I agree. When I look at the best Wii games sold this year, I just come to the conclusion that Nintendo audience is very picky when it comes to quality, otherwise games like Just Dance and Zumba Fitness wouldn't be in the top, would they?

I agree PS4's line up leaves a lot to be desired. But then so does WiiU's. Exacty what makes it so much better? And if you're gonna throw Wii Fit and Wii Sports in there lets end the argument now! In terms of core games the line ups look like this

WiiI

Sonic Olympics
Mario 3D World
Call of Duty
Assassins Creed

PS4

Killzone
Knack
Call of Duty
Assassins Creed
Battlefield


What am I missing?

you are missing Pikmin3, The Wonderful 101, Sonic Lost World, Lego City, Wind Waker HD, New Super Mario (and Luigi) Bros U, Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate HD, Zombi U

No, I don't. Do you? Really? Ok, I will explain then...If a game presents lack of development within the genre, that is a sufficient but not necessary condition to consider it retro. In other words, if that condition verifies, then the game is retro. If that condition doesn't verify, it may be or may not be retro. The game may be more evolved than the shoot-em-ups from the previous generation but it doesn't seem to be as evolved as the games from the other genres.

Also, just for you to be sure: I didn't say, I'm not saying and I won't say the genre isn't developing (I don't even know it well!). What I said was "if that game doesn't present a gameplay enough sophisticated...".

Are you considering trash software too? Then, maybe you're right. Quite frankly, I don't have any idea about the number of trash games, and I don't even care. For me, decent games (or better) is what counts. Anyway, trash games are not 7th gen games. So, in regards to my claim, I reaffirm it.

First of all, that "usually" is quite poetical. I wish that was true. Second, being better (overall better) is not the same as being just more talented in arts. Third, a game isn't made only with artists. You need many more types of professionals, including programmers...and that's where the tech and the objective achievements of a game enter (do you remember?...those that Nintendo isn't focused in).

But if you disagree with my view and you trust so much on that "better at their job...get paid more" (which I believe it's for you to convince yourself that Nintendo invests a lot because it has highly artistic games) then look at the development costs of Nintendo games. Even better, look at the top 50 of the best sellers ever and then look at the top 50 of the most expensive games ever. In one of the tops you will find plenty of Nintendo games. In the other you will be lucky if you find any. After doing that, get back to me and tell me if you still believe of that logic.

You can conclude whatever you want from my silence. Most of the times it will mean "it's hopeless to talk about this matter with this guy"...but you can simply ignore that possibility if it makes you feel better.

Anyway, if this matter is so important for you, I will give you another chance. You said: "All my earlier points still stand; and if we were to peruse the individual reviews, they might well provide objective evidence of depth.  Try again, if you like.". If they might, then go for it. You need to try, not me. It wasn't me who claimed Metroid Prime is deep. Everything I claim, I try to support with facts, I don't expect the others to do that for me. My claims --> my facts --> your judgment. Your claims --> your facts --> my judgment. That's how it works in forums. If you adopt an attitude of "I claim something and then I've immediately won unless someone proves the opposite", you'll just look silly. Claims are respected when they come with facts and ignored when they don't.

No, I haven't. You're blatantly lying and you can't get any sentence I've written saying that. You're in a forum, everything is written. Those kind of lies don't last long.

You think so because you're convinced Metroid Prime has a big area. Most probably, it doesn't. I tried to find its map size and it's really hard to get that info (which already leads me to believe it's not very big) and the best guess is 100km2. You need to understand that 300km2 is BIG, not every game is able to get close to that. Still, some games have much more than that already BIG area. What I expect is for you to tell me whether Nintendo has any game in that condition. Again, to struggle for the lower limit isn't enough. To qualify by that requirement, I'm expecting examples where you don't have ANY doubt they fulfill it. Games with many hundreds or even thousands of km2. And believe me, when that's the case, the internet tells you so.

You're right when you say the categories are narrow. But think about this: when I ask for you to tell me the top 10 devs that make more money, that is even more narrowed...and guess what...Nintendo is on the top of that already extremely narrowed list. So, what I'm asking is absolutely fair. If by that criteria Nintendo gets surpassed by Sony, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, Codemasters, Activision, Rockstar, Atari and many others...that's a lot for a company that makes so much money and that, along with the 2 tops I've asked you to compare with each other (top sales / top costs), suggests Nintendo is more greedy than most (if not all) of the other major game developers.

In regards to the time-consuming research, you're wrong. Most of the requirements are things you don't even need to search if you've played the game. If a Nintendo game has fully editable levels, you'll know that for sure if you had played the game. And, since you're a Nintendo fan, you have surely played already a lot of Nintendo games (and presumably the most relevant ones). If you can't find any of those to qualify by any of the requirements, then my friend, I'm afraid Nintendo won't deliver the 10 games I initially asked for you to tell.

Humm...how can I say?...No. Gameplay variants are variants from the same gameplay. Different mini-games have different gameplays. I'm expecting big boulders and you come up with sand. Understand this: a big game is harder to produce than 2 small games. It's harder to dig a deep hole than 2 with a half of the depth each. The complexity grows exponentially...so does the number of possibilities in that game.

So you didn't mean to say gameplay elements but gameplay variants. Then tell me: variants of what? I was seing some videos and the game seems to be too simple to have hundreds of gameplay variants. But I will give you the chance to explain yourself and then, if I see the game really meets that requirement, that will be 2 for Nintendo.

That's precisely what I think about Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure 1. Now you understand me

Really now??? Games that came out and had no impact? How exactly is that great for WiiU owners like yourself who have already bought all those games?

It's relevant because you were claiming to show the two systems' libraries of desirable games side by side, but left out several pretty significant games.  I mean really, leaving off Pikmin and MARIO in a list of Nintendo games?  While claiming that Sonic Olympics is one of the four most notable games on the Wii U?  What is your logic here?? 

"It's not really a conspiracy if everyone is out to get you." - Matt Costello (Mattavell1)

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/article/nintendo-sony-microsoft-wii-ps4-xbone/