Cutting edge power isn't necessary to make great looking games. What is necessary is a talented studio with a cohesive artistic vision and the skills to realise it.

I only blame the misplaced timing for launching their console in the market. Wii to be blamed partly. It was an under-powered console that succeeded so well that there wasn't a need for another console for a longer period. So when its sales began heading south in 2009 with PS3 and 360 competition, Nintendo had to somehow end the drought with Wii U. Nintendo should have waited some more to match with PS4 and Xbone  specs and thus apart from first party studios( the current life-line), graphical advantage would have been enjoyed along with a strong 3rd party support. Wii U is currently lacking this trend and it is turning out to land it in trouble as the Gamecube and N64 examples.

Saying that "nobody's trying" is kind of pre-emptively silly, don't you think? Considering that we literally haven't seen more than 50 or so games for the Wii U yet, most of those ports of last-gen games that obviously aren't going to show off anything fancy. NSMBU, to me, looks great, certainly a huge step up from the already-good-looking NSMB Wii, certainly an "HD" game, but it still at the end of the day has the same NSMB art style, so it was never going to look THAT fancy.

Lego City looks great, but again, it's a Lego game, those games aren't graphical works of art. It's the best Lego game I've ever seen...but it's still just a Lego game.

Also, implying that Nintendo doesn't have development teams that can produce great graphics is also, I'm sorry, kind of silly to say. The same team that made the gorgeous Mario Galaxy games (some of the prettiest games on ANY console last gen) is making Mario 3D World, and while that game's ART style may not be flashy, I think it looks a lot better than most are giving it credit for. We have, of course, not seen the coolest or prettiest level designs yet, all we've seen is a basic smattering of the demo just to show the game off. I'm willing to bet there are some parts in 3D World that rival the prettines of Galaxy, but in HD, with more polygons and better textures. And beyond that, that SAME team will undoubtedly get around to eventually making another single player Mario down the line, on Wii U, and that will undoubtedly be drop dead gorgeous by anyone's standards.

Then there's the Zelda team, currently making this new, as yet unseen Zelda U. You can bet your ass that whatever they wind up doing with that game, it will too be drop dead gorgeous, and I think it's a safe bet to assume it'll be one of the prettiest games of this upcoming generation. Not to mention one of the most epic.

I also happen to think that the new Smash Bros., at the very least the character models, look fantastic.

But even outside of Nintendo in-house studios, who always know their own hardware better than anyone else, you've got Retro, who is making a DKC game that while sure, it's not the "UBER REALISTIC IP" many people salivated thinking about, it's still a much better looking game than the already gorgeous DKCR, and the final product will no doubt impress. And once they're done with that, they'll obvious start on something new. And given Retro's track record, whether it's a new Metroid (I'd prefer it not to be), or some other IP, I'm sure there's a strong chance it'll also be gorgeous.

Then you've got Monolith Soft, the people who produced the snazzy visuals in that avatar of yours. "X" looks amazing, and that is only VERY early footage. The final product will unquenstionably look even better and more polished, and I think there's a very good chance it'll be one of the best looking games of the generation. And that's to say nothing of whatever Monolith might do after "X" is finished.

I think Nintendo has plenty of good development studios working for them, like Retro, like Monolith, like Monster Games, like HAL, like Next Level Games, and Intelligent Systems, and Good-Feel, and (hopefully still) Mistwalker, Camelot, Skip, Treasure, etc., etc., and between ALL of those partners and their own in-house teams, I'm quite certain we'll be seeing some VERY pretty, perhaps even amazing looking games during Wii U's lifetime. And I would certainly put studios like Retro, Monolith Soft, the Zelda team, etc., on the same level, if not better, than Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, etc.

You might want to give them some time, though you do have a point. I don't really understand how Nintendo was caught by surprise regarding high-def development when everyone else had been doing it for several years. How the hell does that happen? Aren't they paying attention to the rest of the industry? Most developers won't even be bothered by the jump with the XO/PS4, as they've already been creating assets at ultra-high resolution.

On a game-by-game basis, it's not an important factor, as many titles don't need that degree of polish. However, you still want something to show off your capabilities. It would be nice if the Wii U had something that made people take notice the way they did with that Zelda demo--even if that was mostly impressive because of the artistic detail.

Retro chose DKC. It was not forced on them.

I'm sorry, but HUH? Where exactly do you get that? The first DKC game looked amazing, and shook the industry, when it came out in 1994 (not 1995). There was NOTHING like it visually out in 1990, so saying that it looks good for that year is pointless. That game won awards for how amazing (for that TIME) the graphics were. The DKC games in general were better looking than some Saturn and Playstation games (meaning 2D, the super-ugly polygons of the early 3D games are not up for comparison).

Also, Wii U can make great looking games for 2010, but not 2014? Based on what? The WII had some great looking games for 2010, and it wasn't an HD console. Super Mario Galaxy 2, DKCR, Endless Ocean 2, Sin & Punishment 2, Monster Hunter Tri, Red Steel 2, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, hell even Other M (despite the game itself being crap). Beyond that, later games like Xenoblade, The Last Story, Kirby's Return to Dreamland, and Zelda Skyward Sword, all looked pretty damn good as well. For any console, not just "for the Wii". 

So if Wii could do that, then what's stopping Wii U from having games that look great in 2014, 2015, etc.? The answer is nothing. Yes, Wii U hardware is weaker, but while the best looking Wii U game might not be AS flashy as the best looking PS4 game, Wii U will absolutely have, at the end of the day, at least a handful of games that you could easily call some of the best looking games on ANY console, of the entire generation. So I just really don't know exactly what point it was you were trying to make.

I just did a mistake with the launch years of the games... my point continue the same.

In terms of game quality, yes I would put Monolith, Retro, and the Zelda team on the same level as Naughty Dog. But visually? No, I wouldn't, not now. 3D World to Uncharted? It's not even a contest.

X is about the only game even revealed for Wii U so far that looks like it's really trying to do push the visual envelope. It looks so far ahead of anything else we've seen it's crazy.

To be fair I didn't say that 3D World was pushing the visual envelope. It's obviously not. It's damn good looking (I think), but obviously games will come along, from Nintendo and their partners, that will blow it out of the water. Which was my point. And yes, I do think what Monolith, Retro and the Zelda team, etc. eventually produce will be visually comparable, as far as pushing the hardware it's on, to Naughty Dog, etc. Which was also my point.

Also while maybe not quite PUSHING the envelope, I do think Mario Kart 8 so far looks like it's really taking advantage of Wii U's power.

Rare and Factor 5 used to serve that role, but Nintendo cut ties to both.