Because we at first think about new tech in the same way we do as the old.

I agree with you mate.

Compared to a five year old console it is a joke to tell the truth, I am disappointed in Nintendo on that front. But saying that I will eventually buy one when my games like zelda come out as I said before. but this won't be another Wii success story I can tell you now.

Gamespot is a source

/credibility gone

/thread

Are we still goin on about this? Why????

It's not in HD because it looks like the wii/3DS graphically

Because people who are not knowledgeable about tech like to discuss tech and refer to articles of people not knowledgeable about tech discussing tech.

Back seat drivers then lol

Can you put that as the epitaph on my tombstone? These topics will probably be the death of me.

if this was true, I would have died long ago

Of course , Nextbox will have a 16 core cpu running at 20ghz! A Gpu like nothing seen before capable of untold gflops! It will have 30gb ram and a holographic pad. Wow! Oh yeah itl make toast too.

I buy game consoles based on their CPU and GPU power outputs. Yup, that's what I do...

I heard some developers don't like toast.

I think people are getting too caught-up with the "next-gen" concept and how Wii U will compare to the next offerings by Microsoft and Sony. It's the SmartPhone mentality of yearly updates. Look at the console for what it does and decide if you want to make a five-year investment for, at the very least, the guarantee of a bunch of great first-party titles.

Imho, "more advanced" doesn't have to be having all of the hardware upgraded, to qualify for the next-gen label. Having a faster CPU just for the sake of the numbers does not necessarily a better console experience make. Some of the crowd that make a fuss over the specs seem to do it for the bragging rights more than caring about what kind of experience you can get out of the console which, imho, is more important. Needless to mention that a complete hardware refresh will drive costs up for the consumer (then people will be complaining about cost and "why didn't they just make a cheaper version with all the necessary parts?") Hardware is one set of ingredients in the mix, there are others like the games lineup, form factor, etc. True, HD graphics isn't new and this is one area where the company's playing catch-up, but that's not where the innovation is. The Gamecube and GBA aren't linked the same way as the Wii U and its Gamepad, which took that link further. The GBA doesn't have a touch screen, so you don't get the gesture controls like flicking with a stylus (except being Wii you do it with your fingers), nor do you get to voice chat with people on your friend list. Nintendo chose to focus on the hardware that will change the way games can be played. It's not just throwing in features because the competitors are doing it. Blu-ray support as an example, they probably hadn't come up with any use for it on the software side other than playing movies, and the people who want to watch Blu-ray DVDs would most likely already have a player by now so there was no point adding it.

It also comes down to how you define innovation. Some people might argue the Wii U isn't innovative because a lot of the features were already in the DS/3DS. The Wii U the developers are probably still exploring the console, hopefully we see more interesting uses of the Gamepad beyond displaying song lyrics and being a remote control. Maybe more use of the GPGPU in future games will boost performance that a slower CPU doesn't matter anymore. Who knows, maybe it will start a trend if the effect is positive. As an aside, I'm glad they they used a resistive screen, for exactly the same reason the Gamespot review mentioned it as a con: it's "built for more deliberate strokes", and I like the unspoken option of using a stylus for more precise input, even if most of the time people will be using it with their fingers. If any enterprising developer ever decided to make a painting app/game for Wii U, the Gamepad would do fine.

Then there's Miiverse. I think part of Nintendo's focus this time around was to make gaming a more social experience, continuing from Wii in the living room to the Internet. Similar to social networking sites except it's gaming-oriented and better integrated since it can directly get info on what you're playing and you can pause to chat about a game without leaving the console. Some might call this transformation rather than innovation, but then it becomes more a lexical question, rather than discussing what new features does Wii U bring to the table, to be considered a next-gen console.

TL;DR: In short, it's still early the hardware is only one part of the picture. When you buy a console you're not only getting the hardware, you're getting the ticket to an experience. It's up to you to decide if that experience sounds like something you'd like or give it a pass. Weigh the pros and cons for your gaming tastes, but it might be better not to get too carried away by spec sheets.

Edit: Whoa, sorry, I didn't realise the post came out to such a text wall. Added TL;DR.

Isn't that what we all do? I care absolutly nothing about how I'm playing , I just care about the consoles power.

Same here!

Then stop buying into console gaming and get a PC... unless...

It's not actually about the hardware at all. It's instead about...

some arbitrary label. Well done, I don't care.

The only thing that's really bad is the sluggish OS. But it will most certainly be optimized with a future update.
One thing that's a bit worrying is the slower-than-PS3-and-Xbox360 processor. But oh well, I'm sure I'll have loads of good times with my Wii U anyway.

The eShop is awful compared to the 3DS one...