And why to be on the highest level of competition you need only better cutting edge tecnology? why is that not decided by the quality of the gameplay, the creativity of the concepts, the skill to make great levle design etc? Because that needs actual talent, passion, soul and many companies want just tons of money without risk, they make the games shinier than the rest and that's it. This is not a sport, this is not about numbers only, videogames are closer to art but they can be heavily restrained by corporative interests and often valorated as just technology when they are more. The funny thing is people think games are actually restrained by not enough powerful technology when right now the opposite is closer to reality but for different reasons.

This ignores the economics of video game development. A game is more than pure visual fidelity maximization. There are other parts of the game that need to be funded and resolved. Since publishers and developers don't have infinite resources, there must be trade-offs, and sometimes the trade-offs mean that the game won't push the boundaries in terms of asset quality, but might in others ways. The argument being made is that publishers have grown complacent and know that if they release the same game with better assets it will still sell quite a bit, while the developers who want to create something new suffer in a market where the standard is always for the maximization of asset quality. 

The frustration is not so different with that found in the movie industry, currently. Many moviegoers complain that the superhero and other action films with simplistic and complacent stories get tons of resources, while more thoughtful story-heavy films that might not have the best assets get the shaft. 

This is that fabled Nintendo Stockholm Syndrome kicking in. I think the rest of the world is getting by without Wii U level graphics. Power of hardware is no guarantee to success, only how much publishers want to spend. If games fizzle, they'll reorganize and make different kinds of games.

You wanted to stick by Nintendo despite them digging their heels in the sand when it came to progress, that's on you. But by no means have they earned the right to be the status quo.

Gamers change there minds all the time aslong as it suits them and fan there flames. Resolution wasnt even a talking point. Heck no one cared that GT6 run at 1440 x 1080p. This gen it went from all about creativity and innovation to nothing but visusls. Consoles dont know what they want to be anymore.
The Switch is what technology is all about. Its things like the Switch is what makes you feel like your living in 2017 just like you would see in a futuristic movie and not the early 2000s which is basically what the XB1 and PS4 make it out to be. Just a box with dated power.

Don't remind Nintendo fans of this fact. It sucks to know you're losing a fight you practically started. 

Post like this always make my eyes roll. Play more genres maybe?

Do you think ppl would prefer 30fps over 60fps for fighting game?

Do you think ppl would prefer horrible physic over real-life physic for racing simulator?

Or lower fps for tactical shooter, and every single sport game?

People demand those things!

It's funny you keep criticizing cutting edge technology when your favorite company keeps boasting abt their 3d screen and new switch vibrator. A cutting edge technology which most ppl dont even use.

I'm just gon restate what some ppl here have been saying. Better hardware doesnt limit creativity. It's like people forget stardew valley, minecraft, binding of isaac, undertale were firstly developed for the most powerful hardware in the world

You are analogically our superior!

They can. But they don't want to because there's no innovation in it. 

I think the problem is at the end of the day you truly don't know what innovation actually is. You discount all the innovation that actually happens due to better hardware because it doesn't help your argument. You have even gone as far as saying people doing stuff with less are "the real art". I mean that's laughable and ignorant to those working in the field.

At the end of the day you take something like Mario Kart 8. I love Mario Kart, I grew up on it its an enjoyable experience. Nobody in game development are playing that game and being like "Wow I just don't know how they did this. Nobody could pull this off". No, just about any reasonable developer could make that game. They could have built that game on better hardware years and years ago. On the flip side, they play a game like Uncharted 4 and most in the industry cannot even fathom, even if they had the budget, how to pull that game off. It takes engineers and artists that most developers don't have. Most developers in college classes can make half the Nintendo models in their games. And thats what you don't get because you only see it as a fan and from the gameplay. If you are in the field, you want to be the one delivering the gameplay and wow experience of an Uncharted or something push the fold like that. No1 is wow'd by something like Mario Kart is just fun to play.

That's really just a lot of supposition.  If we stop at the Switch instead of the PS4, there would basically be no difference except with the visuals for high-end games.  It wouldn't suddenly lead to more innovation and it wouldn't have much of an effect on the budgets of most projects.  

Last gen, developers ran into the limits of the PS3/360 very quickly.  What was the gain in innovation?  Why would stopping at the Switch now, which is stronger than both, be different?

If anything, developers said that the limits, especially in terms of memory, held them back from doing what they wanted with level design.