Holding up reviews as some bastion of absolute objective truth is nonsense.

Smash Bros Brawl. Metal Gear Solid 4. Grand Theft Auto 4. Heavy Rain. High metacritic scores, shitty games.

lol, wow. One thing to say not your cup of tea but shitty is just going overboard. Heavy Rain wasnt my cup of tea but I still respect what it was trying to do. Same with Portal you wont see me calling it shitty just cause it doesnt excite me. But yeah, you just made your point and I dont agree with it.

I do not care what the gaming community or the media say. I am capable of thinking for myself and forming my own opinions. :)

Crysis has an artsyle. As has Journey and Uncharted. Sure the island in Crysis could have had fairly basic cartoony texures, clever bloom and look like a fully 3D Escape from Monkey Island with suits and guns. Buts thats not the route Crytek and many others take.

Some games require power, plain and simple. Not everything can be masked by cartoony textures and clever use of bloom. BioShock Infinite is a perfect example, it has a great cartoony style mixed with realistic environments, large scope and good lighting. It pushes and lags on 7th gen consoles. When most non Nintendo games target more relistic artsyles insisting that tech doesnt matter is moot. Unless 3rd partys completely dont matter, I feel thats a bad stance to take. The Wii and WiiU will miss out on MANY good games purely because of the power gap.

People like pointing to the Gamecube as an excuse for Nintendo abandoning up to par hardware. Forgetting its image problem, lack of storage space and not as robust online among other things. Despite that it still got most major third party games, something the Wii and soon Wii U wont be able to boast about. Another reason the Wii ws so weak is becuse it was a huge risk. Nintendo didnt and wasnt going to lose much if it didnt take off like it did. Graphics dont mtter from Nintendo is like the power of the cloud from MS and the power of the cell from Sony. Pure Bullshit and PR nonsense that only the most hardcore of fanboys hold onto as gospel truh. If graphics really didnt matter WiiU would be selling like hot cakes, it isnt. People feel it doesnt offer much over the competition and graphics  is definately a factor.

3D World and Killer Instinct are both 720p60fps. Do you honestly think they require the same raw GPU grunt to run. Could KI in its current form run on the U? Hell no. Is it so hard to believe that somehow, somewhere peole prefer the look of games like Uncharted and Halo 4 over Mario and DK?

Most crossplatform games push relistic artstyle (btw Im delibertely using this word instead of graphics to get past hypocricy) so comprisons are inevitble. For petes sake even phones render in 1080p and have quad cores and 2GBs of RAM.

Nvidia just announced a mobile GPU that beats the Ps3 and 360 by 50% in raw rendering power, this probably means it beats the WiiU already. This mobile GPU also supports Unreal 4. If the WiiU is still in active use 4 years from now how will games on it look compared to the competition? Why would anyone choose the Wii U version of any third party game assuming they get any to begin with?

To me deliberatley gimping your hardware is shooting yourself in the foot. Even though PS1, PS2/dreamcast were the weakest consoles in their gen, they where still a significant leap over every system in past gens . Soul Blade/Edge (PS1) vs Soul Calibur (DC) was HUUUGE for exmple. But with the WiiU, its like they didnt even try. Its like they dont even WANT to try. 

Its like "eff this. Overclock the Wii based Gamecube based cpu to the max and put three of them. Three not four or six, three is enough. Just like the 360 from 2005. We dont even have hyperthreading but who cares, OOP. Order the chepest DX11 GPUs vailble, cheapest you hear me. A 5670 equivalent sir? No no no, too powerful you moron something like a 4650. Get the slowest DDR 3 RAM availble, screw bandwidth Mario doesnt need alpha. Make sure our OS uses half of it too, for no apprent reason.  A custom linux loader would more than half that blueprint sir. Screw you I dont care just do it, and make it slow as hell too. Get low capacity flash drives that wont allow textures to be cached. No HD texture packs, our fans will call the devs lzy. They wont call us cheap, ha! Third partys wont like that but we dont care, were Nintendo. If things get tough 3rd partys can use the 32MB esRAM and GPGPU to get past AAAALL other short comings. It'll work trust me". 

Sure thats dramatic and an oversimplifiction but thats how I feel about the WiiU hrdware in general. The whole thing is  giant WTF from my point of view.

If doesn't matter, why botther releasing new consoles, we would just stay with our ps2.

CPU and gfx card are important because open up entirely new gameplay possibilities. The ps3 and 360 opened up new types of game with it 720p resolution, being able to fit more on screen, more detail. Also, their CPU made possible for physics to be realistic and proper online compability.

Only now with ps4 and xboxOne, is possible to make Crysis 1 on consoles (yes crysis 1, not 2 or 3). The open world games possibilities with the new generation will increase a lot.

Online was a non factor, and the whole disc space thing was an excuse they used when their sports games sold more on the Xbox and the like.

They didnt feel like taking a risk with making gamecube games. Just how it was.

They also made the excuse that "GAMECUBE DISCS SPIN THE OTHER WAY". 

Gamecube's major problem was image and only image. You admit that graphics wasnt the problem and giming them in the Wii and WiiU was not necessary then?

You ARE aware of how many multi disk games exist right'? In the psone era it was acceptible and now when you can install onto hardrives. Of course with the gamecube Nintendo expected devs to just go with their flow. 

As for the reason we get new consoles? Because we get better TV's. Um, most people played MegaDrive to PSone to PS2 on the exact same TVs. HDTV was a Digital Migration of sorts.

And the TV market is stagnant as fuck now. Has nothing to do with Graphics or games, come on. From  2005 to about 2009 both the PS3 and 360 didnt even come with HDMI. And they still look better than PS2 or Wii on standard def TVs

So now we move onto next gen consoles.

But instead of improving on your image quality, your preformane, and the level design and creation process we're looking at how to make our games even MOAR PHOTO REALISTIC WITH SHINY PARTICLE EFFECTS. Because this is bad and INHERENTLY screws up the "gameplay" and "fun" right? I run BioShock Infinite at max and 1080p60fps and because of that the gameplay just bacame really bad and no fun at all *logic*

Its cosmetics for the sake of cosmetics, not function and not pushing the medium forward. Like the Wii or Wii U has pushed the medium forward? Id argue that Kinect was a more legitimite shot at that from a hardware point of view. And the eyetoy before it, in the PS2 days. Id argue that the gamepad is 100% cosmetic at this point, the WiiMote didnt even scratch its full potential

Stop and make new games. I think Sony took the most risk with New Games and IPs last gen so this doesnt really make any sense to me. It also has more indies, Im sure power has something to do with that

If doesn't matter, why botther releasing new consoles, we would just stay with our ps2.

CPU and gfx card are important because open up entirely new gameplay possibilities. The ps3 and 360 opened up new types of game with it 720p resolution, being able to fit more on screen, more detail. Also, their CPU made possible for physics to be realistic and proper online compability.

Only now with ps4 and xboxOne, is possible to make Crysis 1 on consoles (yes crysis 1, not 2 or 3). The open world games possibilities with the new generation will increase a lot.