Focus on power, ask third parties what they want and make changes in the hardware accordingly.

Rely on loss leading strategy to keep a competitive price.

Spend lots of money in new M-rated, storyline-driven IPs.

It would get unprecedented praise from forum posters that didn't buy it, specially after it killed Nintendo.

I would have made a console called the Nintendo Revolution that could do HD and have some decent online functionality (no friend codes). Keep the motion but don't force first party devs to use it

Well, in hindsight, they should have made a 360/PS3 like console, only with Nintendo games. But at the time, no one could have predicted that the casual bubble would completely pop and that by focusing so hard on it, Nintendo was making alot of it's former fans flee in horror and frustration.

I think Iwata looked at the DS and thought that this was the way to go. He was right short term, but long term, it was a dead end. Hopefully, they've learned their lesson and we see a modern version of the SNES next time around.

I'd do pretty much the opposite of what the GameCube was.

Mainly because the GameCube was utterly disappointing as a console with just a small handful of games that were actually worth it. Even ignoring the low sales it got, undoubtedly because it was so disappointing. Basically, Nintendo did just that with the Wii and it payed off, not that the Wii was perfect though.

You guys aren't reading the title clearly.

Nintendo had to weigh its options in 2005. With the Xbox 360 now announced and coming out in November, and Sonys HD console on the way, Nintendo had to decide weather it would try to compete in the HD battle or keep it sd but try something new. They obviously felt they would have a better chance if they innovated and created a system that was different.

Thus, the wii was born.

In retrospect, it was a good decision. The wii sold 100+ mil units and was a huge success. Because Nintendo separated itself from the ps360, it found a home in the mainstream audience while still pleasing the core gamers with Mario, smash, and Zelda.

However, that decision could come back to haunt them. Now that the "appeal" of motion gaming seems to have died down, Nintendo attempted to innovate once again for a home run. So far, the wii U seems to have struck out. But time will tell. The problem is if the mainstream doesn't buy into the wii u, the core gamers will tend to avoid It this gen due to inferior online services. The core games have lacked but are getting better. With 3d world out now, and Zelda u, smash and kart 8 on the horizon, the games won't be the problem. The online functionality, will.

No, Pikmin was definitely the most important game made. Why else would it be such a high priority for the 8th gen?

The Wii was the best decision.
At the time they had no idea if motion controls would take off, so attaching expensive graphics hardware to it was not a smart idea, nor was making a traditional console in the wake of GCN's mediocre performance.

Really, proposing the thought experiment itself makes the obvious statement: Conventional thinking doesn't work. NOBODY would have told Nintendo to do the Wii.

Second Son is coming out before Uncharted 4; does that mean Sony considers inFamous more important and a higher priority than Uncharted?

Perfection.