Fair enough. OP makes a statement about Nintendo being the best and me and many others disagree.

Just leave it at that.

The OP is solely basing itself in opinions, nothing but that. It's biased paranoia that 3rd parties are plotting against Nintendo. Nintendo is the one giving them a hard platform to work with, like the underpowered Wii and now the underpowered/odd WiiU, and selling like it is, of course 3rd parties have to move on but not because they don't want to move their games there, Ninty simply is repelling 3rd parties.

Ninty games more polished than everything else? Well, that is some bold assumption, at least nowadays, Nintendo exclusives doesn't seem to be able to compete anymore at many technical levels. Even the best looking games such as Bayo 2 and XX are very limited.

I think what Nintendo is lacking is humility (like first 2 years of ps3), they can no longer discard 3rd parties because they're getting at the same level money-wise as Nintendo as we speak (Ubi/Activision), and they don't produce consoles. Nintendo either blends in for real or goes 1st party for once and with no regrets.

They need to finance third party developers not tied to any publisher, especially ones with good names behind them. Throwing money at big publishers to get AAA multiplat titles that don't sell would be fighting an uphill battle and one that Nintendo will never win. Exclusives have always sold systems for Nintendo, so diversifying their exclusives with second-party titles is the best way to go IMO. Bayonetta 2, The Wonderful 101, Devil's Third, and Lego City Undercover are good places to start.

Well as long as youre not bitter about it...

Dont take the words of one fanboy as the opinion of the whole fanbase...

You make too much sense to be taken seriously in this thread. There really is no point in arguing with some people - let them live in lala land as long as they like.

2010. Mario Galaxy 2 (9.7) runner up Mass Effect 2/World of Goo(9.6). Wow, 0.1 difference. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2010

2007. Super Mario Galaxy (9.7) runner up Bioshock (9.6). 0.1 difference to a new IP, Nintendo is god.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2009

2006. Twilight Princess (9.5). Runner up Gears of War(9.5). 0.1 difference to a new IP.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2006

Even when Nintendo has the highest rated game for a particular year its no higher then a .1 difference with a solid 3rd party effort. To most people these games are practically equal in quality. Nintendo does not have the highest rated title for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2005 (most of last gen) so unless you are stuck in the past there are plenty of alternatives, plenty of good games on other platforms. Pretending that Nintendo's games are in a league of their own is totally silly, its a myth propagated by die hard loyalists. They are one of the best not the best and as sales of the WiiU show loads of people can get along just fine without their games.

This might be controversial, but it needs to be said.

Look at Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast. It scored 9s and 10s and ended up with a high average rating. Same with the sequel. Then, when the sequel became multiplat, the average score dropped by more than 20%. I hereby claim that (for instance) Legend of Zelda would score less if it were multiplat. Perhaps not much less, but there would be less of a *ahem* "oh my god the new Zelda is out MEGATON" stigma surrounding it than there is now. Note that I don't think Zelda can be compared to Sonic Adventure in terms of quality (at all).

In my opinion Nintendo is a good developer. Over the last decade they have released a handful of outstanding games (certainly Mario Galaxy was an incredible achievement) and many games that are merely good. 

Due to the exclusive nature of their software they are (to a some extent) immune from certain types of critique. The formula of a typical Zelda game has moved forward VERY LITTLE since 1998. That's SIXTEEN YEARS and THREE generations ago. Sure, Occarina of Time was brilliant, but just because Nintendo made a game of the year winner a decade and a half ago doesn't mean they are the best today.

LOOK AT RARE. Time changes the pedigree of a dev. Just like in anything else - Spain were unstoppable in football and now they are much worse.

For these reasons, and some others, I say that Nintendo is NOT the best dev in the world today. Furthermore, I would say that they need to prove that they can still compete with the best of the best in the gaming industry, because if you look at their offerings in the last 10 years then the consistency of their software output (in terms of quality and quantity) is not even enough to keep them relevant in the gaming industry.

Metacritic sucks and even then the highest rated game there is a Nintendo game so yeah, Nintendo makes the best games. But it's not like third party games are bad or "broken", it's just that Nintendo games are better, plain and simple.