No, it's just you pulling anything that sounds like someone may buy it out of your ass. The Wii U's power was always 100 percent clear to any informed, unbiased observer. Let's review some of the reasons people believed the Wii U was or could have been weaker than PS360:

1. The Wii was so pathetically weak compared to the other consoles in its generation and was basically an overclocked GameCube or Xbox. A lot of people believed the Wii U would follow suit (which it did, just not as bad as some thought).
   
   
2. When rumors of the console's specs were leaked, the Wii U featured a CPU with a clock speed lower than that of PS360, so the less tech-oriented assumed, "SEE! THIS IS CLEER EVADANCE! THE CPU IS WEAKER, SO THE WHOLE THING IS WEEKER!." Then rumours of the X1 started creeping out as well, and lo and behold, most of them pegged it having a CPU only slight quicker than the 360. That's when the self-appointed tech heads of this site began informing the rest of us that modern CPUs don't need the raw processing power of yesteryear; they're just more efficient, see? Meanwhile, the damage on Wii U's reputation for power was done before it even shipped to stores.
   
   
3. There were no launch games that showed off what the system is capable of. NSMBU, Nintendoland and third party ports of PS360 games from the likes of EA and Ubisoft aren't where any sane person would look to for a graphical showcase of the Wii U. Just like all the third party ports and launch games on the PS360 weren't exactly graphical showcases either. Go look at any thread from 2005 and you can find people questioning the graphical difference between OG Xbox and 360, or threads from '06-'08 asking why the PS4 costs $100 more for shittier versions of games that barely run. Yet, people forgot those consoles' early struggles once the Wii U came out.

The fact that you still, until yesterday, didn't know the Wii U is more powerful than PS360 tells me all I need to know about how well you follow gaming news or the Wii U, specifically. There are several more examples I could have pointed out, but that one alone just made your credibility drop like a stone. If you can't make a thread with informed, up-to-date information to back up your rant, then please don't waste anyone's time. There are plenty of other threads on this site or elsewhere on the Internet more worthwhile.

And getting back to Zelda, ooh, wow, let's compare a remake of what many still consider the best game of all time (and best-selling game in the series) on what is currently the most popular gaming console to the remake of a game that pissed many people off in 2001 because of Nintendo's E3 bait-and-switch that released on what looks to be Nintendo's second worst selling console of all time, along with the remake releasing on what is looking more and more like Nintendo's least popular console of all time. That is a totally fair comparison!

Let's go for a far more valid comparison: OOT (N64) vs. Majora's Mask (N64).

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=legend+of+zelda

Explain to me why MM only sold almost exactly half of what Ocarina of Time did? They were on the exact same system; if you bought the former, you could have had the latter. They weren't remakes. And most importantly, to fit in with your logic, they have the exact same engine and art style. THE EXACT SAME. So why did the game that uses the exact same style as the most critically acclaimed and commerciallly successful game in the entire series have such a huge dropoff?

I told you why already, and it's for the exact same reason as Twilight Princess. It came out way at the end of its consoles life cycle, when the thing was almost in the grave, and required extra hardware that added an extra 10 bucks on top of the cost of the game. Hardware that most people knew would hardly be used afterward.

Spare me your anecdotal evidence, please. A couple of YT video does not represent the entire informed gaming community. Any Zelda fan will tell you about the "Zelda Cycle," in which the fandom gets hyped for a new game, hates the previous game, pans the new game upon release, suddenly finds a new passion for the old games.

Majora's Mask wasn't a mainstream type game. It's three day cycle turned a lot of people off, also no adult link.

Do you think Twilight Princess would have been the hit it was if it had Wind Waker or Skyward Sword graphics? Be honest.

So you honestly believe the timing of the releases of MM and SW, along with the fact that they required extra hardware as a barrier to entry had nothing to do with their sales? Be honest.

Do I think WW or SS would have sold like TP if they released in TP's place? WW, no. SS, yes. Like I said, Wind Waker was hated with extreme prejudice before release because of Nintendo's bait-and-switch in 2001 with the Spaceworld demo. I know how it felt because I was one of those people. I hated the game without ever having played it until I finally gave it a try on a demo unit in Gamestop. Now, it's one of the most beloved Zelda games. Meanwhile, TP is scorned and panned as being unoriginal with ugly ass graphics and a horrible swordplay system on the Wii.

Skyward Sword would have absolutely been a commercial and critical success in 2005 (assuming the Wiimote could handle it at the time and didn't need the WM+). After all, it was a critical success in 2011, at the very end of the Wii's life. Go look up any review except Gamespot's.

You claim to be such a big Wii fan, yet you can't seem to remember the motion control craze that swept the world in 2005. We were absolutely swept up in the idea of 1:1 swordplay in the future and salivating for such a game. By the time SS released in 2011, that dream had waned and motion controls became a bad term, but imagine if it released right when it was the hot thing. People would have been rioting in the streets for some 1:1 swordplay Zelda.

The only reason TP sold the way it did was because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. Why do you think Red Steel, a game that was complete trash, sold so well? Because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. So what, are you telling me that Red Steel 1 is superior to Skyward Sword and Wind Waker because it has a realistic and "mature" art style?

I mean it depends, bayonetta 2 looks extremely dated, any game that uses a "realistic art style" on wii-u looks dated.

Ofcourse... if you want to argue that they don't look dated, I can't argue with that. But that's my opinion.

There's oftentimes ulterior motives for choosing certain artstyles in games. Ofcourse no one will ever know the true reason.

And the Wii U has yet to show me better graphics than the 360 or PS3 anyway.