I appreciate the thoroughness of this review and how logical he tried to be, but I just can't agree with so many of the things he said. It's clear he's not really a gamer.

At certain points it's clear that he wants this to be more of an ipad that can connect to the television. One comment, he said that the resistive touch screen is awful, which honestly makes me think he's probably never held a DS in his life...

Also, this whole paragraph was the most bizarre thing I've read - I don't think any gamer would say this!!
Why not make a portable console that is totally self-sufficient, but becomes something like the Wii U when it's plugged in or connected to your TV? It could be a single-screen device like the Vita, or a dual-screen device like the Wii U. Devices like the iPad, Nexus 7, and PlayStation Vita are proving that good graphics can come in small packages, and it’d be a smart direction for Nintendo to go as well. Even if the console itself were smaller (and didn’t have that cumbersome brick), it would be something you could toss into a suitcase or even a backpack. Unfortunately, though, that's just not what the Wii U is. I loved playing New Super Mario Bros. U in bed while the console whirred outside in my living room, but I wish it weren’t such a limited use case.

Nintendo does have an investment in portable gameplay. It's called a 3DS! And even if he didn't know that, surely, he's heard of gameboy...
And Vita's weakness vs. the Wii U is that the connection of PS3 + Vita is not a requirement, but an add on.

There's also some other weird comments about how the console is Godawful ugly, which is ridiculous compared to other consoles... And the criticism about the build quality of the gamepad is also strange. This is a home console, not an ipad... Sigh.

I saw this and really liked the review; actually. Though some of his criticisms seem unfounded (how is the Gamepad's use unclear? Haven't heard anyone else say it feels cheap!), but the actual text was sound.

Cheap build quality again? I really hate when Nintendo does that.

The only thing I feel has cheap build quality from Nintendo is the 3DS' hinges, and even that is a non-issue. I think he's mistaking 'light' with 'poor build quality', because other people have commented on how sturdy and quality it feels.

I still have a hard time understanding why/how gaming consoles are being scored. It seems like an unnecessary thing to do.
If you give it a high score - 9, 10 - you're saying the console is "good" but doesn't mean it has any worthy games to purchase...

I saw their video review this morning -commentors bashed them and called them "pro Apple".

Nice read. Thanks for the link.

I'm somewhat disappointed by the Performance score, and the UI speed. This review confirms some of what I felt while watching a Wii U stream - it is indeed slow, seemingly slower than PS3's UI which people complain a lot, specially when they compare it to the speedy 360 UI. Most stuff is slow, the progress bars show wrong estimated times, and the downloads must be installed (instead of instantly applied as they download like they are on the 360).

Any news on Achievements/Trophies/"Accomplishments"? Any game with them?

I think the game pad feels amazing. Its great and cant wait to see what ideas Nintendo comes up with.

Is there any reviews with real specs available?

Is this the only information nintendo gives?

http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu/features/tech-specs/

I love checking The Verge reviews, but only because they have the best layout imo with the most and best pictures. I never read their reviews or care for their scores. Their pictures made me interested in a Nokia Lumia 800 (which I later bought), not their review or score for it. Unlike a phone, a console or handheld shouldn't be rated anyway. If you rate a gaming system, you rate an empty shell.