogswash.

If anything, as the WiiU uses PPC just like the Wii and GC before it, Developers experience with the console is significantly higher from the begining, compared to developers who were used to coding on PPC platform Sony consoles then had to switch to x86.

However you want to word it and lean towards a particular side, at the end of the day you're comparing games developed by teams with entirely different experience time frames for the specific hardware, again, feel free to compare X and bayo to xbox one and ps4 games you'll see revealed at e3.

I know you have a tendancy to support Nintendo regardless of the topic or points against them but you've really no need to try to bend the very fabric of reality to defy logic.

So if sales=quality does that also mean quality=sales? What if a game/movie/book/CD is 100% liked by everyone who played/watched/read/listened to it but still didnt sell extremely well do to lack of advertising and public awareness? Would that make it a non quality product because it didnt sell well?

lets say a publisher spends $1 billion dollars on advertising a specific game, making sure there is a TV spot on every channel at least once per hour, has an ad in every major magazine, pays reviewers to give perfect scores, has the most popular celebrities hype it up and has promos at every major sporting event which causes the public awareness of the game to be through the roof. The game sells 10 million units week one but most those people realize they hate the game and sell it before they even finish it. The game sells zero untis from that point forward and is so hated that the game never gets any sequels and the publisher goes bankrupt from spending so much money on advertising.

Compare that to a game with little to no advertising with a very small amount of people who even know the game exists. The game sells 100k in the first month and almost everybody who plays it loves it. Through word of mouth the game becomes more popular and sales begin to increase, over the course of a year it goes on to sell 3 million units and the company makes a ton of money allowing them to make multiple sequels. Which one of the these games would be considered a more quality product?

Or another example a game releases with a price tag of $1 and sells 30 million compare that to a game that costs $60 and sells 25 million. The $1 game costs 1/60 the price but barely outsells the other. Is it a more quality product just because it was able to sell more?

You're strawmanning, I never said PS4 graphics wouldn't improve over time. I said its closer to its potential than Wii U is, and I stand by that, because currently Wii U doesn't have one single game designed from the ground up to push the hardware, while PS4 does.