no, no and maybe. its missing a mode but i wouldnt attribute that to laziness

X sure couldn't since the Wii U has four times the ram as PS360. That really helps with making an open world game seem populated. Bayo is too early to judge. At the moment it looks pretty impressive considering it's 60fps, but we'll have to see how the final game plays out.

Why is this thread still going? I would have though that after page 5 you would run out of things to talk about regarding bayo 2 and X.

sure, wii u is without a doubt more powerful than any 7th gen console, but thats not the point here. I mean, i have yet to see the open world you are talking about (i can be wrong tho). Besides, the target audience for this game is not that big so i dont see Nintendo spending a lot of resources on it.

The Wii U is only slightly better than last gen consoles. Theres a reason why its being pushed the way it is. Its not laziness, its that the Wii U is just as limited as last gen consoles. Of course we never know how far a console can go until you make exclusives for it. Problem with the Wii U is its going to get used up  somewhere in its third year. The power demands of next gen will force anyone developing for Nintendo to get competitive.

Why aren't the PS3, 360, X1 and PS4 versions of Assassins Creed IV held back by "unoptimised code". Perhaps the games terrible frame rate could be a result of the Us "terribly slow" CPU. No, no, its a conspiracy. It has to be.

Because it was developed around and optimized for PS3 and 360, and only slightly upgraded for the more powerful PS4/Xbone.

The CPU argument doesn't explain it, cos it chugs even when there's just your character on screen sometimes. It's just a shitty, badly optimized port.

But the smoking gun of laziness isn't the framerate, it's the lack of higher res textures despite the extra RAM.

None use better than PS360 textures despite having more thhan twice as much RAM available, and Blacklist's framerate takes a dive with just three or four enemies on screen, despite even launch ports like Mass Effect 3 and Black Ops 2 on Wii U handle dozens of characters at a much higher framerate. From a technical point of view, they are lazy, no two ways about it.

If the WiiUs GPU was truly stronger then Mass Effect 3, Most Wanted U, Trine 2 and several others would run at 720p60 rather than 720p30 at the same settings as the 7th gen. They dont.

If the WiiUs CPU truly was truly stronger then CPU intensive games like Call of Duty (shootouts), Arkham City (fights), Blacklist (shootouts) and Assassins Creed (chases/fights) would NEVER drop frames. They do.

"Laziness" is the only logical conclusion.

Arkham City is uncapped on the WiiU and it peaks at 45fps at 720p. 45fps at 720p on Unreal Engine 3 in the year 2013. I wish the PS3 and 360 versions were also uncapped. The performance of the WiiUs GPU/CPU is in the 7th gens territory. Not a single game released to date disputes this.

The WiiUs rumoured GPU is equivalent to the 4650/5550HD. That falls in line with every teardown done thus far. Explains the resolution and performance of 1st and 3rd party games. Now to break down some of the "Secret Sauce" arguments one by one.

Does the 5550HD have DirectX 11 extensions? Yes.

Is the 5550HD "Several generations ahead of the competition (PS3 = 7800GTX, 360 = 1900XT)"? Yes, several "generations" ahead.

Does the 5550HD have GPGPU support? Yes.

Is the 5550HD significantly faster than the competition(PS3 = 7800GTX, 360 = 1900XT)? No. As shown in virtually every game released for the system to date. As shown in tomshardware GPU hierarchy chart I posed a few pages back. You can tell yourself that "3D World is leagues ahead of anything on the 360/PS3" if you want to.

I dont even know why this is still a debate.

Summary of thread