To state the obvious, yeah pretty much OP. Plus playing Nintendo games since the NES, nothing is making me go I have to have that system(WiiU)! Not like with past systems. And the numbers seem to back that up. Sometimes truth hurts.

I dont think the wiiu is the only problem besides the network look and feel of that being from 2001, the only thing it is missing is the dial up box. They really need to tighten it up and make accounts and games that tie to it, you know since we have had since 2005.

I definitely agree about the name. Super Wii would have been perfect; it sounds better than a Wii and relates historically to the upgrade from the NES to Super NES.

is it really that different than the Wii/PS360/PC situation? at least for me Wii was my secondary

I think the OP makes a fundamentally flawed argument.

With the N64, Nintendo had little choice but to reimagine their franchises. The shift from 2D to 3D had a profound effect on gameplay. It really doesn't make sense to use re-invented franchises to make this argument, when the hardware is what dictates these changes, or allows them.

Besides, as we have seen time and time, and time, again, it isn't always necessary to completely change a franchise to keep it appealing, and that applies to Nintendo as well as anyone else. (see: Pokemon) It is necessary to change when the hardware warrants a change, or the franchise is in danger of losing its appeal.

The Wii did have fresh ideas for games.  Did you look at the list?  I put practically as many as the gamecube.  Yeah the Wiimote was very innovative.  I just said it again.  

As for the Wii U games you listed:  Here we go again listing rehashes and badly rated games as innovative.  Maybe they were to you, but they weren't innovative enough to everyone else.  To be on my list a game had to be 1) New or a complete evolution of a series, and 2) Highly praised.   I no doubt missed some games in every generation, but Zombie U is the farthest thing from that criteria I can think of.  A mediocre Zombie game is not new.

Where did I say that this game is/will become a classic? I didn't even imply that.

This kinda ties in with what we were discussing, so I'm adressing it as well.

@Bolded, that is NOT what you said in the OP. Moving goal posts much? You simply stated that Nintendo is out of fresh and innovative ideas, or at least that those ideas have gotten fewer and fewer.

Man, you're so dellusional, I'll just stop talking with you. You don't even answer half the points I put forward. Why even bother. Let's be absolutely clear on this, though: the DS and the Wii (and the software to those consoles) are among the most ground breaking innovations this industry has seen - at the very least since the jump to 3D in the 5th generation. Who initiated that? Nintendo.

Mediocre to me is a game which design is still stuck in 10 years ago, with shinnier graphics.

HInt: The dudebro shooter you praise as innovative on your "next gen lol" console? yep, it's mediocre. And pretty trashy.

NOW, You see, Narbacular Drop (just google it) is deemed as a mediocre/average game that brings along a great mechanic: Portals. Yes. Then valve bought it and made... wait for it... PORTAL.

Can you see see the difference between a mediocre trash game (Killzone SF, Ryse, Knack) and a mediocre innovative game (W101, Wii Sports?)

If you can't, there is no hope for you, and from my experience in this forums, you gonna get ban-hammered soon with that behavior. You can expect a congratulations post from me in your wall when that happens :P

Holy shit this thread I don't even know where to start.

Why is the WiiU failing compared to the Wii? Most likely answer is that the Wii had a refreshing potential concept that could appeal to a wide set of demographics, which greatly inflated its sales. The WiiU on the other hand, despite the tablet gamepad being a newish concept (as apposed to the current widespread use of regular tablets), does not seem to appeal to the same wide set of gamers. Maybe when more games come out, that exhibit the same appeal that worked on the Wii (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc), and the WiiU price comes down, and enough Wiis get put in the closet, it will gain more traction. Many Wii gamers still play their Wii and are not interested in upgrading to the WiiU yet. The WiiU is simply not catering to its past audience, but attempted to target another specific demographic, which is not at all wooed.

Why might the PS4/XBONE be as successful if not more so than the prev gen? These new consoles are specifically catering to the gamers they already won. All they have to do is more of the same and do it better and they are almost guaranteed to keep pace.

There are many different types of gamers. Doing the exact same as done before can be a successful strategy. Doing new things, Wii, could lead to a major success, or WiiU, could lead to a failure (WiiU is not _yet_ a failure, but its not exactly a success yet either).

the difference is that the second option gives haters an excuse to pathetically say nintendo rehashes their games. but for them, it's totaly okay when other companies make the same games, slap a different character in it, and call it a new ip.

Hmmm:

NintendoLand - 77
Game + Wario - 61
Wonderful 101 - 78
New Super Luigi U - 77
ZombiU - 77

Except for Game+Wario, the games are all just shy of an 80, is that badly rated? I'm going to guess that you haven't played the first 2, to see the innovative uses of the gamepad. Wonderful 101 is a fresh IP. New Super Luigi U isn't 100% new, but it is a fresh way to play (speedrunning focused) and the first time Nintendo offered a full revamp of a Mario game as DLC. ZombiU is a true survival-horror, the game is highly polarising as most people (especially reviewers) expected a shoot-em-up, which is what we've come to expect of so-called survival-horror games like TLOU.

I love the bolded statement, try to shut down my argument as being anecdotal, but you can speak for everyone? Right.

Your crusade is pointless, if you don't want to like newer games, you're not going to.