Maybe he's not immediately writing them off; like me, he could have played them, weighed them, and simply found them not overly innovative.

I don't see how you could say two 3d mario platformers innovative when they've been making those since the 90's and then say none of those games are. Not to mention, he's also leaving out some of the most original games like MGS, Heavy rain, LBP, TLOU, Demon's/dark souls, etc etc. I don't know why sports games and COD were brought up considering they were on either platform. 

It's not about the label, (e.g. Mario) its about what is done with gameplay. The way Wii Sports and Skyward Sword used motion controls, Mario Galaxy's dynamic gravity, Wii Fit essentially establishing a new genre, were all original.

I do agree that the Wii U needs more original games though.

I think you give too much credit for small changes in Gameplay. Galaxy is still a 3D Mario platformer, and what is new and different in New Super Mario Bros U?

WiiU got Pikmin 3, which is a sequel to a 9 year old game. Not original, but still desired. However I do agree with Dan, Bayonetta 2 and Fire Emblem x. SMT are the only "big" new and original WiiU games for 2014. Nintendo is really rellying on Mario Kart, Smash Bros, X, and Donkey Kong.

Your all out denial of the undeniable advancements made by Microsoft and Sony on their consoles only further underlines your agenda on the matter.

Take for example the following points:

Xbox (classic) ethernet port:
Your rubuttal was to claim dreamcast had it first - It did not, it had a modem, when this was pointed out, you backpedaled to "well it was still internet lol!", the ethernet port on the original xbox could be used for internet, or connecting to a local network to share files and on some titles have internet-free multi-console multiplayer, that's a huge difference between a slow dialup system.

Dial up was slow because Dreamcast released in the 90's. Being the first to introduce a new port as standard is not innovative, it's just leading edge.

Also Gamecube released before the XB1 and it had System Link. XB was just the first to make it popular with Halo 1.

PS2 being the first console to allow game updates/patches:
Again your claim was dreamcast was first, I pointed out that this wasn't the case and detailed exactly why, yet you somehow came back at me with the ludicrous notion that actually yes, game data and patches could indeed be downloaded and installed to the whopping space available on the.. 128KB of storage.. take away the 28KB reserved for system use and you have 100KB, even on a 56K dialup modem of the time, 100KB would be filled within 50 seconds.

Later in the Dreamcasts life Sega released a 4x memory card.

Game patches were server side and had to be downloaded every time the game was run, direct to the dreamcasts RAM, of all of these games only two actually did any sort of patching and those were phantasy star online and quake 3 arena, both server side, both updating only the core network executable and server configuration files on access with the former, phantasy star online, also allowing up to 1mb of custom patches for regional and festive events while the service was operational.

So, to be blunt, you're wrong, but rather than accept that you defended your stance on it without actually having any real knowledge on the matter, which begs the question, why even defend it at all if you don't actually know?

Your giving way too much credit to advances in technology, this has absolutely nothing to do with innovation. Next You'll say X360 was innovative because it was the first HD console.

Yes, they are

I never clamed NSMBU or Pikmin 3 were original. They are excellent games, but hardl innovative. But dynamic gravity in Galaxy was no small change. It shifted the whole foundations of what was possible, bending genre boundaries and fundamentally changing the way the game was played.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. How is running on a flat plain that different from running on small globes?