I'm not talking about Dave here, but the moment a title can be said to run or look better on it, we'll revert back to "DUHURR well done beating 2006 hardware!" and round and round we go
Prior to the Wii-U's launch and recent hardware discoveries, we had members who took issue with people saying the CPU wasn't based on (or related to in any way) Watson, the console was closer to the PS360 than the 720/PS4, that there was nothing special about the Zelda/Bird tech demos, and so on. The importance of hardware power in the Wii-U continued on when news hit about the first line of ports, with many people falling on the "lazy dev" bullshit excuse or the developers just don't wish to use to learn how to use the system correctly conspiracy theory.
However now, many people are reverting back to the whole power isn't that important, this is good because of dev costs, etc.
So how is that any different?
That being said, freaking out about the CPU speed is useless in my opinion. If it was a huge issue we wouldn't see any competent ports. As mentioned earlier, Assassin's Creed III has been an on-par experience and for the most part, Black Ops 2 has been as well (Multiplayer).
Problem is, these hardware components are expected to carry the Wii-U for the next 5-6 years. Current gen ports won't be in question, instead it will be ports from newer consoles which are much faster than the Wii-U. I think that's a realistic and understandable concern.
The hyperbole about the system being a failure, games not running well and the doubt of the Zelda E3 demo being realized on the Wii U is kind of ridiculous. The best part about the Wii U is that it's different, yet again, like the Wii was. They know being a me too console is not going to benefit them, so they have to provide a differentiating factor. I'm also hoping the same for Microsoft and Sony - and I'm also hoping they echo the message as Nintendo that they don't want to add to rising development costs, because no one is going to buy a $599 console in this economy.
Again, there was nothing special about the Zelda demo. I don't think many doubted the Zelda demo could be done, instead many of us were pointing out how it's not some grand representation of a huge technical achievement like some were claiming it to be.
Also, you don't need to release a $600 console to provide a generational leap in performance. A generational leap in performance also does not have to result in massive jumps in development budget. <- these two points seem to elude many Nintendo fans for some reason.
I just find it baffling people are so quick to jump on calling the console a failure. To me if I was so concerned about specifications, I'd jump on the PC wagon (I plan to anyway) instead because then that way I'd ensure I'd have the most powerful machine that can be upgraded in a few years.
I agree that people shouldn't be calling the console a failure, it just launched and no launch is without it's issues.
However I see nothing wrong with wishing for power as a console gamer. It's not so much about owning the most powerful machine for gaming but instead having a new machine that is powerful enough to offer a good leap in performance compared to the previous generation of hardware.
A few modifications here and there. arkam alluding to it have pixel crunching capability in excess of standard SM4 functionality.
No powerhouse by any stretch. Still I question the necessity of more to realize a vision.
I'm curious to know what these modifications may be.
I'm just saying that it's a realistic possibility that many titles next gen may have a vision too grand for the Wii-U to properly run.