I'd still put Starfox Zero above Devil's Third graphically; Starfox has a much higher framerate, and fewer instances of low res textures and pop-in. (Yeah, it's an UE3 problem, but still)

Hell, I'm not even picking on Devil's Third here, there are other games on Wii U that look worse than Zero:

^ And if you think those screens are bad, keep in mind that in motion it cannot even sustain 30fps.

I own the Rogue Squadron games; they look nothing like this when running on actual GCN/Wii hardware.

Don't get me wrong, they are technological masterpieces for their time and arguably the most graphically advanced games on the 6th generation, but running them on Dolphin with a bunch of graphical upgrades doesn't represent how the original games look.

Running natively they look more like this:

Still incredibly impressive for 2001 hardware, mind you, but what quite the same as what Dolphin would have us believe.

I think it's a mistake to assume Wii U owners don't own other gaming systems.

Is the same extremely lame argument as always, when a WiiU game flops (and many did) they point how badly games sell on the system, but when a wiiu game suceed is probably a lame game but there is nothing else to play so they buy it. Its annoying as hell.

I find that whole "x Wii U game only sold cos owners had no other options" argument rather reductive and absurd. I would bet money that most Wii U owners own other gaming platforms.

Of course they have, specially 3ds and PC, Iwata himself said most people with a wiiu had another system.

But even if not, is really stupid to think that people buys games they dont want because they have nothing more to play, if a game dont raise any kind of interest it flops, no matter where or when, and when it suceed is because a lot of people want it, there is no other way to look at it.

Also is fun how some choose to forget that Nintendo has just released 3 games in a month and a half on the system. But hey, nothing else to play.

Gamecube could do Pixel shading in a way and thus so could the Wii.
For instance "Bloom" is often used in Gamecube and Wii Games.

Remember Factor 5's comment that the Gamecube *could* technically achieve everything that the Original Xbox could achieve, pixel shading included... The difference is, your approach *would* have to be custom because of TEV. - And chances are you would require multiple passes.
Only a few games would thus use it to any great degree. (I.E. Rogue Squadron.)

Granted you aren't going to get Xbox 360/Playstation 3/Wii U levels of shaders on a gamecube... And even Xbox 360 games there is a VAST difference between launch titles and end of the generation titles in terms of shader complexity, allot of the early games had shaders that *could* have been done on the prior generation they were that simple.

Gamecube can render in HD. It just cannot output HD, because it doesn't have the interface to do so.

The point is... A game that is only slightly "touched up" (Despite being a decade+ old) can be competitive to StarFox Zero.

The Gamecube could do normal mapping just fine in hardware, it's supported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube_technical_specifications

The issue with the Gamecube was that most of it's game library was ports from other platforms and Nintendo hasn't really been known to push hardware to it's absolute limit.
We did see a heavier use of Normal Mapping in the Wii though. (Which is derived from the Gamecube's hardware.)

Feels like a ps2/wii HD remastered game with 60fps.

But the worst thing about it is that feels like will be boring, oh so boring.

Boring is the last thing this game looks and certainly far from what previews are saying.

On a site such as this yes, who on a gaming community website only owns a wiiu?

But little Timmy down the road who got his WiiU for Christmas has that and a tablet.

Moderated for this post along with the previous ones - VXIII