Topic: At E3, why does Nintendo explain gameplay more than Sony or Microsoft?

It's all subjective anyway. I think all gens since the NES have been great. Heck, I can't even pick a favorite

IMO....
NES/MS: Simple but timeless, it's no surprise that indie-devs try to copy it
SNES/MD: More-or-less the pinnacle of sprite based games.
PS/N64: Gaming went from The Lion King to Toy Story, it was cool bit it didn't look as good. ugh.
PS2/GC/XB: Was good enough for standard def
Wii/360/PS3: about a NES -> SNES level jump. Some styles of games got as good as they'll ever look
PS4/XBOne/WiiU: Polish. Lots of polish. Also enough power for bigger worlds. But mostly just polish.

I think all gens from the NES era excluding the N64 era have been great

Ya. All the gaming system generations always had fun games to play. I would say GameCube was my absolute favorite, with Xbox 360 in 2nd place, then N64 with Wii U as my current favorite. I wasn't really around when NES and SNES were around, but I enjoyed SNES a bit more than Sega, based on library size of games I cared more for, but the games were just as good otherwise.

Nintendo portables were always king for me, as well, even though I liked playing my cousin's Game Gear and my friends' PSPs, when I had the chance.

HD was mostly what made Xbox 360 and PS3, IMO. The graphics were better, but without an HDTV, they still looked similar enough to last generation to not be as impressive at first, and that's also what's going on right now, kind of. Even GameCube and Wii look really good on an HDTV, and they aren't HD. That's why 1080p to 4K upscaling matters more than people give it credit for.

Ok, let me try to explain more what I mean. ... it's gonna be pretty wordy, so I apologize.

When games were new, there wasn't much substance because (these are just theories, mind you) games were new, and exciting, and it didn't really matter what you were playing, it was awesome AND because there just wasn't any power behind the machines to fully explore depth in storytelling and the like.

As machines evolve, and we were able to create more expansive worlds, story-telling really became a key aspect in gaming. Not every game had it, but gaming was still new enough that even games that did not rely on story-telling or revolutionary gameplay were still extremely fun to play. I (personally) believe around the N64/PSO days is where storytelling really started to become a thing. Games like Final Fantasy and the N64 Zelda's in particularly stand out in my memory. Obviously, going from 2D to 3D worlds also opened up a great big world in terms of gameplay and the like.

The GCN and PS2 era expanded on that. I feel like the N64/PSO — GCN/PS2 era was the Golden Age of gaming from a story-telling, real depth of character development perspective. Games like Wind Waker, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Killer 7, Beyond Good and Evil, etc., all had engaging plots (some good, some bad, but at least they were all story-driven to some extent).

Fast forward to 7th and now 8th generation, and I just feel that that sort of thing is a thing of the past. There are still games like that, but the advent of HD has made it easier for games to just look good, and often, games sacrifice gameplay to make a game look better. And I will give you an example of this that is near and dear to my heart.

Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time. I remember opening the box to it and reading the manual and seeing how the developers tell you "Go anywhere, do anything ... we literally mean it. Do whatever your heart desires," and they meant it! I could complete any quest, any quest line, collect any items, go in any caves, pick any lock, kill ANY NPC, mix any combination of armor, clothing and weapons, create any magic spells, and any thing else that I felt like doing, at any time, whenever I wanted. Hell, if I wanted to kill a quest-essential NPC, I could! If I wanted to ruin the game, the game told me that I had severed the flow of destiny or something, and that I should load a previous save, but it I didn't want to, I didn't have to! No doors were inaccessibly to me; every lock pickable if I had the skill. No area inaccessible to me. If I wandered in a high-leveled cave at a low level, well, woe be unto me, but the game did not prevent me from doing so (nor did it level up enemies with me, making the act of finally conquering a cave that had given me trouble in the past an incredibly rewarding experience).

There were TONS of quests, factions to join, armor types and pieces, weapon types, and clothing, any combination of which I could wear or equip. There were TONS of magic spells, scrolls and I cold create my own insane spells if I wanted to (and I did!) The game was an absolute joy to play, and it is still to this day the most I've ever spent on any single game ever. Hundreds and hundreds of hours.

Fast forward to Oblivion, probably one of my top 3 most anticipated games of all time. It's the only reason I bought an Xbox 360. It was a good game, but it was a HUGE downgrade from Morrowind. Less items, less equipment, less armor and armor types, less weapon types, less magic spells, fewer quests and factions ... and for what? So the NPCs were all individually voiced? Yeah ... with terrible voice acting, and orcs and Nords had the same voice. For what, for NPCs to have daily schedules? So they took away gameplay in order to make the game prettier and more realistic. They took away levitation! Why? Because you couldn't go anywhere and do anything. Cities were their own areas, and you couldn't levitate over the walls of the city. All in the name of "realism". And they covered it up by saying that levitation had become illegal; the emperor had banned that particular spell. So stupid ... And what is a better game? No. Morrowind had a better story and way more to do. Yeah, the combat was improved, and yeah, the game was pretty, and it was still a lot of fun, and I still spent hours and hours on it, but it just wasn't the same.

Fast forward again, to Skyrim. Now I'll say that if I had never played Morrowind or Oblivion, Skyrim might be one of my favorite games of all time. Unfortunately, it wasn't my first entry in the Elder Scrolls series, and as an Elder Scroll game, I was severely disappointed with it. Again, we sacrificed SO MANY gameplay elements that made Morrowind and Oblivion special for the sake of realism and better graphics. Even fewer magic choices in the game (the Skyrim pretty much made magic a laugh and completely useless), even less armor types, less clothing, etc., and again, for what? For a more realistic experience? Why did we go away from being able to increase Agility or Acrobatics or Speed? Because the engine couldn't handle it? How come there are NPCs that you can't kill, even if they aren't mission essential? I've been a werewolf, gone into a Stormcloak camp, and killed everyone in it, except the one camp Captain, who is unkillable. Is that realism? The game was great. Again, I had a TON of fun playing it, and there were times were I was just amazed at how gorgeous the world was, how far I could see when on top of the Throat of the World, etc.. But again, we lost some of that Something Special that made Oblivion what it was, and that in turn had lost something special that made Morrowind what it was. And it was all in the name of realism, graphics, voice acting, etc.. But each of the things sacrificed made the subsequent game worse, not better.

That is what I mean when I say gaming has lost substance in favor of graphics. That is why I say that, while yes, games CAN be and ARE still fun, even with less of this mystical substance, they're just not the same. Gaming, to me, feels more shallow than it used to back in the 2000s. That's just my opinion, of course. Many people feel the Elder Scrolls games have only gotten better, not worse, but Skyrim was my last Elder Scrolls game. I'm tired of having gameplay taken away for me just to satisfy those that prefer surface beauty over gameplay depth (that and technically, Bethesda makes some awful games ... they freeze more than any other games out there).

Ain't no one got time to read that

I think its graphics that the ps4 and xbox one are defined by. Like someone said, its more or less just polish - what else can they do? Reinventing the wheel is not easy - and like crimsoncavalier said gameplay is also being downgraded. Take GTA for example, I really liked to play san andreas back in the day - it was really fun to me. Then came GTA IV with improved graphics but a smaller map, just one city instead of three... the gameplay didnt really improve. Graphics are used to impress people, to create hype, remember that aliens game a couple of years back (dont remember the title, never played it) it showed some pretty amazing visuals,people got hyped and when it came out people felt a little bit shortchanged as the graphics were far away from what was shown earlier.

I am not saying that graphics arent important, they actually are important in the way that they enhace gameplay in an atmospheric away. I mean when you compare Mario Kart wii with Mario Kart 8 its a striking difference and I guess if Nintendo had invested more in their hardware we could have had a game like Mario Kart 8 much earlier but instead they went the cheap hardware way - not saying that this is wrong but still its something that people use against nintendo and it might have been rather easy to avoid.