Support NeoGAF

[OG_Original Gamer]

I could have sworn I've specifically replied to you about this very same thing before. DX11 added 3 main features to the DX standard over DX10.1. The big main 2 were tesselation, and compute shaders. The 3rd addition was better support for multi-core processors. The only things we need to be looking at here are Tesselation and Compute Shaders. DirectCompute can be run on AMD 10.1 hardware. DX11's flavor of tesselation couldn't directly be run on the tesselators found in AMD's chips do to not supporting certain function calls of DX11. That said though other API's could absolutely make use of the Tesselators. Now it is a given that the Tesselators that followed were much more efficient, than the ones found in AMD's 7xx line of chips.

We know from the leaked specs that were confirmed by multiple insiders that the Wii U GPU supports Compute Shaders, and we know from Shin'en confirming that it supports a tesselator.

So the two main features added by DX11 over DX10.1 are there, though yes the Wii U hardware is not as powerful as the XO/PS4, but were talking feature set not power. Also yes DX11 spec parts are going to be more efficient, and also support shader model 5.0 but the main feature set is there.

Basically, X0 and PS4 can use DX10.1-DX11 features at a larger scale. PS4 with an edge, which showed IMO compared to X0 exclusives. Don't be surprised when we some of those same features in use in WiiU games, but obviously in a limited fashion.

I wonder if the low memory bandwidth on the embedded end stands.

 

[bgassassin]

Because... PS4/XBone are much more powerful compared to WiiU than WiiU is compared to PS360. Is that too difficult to understand for you? Is that seriously still not clear? Is it still not clear that people are not claiming WiiU to be nearly as powerful as PS4, but rather that there is an actual gap between it and PS360?

There's no such thing as a gray area only black and white. If you say there is a gap between Wii U and PS360, that means you're saying Wii U is on par with PS4/Xbone.

That is only if you look at the clockspeed of the CPUs. The difference in computation is more significant, and N64's CPU was infamously bottlenecked due to RAM issues and each sound channel requiring 1% of its power. If we look at the GPU, there is roughly 10 orders of magnitude (100x difference) in real world polygon rendering, and the Gamecube could do alot more graphical features.

Looking at what I wrote, it is amazing on how much more powerful the 2nd-gen 3D machines were compared to the 1st-gen.

GC also had 250x the texture memory. 4KB vs 1MB.

 

[Hieberrr]

There's no such thing as a gray area only black and white. If you say there is a gap between Wii U and PS360, that means you're saying Wii U is on par with PS4/Xbone.



GC also had 250x the texture memory. 4KB vs 1MB.

WAT

 

[tarheel91]

WAT

Sarcasm.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I think it was mentioned those are downscaled. There's no proof Mario Kart is doing the same.

Mario kart isnt confirmed to 1080 but smash bros is.

 

[lwilliams3]

There's no such thing as a gray area only black and white. If you say there is a gap between Wii U and PS360, that means you're saying Wii U is on par with PS4/Xbone.



GC also had 250x the texture memory. 4KB vs 1MB.

And with that point..

What can i tell you ozfunghi, in order to proceed with the disscusion please be kind enough to properly adress my points. You are putting words in my mouth, in simple terms what i say is that Wii U is comparable to the 360/PS3 with slightly better features and more RAM.

Anyways basically you are agreing with me, we aren't seen significant upgrades in Wii U ports because the machine doesn't have suficient extra horse power to go substantially beyond this generation of hardware. The experience stuff applies to every transition betwen hardware generations, so you can pile that up with the other excuses.

And i don't know why you constantly bring "the games will improve with time" statement, that's natural in console development and i haven't seen anyone here say otherwise.

In serious terms, why is the above statement so outrageous to some here? Leaving the argument of what constitute a console generation aside, we are infact seen certain amount of common effects in the new consoles that are absent in the Wii U. Soft body and cloth simulation, physical driven particle effects and the fact that most games are targetting 1080p. Wii U targets 720p like the present generation. So the gap could be considered a generational one.

I think one problem here is the difference in defining what is a console generation gap. If we use multipliers, the difference between one generation of 3D consoles to the next has reduced each generation, so it does make sense that you can call the Xbox One as a generation ahead of 360 even if the multipliers are lower.

On the flipside, though, since the Wii U's overall performance is higher than the most powerful current-gen to some degree, I believe it is inaccurate to say that it's a console generation behind the other consoles.

 

[bomblord]

Something that just hit me.

Most of these games are using strikingly similar lighting engines. Could this be evidence of fixed function shaders?

 

[Smurfman256]

Something that just hit me.

Most of these games are using strikingly similar lighting engines. Could this be evidence of fixed function shaders?

I had actually thought about that since the first images of Wind Waker HD were released.

 

[JordanN]

Something that just hit me.

Most of these games are using strikingly similar lighting engines. Could this be evidence of fixed function shaders?

Edit: If it's fixed functioned it means it's very restricted or can't change. There's no way to prove that without knowing the hardware.

I don't think the fixed function theory ever had much weight.

 

[bgassassin]

I think one problem here is the difference in defining what is a console generation gap. If we use multipliers, the difference between one generation of 3D consoles to the next has reduced each generation, so it does make sense that you can call the Xbox One as a generation ahead of 360 even if the multipliers are lower.

On the flipside, though, since the Wii U's overall performance is higher than the most powerful current-gen to some degree, I believe it is inaccurate to say that it's a console generation behind the other consoles.

I had fun with the discussion in the Xbone thread, and how it sounds is that a ~50+% performance difference is viewed as a generational leap. So there's obviously an issue with what is viewed as a generation gap.

Something that just hit me.

Most of these games are using strikingly similar lighting engines. Could this be evidence of fixed function shaders?

No. That's a design choice.

 

[bomblord]

I had fun with the discussion in the Xbone thread, and how it sounds is that a ~50+% performance difference is viewed as a generational leap. So there's obviously an issue with what is viewed as a generation gap.



No. That's a design choice.

The same design choice from completely different teams in separate studios?

 

[bgassassin]

The same design choice from completely different teams in separate studios?

If they are all using the same engine, then yes. Which as I understand it has always been the case since N64. Especially so since they are all pretty much just getting their feet wet with a GPU with programmable shaders. Considering how cautious Nintendo is and trying to get 1st party titles out as soon as possible, I wouldn't expect much experimentation at this point. Hopefully we'll see a little more diversity by the end of Wii U's life.

 

[ozfunghi]

One has to wonder though, looking at the lighting in Mario Kart 8, how good Nintendo could make a realistic looking game look. To me, the biggest currently discernible difference between last gen (PS360) and next gen (PS4/XBone) is in the lighting. Sure, bigger and more seamless environments, draw distance, poly count, textures, resolution, framerate... all play their part, but it's the lighting that makes it pop. I mean, that screen posted from The Division... it looks awesome. But how far removed would say Need For Speed U look with a more realistic lighting engine? Maybe Project CARS can answer that question somewhat.

 

[bgassassin]

One has to wonder though, looking at the lighting in Mario Kart 8, how good Nintendo could make a realistic looking game look. To me, the biggest currently discernible difference between last gen (PS360) and next gen (PS4/XBone) is in the lighting. Sure, bigger and more seamless environments, draw distance, poly count, textures, resolution, framerate... all play their part, but it's the lighting that makes it pop. I mean, that screen posted from The Division... it looks awesome. But how far removed would say Need For Speed U look with a more realistic lighting engine? Maybe Project CARS can answer that question somewhat.

Probably Watch Dogs also since it's supposedly developed separately from the PS360 versions. But it would be interesting to see. I mentioned in the MK8 thread that radiosity is used, though it could be baked in.

 

[Blades64]

Fair enough.

Smash is 1080p. There are 1080p screens.

Iwata confirmed it himself.

I'm an idiot. For some reason I thought he was talking about Mario Kart. Didn't read clearly enough I guess. I know that Smash is confirmed to be 1080p, yes.

 

[lwilliams3]

I had fun with the discussion in the Xbone thread, and how it sounds is that a ~50+% performance difference is viewed as a generational leap. So there's obviously an issue with what is viewed as a generation gap.

Lol. That's a good point. If people are being so overdramatic with that, it makes sense that posters are alot worse when it comes to the Wii U.

If they are all using the same engine, then yes. Which as I understand it has always been the case since N64. Especially so since they are all pretty much just getting their feet wet with a GPU with programmable shaders. Considering how cautious Nintendo is and trying to get 1st party titles out as soon as possible, I wouldn't expect much experimentation at this point. Hopefully we'll see a little more diversity by the end of Wii U's life.

I expect to see more diversity once Nintendo can worry less about Wii U's userbase stability.
Considering the trouble that Nintendo has admitted to with catching up on HD development, I'm presently surprised on the graphical quality of their games.

 

[ArchangelWest]

What does +50% specs advantage even mean on screen anymore? Something noticeable for some gamers, but overall, not a whole lot.

 

[Disorientator]

Where did you get this quote from?

WMD forum (source)

 

[lwilliams3]

What does +50% specs advantage even mean on screen anymore? Something noticeable for some gamers, but overall, not a whole lot.

It will probably be like the Gamecube -> Wii.. but only for the GPU. The CPU seems to be basically the same, and the RAM situation will depend on how devs uses the ESRAM (like the eDRAM in the Wii U.) I wouldn't expect very major differences.

WMD forum (source)

... I can't log into that page, so I will just have to take your word for it for now. Thanks for sharing that info.

 

[flippedb]

Probably Watch Dogs also since it's supposedly developed separately from the PS360 versions. But it would be interesting to see. I mentioned in the MK8 thread that radiosity is used, though it could be baked in.

I read somewhere, that the Wii U version is being developed by the same team who's developing the PS4 version.

 

[Log4Girlz]

One has to wonder though, looking at the lighting in Mario Kart 8, how good Nintendo could make a realistic looking game look. To me, the biggest currently discernible difference between last gen (PS360) and next gen (PS4/XBone) is in the lighting. Sure, bigger and more seamless environments, draw distance, poly count, textures, resolution, framerate... all play their part, but it's the lighting that makes it pop. I mean, that screen posted from The Division... it looks awesome. But how far removed would say Need For Speed U look with a more realistic lighting engine? Maybe Project CARS can answer that question somewhat.

I had my hopes with Retro. Was hoping for some ultra cool, gritty action RPG or something. Instead we got fucking DKTF.

Nintendo is clueless.

 

[AzaK]

I had my hopes with Retro. Was hoping for some ultra cool, gritty action RPG or something. Instead we got fucking DKTF.

Nintendo is clueless.

Yup. Although it's more like they don't give a fuck about fans who also like games different to Nintendos base style. We're the scum at the bottom of the customer totem pole.

We'll guess what Nintendo, I've decided to move most of my gaming dollars elsewhere until you fix it. Too bad there's not a million mes.

 

[AzaK]

So now that we have seen better looking Wii U games, and PS4/One games, what do you guys think of the comparison?

We haven't really seen the same style of games though to compare them. Maybe Knack vs 101?

I could see a version of a game on the PS4 being 1080 at 60 and one at 720/30 on Wii U minus some advanced effects but still looking fine.

 

[Hermii]

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/call_of_duty_ghosts_confirmed_for_wii_u

During a stage show on GameSpot yesterday, Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin confirmed that there is indeed a Wii U version of Call of Duty: Ghosts, but PR wanted to "keep it mysterious".

It was said that the game will launch on the console alongside next-gen versions of the game for Xbox One and PS4.

Keep it mysterious? What the hell does that mean? why would they possibly want to keep it mysterious?

 

[MDX]

Keep it mysterious? What the hell does that mean? why would they possibly want to keep it mysterious?

Hopefully the features the gamepad will bring

and not that they were paid to not to show it

 

[daxgame]

Iwata confirmed it himself.

got any link? Not doubting, just wanted to see the quote\source

 

[frankie_baby]

Hopefully the features the gamepad will bring

and not that they were paid to not to show it

its almost certainly the latter

 

[prag16]

its almost certainly the latter

But how does that make sense? It's confirmed for PS4/xbone; you think either/both of those companies would see a Wii U version as a threat enough to pay Activision not to confirm its existence?

 

[plank]

got any link? Not doubting, just wanted to see the quote\source

from another thread.

 

[BlockheadBrown]

But how does that make sense? It's confirmed for PS4/xbone; you think either/both of those companies would see a Wii U version as a threat enough to pay Activision not to confirm its existence?

Features would be easily overshadowed by the PS4/X1 hoopla. I have a feeling that we'll see more in a Nintendo Direct at some point.

 

[joesiv]

I really don't know why DK: TF looks so underwhelming considering this is Retro, but it does. :/

I'm hoping it's because DK is considered the "small" game, and the B team was put on it... the A team is working on... you know

 

[frankie_baby]

But how does that make sense? It's confirmed for PS4/xbone; you think either/both of those companies would see a Wii U version as a threat enough to pay Activision not to confirm its existence?

they might not see the wii u version as a threat but i'm sure they see the benefit in creating FUD

 

[ozfunghi]

Probably Watch Dogs also since it's supposedly developed separately from the PS360 versions. But it would be interesting to see. I mentioned in the MK8 thread that radiosity is used, though it could be baked in.

The problem i have with Watch_Dogs, is that it doesn't look as nex-gen as it did last year. Did the bar get raised or does the game look worse? I don't know, but it doesn't look like The Division for instance.

I had my hopes with Retro. Was hoping for some ultra cool, gritty action RPG or something. Instead we got fucking DKTF.

Nintendo is clueless.

In this case i agree completely. No problem with DK, but the Jungle Beat team could have done that just as easily, maybe better.

 

[bomblord]

I had my hopes with Retro. Was hoping for some ultra cool, gritty action RPG or something. Instead we got fucking DKTF.

Nintendo is clueless.

Clueless would infer they didn't know what they were doing. They are far from clueless the choices they are making have perfectly rational business sense. They are just at a point where the system isn't doing well so they in order to stabilize sales they have to release the games that sell in incredibly high volumes the "system sellers".

Guess what kind of games those are.

So "panic Nintendo" is definitely not the best Nintendo.

 

[Van Owen]

The problem i have with Watch_Dogs, is that it doesn't look as nex-gen as it did last year. Did the bar get raised or does the game look worse? I don't know, but it doesn't look like The Division for instance.

Probably because Division is next-gen only, and Watch Dogs was developed with 360/PS3/Wii U in mind.

 

[Donnie]

I had fun with the discussion in the Xbone thread, and how it sounds is that a ~50+% performance difference is viewed as a generational leap. So there's obviously an issue with what is viewed as a generation gap.

Which is pretty amazing because during discussions of WiiU the idea of it being 50% more powerful than 360/PS3 was described by many as just "being on par" or "insignificant".

 

[v1oz]

Keep it mysterious? What the hell does that mean? why would they possibly want to keep it mysterious?

I'm guessing they are Nintendo exclusive features. Which they are keeping for a Nintendo Direct reveal later this year.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

Probably because Division is next-gen only, and Watch Dogs was developed with 360/PS3/Wii U in mind.

Then why was it unveiled on running on a PC with a GTX680.

 

[Donnie]

We haven't really seen the same style of games though to compare them. Maybe Knack vs 101?

I could see a version of a game on the PS4 being 1080 at 60 and one at 720/30 on Wii U minus some advanced effects but still looking fine.

Definitely, they shouldn't even need to remove any effects (certainly if it was a multi platform game also on XBox One). Since we're talking about around one fifth of the processing power for 720p/30 vs 1080p/60.

 

[lwilliams3]

You guys are going off-topic with the DK/Retro wining.

Probably because Division is next-gen only, and Watch Dogs was developed with 360/PS3/Wii U in mind.

I partially agree, but the Next-gen version is getting made by a different team than the current-gen. If the scope was somehow narrowed by including the current-gen games, in theory that would have givin the next-gen team some leeway to boost the visuals more.

Watch Dogs was originally shown on a high-end PC, so perhaps things had to be toned down to get good performance on the next-gen dev kits. Now that they have better tools and more experience, they can now bring the visuals back up with The Division.

 

[v1oz]

Probably because Division is next-gen only, and Watch Dogs was developed with 360/PS3/Wii U in mind.

Those are down ports, they are not the lead platforms. Watch Dogs was initially revealed a next gen title. When they first showed the concept at e3 last year, it was running on a high end PC.

 

[MDX]

I think what happened with many third party WiiU games is that Nintendo's message,
or information to developers, was not clear and/or too conservative
on how powerful the WiiU really was. Actually, it could very well be that Nintendo didnt even know themselves; seeing the jump in power from Wii to WiiU is greater than GC to Wii. Whereas, performance targets, from MS and Sony, might have been more clear.

So what could have happened is that some developers decided to play it safe (or made false assumptions) and bundled the WiiU with the PS3 & 360 development instead of PS4 & XB1. And this is why the WiiU has missed out on some "next gen" titles depending on when these titles were begun.

Proof of this is the delay of games from Nintendo first party titles (titles that should have made the launch window) The lack of titles from their second parties. The conflicting statements by developers on the CPU's power & bottlenecks in memory. As well as third parties jumping to conclusions based on Nintendo's documentation and not testing the hardware itself. Also, statements that final dev kits were released close to WiiU launch.

If you look at debates between the PS4 and XB1, when it comes to memory, people state that the eSRAM is an important factor in counter balancing Gddr5. Well the WiiU has just as much eDRAM and more, and on both chips! Another point made is that developers will have to work a little harder with XB1 to bring out its power as opposed to PS4, because the XB1 has more customized components. Well, the WiiU is undoubtedly a highly customized console.

We also have the issue that Nintendo's first party games are mostly cartoony and colorful, and are being compared to many first party titles from the competition that push for realism. And I think this will be a problem for Nintendo. I do think they should have at least one of their studios focused on pushing realism as a graphical showcase for their consoles. People hoped it was going to be Retro, but dreams for that where recently squashed.

At some point though, third parties will either have to figure out how to make the WiiU hang with the other two, or relegate it to what the Wii was. But as long as sales for the WiiU continue to be sluggish, they wont benefit too much from it either.

 

[Van Owen]

Then why was it unveiled on running on a PC with a GTX680.

The same reason Bungie is only showing next gen versions of Destiny during their demos.

 

[wsippel]

Probably because Division is next-gen only, and Watch Dogs was developed with 360/PS3/Wii U in mind.

With Ubisoft, chances are Division will see quite a few downgrades soon enough, next-gen only or not.

 

[shawnhi]

TL;DR?

 

[megabytecr]

Do yourself a favour and discard much of what you saw at e3 and lower your expectations

(Yes, the division too). Don't you guys ever learn from ass creed/watch dogs/etc?

This please.

XB1 games were running on PC. PS4 I am not sure they were running on final hardware.

There is a big chance both Sony and MS cheated a bit to build the hype, so I am with you StevieP, I am holding on buying the PS4, and you early adopters please test it for me, I tested the Wii U.

If it does not live well to the hype might as well wait for an 8gb video card and go PC.

 

[Blades64]

This please.

XB1 games were running on PC. PS4 I am not sure they were running on final hardware.

There is a big chance both Sony and MS cheated a bit to build the hype, so I am with you StevieP, I am holding on buying the PS4, and you early adopters please test it for me, I tested the Wii U.

If it does not live well to the hype might as well wait for an 8gb video card and go PC.

Does this also include PS4 exclusive titles like Killzone: Shadow Fall, and Infamous: Second Son? Because those were pretty nice looking to me. I thought those were running on PS4 dev kits?

 

[Pjsprojects]

Another point made is that developers will have to work a little harder with XB1 to bring out its power as opposed to PS4, because the XB1 has more customized components. Well, the WiiU is undoubtedly a highly customized console.

This sounds spot on to me.

 

[wilsoe2]

can this tread go back to technical discussion with people who knows what they're talking about instead of competing fanboys talking about their opinions and feelings?

As I said I’ve really enjoyed keeping up with this thread and learning more about hardware and architecture along the way. I agree it’d be great if we could table side conversations about third party support business dynamics. And while I don’t think I’m the best person to do that I figured I’d give it a shot.

I was curious about BGAssassin’s theory about dual graphics engines and z0m3Ie’s contributions to that as well. Has that theory been abandoned? I might be wrong on this but I was thinking that the presence of a dual graphics engine would suggest greater than 160 ALUs? And so conversely, if we assume that the Wii U is 160 ALUs based on the visuals we are seeing, that would then make the dual graphics engine unlikely.

2 things I'd like to point out, more to the thread than yourself.

1. Tessellation is simply drawing more polygons by splitting what is there, I am not sure what last gen games pushed when it came to polygons per second, but having a limit of 550 million polygons could make tessellation unusable if the game is already pushing those numbers with more simple models (around 9million polygons per frame if the game is 60FPS) of course that is probably a lot of detail anyways for a modern game, but certainly tessellation adds a ton more polygons on top of it, so a dual graphics engine might be needed.

2. Even though dual graphics engines came about in the 6000 series, the chance of Wii U using one would still point to Wii U having custom parts, the GCN tessellator is something that might of been easy to add to Wii U's GPU7 though I think the real problem there is that tessellators from GCN are designed at 28nm and obviously that might pose a problem for GPU7. My point however though is if something is obviously customized, it is likely to pull together the best parts for a goal so we shouldn't assume any of components GCN's, designed ~4 years ago, didn't make it into Wii U's GPU. (meaning one way or the other)

Basically if games were pushing ~300 million polygons per second this last gen, then Wii U's tessellator would be limited in its use since it couldn't even double the polygon count, and though adaptive tessellation is being used in Wii U, there would obviously be a benefit from moving to a dual graphics engine no matter which generation of tessellator it is using.

Please feel to pick this apart, throw mud, etc
160 ALUs In Favor:
160 ALUs of more efficient, modern design could approximately match Xenos and explain similar visuals and performance

At a count of 160 there is a size discrepancy where Wii U ALUs appear significantly larger than we’d expect them to. This could make sense with what we now know of a 45 nm manufacturing process as opposed to the 40 nm process we assumed.

Furthermore, the size discrepancy is not large enough to suggest that a variant <= 320 would fit.

160 ALUs Against (>160):
Wii U architecture is vastly different than PS/360 and so it is reasonable to expect a learning curve. IF the curve is as steep as it was for PS/360 THEN launch games for Wii U that can match or exceed late gen titles would imply more powerful hardware. (especially if the dev is rushed, small team, small budget, incomplete tools etc)

IF a dual graphics engine is present, THEN it would suggest >160 ? (I ask, i don't know if that is how it works)

IF there was a game who’s visuals could only be explained with a >160 ALU part.

I guess I have this is both categories, but the size of the ALU is bigger than we would expect for 160 and if it can’t be explained by 45 nm we don’t know why.


Also it seems as though some of the heavy hitters on this thread have lost interest. I’ve seen a couple recent posts from Fourth Storm, BGAssassin, and Mihael Mello Keehl but haven’t seen z0m3Ie, blu, Thraktor, or krizzx. Was wondering why the loss of interest? There’s been so much in this thread and I was hoping to hear "closing statements" or some kind of finale! haha Certainly not expected just sayin

 

[lwilliams3]

I think what happened with many third party WiiU games is that Nintendo's message,
or information to developers, was not clear and/or too conservative
on how powerful the WiiU really was. Actually, it could very well be that Nintendo didnt even know themselves; seeing the jump in power from Wii to WiiU is greater than GC to Wii. Whereas, performance targets, from MS and Sony, might have been more clear.

That's an understatement. Overall power aside, the biggest change for them will be the use of modern shaders. By 2014 (going by Mario Kart), we may see a visual boost from all of Nintendo's teams.

You're right about Sony and Microsoft. As it has been noted, alot of these next-gen games started development on high-end PC, then ported down.

So what could have happened is that some developers decided to play it safe (or made false assumptions) and bundled the WiiU with the PS3 & 360 development instead of PS4 & XB1. And this is why the WiiU has missed out on some "next gen" titles depending on when these titles were begun.

Proof of this is the delay of games from Nintendo first party titles (titles that should have made the launch window) The lack of titles from their second parties. The conflicting statements by developers on the CPU's power & bottlenecks in memory. As well as third parties jumping to conclusions based on Nintendo's documentation and not testing the hardware itself. Also, statements that final dev kits were released close to WiiU launch.

If you look at debates between the PS4 and XB1, when it comes to memory, people state that the eSRAM is an important factor in counter balancing Gddr5. Well the WiiU has just as much eDRAM and more, and on both chips! Another point made is that developers will have to work a little harder with XB1 to bring out its power as opposed to PS4, because the XB1 has more customized components. Well, the WiiU is undoubtedly a highly customized console.

We also have the issue that Nintendo's first party games are mostly cartoony and colorful, and are being compared to many first party titles from the competition that push for realism. And I think this will be a problem for Nintendo. I do think they should have at least one of their studios focused on pushing realism as a graphical showcase for their consoles. People hoped it was going to be Retro, but dreams for that where recently squashed.

At some point though, third parties will either have to figure out how to make the WiiU hang with the other two, or relegate it to what the Wii was. But as long as sales for the WiiU continue to be sluggish, they wont benefit too much from it either.

In raw power, the Wii U will still be significantly behind the other next-gen consoles rather or not Fourth Storm or Bgassassin's theories are correct. It is closer to current-gen consoles in max geometry output and overall power. We already know that much.

The things that the Wii U have going for it is:

-Efficiency: Nintendo has been very focused on this characteristic after the issues with the N64.

- Architecture: As you noted, the Wii U memory architecture is somewhat similar to the Xbox One. The CPUs are also more similar in design compared to the PS3/X360.

- RAM: From the beginning, the increase of RAM has allowed devs to boost their games textures to a higher resolution. It may improve more as devs takes more advantage of the eDRAM, and Nintendo may eventually free more RAM up from the OS.

- More modern GPU and features: This could result to a notable difference in visuals when it is taking advantage of. The 3DS, for example, is not even stronger than the Gamecube in several ways, but is able to render games like RE:R due to having a more modern feature set.

On a related note, I think Nintendo's approach to graphics is more of a strength than a disadvantage due to it being in the minority. Games like Mario Kart makes more of a visual impact due to it not having alot of competition in a Pixar-like/Colorful approach to visuals. The Wii U should be able to handle more realistic graphics better than current-gen, but that is much more of a common style and the other systems will be alot better at it. Bgassassin already made a good post on what may need to happen to get a game like The Division to properly run on the Wii U.