I think what they mean is in regards to the assets used in a game, for example X1 games will have assets that are natively 900p while Wii U games will have assets that natively 720p. This means running the former at 30fps takes significantly more power than the latter at 60fps because of the workload caused by the assets.

When I say assets I'm not talking strictly about resolution as that's just the visual output and PCs have been able to output at HD resolutions long before the 360 was even a concept, assets are things like the textures, character models and all. Assets have a native resolution they're created at and look best at and hardware not accustomed to the native resolution would not be able to run it at the same fidelity and would require compromises.

Framerate and resoltuion are in relation to power becase the are a few PS3 games that run in 1080p + 60fps but these games natively are sub HD in their assets and don't do as much as most other games, it would be a stretch to say that PS3 hardware is comparable to the 8th gen because of these few games.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7154818

"I previously, and still do, believe that Nintendo could release a tablet that would function as a 3ds and also work as a controller for the wiiU. "

March 18th, 2015

There's no point talking to you lmao you're pulling blatantly false info out of you're ass talking about the Wii U running wii games in 4K 60fps.

Because it is only your opinion.
Take a look at any Wii U game, you will find that texturing, geometry, lighting, shading and general assets is a generational step back from the next gen twins.

Resolution and Framerate is not the sole determiner of image quality that you imply, resolution is the amount of pixels being rendered and displayed on screen, usually it impacts the clarity of an image and reduces the amount of jaggies. (Some form's of Anti-Aliasing will just render the game at a higher resolution then downscale it.)
Framerate is the amount of images displayed per second.
Neither two affects the lighting, shadowing, geometry, texturing, filtering etc' going on in a game.
You can have the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 render games at full 1080P, 60fps. It will look worst than an Xbox One at 480P 30fps.

Still waiting for you to show me a game which is able to provide Xbox One Levels of image quality, you kinda' need that to back your argument up, otherwise your absurd claims are simply without basis.

We also need to keep in mind that Nintendo historically (Since the gamecube days) hasn't been the leader in hardware or graphics either, The Gamecube lost to the Xbox, the Wii lost to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, the Wii U looses to the Xbox One and Playstation 4, the DS Lost to the PSP, 3DS looses to the Vita  and the NX is unlikely to change any of that, it's Nintendo's business strategy. And it has kept them in business, so we can expect more of the same going forward. (Even if I hope for them to be competitive with hardware, there is nothing that says that they will.)

Converesly... Rumors have suggested that the NX is likely to be less powerfull than the Xbox One, if the Wii U can display graphics at the Xbox One Level (Your words, not mine) then what would be the point in releasing the NX?

I would like for you to show some proof though of an in-game screenshot that shows Xbox One levels of graphics being rendered on the Wii U, otherwise I will assume you are not being serious.

ps3's 1080p games are nowhere near the graphical level of 8th gen console games. What I said before remains.

Lying in my face doesn't help. Resolution and framerate are big factors, graphics are the other and there's no big difference between wii u's graphics and it's two competitors. They're certainly better but nothing huge.

Nearly every major Wii U exclusives prove my point.

Absolutely irrelevant that those hardwares weren't the strongest in their generations.

I will pretend I didn't read your NX vs x1 sentence. To make it short, there's no way wii u's successor is only less/ equally as/ a little more/ moderately more powerful than x1.

PS3 games not being near the same graphical level is the point, resolution and fps don't equate to power by themselves, you also failed to acknowledge what I said about in games assets and their nativity for a start in regards to what you said before.

The discussion isn't about the ps3 so that's obviously not the point. Wii U handles very graphically demanding games in 720p 60ps, in cases like smash bros, the graphics are lower but resolution higher and xenoblade has less frames in exchange for more stuff on screen.

the guy's notes actually state that it can 'easily' play any PS4/Xone games. meaning that its obviously more advanced if it has no difficulties porting anything from them (again he seems focus on the ease of doing these things, which would only be possible if the hardware was pretty advanced)

Can we please ban this Zero alt?