That's the wrong question.. because what games would it be playing at ps4-level 720p?

No, because they had to think of the idea of a controller so cumbersome and expensive to make it costs as much as the console to make. I dont understand why they had to push for a gimmick that is justified by parents wanting to watch TV and so they need to be able to continue gaming. How about taking a break? or saving the game? Thats always worked before and considering gamers of todays its probably good they take a break.

But no, they had to make the controller a hulking beast and forever extinguish the possibility of having four of the same controller on the console. The Wii U will go down in history as the point where Nintendos gimmick experimentation went overboard. The only good thing to come out of it is 720p games.

The graphics are good enough already.
Even last gen and the one before was good enough for me.

I think that was a a fair point up until Xenoblade Chronicles X but that game surely takes the wii u up a notch. I know the Xenoblade world itself doesn't have a huge amount going on and the monster animation can be simplistic rather than realistic but the overall graphics I think are impressive.  Of course with no comparable game on 360 or PS3 and the fact the developer seems to have amazing skills at making humble hardware look good (the original xenoblade is hugely impressive on the wii) its hard to know if they couldn't achieve equal results on ps3 or 360 or even surpass them but it certainly is a game that compares to the best of ps3 and 360 and surpasses them in many areas. That said the character models are  quite simplistic graphically. Something I've seen done better on ps3 and 360. Definitely the wii u's most impressive open world game.

I though it was opposite. The CPU in Xbox one and PS4 is very weak (but decent GPU), its bottlenecking both of these consoles while the Wii U has a very very weak GPU and and a decent CPU. As you know the GPU is more important than CPU (for gaming), but the CPU need to be at certain strength in order to run balancely (enough to run the AI mostly). Also including that the Wii U's CPU maybe decent but its PowerPC so its harder for 3rd party to program.

Decent?

It's three Gamecube processors overclocked and taped together. It's a nearly 20-year old IBM architecture, similar to the one used on late 90s Macintosh. The Bulldozer CPU on PS4/XOne is bad, but even then it runs circles around the Wii-U CPU, as everything from AMD since the first dual core Opterons or Athlons would. Nintendo was probably on drugs if they thought it would come close to even match X360/PS3 levels of CPU performance.

A close match to the Expresso processor is probably the dual core ARM on the iPhone 5, or something.

im curios what would had happen if the wii u would be as sucsessfull as the wii and dominted the console market again.

Maybe all ps4 games would be 1080p60fps so wii u ports would pretty easy be possible on same quality 720p30fps.
In the end I think it would be better for everyone^^

Since I won't use the WiiU as primary console for the way it's now is enough, Nintendo games look good on it... but of course if it was almost on par with PS4/X1 would be a lot more enticing granted they had 3rd party support.

 The reason why you wont see those graphics on wii u is that most wii u exclusives are 60 fps and multiplats could never compete in terms of graphics with exclusives.

it should be pretty clear that a ~27 fps ps3 game would look better as a ~45 fps bayonetta 2 on wii u.

I do think that mario kart 8 and zelda wind waker hd both come cloth in terms of beaty look but you just cant compare those games to a realistic looking one.

the big wii us exlcusives are all cartoonish games. The realistic looking ones dont sell well on wii u so they will never put as much effort into those wii u games as naghty dog put into TLOU.

How on earth did you get to believe that? I've just bought a Linx tablet, cheap as chips, even that tablet has about 70% more cpu performance than the wii u and its 64bit processors not 32bit. About 15,000 mips compared to the 9,000 mips of the wii u. It's just a little battery operated tablet. The cpu performance of the wii u is terrible and that's why conversions of games that run on 360 and PS3 run so badly on wii u because it simply doesn't have the same level of cpu resources, those consoles are far more cpu-centric even if their gpu's are inferior. There are a lot of nintendo fanboys on this site and others that spool off the most ridiculous claims about the wii u performance level pretending its somehow competitive. 

One of the key points about the wii u spec that can not be questioned is the 12.8gb/s memory bandwidth because the memory chips are clearly labelled and branded. So we know whatever the wii u does it does it by only transferring a maximum of 12.8gb/s.  That figure of 12.8gb/s is shared between both the operating system side and the game side and the only additional bandwidth is in the 32MB of fast memory built into the gpu. 12.8gb/s  is tiny compared to the 192gb/s of a ps4 for example. Memory bandwidth is a good rough guide regarding a console's performance because it would have been selected on the basis of the requirements of both the gpu and cpu of the system and how much data they can move. Clearly not a lot with the wii u sadly.