I still only see an average FPS that is only hyped because of its massive marketing budget. That's a fact (that most of the budget went to marketing). How much of the budget went in to the actual game development? Please tell me. You'd think that was the most important thing about a game, but not according to Bungie. ;) 

I'm not impressed by the amount of pixels, polygons or textures. I see a game that could be run on a 7th gen console with some downgrades. The Last of Us looks just as good to me. Now Uncharted 4, that's a game that's a big step up. And I have no doubt it will review better. Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of Destiny's budget was used to convince some professional reviewers. With such a high budget they obviously want to manipulate the media coverage of this game. 

Not to my knowledge. PS4 started being profitable very early, unlike Wii U. You know why? Because it sold so much more. You know why? Because it was powerful and full of 3rd party support. What percentage of the huge amount of 3rd party titles do you think Sony had to put money on to "lock" them on PS4? You are so wrong.

I pray for you not to ever manage Nintendo. They thought they wouldn't need precisely what made them lose to PS4. And now that the results prove it, they just don't need to make the same mistake twice.

They canned the PS3 and 360 SKUs of Project CARS because the consoles weren't powerful enough to do the game justice. The Wii U obviously is, probably due to Latte having a DX11-equivalent feature set.

Third party publishers aren't including Wii U SKUs due to sales potential, not due to a lack of power under the hood. Engines these days are scalable, the Wii U is quite capable of handling anything that the PS4 and One can handle, albeit with slight downgrades.

All you need to do is look at Super Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 8, Xenoblade Chronicles X and Bayonetta 2 to see that the Wii U is quite a capable machine. Most people put Nintendo games' looks purely down to 'good art' but those games I've listed are all technically impressive in terms of polys pushed, dynamic lighting and shadows, solid framerate and v-synch.

I'm still firmly in the 'fixed function' camp for Latte, what we've seen from those titles I've listed above shouldn't be possible from a 176GFlops/352GFlops GPU drawing around 20 Watts. There's a great deal more to the Wii U's hardware than meets the eye, in terms of horsepower it's pretty obvious to anyone with any sense that it lies somewhere between the PS3 and the Xbox One.

1 - Umm, ok. The Earth looks a cube to me. Unless I present some hard evidence, these are just empty words.

I can't force you to see the truth. If you think Mario Kart 8 has better graphics than GT5, I won't do anything more than laughing.

2 - I'm comparing 2 videos from 2 different games. Both have 7th gen graphics and both haven't came out yet.

3 - Then it must be this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg2PTVi7fl8

Not much different either. And why is the scale important? Xenoblade doesn't seem to be a strategy game with thousands of units in the field like Total War. I chose another RPG, which seems fair.

4 - Really? 1 game will prove it all? May I show you several games that were launched better on X360 than PS3? Does that make X360 one generation ahead of the PS3? Does that make it at least superior?

And, actually, all that video shows are 2 images. And it narrows the comparison to X360 vs Wii U (PS3 not mentioned at all).

2 images from 1 game?! What am I supposed to do with that? Conclude the Wii U is 1 generation ahead of the X360? Please just stop it.

Then you shouldn't care about generations. When I said Wii U was a piece of 7th gen tech, why didn't you just ignored that?

I (and millions of people) use the generations as reference to assess hardware capabilities. If you don't care about that, why bother?

I personally find Moto Racer 1 to be better looking than some ugly 8th gen games, altough it's only 4th gen. Beautiful, but 4th gen. So what? It won't become 8th gen because of that.

Oh, now I know where you're coming from. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

But, aside from the 1st paragraph, I reaffirm my comments. You have been going around in circles talking about art, fun and other things that are not tech.

You're talking about horsepower, I'm talking about speed. You're talking about means, I'm talking about ends. You keep on talking about budget (= money = resources = means), I keep on talking about graphics (= results = ends).

You are not impressed by the technology? That's fine by me. You don't care about it? You'd rather talk about art, fun and budgets? That's ok. But then don't raise your voice when I say Wii U is a piece of 7th gen tech. And when you challenge that, don't ignore the arguments I present to support my view. Either you're in or you're out of the graphics debate. You cannot have a foot in and the other out to sway as it is convenient to you.

1 - No, they did it because the game got delayed. Had it been launched in 2013 and you would see it on the PS3 and X360, just like GRID 2. Would their power do justice to the game? Not at all. It has been primarily designed on the PC, and PS3/X360 are old hardware already. But, again, it would be like GRID 2.

No game is moved into another console just because, after so much work and investment, the devs realize "hm, no, it's not making justice to the game". Do you believe that could have happened to Monster Hunter 3 so that it would be launched on the PS3 instead of the Wii? Do you believe that could have happened to Gran Turismo 6? It could...if (like Project CARS) the game was delayed to 2014. But, once it wasn't (like GRID 2) it remained on the PS3.

Anyway, according to your logic, the Wii U version won't do justice to the game when compared to the other versions, you can be sure about that.

2 - Right...like Assassin's Creed was never on the Wii. Or GTA. Or Batman. Or Bioshock. Or The Elder Scrolls. Or Rage. Or Crysis. Or Burnout (I could go on and on). It was a matter of "sales potential", sure.

And now on the Wii U, devs all of a sudden saw potential on it to have a version of their PS3/X360 entries. And, with the same quickness, they stopped seeing potential on it when considering only the 8th gen consoles (PS4/XOne, not PS3/X360 anymore). How intriguing...

3 - Those effects and framerate are impressive because the textures don't need to be that good. Mario and its cartoonish wonderland environments may very well leave room for a great framerate and resolution (and even some effects). The same could be achieved on the PS3 and X360.

You remind me of those vacuum cleaner salesmen with full of techniques to show how powerful their product is. But if I try the same thing with my old vacuum cleaner I get the same result.

4 - Sweden lies somewhere between Norway and Japan. Somewhere...

1 - Not Sony, I love what is well made. Project Gotham and Crysis have great graphics on the X360 too.

2 - Not prettier, technically superior. And of course there are many PS4 and XOne games (starting by the indie titles) that don't even come close to the best looking PS3/X360 games.

3 - Pretty much equivalent. Watch dogs is better on people. GT5 is better on vehicles. Watch dogs is better on the sky. GT5 is better on the ground. Overall, they are equivalent.