You say it best, totally agree.

You guys are making me regret ordering AC4 now. I'm trying to will myself to finish AC3 and hoped 4 would be a better experience.

Sorry. For what it's worth, the core game of AC4 is strong, even if the porting could have been better. And I'm going off Digital Foundry's launch analysis, for all I know the Wii U version's framerate could have been patched by now.

I'm sorry but those tweets...

"from what I hear if powerpc used right can look as good as Xbox one."
"Lazy devs..."
"I don't expect it to be as good looking but I just know you could have done a better job."
"Because of the delay I'm gonna "get" it on PC anyways, otherwise Wii U."

There's no basis at all for demanding X1 like performance out of Wii U. These people are just going to piss off devs with their blind whining.  If Wii U was clearly superior on all levels to 360 then you would have an easy argument, but the Wii U's CPU is underpowered.

Wii U can issue 3 instructions @ 1.25GHz and 360 can issue 2 instructions @ 3.2GHz.  i.e. maximum theoretical on Wii U is lower (3.75Giga instructions vs 6.4Giga instructions).

Of course, the Wii U's Out-Of-Order engine makes it much easier to get close to that theoretical maximum than the X360 without lots of optimization, and this is where the "if they used PPC right..." argument doesn't make sense.  Both Wii U & 360 use PPC architecture, but the Wii U is more advanced with OOO.  There is less that a developer can do to make an Out-Of-Order CPU run faster than an In-Order CPU.

Another way to phrase it is that any PPC optimization, is going to make a bigger difference for X360 than for Wii U.  Therefore, it's not more PPC optimization that will make Wii U games better than X360!

I'm actually betting on them using PS3/XBox360 assets, and porting it up slightly.  This would support their statement far better overall.

Porting it down from the PS4/XBox1, while more than likely possible, would probably cause their statement to stop at "between", and not clarify that it's closer to the PS3/XBox360.

Having said that, I believe the statement that they want to develop it to best use the Gamepad at a separate studio points me in the direction of damage control over the Wii U version's delay, and I don't believe it one bit that they are trying to make the Wii U version a solid port.

WiiU version will have less than half the graphics of PS3's since it's using only 33W vs minimum 70W on PS3.

That also leaves more performance pressure sales-wise though; a separate development will inevitably be a lot more costly than a port so this game is very likely not to be profitable on Wii U and that's not good news for future support at all.

People have been so hung up on Guillemot's words on the previous cheap ports and are somehow figuring that porting = multiplatform development, which it doesn't, and most people seem to think that average 3rd party budgets on Wii U won't exceed about 1 million Euros (since that was roughly the cost of the ports).
Not saying you are one of these people, I know you're not, it's just an observation on how little people understand about the relative cost of game development on the various platforms.

It's also hilarious that people are looking at 1st generation software on brand new platforms and going "lol, they can't even use the increased power properly", when we all know the vast difference between launch window and very early software and late gen software (look at the chasm between the visual quality of early 7th gen titles and late ones). Anything to discredit 3rd parties, I suppose.