I actually find the 3D Effect more impressive than higher fidelity graphics. --- http://terosclassicgaming.blogspot.com/ - Watch me beat "GEN Alien Soldier" http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
Resident Evil 4. The time people went ape $h!t after Capcom announced it was exclusively for the gamecube but turned around and decided to release it for PS2 even though the guy said he would chop his head off if it gets released on PS2.
Nothing from what I've played on my friends wii u looks like anything close to what I see on my PC. Nothing "next gen" about anything. He was playing batman and it looked like sh** compared to the PC version (which is still badly optimized to this day). Same with darksiders 2, that was a pretty shoddy PC port (it's gotten better but it still isn't special) and the wii U version still looked worse/was running at 30 fps. I'll reserve judgement until I see some better ports/first party titles, once dev's have had time to adjust to the new hardware, but I'm not expecting much. launch titles always look like crap but the wii U doesn't really look much better then anything I've seen on a 360/ps3 to my eyes. On all previous console launches I have immediately noticed a big jump from previous gen but not this time. I suppose if you only had a Wii previously this must be like heaven but to everyone else this is far from impressive.
The little touch screen thing is fun but I liked the DS so I always thought the gimmick would be fine.
Seriously though if we want stuff to be "next gen" it has to be able to at least achieve 1080p/60 fps not 720p/30 fps. 1080/60 isn't really a tall order anymore, even low end PC hardware can manage that at lower detail settings. I wouldn't think it was to hard to build a cheap box that can manage that with 2012 hardware available but apparently I was wrong. --- 3570k @ 4.6, GTX 580 @ 980/2106, ASUS Sabertooth z77, 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1600MHZ, 2 Mushkin Chronos in raid0, 1TB WD black.