Most likely because Nintendo doesn’t believe their playerbase will take much interest in it. Honestly, just look at the replies to this post; you asked a simple honest question, and the majority of the responses you’re getting are people bringing up Zelda and Mario and how they’re so perfect and how nothing Sony makes can compare. 

I mean, you didn’t even mention those games, let alone criticize them; you’re simply asking the questions most real gamers would ask in why Nintendo isn’t diversifying their lineup a little bit more. Nothing wrong with their established IP’s, but they clearly have the resources to try something different from their norm, especially given that they seem to have hit a new stride with Switch. 

Sony's best game:

Nintendo's seven best games:

I can say that Super Mario Odyssey is better than anything that Sony is capable of, and unlike your statement, there's actual evidence to back it up.

Personally, I think BoTW is probably the only example I am aware of with the issue you mentioned when it comes to judging Nintendo games. Maybe Skyward Sword, but it ended up with a 93 so there were more reviewers who were critical of the game. You could also add Paper Mario Sticker Star (75% on Metacritic), but I haven't read the reviews so I cannot tell. Otherwise, I really cannot think of any other Nintendo game in the last decade that supposedly had that scenario you mentioned besides BoTW. I think the scores and praises were well-deserved but that's neither here nor there. Games like Star Fox Zero, Metroid: Other M, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Zelda: Triforce Heroes, Wii Music, and Animal Crossing amiibo Festival didn't have the luxury of being reviewed well just because they were Nintendo games.

Because they have limited resources like every developer and all their employees work already on other games. Working on a game like Uncharted would mean less of what they do instead. Less of what Nintendo fans buy Nintendo consoles for.

Working on one or two games like Uncharted won't  let people buy a Nintendo console. It would be simply wasted resources because those who want these games so much have already a better place on PS, Xbox or PC. 

Nobody will buy a Switch for games which look like you get from Sony or Microsoft (those which go for realism) just from last gen. 

Good looking game is not same thing like graphically technically advanced, game can be great looking despite its not graphically technically advanced, and ofcourse how game is look is more important than how much graphically technically advanced, like Zelda BotW and Mario Oddysey, they are both great looking games despite they are not so much graphically technically advanced.

Mario Galaxy 2 and Uncharted 2 were contemporaries and I'd say they look about as good as each other, albeit in different ways.

Where I think Nintendo gets it right, is fun and variety. Wind Waker is an ocean faring take on the formula with a cell shaded look. Twilight Princess is more by the numbers, but it is steeped in mid-2000s edgelord aesthetic and loaded with sassy characters. Skyward Sword (for better or worse) completely change the combat and it looks like a watercolor painting. Breath of the Wild, again adopts a new art style, and blends game play elements from the original LoZ game with modern open world games.

Each successive Uncharted game is just like the last game but with a different story and higher production values. Competent third person shooting. Climbing sections. Set pieces. Each game ups the spectacle. And it is truly awesome. But after playing Uncharted 4, I feel a bit like the previous games are redundant. U4 has more stunning visuals, bigger spectacles, and more well developed characters.

The only thing I can think of from Nintendo that compares, is Mario Kart. Each new Mario Kart game is usually just a better version of the last game. But then again, they only do one per console.

Yep review is indeed a great evidence... A lot of people probably also dished the Sony platforms in the name of Nintendo ones because obviously those games are better.

Just being a Nintendo games certainly won't make the game score great, but being Nintendo will make they be evaluated differently, you yourself admited in previous post didn't you? That they evaluate by what is possible on the HW not compared to everything else.

Have I said different? And we always go back to this excuse when anyone is discussing graphics on Nintendo HW. There are games on Snes that are still pretty considering what they tried, that won't erase the fact that there is a lack of details on the cartoony style of Nintendo.

thread sure turned into a shit show..you guys are losers and take these things to seriously man

Not to butt in and ruin the party, but using this particular train of logic as evidence, would you honestly say Rockstar is better than almost anything Nintendo is capable of, sans Ocarina of Time which gives Nintendo that small edge of victory?

Looking good is subjective, I think you mean why doesnt Nintendo make a game as technically advanced as Uncharted 2/3.
True Nintendo's games arent as technically good as Uncharted but the thing is why do they need to be?, they sell as much and get as high of ratings in both cases than the Naughty Dog games and most likely cost less to develop , Do you think hiring better (i.e. more expensive/more developers) will cause their games to sell more. Thats not in Nintendo's DNA they are a company that believes in profits first and foremost