What's really funny is doing that, then when called out for using invalid sources, ignoring it and instead demanding validation of sources for counter-claims.

I disagree with the whole thing, and, by the way, thank you for taking 20 minutes of my life.
We should have companies that do something diferent on the market, if Nintendo continue to do the whole kiddiie frienndly strategy, THAT IS OK.
We don´t need 3 clones offering us the same shooters every month.
Let Nintendo be a fun, colorfull, cartoonish option, let Sony and MS do their thing.
Hell, we need MORE of diferent stuff, not less.
I praise Nintendo for doing their own thing, I think they should keep at it. Maybe I will buy a WiiU, when I want a cartoonish happy-go-luck game, I will play it, why not?
They do not have to be number 1, it is GOOD to have a lot of consoles and companies, as long as there is quality, and quality is something Nintendo delivers.

You really have no idea what a company does with profits, do you?

Say in Q1 a company generates $100 million in profit.   Then in Q2 it takes a $100 million loss.   Everything you've posted so far suggests that you think it means they reinvested that initial $100 million back into the company. 

this +10

exactly, i know hate or bashed nintendo are the cool thing to do, (nintendo like apple both are  "internet hate" companys) but when your bias is so evidently the end result is not "cool" sorry.

Yet their games consistently have dev times far above industry standard including games like Zelda and Pikmin and Smash Bros. 

I don't claim to know what is under the hood of games but from what I can see 99% of games aren't less "cheap" than Nintendo games. I would like to see examples of what you mean on all those points and out of curiosity, I would like to know what games you enjoy. 

Also, congrats for you, but that in no way vilifies or incriminates Nintendo...it just says that you personally don't really like their games which is totally fine, but using the fact that you personally don't like Nintendo games as an attack on Nintendo seems...silly 

@ Your comment to MysteryMan: "My complaint is that Nintendo made Pokémon a turn-based fighting game within a primitive RPG architecture. Pokémons randomly appear after the character going around in circles in the grass? Wtf? The player cannot throw a pokeball at any time and how he/she wants? The battles are only about selecting attacks? How sad. The fans deserved more."

Turn based games and random encounters are both valid development options that are employed not only through a large number of classic games but continue to be employed in great games today, from Pokemon to the brand new and critically praised Bravely Default. I feel sorry that you are unable to enjoy these games but that is your problem, not anybody elses. You are implying that games of this ilk are inferior or simpler but in reality they are simply different. Pokemon has a multitude of layers of complexity and real time battles would remove some of that as well as removing some of what makes the games so fun and accessible. Once again, this is entirely your opinion and it is not based in fact or truth whatsoever.

If you would like an RPG that doesn't have turn based attacks or random encounters, I would like to point you towards Xenoblade Chronicles, a wonderful open world RPG with over 100 hours of content, a great story and an inventive battle system. 

@ Your comment to Cannonball: "Mini-disc format for what? PSP? Vita? Portables haven't enough size to have CD/DVD/BR. "

Mini disc was used for PSP as opposed to cartridges which were used for pretty much every other portable ever (including vita)...

"Gimmick - "a special feature for the sake of having a special feature""

Except that isn't the definition of the word. Here is the real definition:

Gimmick - a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

Last time I checked the whole purpose of a game engine is to give the tools to develop a game. I give you credit for the engines you've listed, but again.. What's the criteria for current gen, or what's above average? Please think about and elaborate on this point if you wish. Nintendo's game engines match the criteria that they need to make the games they want to make, so what's the issue?

What I've gotten from this thread is that everyone else does want Nintendont... Who cares if they aren't modelling realistic cities? Who cares if they aren't creating realistic shooters. Should they be held accountable for choosing not to do that? Should we hold other companies accountable for not going out of their comfort zone?

I play many games, yet it's very hard for me to find proper reasons why a game like GTA V is better or worst  to a game like TLOU, or how those 2 can be considered better or worst to SM3DW. I use these 3 as examples as they are some of the bigger games of last year. I'd argue from a technological standpoint and the complexity of the parts that go into game that GTA V is vastly superior to the other two, but my experience playing those games do not meet the technological observations or expectations? Superior technology =/= Superior games. Realistic graphics or physics are not  better or worst than animated graphics. More complexity in the game doesn't mean that game is superior. 

Lets be realistic here... Nintendo doesn't meet YOUR criteria. You don't seem to agree how Nintendo does business, how they utilize their resources, or agree with their philosophies in general. You do not enjoy the type of games that Nintendo makes. You feel that they should offer more diversity and complexity. In your opinion you feel like they've damaged the industry with their actions. I get that, I respect that... I even agree with a few of the points you have brought up.  You have your own standard or perception on how games should be... That's fine, but please don't confuse truth with your perception of reality.

If you think so, then I make you the same challenge I did with another user that has complained about the same thing: on the entire OP, find me one single sentence that is neither a fact nor backed up by one.

What article? Please, post here the link of the post where I downplayed such an article. I'm willing to accept your critics, but without evidences they are worthless.

What leads you to say I don't know how to explain? I just don't need to say the same thing over and over again if I can forward them to the OP. That was actually one the reasons of why I have created this thread. Before, I was always telling the same thing countless times to different users. Now I can use this thread to more efficiently argue.

They don't try to do the same. They misunderstand some paragraphs of the OP and the key to resolve that misunderstanding is right after those paragraphs. It's like someone who reads half of a book and says that the story has a stupid ending. I just tell them: go read the ending and then tell me whether the story is stupid or not.

Specifically on that example of the Guinness book, people assume at first that I'm considering some games good and others bad. That's wrong and the "ending", which is actually a side note (not really needed if people carefully read the previous paragraphs), reafirms that I'm only talking about attitude/commitment, not quality or talent.

That comment is right on 2 things and wrong on 1. I'm doing more than the Guinness book, that's right. The quality of a game is not determined by the amount of effort/time/money, that also right. Am I using that to qualitatively analyse games? Wrong, I'm not.

Quality is about how much each gamer likes a certain game. Therefore, it varies from person to person. Some people argue that it's even more complicated than that: it is about the score each gamer would give to each game if everybody has played all the games. If I had such an information, I would make the average of the scores of every game and then I would have the quality of each one of them. But that is impossible to know.

Then, there are attempts to estimate quality. Some people tell we can see it on sales, others tell we can see it on metascores, others tell we would have to make surveys. I find all of them too much faulty to use as reference. I prefer to look at measurable remarkable achievements that require effort/time/money that will indicate the commitment of the devs. They are not quality but at least they are not faulty attempts to assess it either. Not even the devs themselves know the quality of their products until they release them to the market. It's like several oil companies were trying to find oil. I'm not saying who is going to find it, just who is digging deeper.

I respect opinions but I obviously disregard them for any analysis, as they are only opinions. I have downplayed articles for their content, not their sources. I haven't been that demanding yet.

Search on google images by: "sony nintendo microsoft operating income". You will find plenty of graphics and tables, incluing that one.

Not everything is backed up by sources (things that I found common sense like Nintendo has Mario, Zelda and Donkey Kong or that N64 was Nintendo's 5th gen console), but everything is backed up by facts. But then I openly ask you: which fact do you challenge?

Then I answer you what I've answered him.

Good or bad, best or worst, that's about opinions, not common knowledge. And no, the OP doesn't make such assessments.

You are confusing invention with innovation. Invention is about creation, being original. Innovation is about changing the market (or at least making an impact) by releasing a product. So, yes, Farmville is innovation, otherwise Wii Motion wouldn't be either, once there were already motion controls on the PC before the Wii.

Anyway, I guess you got the point about the difference between innovation and evolution.

It's easy to praise. You can do it anywhere. But to criticize, sometimes only in the shadows...and, even so, some are still afraid.