Wait... That question work only for people who think the Wii U isn't as powerful as you believe? Do you know how much effort went into the Wii U's version of Arkham City?

Nope. You don't.

Works both way. ¬_¬

tahts right, only if they give the time, which in must cases they dont and tahs the harsh reality, and ubi is not going to give better treatment to wii u than they do for ps4, and if ps4 ports have problems to reach 1080p60fps like assesins creed 4 when you require only 2 to 3x more power than 360 and ps4 is 7.5x more powerful and is as modern as the wii u and even easier to develop for thanks to both the gddr5 and the x86 processor, then why wii u ports would not have problems?

do the math

7.5x more powerful system and more modern gpu can do something taht rerquires 3x more power from a weaker system were the port comes from(was even at 900p at first), ho much poer woul you need to even run it?

1.5 to 2x more power to even run the port at the same resolutiona nd framerate at its counterpartwere the portsd comes

which means that wii u should at least have that much power for even ports to work, cause is not like everybody who ports for wii u gives it special treatment

You should read some interviews of the port of Darkside 2 and you'll know how much effort they put into these ports: a couple of hours at most. 

You know, Wii U is not some magic box with Marios running inside. Just enjoy the good games lol.

ppff, do you?

i am only telling this by the results we have from games, i dont have to be there programming with them to tell and i am not hte one who tells this, everybody out there like reportesr from digita foundaruy and others say so, is no mistry

and is not just the ports

is the gpu die size

is the external power supply efficency

is the rsults we see at monolith x game

is many things

we already leraned how ports hurt on previous generation

which games performed better and looked better in must cacses?

xbox 360 or ps3?

which version of bayonetta was better, xbox 360 or ps3?

whicjh is more powerful system?

ps3 or xbox 360

which was a ground up agme and which a port in bayoneta?

and both already had years out on the market, whcih menas developers got used to the systems and still 360 performed better despuite that ps3 is more powerful

of course that in ground up agmes is different like last of us, but wii u agmes arent grund up agmes, are ports and wii u only has 1 year on the market and few third party support and few marketshare for third party to even cosider give it a special treatment, and even launch games ports were wortking

come on, if wii u was recieving special treatment, wouldnt the zmbi u game looked better and not be criticized ny the graphics?

an its a ground up game

Assassin's Creed 4 runs in 1080p on PS4. Not 900p. And it doesn't struggle to run at that resolution at all, at a locked 30fps.

You clearly have no reasonable explanation as to why the Wii U has a hard time handling cross-gen games. The games aren't emulated to run on the newest consoles. The codes are adapted for each of them. The fact is the Wii U has problems running those games with the same parameters (same resolution, same target frame rate) as those found on the PS3 and 360 versions despite being supposedly more powerful than them. While the PS4 and XBO have no problem running those games with improved visuals and performance.

Even if all that bandwidth was available it would be near useless with the GPU the wii U has, it's like a 6 lane highway leading into a small village, there will never be that much traffic on it...

I would have been curious to see if the PS4 would have shipped with a 1gbps edram (not dure if it was not dram... whatever, some really really fast buffer) module + some DDR3 as Cerny said they contemplated doing... that's mighty fast!

again, put attention and read

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps4-ac4-patch-analysed-in-depth

"

here, enjoy

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps4-ac4-patch-analysed-in-depth

"

Ubisoft recently revealed that the PS4 version of Assassin's Creed 4 would gain an update shortly after the game's release, bumping up the rendering resolution from 900p to 1080p, along with some improved visual effects and a new anti-aliasing solution, with all of this possible via further optimisation work carried out after core development was completed. With the patch now available in the US, are we looking at a noticeable upgrade in visual quality, or a more modest refinement to the original, unpatched presentation?

We kick off with a 1080p head-to-head video showcasing a number of clips from the first hour of the game. On first impressions, the differences between running the game upscaled from 900p and natively in 1080p are actually quite subtle: there's a slight but noticeable boost in sharpness, and images appear a little more crisp, but nothing that immediately grabs you as amounting to anything approaching a sensational upgrade. The original 900p framebuffer is actually upscaled well to 1080p without introducing much in the way of unwanted artefacts, and the anti-aliasing solution in both versions helps to give the game a smooth appearance.

The fact that we aren't seeing any hiccups in smoothness is also rather interesting: it makes you wonder, if Ubisoft are hitting 30fps on such a consistent basis, just how fast would the game actually run on the PS4 hardware if it were not for the frame-rate cap? Sadly, this is something we're unlikely ever to find out, with the upcoming PC version looking like the only one capable of delivering a 60fps update while running at high definition resolutions.

"

"

i am not telling this, is digital foundary and others

the agme was 900p and 30fps and later updated with a patch to 1080p but syill 30fps and only the pc version is 60fps

and again read

if the third parties are giving special tratment to wii u, wouldnt zombiu look better?

and its a ground up game so what the..

and again read

wii u gpu die size is about 96mm2 and already accounted the edram and other things like dsp and arm cores

redwood is 104mm2 but witha  precise photo like chipwors it could be like 94mm2

cant you fit 94mm2 in 96mm2?

redwood has 400 stream cores, 20 tmus and 8 rops, so obviously wii u could have the same cause are both made at 40nm, not to mention that if you remove tmus to have 16 you have sopace for more straem cores(tmus are many times bigger than stream cores) or for other customizations

is not just ports we are talking about, is the few third party support and the fact that no one is going to give special treatment to a system with poor sales and marketshare unless nintendo shows off the money

that and the examples with a powerful system like ps4 that even if capcable of doing 1080p60fps and the ports only goes 1080p30fps or 900p30fps as it was before the patch, the why wouldt the wii u ahve troubles?

is obvious that you require more powerful system for a port to work, and if it was emulation then even more

the ports are just adjusted to work on teh system, no to take profit of all the power behind it, no to mention as the article says wii u portsonly use 33watts, when if we take into account the true wattage peak of wii u thanks to the report of the DOE of USA, then there is like 18 watts left that games dont use, which means like 180gigaflops or so

Oh my... Are you for real? They managed to have a build ready for that Wii U E3 reveal, but they didn't take only a couple hours to port the full game. They asked THQ to give them more time to polish the game, and they got two extra months for that for Pete's sake!

Seriously, you have to be joking.

Hey I just bought a new graphic card that 2x more powerful then my 7 year old graphic card, yet 90% of games run much worse does this make sense to anybody the graphics card specs are hidden by the way