So left hand players can play and possible TATE mode option. You flip the system around and people who are left handed can use it. There was a switch for it.

I guess, but I'm left handed, I've never really understood wanting to flip the controls though. 

For Yokoi it's probably more accurate to say he's the father of the Game & Watch, not so much the Game Boy. 

Okada retired from Nintendo in 2012, I doubt many people even know who he is but he is more accurately the actual father of the Game Boy (though others were involved also). He also was the head of the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance.

Other fun fact, he opposed the dual screen idea of the Nintendo DS, but president Yamauchi insisted it had to have two screens (not even on the basis of one being a touch screen, he just wanted two screens ... just because I guess two is better than one? The touchscreen idea only came afterwards when they were trying to figure out what the heck they would do with two screens lol). 

Even Iwata hated the idea of two screens according to Okada and was getting the idea shoved down his throat by Yamauchi. They were working on a next-gen version of the Game Boy codenamed "Iris" at that point. 

“President Iwata then came to see me. He was obviously bothered and he said: ‘l talked to Yamauchi-san over the phone and he thinks your console should have two screens… A bit like the multi-screen Game & Watch, you see?’ Everybody is aware of this, but what people do not know is that at the time, everybody hated this idea, even Iwata himself. We thought it did not make any sense.”

I never said anything about Game Boy. You want to put in arguments when none were started. So not even responded to whatever else. You overlooked when I said TATE Mode. That is a fantastic feature. Esp for a Japan only handheld. TATE mode allows for arcade games in vertical screen. 

I just point those things out as it goes to show Nintendo is not very simpatico on a lot of these hardware designs and a lot of the history we assume as fact is quite often far from the truth. 

Gunpei Yokoi (so-called "father of the Game Boy") actually hated the concept of what the Game Boy became and would have destroyed that concept if he had his way. Very few people, even people who say they know a lot about Nintendo know this. 

Yamauchi thought the Game Boy idea was shit too and cancelled the device upon seeing the final version. Yamauchi held the final prototype presented to him and said the screen was crap. Yokoi went into a depression afterwards. Game Boy only released on basically a fluke ... the Super Famicom was supposed to release in 1989 and had to be delayed so Yamauchi OKed the Game Boy to release because he wanted something to release for 1989. I think they had promised retail partners new hardware for '89 and with no Super Famicom felt obligated to give them something. If the Super Famicom didn't suffer a delay you'd never have the Game Boy (or DS or Switch quite possibly). 

Iwata and Okada (the actual father of the Game Boy) along with the entire Game Boy division hated the idea of the Nintendo DS and didn't know what to do with it, lol. Yamauchi just basically pulled the two screen idea out of nowhere and forced it on the team, it wasn't even one of the screens being a touch panel. That's pretty wild to think about as well. 

I don't give a fuck. Wonderswan is cool. That's all I said. Can't even take a casual drive by without wanting an argument.

For those interested in the actual history of the Game Boy, it's actually quite fascinating and very Game of Thrones.

When presented the final prototype of the Game Boy, Yamauchi basically said the screen was crap and claimed he couldn't see anything. He cancelled the project right there.

Yokoi became so depressed after this that he contemplated suicide (per his own biography).

Yokoi hated the Famicom/NES because he felt it took away his standing in the company, he felt Game & Watch saved Nintendo by being a huge success and he had been with the company since the 60s, he resented the new success of the Famicom as taking over the entire company. I think he looked down on people like Miyamoto because he had been at the company a lot longer than them and was not thrilled that they were now the stars of the company. 

Other designers on the Game Boy felt they were being set up and back stabbed by other Nintendo employees (notably R&D2 or essentially the "console division" who was working on the Super Famicom). Lots of people inside Nintendo at that time hated the Game Boy and thought it was a piece of shit hardware. Game Boy designers felt those people were getting into Yamauchi's ear and saying the system would fail and embarrass Nintendo. There were some in the company also who felt Yokoi may try to replace Yamauchi as Yamauchi was getting older.

Yamauchi wanted to stop making portable devices entirely by the late 80s and just focus on the far more popular home console division, but the Super Famicom development was taking longer than expected and that essentially saved the Game Boy project. 

This shit is legit bonkers, lol. 

You can also totally see how things like the Sony relationship and deal for the CD-ROM went completely haywire, Nintendo seems like a very chaotic company internally in those days with lots of in-fighting and different factions trying to wrestle control under one monarch like leader (Yamauchi).

Anyone who claims the Gamecube was underpowered, knows nothing about technology.

It did things differently, it certainly was not underpowered.

Switch 2 can't play games like the Switch Lite in the Switch Lite price bracket... Price and capability is one of those goal posts you can move around indefinitely.
Arguably, no other handheld can match the GPD Win 5 in terms of capability at it's price point.

It's one of those "stupid" arguments that constantly rears it's ugly head.

Again. Stupid argument.
Companies are for-profit companies and make claims all the time which often stray from the real truth.

Remember... The Switch 1 SoC was "claimed" by nVidia/Nintendo to be "custom" and it 100% wasn't.

Switch 1 and Switch 2 have more advanced hardware capable of more modern effects, which always pushes that hardware past it's compared peers.
Switch 1 has the Polymorph engines, so it could have meshes/models that were a hundred times more complex in terms of polygons than what the Playstation 3 could have.
The Switch 2 has RT cores fpr lighting a generation ahead of the PS4.

But it's hardware isn't just capable of more modern effects, it can also do old techniques more efficiently.

..Which is why black and white spec wars is not going to hold any water.

Xbox was the best platform in terms of hardware that generation. It was in another league entirely.
Not even up for debate. Dollar for dollar, you got more with the Xbox as Microsoft was trying to undercut the competition to gain a foothold in the industry.

And whilst the Gamecube was technically capable of almost every graphics rendering technique of the Xbox thanks to the Cubes' TEV... Which was a powerful and programmable 16-stage colour blender. - Where it combines multiple texels (lighting, textures and constants) to achieve an massive amount of texture effects that will eventually be applied over the games polys... This was at the time when the ENTIRE industry was moving to programmable pixel shaders, which the original Xbox had... And which became the defacto' approach with the PS3, Xbox 360.

The Xbox also had a Hard Drive, which was instrumental in some games even being able to operate on a console at the time. (Doom, Half Life, Halo 2, Morrowind etc')

The WiiU was many things.
I don't think the hardware capability or graphics was the main issue with that console... The WiiU's GPU was certainly more powerful than the Xbox 360/Playstation 3, the VLIW5 GPU was more modern, more efficient... It was let down by slow DRAM and an "okay" CPU.
Remember the CPU is an Out-of-Order Design which is more like AMD's Jaguar in philosophy but obviously at a lower thread and clock rate... Whilst the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 were built on an In-Order design which clock-for-clock was terrible and more or less was like an Intel Atom processor... But tried to compensate with more threads and a high (at the time) clock rate. 

Keep in mind that the WiiU's best games all ended up being ported to the Switch... Which ended up also being some of the best selling games in history... But were also visually competent and have aged well.

You are right that developers did not stream data from the WiiU's internal storage... And that was probably a good thing considering how terrible quality the internal eMMC SSD of the WiiU was.

I disagree, XBox is an example of a company just willing to brute force hardware to the market and lose hundreds of dollars per unit to make it happen. 

If the GameCube was developed around that philosophy it probably could have been much more powerful. The losses on the XBox per unit were too high even for Microsoft as they basically opted to kill the system early in 2004 even though Halo 2 was a massive hit and hardware sales were up, that's pretty much the dictionary definition of shit hardware design that the higher ups at the company want the system killed and moved out.

It's just an example of MS throwing money at every kind of challenge like a spoiled rich kid going off to college using daddy's credit card to try and make anything work. They lost $4 billion reportedly on the original XBox in like only 4 years, lol that's horrendous hardware management. 

When Nintendo announced the Dolphin at E3 1999 officially and basically said it would be as good as the PS2 or better many people scoffed at this claim ... Nintendo delivered on that promise and probably then some. And they did it at $200, not $300. 

I can kinda see why Nintendo was frustrated after the GameCube, they had made great hardware and fixed just about every problem from the N64 and even landed massive exclusive deals like Resident Evil, one upped the PS2 in hardware and basically got no credit for any of that effort. 

They did a great job on hardware with the Gamecube, but where they fucked up was making their console look like a toy (I like the look of it myself, but it clearly wasn't what people were looking for at the time) and messing up a lot of their franchises with weird experimental shit like Wind Waker, Double Dash, Mario Sunshine, DK Jungle Beat, Starfox Adventures, etc instead of just doing proper sequels to their N64 games.

DVD capability would have helped too, but as with the N64 their fear of piracy bit them in the arse.

I think one of the things that doesn't really get talked about enough was that losing James Bond exclusivity was a massive, massive blow. 

GoldenEye 007 was bigger for the N64 than people realize, if that game didn't save Nintendo's 1997 holiday season the system's sales may have fallen apart before Zelda: OoT was ready (that was still a year+ away in fall 1998). GoldenEye saved their ass and carried the system hard for that interim period between Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. 

GoldenEye 007 made the console a must have item on college campuses all over the US.

They really, really needed to have kept Bond exclusivity at least for another generation. Losing him was a massive blow and while Metroid Prime was a great game it had nowhere near the same market appeal. 

Then throw in on top of that they cartoonized Zelda and cut it's appeal due to that and Mario Sunshine wasn't really the groundbreaking Mario 64-2 a lot of people were expecting and things got murky. 

In hindsight they should have just paid up for the Bond license, GoldenEye made Nintendo cool and they couldn't afford to lose that nor can you just whip up a replacement character for Bond, obviously movie studios have been trying to do that for like 50 years.