I don't think the leap will be the same, but I am making the comparison because I still think there will be a big enough difference that people who are not graphics whores will still gravitate towards the PS4/XB1 game if given the choice.

In the end, games are the biggest reason for a console to sell so I agree on that.  PS2 was underpowered and it blew away the competetition.  Same for Wii.  But Wii U doesn't have those yet (games, on either a 1st or 3rd party basis) and probably won't have much on a third party level ever so unless you're a big N fan, you'll probably grab the system with the glitzier graphics and most marketing behind it (which Nintendo doesn't really excel much in either anymore).

And as for the 3ds, I think it is a perfect example for how the game's quality can trump better tech.  But I think it's more a situation of Nintendo knowing how to make games for portables versus Sony not.  Sony wants to put PS3/PS4 experiences on a little screen but if we learned anything with Iphone/GB people want fun experiences that work on the go, not inferior home console experiences.

The Wii U doesn't have that edge that the 3DS has because home consoles are built around shiny big screens and are show pieces.  People don't want to see jaggies or old  graphics if they have the option to get something in the same genre or similar with way better graphics.

Nintendo games will always sell, I will concede to that.  Graphics don't have to be cutting edge to be enjoyed, I can also admit.  And the best tech doesn't always win.  But Wii U really hasn't brought anything to the table game wise and doesn't seem to have much over the horizon if we take E3 as any indication, so I just don't see it competing the way underpowered consoles of the past have.  My main point is and was that you don't have to be a graphics whore to see just how lacking the Wii U is.

What do you mean? Not a lot has changed and Crysis 3, Battlefield 3 and Metro Last Light are clearly and significantly superior to anything on current gen consoles.

No one is trying because Nintendo themselves have set a precedent that graphics don't really matter, and that taking a minimalist approach to visuals as long as your game sells decent enough is the way to go with the Wii U.

All it needs is something that will attract all types of gamers, casual or core, and more games will lead to that. Wii had terrible 3rd party support from major developers and Nintendo pulled through. What they need is something that makes one think "wow, I won't be able to find that anywhere else", and the pricepoint will also be a deciding factor for many people (think, 350$ packed with a game (being Nintendo Land or something better like SM3DW) vs. a 400$ PS4 with the need to buy at least one 60$ game, plus extra controllers if needed while Wii U can re-use Wii controllers). I'm sure people won't want to see jaggies (if they even notice them, I know of several people who haven't noticed jagged lines when playing until I actually told them about it), but then you've got jaggies on PS4/X1 games as well, albeit on higher resolutions (technically there are more jagged lines in 1080p with no AA, but they're smaller), jaggies on consoles aren't going away anytime soon if developers want to push graphical potential and performance more than IQ (and that was what they aimed for with PS360, no doubt they'll aim for that again here). 

Nintendo knowing how to make games for portables, is Nintendo not capable of making games for consoles? All they have to do is make Wii U attractive enough to consumers with games they won't find anywhere else, and Nintendo's all set. Graphics won't decide the fate of a console, it never has. Gamecube was well up there with graphics, but it never received the support it needed, and there wasn't something that attracted people to it. Wii U has its own share of gimmicks that it can take advantage of unlike Gamecube, we just have yet to see what fully taking advantage of those gimmicks will do to its future. Wii U is lacking right now, but if it continues to lack when it finally has supposed amazing experiences you cannot find elsewhere, then you'll be right. Wii U has not gone through its prime times, not yet at least. Writing it off now is too soon. 

I think about 9-10 years ago, when Nintendo realized the GameCube was just a complete and total dud and seeing the rising development costs of the successive generation, Nintendo had a massive internal shift in their approach to game development.

Yamauchi said graphics were no long important and the concept of the DS, which would later inspire the Wii, was born.

So they shifted their philosophy and went away from Western 2nd party development that they had relied on a lot in the 1990s/early 2000s.

And Yamauchi actually was right in a way ... the DS/Wii were monstrous successes on the back of things like Brain Training and Wii Sports, the problem was that audience got gobbled up by the even bigger smartphone revolution or just lost interest (in the Wii specifically). Nintendo didn't quite know what to do with the success of the Wii, and it was evident in its final years.

But in the 90s, Nintendo used to push graphics hard, and companies like Rare and Factor 5 were the "it" companies for looking at what could be done with hardware, much like Naughty Dog is today.

Right now, I'm not sure what Nintendo's philosphy is, they seemed to acknowledge they can't be a purely casual gaming company and are trying to hedge back by making the Wii U a bit more traditional of a console, but they're finding that market is pretty saturated too.

i have to partially disagree with your comment.  I think the argument is totally dependant on art style.  If you take games that go with a realistic art style, such as the mass effect series, then yes; you are completely right.  But if you think in terms of alternate art styles such wind waker, sly cooper, metroid prime3 or  borderlands, then there is an arguable point to this topic.  Depending on your artwork, you can make a game that looks fantasitc, and will still look fantastic decades later.  Galaxy was one of the most visually appealing games on the wii-u and , i my opinion, compared with many of the visual powerhouses (at least gameplay graphics wise) from the more powerful competitors.  It was weaker hardware still producing a fantasitc looking (although for me an extremely boring) game.   But again, will we see titan's fall on wii-u?  obviously not. 

I think Nintendo needs to think of the support they could have had if Wii U had more horsepower. Sure they can't compete with "technical advancements", but that doesn't mean they have to gimp their hardware's potential. That's like running a race and realizing that there's someone leading and running very fast, so then you think to yourself "oh, he runs so quickly. I'm not even gonna bother trying to run at that speed". I just know that Nintendo can do it, they can design a pretty beefy console even with a gimmick. (there was so much more they could have done with 100$ for the MCM than what they've done). The Gamecube was 199$ at launch, and it competed favorably in graphics with its competitors, now slap that philosophy of at least decent-end graphics onto a console, and then add the gamepad, and you've got roughly the same price Wii U is sitting at right now. 

What they really need, is a philosophy change. Sure they can't compete with graphics, but at least try to in order to secure as much support as possible. 

Well that's where we disagree I guess, because I don't think it's neccesarily an "attitude" they're putting forth at all. I just think it's a matter of early games on new hardware. Early games on new hardware hardly EVER are the most impressive looking on the console. It's almost always later into a console's life that you really start to see things visually pop.

In your opinion, right? 

You really need to learn your history and not be so condescending to others for pointing out things you're blatantly wrong on.

The Stamper Brothers, the founders of Rare, are the ones who sold the majority stake of Rare to Microsoft, because they wanted MONEY. This is a documented fact. Nintendo sold the portion of Rare they owned, because they OBVIOUSLY would not want to share a company with a direct competitor. They didn't "Cut ties" with Rare. In fact at the end of the day it was QUITE the other way around. They never wanted to lose Rare. But they also couldn't afford to compete with Microsoft's coffers, and Rare, or at least it's head guys (who later left) wanted the company to be sold.

Nintendo NEVER "stopped working with Factor 5". Factor 5, before they went out of business, were quite forthcoming with the fact that the ONLY reason they made Lair for PS3, is because Nintendo had no announced a new console yet, and they had a chance to work with Sony. I do believe they lamented the fact later, and I also think it was quite clear that F5 WAS in fact working with Nintendo again before they went under financially. You could argue that Nintendo should have bought them, but at the time they went under, Nintendo had no yet quite made the trillions they eventually would off of DS and Wii. But they never "stopped working with them". It was, again, Factor 5 who decided to jump at the chance to make a game for Sony.....that wound up sinking their entire company.

Having said all that, I absolutely think that Retro and Monolith Soft have proven themselves to be on an even level with Rare and Factor 5 of old. And beyond that, Nintendo themselves have always been great at getting the most out of their own hardware, especially later into the console's life.