Nintendo can get away with not including many of these elements. Even with their cash-cow IPs requiring larger budgets, and more staff and dev time compared to the past, Nintendo still usually plays it safe with the budget. They don't really care about pushing the limits of their hardware or graphical fidelity, as to them, games live or die by their gameplay and concepts alone. This is why Nintendo, even now, is able to put out so many games compared to most publishers, because they don't waste money on superficial stuff that will usually have no benefit to the experience, preferring to splurge only on what will make a better playing and better feeling product.

2 games and a dlc* from Jan 2019 until sometime in mid 2020, Nice one, yeah they're great.

And yeah I agree if you're going to use foul language in a thread don't tear up when someone replies in kind. I know you think it makes a difference if someone says "that's a stupid fucking argument" or that putting it as a punctuation is less direct and somehow less insult by phrasing it as a statement including a profanity but yeah, you set the tone of your thread when you start it off.

Thread was answered a handful of posts in anyway with "no" I'm off.

I too would like to see more AA mid-tier games, but with Nintendo's main teams now tasked with making HD AAA blockbusters, that's going to have to fall to other studios, and indeed that has been happening; Link's Awakening for instance was developed by Grezzo. Personally I would like them to be a bit more proactive in outsourcing AA projects, so I can sort of agree to an extent.

You forgot Yoshi's Crafted World and Fire Emblem. :P

You can argue that games like Splatoon 2, ARMS, Labo, and Ring Fit Adventure are "AA" titles. As well as stuff like Astral Chain, Kirby, Yoshi's Crafted World, and Marvel UA3. Nintendo always produces games like that. It's just that their AAA franchises needed to take more of a priority early in the system's life. Remember, Nintendo wanted to avoid a Wii U scenario with the Switch, it needed to be as successful as possible, as fast as possible. It's not like their internal teams aren't willing to make these kinds of games either, such as the three games I mentioned above. We'll see more in the Switch's life, as they usually come later in a Nintendo console anyway.

It's just you.

You honestly expect Nintendo to have the same level of output for a system that can give the PS4 and Xbox One a run for their money with enough effort as they did for two systems that were essentially a portable PS1/N64 and two GameCubes duct-taped together? This is a problem for EVERY developer, not just Nintendo. Naughty Dog went from released 4 games on the PS3 (Uncharted 1-3, Last of Us) to just 2 (Uncharted 4, Last of Us 2) and if you wanna count Lost Legacy, then 3. Guerrilla Games went from 3 on the PSP/PS3 (Killzone: Liberation, 2, and 3) to 2 on PS4 (Killzone Shadow Fall, Horizon: Zero Dawn). Santa Monica Studios went from 2 on PS3 to 1 on PS4. RockStar North went from a whopping 6 games on the PS3/360(GTA IV, RDR, L.A. Noire, Max Payne 3, Undead Nightmare, GTA V), to just 1 on the PS4/XBO (Red Dead Redemption 2).

And a lot of the games Nintendo was making during the Wii/DS days were games that took very little resources and manpower to make. Breath of the Wild, alone, required more resources, time, and costs to develop than the Wii series, Brain Age, and Nintendogs combined.
You don't understand how demanding HD games, especially full-scale HD games, that take full advantage and capabilities of the system's power and architecture, truly is compared to games that were made with a haphazard budget and minimal resources.

While it is true that AAA games generally take much more to make these days. Game development costs in general are a case-by-case basis. BotW certainly required a ton of development time and money to make happen, but that doesn't mean a game like ARMS or Ring-Fit requires the same amount of time and resources. In fact in the case of the latter two, it wouldn't surprise me if they had the budget of an average GameCube title. And of course, there's indie games that are made on Shoestring budgets, and those are HD.

Honestly, it's less about HD development, and more about increased audience expectations for AAA franchises on new hardware. New IPs and indie games can get away with modest costs because there's no expectations for them. But with a long-running AAA franchise or big open world epic? Yeah, those are expensive and time consuming as shit to make.

Read through the thread, got a little heated for a second lol. But agree with the consensus, games across all platforms just take much more time and resources.

The Super Nintendo is the only Nintendo console I can recall having strong third party support right from the beginning.  Here are some of the third party games from the first 12 months in North America:

Sim City
Super R-Type
Populous
ActRaiser
Final Fight
Final Fantasy 2 (4)
Super Ghouls and Ghosts
Super Castlevania 4
Ys 3
Super Smash TV
Contra 3
Street Fighter 2
TMNT 4: Turtles in Time

That is an extremely solid list of third party games.  Any system (Nintendo or otherwise) would be proud to have that good of a list of third party games during its first 12 months.  That is on top of really strong first party games like Super Mario World and Link to the Past.  The first 12 months of the SNES were amazing.  It was all of those later years where it looked like the Genesis might a competitive list of games, that is where the SNES got into trouble.

This isn't true. The Switch version isn't some port of a Wii U game. Breath of the Wild was developed for Switch and Wii U and both versions released on the same day.

You can read an overview of the development here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Breath_of_the_Wild#Development

I came here to say this ^