Those are terrible predictions.

The 12 million by December 31st, 2013 prediction would put the Wii U around 8 million behind Wii, 35 million by December 31st, 2014 keeps it at an 8 million difference, 2015 puts it at a 4 million difference, and lifetime sales puts Wii U 140 MILLION AHEAD! That just doesn't make sense. Wii U should sell 30-60 million. 

Well obviously Wii U is gonna sell over 20 million a year for 11 years straight

Zod95 said: Final-Fan said: 2.  Ok, lets get things straight: when I say "hardcore games" I'm refering to games that are really from the present generation and "casual" when they are retro (and almost any Wii game is retro, from Wii Sports to Mario Galaxy, from Wii Party to NSMB, from Mario Kart to Kirby, etc.). If you want, I can shift it to "real games" and "mini-games". I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion of what is and isn't "retro", but you have to realize that your definition of the term is one that no one else will agree to.  I'm not even sure exactly what your definition of "retro" is, but I'm pretty sure I'd call it insane.  Also, are you saying that "hardcore"="current gen"="real" and "casual"="retro"="mini-games", or is the last sentence a change of subject?  (Update:  I see that, in the time since I originally began writing this and now, you have clarified that you do equate those things.  I'll address that by quoting those posts later.)  In my opinion (that you say no one else will agree with), "retro" means past. Thus, a retro game is a game that has 1 or several aspects similar to games from the past...which are different from the games from the present (otherwise is would make no sense to use the term). For example, graphics are 1 aspect of games that evolves along the time. If a game has graphics more similar to game from the past than games from the present, that game can be considered "retro". If it has physics more similar to game from the past than games from the present, that game can be considered "retro". The same with AI, dynamism, rules, sounds, menus, content, etc. A game like Wii Sports has several (if not all) of its aspects more similar to games from 5th or 6th gen than to games from 7th gen. On the other hand, since games have been always evolving very fast, games from previous gens generall seems mini-games when compared to games from current gen. For example, Wii Sports seems a mini-game when compared to FIFA 13. Of course there are exceptions, and that's why we can't put things as you were suggesting: retro games = mini-games. They are highly correlated but they are not the same thing. As for the hardcore and casual, just forget it. They are even less correlated and I've already said I was not being straight on that paragraph (and I explained why). Final-Fan said: 3.  The difference between PS2 and Game Cube or between Mega Drive and SNES was nothing compared to the difference between Wii and PS3/X360. It's like comparing N64 with Dreamcast. It's not about small or big differences...it's about different generations (HUGE differences). To put a game like GTA IV on Wii would require to downgrade the graphics to the 5th generation or even worse (and that's something gamers wouldn't accept, it's not about Rockstart's good/bad will). Because the difference between Wii and PS3/X360 is not in graphics, it's in power. And if graphics consume power, so does any other element in gaming (physics, game rules, AI, nr of objects displayed, draw distance, sound, etc.). For the Wii to run every element GTA IV has (which was designed for the 7th generation) it would require to have at least non-gameplay elements (such as graphics) downgraded. The difference between the Gamecube and the PS2 was quite substantial actually.  Even if the difference between the Wii and 360/PS3 is bigger it wouldn't make the other difference look like nothing.  For example, Resident Evil 4 took a substantial hit to graphics when being ported GC to PS2; not sure if the engine took a hit as well; I think the GC used the engine to do cinematics but the PS2 couldn't, or something like that, because IIRC the GC cutscenes showed you the special outfits you were wearing as Leon/Ashley while the PS2's didn't.  You just gave 1 example and it was about a port. That means nothing. I assure you that if Killzone 2 was ported to X360 it would be worse than the PS3 version...and that doesn't mean PS3 is significantly more powerful than X360. I see Gran Turismo 4 (PS2) holding graphics that no Game Cube game presents. How is that possible from a console "significantly inferior"? Do you find any Wii game with better graphics than the best looking PS3 games? Of course not. Final-Fan said: And the difference between the Genesis and SNES was really massive.  If you look at the system specs the difference is pretty obvious, and I actually did a detailed comparison in 2007 that I literally just spent an hour trying to track down to no avail .  Power difference between SNES and Genesis was at least as big as between Wii and PS3 IMO. That's your opinion, not mine. Do you have any arguments to support yours? Final-Fan said: 4.  I'm talking about the games' natural evolution, my friend. Something that Nintendo was unable to do. That's why N64 and Game Cube were demolished by PS1 and PS2. Because Sony was capable of giving to Nintendo's old-school fans what they really wanted, while Nintendo continued to be focused on low-budget kindergarten games like Mario, Kirby, Donkey Kong, etc. I'm not even going to talk about the "kindergarten games" slam because I think the real childishness speaks for itself.  But you are really displaying your ignorance when it comes to the "evolution" of gaming and Nintendo's alleged lagging.  The N64 had an analog stick, which PlayStation didn't.  Sony had to copy Nintendo.  Nintendo had the Rumble Pak.  Sony copied rumble in the Dual Shock controller after they saw what Nintendo had done.  Mario 64 literally set the standard for 3D platforming games, which few if any games matched in that generation.  Sony tried in vain to do as well.  Donkey Kong Country (SNES) was hailed for its amazing graphics at the time.  Low budget?  Please.  You are just making things up to fit your perception of Nintendo.  That's why SNES wasn't demolished by any competitor. It has actually won the generation at that time. But you have to admit that N64 and its games weren't as evolved when compared to competition, regardless the innovations some brought. And Game Cube was even worse, once Nintendo brought even less innovations while caming late and with no significant power advantage. Sales speak for themselves. When I speak about Nintendo being in the low-budget kindergarten niche, I'm not talking about the times of NES and SNES. You need to understand that. Final-Fan said: 5.  Nintendo is running on autopilot since 1998. 1998?  Does that mean you actually respect a Nintendo game, Ocarina of Time?  Why was any game in 1998 more "original momentum" than all games since then?  If the Wii and DS are Nintendo "running on autopilot", you might as well say they've been running on autopilot since they came out with the original Game Boy, or maybe the NES.  Shit, if it's been working for 25 or more years, why stop now?  First of all, I respect Nintendo for what it is capable of. I just don't like the greedy attitude they've adopted since the 5th generation. I'm not a hater. I love the videogaming industry. I like Sony and their PlayStations, I like Microsoft and their Xboxs, I like PC and I even like Valve and their Steam platform. I just dislike Nintendo's behavior...precisely because I love the videogaming industry. Nintendo was extremely relevant with NES, SNES and even some N64 games were remarkable and inspiring. But since then Nintendo has changed for the worse and I believe millions of people agree with me. PS1 and PS2 sales prove that. With Wii, Nintendo has revealed even greater greediness but it wasn't harmed in sales for 1 single reason: it brought more people to the videogaming market. So, regarding your question, they didn't stop working. They've just stopped trying to deliver the best games (focus on gamers) to work only for the easy money (focus on themselves). You can see that in the games they develop, the kind of positioning they now adopt and the money they re-invest on the industry (in comparison to what they profit from it). Final-Fan said: 6a.  Are the Dreamcast (1998), PS2 (2000) and Game Cube (2001) from different generations? Because Dreamcast (1998-2001) competed more with PS1 (1995-2002) than with PS2 (2000-2009). The Dreamcast launched only two years before the PS2 released.  It launched four years after the PS1.  It died early because of, among other reasons, lack of faith in Sega and propaganda about the PS2 being much more powerful than it turned out to be.  But whatever the reasons, it's either ignorant, desperate, or disgraceful (inclusive) that you are using Dreamcast's early demise to try to shoehorn it into an earlier generation of consoles.  I suppose you're trying to be clever with johnlucas's "market competition" criterion, but using the market winners' long tails to claim that unsuccessful next gen systems primarily competed with them and not the next gen market winners only discredits you, not him.  No, I'm not. I can remove Dreamcast from the "game" and still find examples where the logic "generation defined by time" doesn't make sense. And, yet, there's nothing wrong with the Dreamcast example: it came 2 years after N64 (the same 2 years it differs from PS2) and both lived until more or less the same time. Zeebo is another interesting example: it came 3 years after PS3 and Wii (4 years after X360) and the same 3 years before Wii U. Then it could be 7th gen as well as 8th gen...or it could be 8th gen and make the Wii U to be 9th gen. It turns into a hell of a logic when we see generations based on time. Tech provides a much more solid approach...and more useful too. Final-Fan said: 6b.  Similarly, the fact that PS1 didn't immediately cease existing when the PS2 released, and similarly with the PS2 and PS3, doesn't mean they were of the same generation.  This isn't reductio ad absurdum, it's just absurd.  Just as absurd as seeing generations based on time. Absurd situations and consequently absurd logic is what you get. Either you stick to your own criteria no matter the example and you're able to show it's a good criteria to use or, if you find some examples to be absurd, you're just proving you're not using a good criteria. Final-Fan said: 6c.  In past times, it was more common to have systems launching at random (less synchronized) times, but we are still measuring generations based on the lifespans of the biggest consoles.  Or perhaps we should say that because Neo Geo lasted from 1990 to 2004, that entire time frame only constitutes a single generation?  In Brazil, the people who make the Zeebo are also still making the Sega Master System.  Are we still in that generation?  Your questions are even more proofs of how your weak criteria is. Final-Fan said: 7.  At the beginning Wii aimed to revolutionize the market but soon Nintendo understood they could attempt to win the generation. Expectations have changed in few months and they remained for some years...but now we see they've lost the software battle and they can even lose the hardware battle too. This is in reference to the Wii being a success or failure.  You are pretty vague here, but it seems to me you're suggesting that because Nintendo was so successful with their original goal, they expanded their aim greatly, and because they didn't live up to the entirety of the new dream, they are a failure, and can't fall back on their original definition of "success" despite that they were able to change the parameters of "success" before.  Side note:  Considering the impending launch of the PS4 and XBO, I think it's beyond optimistic that you estimate either of their predecessors will overtake the Wii. They can change it now. But since the Wii's production was already ceased in Japan and Europe, it wouldn't make much sense for them to continue to have plans for the Wii, would it? You perfectly understood my comment (I think it's the first time) and, as you said, we can talk about 2 different expectations: then one Nintendo had in 2006 and the one they had in 2007 and for many years. Which one do you think it's more relevant to comment? Regarding PS3 and X360, they've already overtaken Wii on software and PS3 has some chance to overtake it on hardware too. Final-Fan said: Oh, so what you mean by "kindergarten" is "animated" or "non-photorealistic".  That's very mature of you.  No, kindergarten is about games with cartoonish graphics, basic gamplays and linear contents. For example, GTA is non-photorealistic but it's not kindergarten at all. Still, photo-realism is a good filter once I don't know about any photo-realistic game that is in the kindergarten niche (do you?). And that's why I was asking if Nintendo produces or has produced any photo-realistic game. Final-Fan said: It's interesting that you think that a game like Mario Strikers has a much less robust physics engine than a game like MLB The Show.  What evidence do you have for this assertion?  Physics is just one from many aspects to take into account. Mario Strikers could even have more sophisticated physics than MLB The Show (which I very much doubt) and still be on the kindergarten niche. Final-Fan said: You think that Nintendo is using the same model for Mario that they were in 1996?  That's cute. Yes. The RPG star coin gameplay, the energy circle system, the coins that fill the energy circle, the slow 3D environments, the camera behavior...every thing has been the same since Mario 64. The only difference are some secondary gameplay "innovations" like the  gravity gameplay in small planets from Mario Galaxy (copied from Sonic Adventure 2). The New Super Mario Bros games are as "innovative" as the 3D Marios. And that's not cute, it's sad. A company making so much easy money and, on top of that, having poeple applauding... Final-Fan said: You think that re-using Mario in their games makes Nintendo games inherently less innovative in gameplay as well? No. Mario is just a character. Final-Fan said: You think that having more polygons in the racecars makes the racing game better? Are you kidding me?! It doesn't make them worse, that's for sure. Final-Fan said: (I wonder why, if Nintendo is the one taking the easy way out, all the hard workers at Microsoft and Sony failed when they tried to copy the easy cheap kindergarten games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros.) Are you refering to ModNation Racers and Kinect Joyride? Yes, they sold nothing compared to Mario Kart Wii. There are several reasons that can explain that: Mario has reputation (a HUGE reputation) ; Mario Kart Wii came first ; Nintendo is far more experienced than Sony or Microsoft in the "easy money" attitude.

2.  "Retro":  "If a game has graphics [or] physics [or] AI, dynamism, rules, sounds, menus, content, etc. more similar to game from the past than games from the present, that game can be considered "retro"."

According to that definition, 99% if not 100% of all PS3 and 360 games can be considered retro, as well as Wii games. 

I also disagree that there is that much correlation between being from an older generation and seeming like a mini-game.  Think about Final Fantasy VI versus Final Fantasy XIII, or FIFA 2001 versus FIFA 13.  Would a person playing FIFA 2001 today say "this is like a mini-game compared to FIFA 13"?  This is a better comparison because it goes directly to your argument about being older generation, because we can directly compare games in the same series. 

3.  The Gamecube is flat out significantly more powerful than the PS2.  (A brief Internet search reveals:  "ps2 294 mhz cpu, 147 mhz gpu; gamecube 486 mhz cpu, 162 mhz gpu and the gamecube chips were more advanced as well.")  You see what you want to see with GT4.  I can point to games like Twilight Princess and Resident Evil, but I am sure I cannot sway your opinion by giving you examples of games because it is subjective enough for you to see what you want to see.  The difference is less than between the PS3 and Wii, I will definitely agree with that.  The PS2 also had an advantage because of its greater popularity with developers; more experience with the system let them squeeze out more performance.  This let the PS2 get closer to the Gamecube's performance with special effort.  Not match or surpass the best games on Gamecube. 

As for SNES/Genesis, I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but here is what I gathered.  Basically, the Genesis had a faster CPU but the SNES was superior in every other way, often by a lot.  This isn't surprising considering how newer technology it was.  Older = less advanced.  (The Gamecube is also younger than the PS2.) 
Genesis CPU:  7.6 to 7.7 MHz
SNES CPU:  3.6 MHz?
Genesis Main RAM:  72KB (includes 8KB "secondary RAM")
SNES Main RAM:  128KB
Genesis Video RAM:  64KB
SNES Video RAM:  64KB
Genesis Audio RAM:  8KB
SNES Audio RAM:  64KB (wow SNES really crushed Genesis here!  This helps explain why many SNES games sounded so much better.  The sound chip in the SNES was just very good in general–and it was made by Sony!)
Genesis video information:  on-screen limit of 64 to 80 sprites; 512 to 1,536 possible colors; 61 to 183 colors at a time ("via raster effects and shadow/highlight")
SNES video information:  on-screen limit of 128 sprites; 32,768 possible colors; 256 to 270 colors at a time
Genesis cartridge memory:  up to 32Mbit (above this will require "bank switching")
SNES cartridge memory:  up to 48 Mbit to 95 Mbit (48 Mbit biggest used in practice)
Other notes:  I don't know how to rate the famous "Mode 7" of SNES. 
http://sega.wikia.com/wiki/Sega_Mega_Drive#Technical_specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Technical_specifications

Wii CPU and PS3 CPU are totally different architectures.  PS3's will be better, of course.  But how much is hard to say. 
Wii RAM:  91 MB
PS3 RAM:  512 MB
Wii GPU:  243 MHz
PS3 GPU:  550 MHz
The PS3's onboard RAM is massively greater than the Wii's.  The PS3's GPU is about twice as fast as the Wii's, perhaps giving a rough ballpark guess about the difference in the CPUs.  The Wii strategically compensated for lower ability by mandating 480p graphics instead of 720p etc. like many PS3 and 360 games used. 

That's it for the numbers.  You might say "but Final-Fan the SNES didn't even have as fast a CPU, how could it be better?"  Well, it had a lot of better components than the Genesis had, and developers were able to push a lot of work to them, so the parts of the SNES working together were able to make games well beyond the abilities of the Genesis.  Also, this may be cheating, but the SNES was able to use chips in its games to make amazing (for the time) graphics in games like Star Fox which used true 3D.  I believe Genesis was also able to do this but not as well. 

4.  How was the N64 "less evolved" if the PS1 had to "evolve" to copy it?  The N64 also did better 3D than the PS1, but the small memory limits of most cartridge games meant that they didn't look as detailed most of the time.  Some games like Resident Evil 2 show that this wasn't a theoretical limitation of the N64, just one that game makers decided on due to cost.  I guess you could say that being a cartridge based system instead of a disc based system was the one place where the N64 was less evolved.  And it was impossible for Nintendo to copy Sony there once the system was made. 

As for kindergarten games, in 1996, Super Mario 64 literally set the gold standard for 3D platformers.  It made everyone who had tried it before look like fools.  There was nothing wrong with its production values. 

6a.  The Wii is massively more powerful than any system for the gen before it.  Yet it was significantly less powerful than the PS3 and 360, you might argue "massively" so.  Does it get a super special generation all to itself, in between PS2 and PS3, despite that it launched at the same time as the PS3 and a year AFTER the 360 which is in the same gen as the PS3?  The Genesis is in between the NES and SNES, does it get its own generation?  You could make the exact same arguments against your logic that you can against the market-based generations, only you don't have to look as hard for weirdo examples like the Zeebo. 

6b.  Are you advocating that we should abandon the very concept of console generations? 

If this isn't enough of a blockbuster for you then I don't know what to say. 



But the second question is much more important then the first IMO. 

Very well thought out OP. Probably the longest read (and by far one of the most entertaining and informative) I've ever seen here. While I think the predictions are going too far, I never actually saw it from that point of view. I was actually hoping the Wii U would flop (I'm a Nintendo fan) so that Nintendo would give us a really high spec machine very soon. I love the whole father and prodigal kids concept and I'll bet even Nintendo hasn't planned this thing the way you make it sound but it's an awesome piece. Let's see how it goes

This is where I make my departure, it's been fun.

- P.T.

Why man?

Ditto. He didn't even try out any other thread :(

Why? As far as I know, PS4 and XOne are not out yet.

I've never played Final Fantasy so it's a bit hard for me to make that analysis. Regarding FIFA, let's consider FIFA 96 instead (it's a 5th generation game). I'm sure FIFA 13 has by far more players, stadiums and game modes. I'm sure FIFA 13 has a career mode with market transfers, player's ratings, values and progress, competitions, etc. that makes FIFA 96 a mini-game when compared to it. I'm sure FIFA 96 has just a few player looks while FIFA 13 has hundreds or thousands of different faces. Anywhere I look (regarding game content aspects), FIFA 96 seems a mini-game when compared to FIFA 13. And Wii Sports should be in 5ht gen too (regarding game content)...that's why I said 5th or 6th gen when talking about Wii games.

If we look at FIFA 2001, of course the differences won't be so significant...but that's because, content wise, football games take some time to evolve. And then you can tell me "by that perspective, FIFA games on Wii aren't mini-games". I agree. But Wii isn't known for its FIFA games (that sold less than 6M all together). Wii is known for Wii game series (which sold more than 200M all together), Mario games (which sold more than 100M all together) and dance games (which sold almost 50M all together)...and those are all mini-games. That's more than one third of the total software sales. Then you have some 3rd party competition to the Wii game series and Nintendo 1st party games like Kirby, Animal Crossing and Donkey Kong...so I believe the mini-games on Wii represent more than 50% of the total software sales. I think that even PS2 has more 6th gen internal share than Wii. For me, Wii is far from being a 7th gen console. Retro (both 1st and 3rd party) has taken command over the system.

I understand it's harder to translate graphics into numbers than it is when we talk about specs. But the power of a system is seen (in my opinion) in the results (games) rather than in means (specs). Popularity and developers' effort play a role too (in the end, that's power too). GT4 has better graphics than any GC game, and many others come close to that. For example, TOCA Race Driver 3 has graphics hardly beaten by the best looking GC games. If a system is really significantly more powerful than another, among its hundreds of games, there should be at least 10 or 20 games with better graphics than any game from the other console...but that doesn't happen between GC and PS2.

As for the specs, by that numbers, GC is only 1.7 times more powerful than PS2 in CPU and 1.1 in GPU. That's nothing. That's what a dev is able to evolve from a game to its sequel. GC would need to be at least 3 or 5 times more powerful in order to appear significant differences. Look at the differences between PS3 and Wii. Depending on the aspect concerned, PS3 can be 5, 10 or 20 times more evolved than Wii. That's more than a significant difference. That's a generation leap.

Using your numbers, by my rough calcs, SNES is around 2.1 times more powerful than Mega Drive. That's something...but I'm not sure if it can produce significantly better results. Like I told you before, a 3 or 5 times difference leaves no room for doubts, but 2.1 ...the devs can compensate the difference. Looking at Sonic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yg7cQp3LWI) and Mario (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIm7VvZsn_Y) I can't say one has better graphics than the other...only that Sonic is faster and that demands more from the system.

...in software, not in hardware. Again, you need to understand that my focus in on ends rather than means. Hardware wise, N64 and PS1 were quite equivalent (I think). One was better in some things, the other was better in other things. But in software (that's what really matters) PS1 was superior. I know that N64 had Mario 64 and Zelda Ocarina of Time and that those games played an important role in the gaming evolution, but N64's arguments are in few games while PS1 had an empire of games that defined most of the industry we have today. I even dare to say that PS1 is the most relevant console in the videogaming history. The console has changed it forever (more than NES did, more than Wii did).

Still, N64 was not that inferior. The real argument is in the trend: NES and SNES were more powerful, innovative and relevant than the competition, N64 was worse, GC was even worse, Wii was even worse.

More or less... you know, Mario 64 was quite an achievement and in some aspects it demolished the competition at that time. But setting a standard...there I don't agree. Sonic Adventure came only 2 years later and it has caused an even greater impact. Graphics, gameplay and content like we had never seen before in a videogame (it wasn't just about platformers).

Anyway, I know N64 did something and that's why it has sold better than GC.

Finally a good point in this generation definition debate (first time I see someone trying to make some sense on this matter). My answer to both of your questions is "no". Regarding Wii, I think it's definitely a 6th gen console. Again, I see things by results (games) rather than by means (specs) and the Wii is no better than the PS2 or the Xbox original. I don't have the time to get into a deeply analysis on this but go see GT4's and PGR2's graphics and tell me which Wii racing game do you see with better graphics. Wii's FIFA games are also very close in graphics to games like This Is Football 2005 (PS2) and even lose in some details to the latter. And so on. Regarding Mega Drive, it's a 4th gen console for sure and...again...look at the games rather than the specs. NES falls far behind while SNES's superiority is arguable. Yet, I know there are some differences inside each tech generation (like between Dreamcast and Xbox original) but - 1 - that's not significant when comparing to what's behind (5th gen) and what's in front (7th gen) and - 2 - graphics isn't the only aspect to take into account. I think there are more differences between some Dreamcast games than between the Dreamcast average game and the Xbox average game. A generation must be seen on a high-level. And believe me my friend, consoles are much easier to split by tech than by time. You get things much more homogeneous in the first option.

No, I'm telling you that "Either you stick to your own criteria no matter the example and you're able to show it's a good criteria to use or, if you find some examples to be absurd, you're just proving you're not using a good criteria."...which is totally different from what you suggest in your question.

2.  FIFA 96 was in the infancy of the series, so of course it will be less developed.  But you don't get to ignore the examples that don't work in your favor.  FIFA 2001 still exists.  You seem to be implying that it's very similar to FIFA 13 except of course in graphics, and I'm sure they've been tweaking things over the years, adding more teams and players and improvements here and there etc.  But anyway ... what I'm getting at is FIFA 2001 and FIFA 13 are much more similar to each other than Wii Sports is to a game similarly older than it.  Can you think of any examples of games from around 1994 that are very similar to Wii Sports?  (12 years before 2006, this would be for example a SNES game or a launch game for PS1 or Saturn.)  I think the answer is going to be no, there are not going to be any games as similar to Wii Sports as FIFA 2001 is to FIFA 13, because 3D games and motion control games barely even existed then, and you couldn't design your own 3D avatars to play with, etc. 

Now let's look at that FIFA 96 example.  I guess it's 17 years older than FIFA 13.  A game similarly older than Wii Sports would be from around 1989, or in other words game from the NES era.  Show me a game like Wii Sports on the NES. 

Now we look at how similar FIFA 13 is to a game 12 years older than it (FIFA 2001), and how can we avoid looking at those similarities and saying it's retro by your definition?  Of course it's retro!  The games are so similar!  They play the same, don't they? 

3.  "Depending on the aspect concerned, PS3 can be 5, 10 or 20 times more evolved than Wii."  What are you basing these three comparisons on? 

4.  If you don't remember all the 3D platformers on both systems that tried to beat what SM64 had done, you're not qualified to comment.  N64 didn't have as MANY games, and I'll even admit it didn't have as many TYPES of games (it severely lacked JRPGs like Final Fantasy for example), but it definitely innovated in the types of games that it had.  3D platformers were best on N64, FPSes were best on N64, etc. 

By the way ... in what aspects did Super Mario 64 NOT demolish the games that came before it? 
(Sonic Adventure 2, greater impact than SM64, wow! )

6a.  Show me the Genesis's Star Fox.  (Well, no, as I said that's slightly cheating because it was only possible with a chip in the cartridge that helped with the 3D.  Sega answered with its own chip in Virtua Racing, and Nintendo retaliated with a sequel to the Star Fox chip in Stunt Race FX.) 

OK, how about this?  Find me music on a Genesis game as good as the music in Secret of Mana.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwOp6I6TRA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8VIWqlylFU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUdhcRQMC4
(Also Dracula X http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmNH8bPhDs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5S4jTzbTnE )

Donkey Kong Country was hailed for its use of prerendered 3D graphics (used in a 2D environment).  Genesis was able to do a similar trick with vector graphics as in the game Vectorman. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAS94toByB8 Vectorman 2, released in 1996. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM-lJRhMCzI Donkey Kong Country 3, also 1996. 

(Skip to 1:20 in V2 for gameplay; skip to 1:20 in DKC3 to get past the menus and to 3:20 for "active" gameplay (platforming).)
Obviously these are very different genres of games, but I chose them because they are both late in the life cycle of the systems (developers have had plenty of time to learn how to squeeze out power) and using similar tactics of "pseudo-3D graphics" to impress the audience.  In fact I think Vectorman may have been a direct response to DKC, but I could be wrong about that.  So you tell me, which game has more impressive fake 3D, better environment and background, more detailed objects, etc.?  Which has higher quality sound?  I see a clear answer.  Do you? 

And here is the other end of the spectrum:  the flagship launch titles fro each console. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqOlpQ7sepE Sonic the Hedgehog for the Genesis. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Y2voAvVz4 Super Mario World for the SNES.  (Speed run to be fast like Sonic )

This time, they are both platformers, albeit with much different emphasis.  The Sonic level is built with some racetrack-like elements, although you can certainly roam around and explore if you want to take the time.  Anyway, both games have simple backgrounds and plentiful random enemies and stuff.  But to me the Sonic game looks a lot more pixelated.  SMW looks more "crisp", I guess it's using a lot more pixels.  It also has better sound IMO. 

Oh, wait.  Sonic wasn't a launch title.  It came out years later!  My bad.  Here's a launch title, Sega's Altered Beast: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypGxYM3MHqY
The difference between this and Super Mario World is pretty obvious.  In fact I'd say it arguably compares infavorably to Super Mario Bros. 3, an NES title.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz3BuYYhnn0 

SHMUP launch games:
Thunder Force II http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5BJYsbVlY Genesis
Gradius III http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRfYnoHBSo SNES

6b.  And I'm saying to you that your own criterion has failed, although you are disputing that point of course.