Your comment was complex but not confusing. I could fully understand your view about the industry and your answer to my question. And, although I don't share your opinion in several points, I like the way you think.
Like you, I see the 90's and yearly 2000's as the times golden age of gaming, the Era when each and every feature was subject to evolution, making gamers believing anything was possible. Unlike you, I saw many (if not most) of my favourite game series to end before having the chance to deliver sequels in these times of lack of full evolution so I couldn't see what they would do nowadays (this is even sadder). Among the ones that did have sequels, some were disappointing but others were honorable iterations. And new interesting series emerged too. So, in the end, I can say there's a bit of everything.
Maybe I was happier in the 90's, but then it can be me getting older (not in the discovery phase anymore) than any other factor. We must not forget that new gamers are borning everyday and PS4/XOne can be for them the shiny beginning PS1 or PS2 were for many others. Therefore, series not evolving can't be that criticized (thinking about your western examples: Ratchet & Clank and Need For Speed). As for your japanese examples (Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo), I just reaffirm what I said in my last post.
You may think I'm not being as demanding as I should (for being satisfied with small evolutions or even just graphical updates) but remember most of my favourite series either got worse or had no sequels at all. Then why would I criticize Nintendo when they hardly end or even damage series? Because, as a game developer, that's far from being enough to praise them. In the same way (or even harder, once it's a personal matter), I criticize each and every developer that ended, damaged or haven't significantly evolved one of my favourite game series.
But Nintendo isn't just a game developer, they are also a console maker. And, in that area, they are even worse. The lack of power on Wii and Wii U is nothing more than Nintendo (the once industry's pioneer) rejecting that crown and saying "We don't even want to try". This scennario gets even worse when we look at the profits they have been making among the years. Rephrasing it, it would be like "We have been making billions with you but we aren't willing to increase our 6000 staff structure or any other measure that would allow us to continue evolving like we did so far. Thank you for your money but now we will keep it.".
Sony and Microsoft are totally different. They invest as much as (or even more than) they earn. They follow a strategy of product dissemination (lowering the price of consoles and games along the time) rather than adopting a stubborn position like "our little cartoonish platformer game worths 50 euros, either you spend them or you don't play it". They offer instant game collections and games every month for online-subscription services rather than some 5% or 10% discounts on game purchases for owners of the premium console version. They create the most powerful machines they can and sell them at a loss. Etc.
More revenue means more responsibility too. If Sony/Microsoft can engage into a strategy in which the break-even will be at the 1st or 2nd game sold, Nintendo can make it in the 3rd or 4th. Wii U could be as powerful as the PS4, continue to have the tablet, priced at 300 euros...and yet Nintendo wouldn't be as committed as Sony or Microsoft. Now immagine, with billions of euros, what could they have been doing in game development...
When you say that between Sony/Microsoft and Nintendo you would be chosing the lesser of two evils, this is where I mostly disagree with you. In my opinion, a console maker shouldn't be blamed for the game developers' behaviour. Some are bad, some are good, but Sony and Microsoft embrace them all, unlike Nintendo that limits their console from the start and doesn't work hard on good relationships with third-parties.
Do I think PS4 and XOne are perfect systems? Not at all. I'm a PC gamer like you that is also focusing more on PC than consoles at the moment. But I don't think simplicity could be the only reason for one to buy a console rather than investing on the PC. Price is also a very significant factor: spending 400/500 euros on a system that will perfectly run all the games during 7 or 8 years is much cheaper than the PC investment needs. And sometimes, among the exclusives, there are games we can't ignore.
I admit that I'm planning to buy a PS4 and so far there's not 1 single exclusive that is forcing me to make that decision. But I must remember that Sony has 14 devs working hard on new titles and it's almost certain that some will make the console to conquer a place in my heart besides the PC ecosystem.