@happydolphin Resistance looked better than any FPS released on PS2, Motorstorm looked better than any racer released on PS2 those are just off the top of my head, not big on Xbox so ill have to actually think about that one. I'm comparing Wii U to the PS360 because it is supposed to be the start of a new gen, and every start of a new gen, you have a console that launches with games that look MUCH better than the last and im simply not seeing MUCH better with WIi U and ive never had to wait years before.

1 I said their hasnt been any large leaps on one console. IE from SMB1 to SMB3 on NES, SMW to Yoshi's Island on SNES, didnt see that much on there later consoles. I used Mario Galaxy to show that WIi games looked roughly the same throughout the entire gen, not counting the PS2 ports which were just down and dirty ports for the most part to begin with.

I answered the question multiple times. A generation leap is PS1 to DC, PS2, that was a hell of a leap and no I didnt need to wait awhile to see if devs would take full advantage of hardware. Tekken Tag Tournament was a launch game and it looked much better than Tekken 3 which released toward the end of PS1's life hell I doubt that it even had the ram to allow switching between characters.   NES to SNES, it was apparent that Mario World looked better than Mario 3. 16bit era to 32bit, we got full 3d games with that leap. PS2 to PS3 that was not a traditional leap so I wont berate that one. Now can you compare those to PS360/WiiU and really tell me that they are one in the same? Ive yet to see anything on Wii U that made me say "holy crap, that cant be done on systems that I already have"

1. That was a decision made by the market. The GC was most likely the most powerfull of the generaton and it sold the least of any Nintendo console. Nintendo recognised this and chose a different path with the WII. Ironicly it was the market which could not follow Nintendo's path, and forced a change for the company.

2. The brothers left Rare five years after microsoft took them over. They obvious didn't leave on principle upon the sale. And even if it got sold without their consent, it was still a choice by the company Rare. Their chosen downfall.

People took this thread seriously? umm...okay, I don't hate either the WiiU or Nintendo, I just hate Mario....*flee*

Well Atari may have been there first, but Nintendo persevered more, so to most gamers, they are more of a father than Atari ever was.

1. Show me  1 site that claims the GC was more powerful than Xbox. Ironically I think the market are calling for more power, and the decision with Wii U will be a mistake. I think Nintendo should have stuck to their guns in that case.

2. I'm sure  Nintendo ad the ability to keep a company that sold as many copies of  games as they did. 

I would very much argue with the idea that Nintendo is, by itself, the "greatest hope" for gaming.  They might be doing things differently than the other two, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is more significant.

 Nintendo pioneered motion controls as the main input method for a console, but they also fell far, far behind in online capabilities.  Are motion controls really more important than online networks or cloud usage going forward?  Even with motion controls, Kinect is probably closer to the path that the technology will take.  And, truthfully, Sony was actually the innovator here, though they completely failed to use it in a meaningful way.

When it comes to games, while Nintendo is extremely good at polishing games and perfecting formulas, it's pretty rare that they do anything innovative.  In my opinion, Sony's World Wide Studios is at the top with the way they work together, share technology and knowlege, and even help each other out with personel.  There is some incredible stuff coming from that group, even if you don't like the games personally.

I also take exception with the idea that increasing the computational power of gaming consoles is all about graphical output.  Personally, I'd be content if the visual quality of gaming never moved beyond what it is now.  However, I very much WOULD like to see AI systems improve, interactive environments improve, the number of possible events happening at once increase, and the number of possible enemies per event increase.  Those are the real reason devs are wanting new consoles.

 My point is that you have to take all of that as the future of gaming.  All three companies are doing stuff that will move gaming forward, even if a good portion of it will fall away.  With technology, there will always be more misses than hits.   What Nintendo does is important, but I don't see how it's more important or significantly innovative than what the other guys are doing.

How long did it take you to think of that title?

OT: I hate Wii U because it has a tablet controller, and i don't like the idea of using a tablet AND a TV when gaming

Lol people always find something to hate about Nintendo. Now that Nintendo is finally in HD, a Mario game at launch, and has great third party support, etc, people still manage to find something wrong about those.

1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1

In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.

2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.

Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094