They said they wouldn't be improving it graphically and cited their budget as the factor. This was back at E3 last year. I don't feel like digging up the article.
This is the main problem with a lot of people who criticize this thread. Often times they're just not up to date on who said what and when and the circumstances of certain comments.
But what's most ironic is that these are the people who constantly accuse spec thread regulars that they're selective in what they want to believe...and then go on to say that all rumors have pointed to Wii U being on par or weaker than 360.
Conveniently forgetting the initial 1 teraflop GPU rumor.
And the 5x 360 IGN rumor.
And the sources that told IGN cafe was packing a HD 4850 equivalent, which is a 1 teraflop card
And the statements by Gearbox talking about how the Wii U version of colonel marines will be graphically improved
And the statement by former IGN editor Craig Harris who is currently at Sega (iirc) stating outright that Wii U is not inferior to the current gen
And the statement by Mark Rein stating Wii U is a stopgap system between this gen and the next
And the middleware document clearly explaining why CPU performance was initially struggling
And
no,
I am not saying Wii U will be 5x the 360 or that it'll greatly outperform the current gen or even that it WONT be inferior to the current gen in some ways. But there are multiple angles here and a lot of uncertainty, and you can always tell when someone opens their mouth and acts like they want to talk facts when in actuality they're only looking to try to "set you straight" on why Wii U wont be able to do this or that.
And then there are the bozos who, on top of all of that, don't know what engine scaling is.
