Topic: Why does the Wii U get so much hate?

I sometimes suspect Nintendo do. Not because I dislike their games that score well, I just don't see how some of their recent games are scoring higher than N64 and GC games that are now considered legendary. I know opinions are opinions but any score above 90 should be reserved for something that is not only a very well made game, but also does something not done before.

I personally think review scores died globally with IGN's 10/10 for MGS4.

Nintendo might have have f up their marketing but they are making a good job now at making each release a "must have". I honestly thought Hyrule Warriors was going to be a side-project but it turned out one of the big games of the year. Unfortunately there's only so much they can do if the press doesn't cooperate, and the press seems to give more coverage to android games than to WiiU.

But again, the press system has changed so much in the last decade, I'm not surprised Nintendo has problems getting the press on their side, because it's not about the quality of the games anymore. I mean, you're competing with Sony and Microsoft, who give away consoles, promo items and games, have launch parties, have people paid to interact with websites et al.

@spizzamarozzi Well, they may be doing a good job now, that's true, but in today's market you have to wonder if they can still turn things around for the Wii U or if they have to try again from scratch with another console because they are royally late to the party and they would have to move mountains to get third parties back and more buyers interested.

Maybe some will come back and more will come back when the Wii U's market share will rise to a decent enough amount, but other than that all they can do is maximize their own titles and make sure that they all score like crazy. They could succeed, but it is an almost Herculean task.

P.S.

Just out of curiosity: does spizzamarozzi mean anything?

@TheRealThanos First off, once again an interesting read ^^
As for vision- VS graphics-wise ... it turns out, it's actually not difficult^^ The first paragraph told me all I needed to know already. Really it was just the "vision" part that confused me, if you'd put it as "visuals" for example, I think I've catched on much faster.

In regards to 720p VS 1080p, that is entirely true, I've actually done the very same experiment myself. In my experience, as you say, most people can't tell the two apart most of the time (of course depending on the source, if that is poopydoodoocacapoopledoopley, there is no point to it in the first place). There a few exceptions though, one thing that works pretty well is e.g. small printed text, there is a scene in one of Nolan's Batman movies, I think TDK, where someone is reading a newspaper in a limo. In 720p it's rather tough to make out the actual text, esp. without pausing, it's noticeable easier in 1080p.
The whole "omg Ryse is 900p" (among others, of course) debate, that is raging on, is beyond silly, even moreso it's in fact counterproductive on many levels.

On the breath and effectiveness of optimization "tricks", I'll have to take your word for it, you certainly make a convincing case. I mean just remembering some of the little stunts we were taught to pull in C++ to make this or that function run smoother for a given purpose makes me think, you have a good point. Of course there are limits to all the illusions you can create, that is especially true I think, when many of those tricks are already in use on more powerful platform, to keep those "graphics-wise" numbers stable there. Factors like resolution, frame-rate, post-processing etc. are bound to take a hit then, even if just to keep the fill rate in check.
The problem here is not so much "vision-wise" then (although fps drops and those nasty "jaggies" e.g. can unpleasant), but the PR nightmare, again with the whole 1080p/60fps talk ... Microsoft had to learn that lesson the hard way, just look at Diablo 3 most recently. Nintendo would be in trouble on that end, serious trouble really. That is to say, that in the end it is not magic. If you want to keep the "vision" alive, "graphics" are going to take a hit, and vice versa, as you say, trade-offs and all that.
As in regards to Turok 64, I'Ve played that of course. In fact it's one of my favourite FPS games (not so much the new one^^). The example of using fog to, if I got that correctly, basically mask limited draw distance is a good one, but it also shows the limits and downsides. It's of course a rather crude approach, but no matter what you do, about limiting the draw distance, it will affect the "vision". Again though, that is matter of degrees, and doesn't necessarily have to impact the experience all that much, esp. without direct comparison- Unfortunately, thanks to Digital Foundry, that is hardly an option anymore, or only a very limited one.

As for the more general argument, that more WiiUs equals more games, brought to those WiiUs (most likely also higher quality ports), that much is uncontested. Unforunately it works the other way round, too, and creates this kind of 'devil circle': Few sales -> few games -> little interest -> few sales -> .... That kind of negative feedback loop is hard to get out of, right now I don't see how it could be done at all, maybe Nintendo's own exclusives will be able to "break" through it. I'm afraid though, that despite all efforts 2015 will still be, as they say, too little, too late.

In respect to the final point, I'd also like to add a few remarks:

First, you are right, parity in specs will never be achieved. That doesn't mean that difference doesn't matter though, it's again, and I alluded to that above, on the one hand, a matter of degrees and on the other hand, a matter of perception, simply put:
PS4 >> XBox1 >>> WiiU ^ PS3 ^ X360
One could argue this six ways from Sunday, but "in the street" that is a fact. There is actual a great theory by Georg Jellinek that comes into play here, he called it “the normative power of the factual”. While a bit out of context here, I think you get the basic idea, and since you work in marketing, you're probably well aware of the general concept I'm getting at anyways.

Yes, I agree, that they need to seen that way. Unforunately, they aren't and honestly there is little reason they should be. I think the argument goes, that it worked for them with the Wii, so why wouldn't it work again?
The answer here seems simple enough to me, the Wii was never seen as a "videogame console", not in direct competition with the Ps3 and X360. That was it's key to success, it was novel and "innovative" (although honestely, today I'd prefer the term "gimmicky" really), it addressed (still almost) toddlers as much as the elderly, and everyone in between.
It was a toy, it was a gimmick, it was a "fitness", or in the case of the elderly a "mobility" device (mental as well as physically) and so on and so forth. You could game, you could "waggle", everyone could do it, it was inclusive, it was social (yeah, yeah oh boy, I said it!).
That was and is completely unprecedented on that scale. But that is to me, at least for the forseeable future, a one time thing. People have that, they have the Wii, and HD as well as the Gamepad, aren't necessary to that end, they might even impede it.
The one part got what it wanted at the time, out of the Wii, the other part, the "core" (I'm curious what Miyamoto was going on about that recently, I mean curios about "how" he is going to address that in the end) was not so pleased, there were some games for them, but many more were not for them (the amount of "shovelwere" on the Wii is still astounding), and many more they missed out on, due to the Wii's significant lack of hourse power (I think you made a 1:10 comparison earlier).

All in all, It was a boon for the Wii, and it is now a curse for the WiiU. Nintendo has to pull nothing short of a major miracle here. They have to pull the proverbial white rabbit out of the hat, if not, then they ARE in the console race, actually let's stick to wars. If they want to or not, if they admit to being in it or not, it doesn't matter, since, no kidding around here, it is NOT up to them.

At this point, it's just a myth, the myth of "the house of Nintendo", to abuse an political incorret phrase here: different but equal.
Nintendo seems to be built almost entirely on myths these days, the next one is that of "innovation and fun, here, now", as their hallmark, and their's only.
Another one, closely related to the last one, you mentioned in regards to a comment by @arnoldlayne83. It's the myth of "innovative games, by means of innovative hardware" (keeping in mind, that Nintendo-lingo normally doesn't differentiate between "innovative" and "good" or "fun", new ideas, so the legend goes, are good ideas).
Today, Nintendo and their products are hardly special, with any kind of positive connotation, they are non-conformist though. They are not the only ones, who make "good" or "fun" games, not by a long shot, and most of their games are not actually enhanced by their hardware.

You made a good point about most games being able to be scaled/ ported to the WiiU, if the will/ numbers were there. Tragically, the same is true in the other direction. Nintendo games could be ported to other systems, the only pump in the road is the control schemes Nintendo keeps insisting on. But two points here, Move e.g. could replace the Wiimote just fine, the Gamepad is for the most part just as unnecessary, and it could also be replaced just fine by the Vita, or as things stand a tablet (or one of those big-ass new smart"phones", think integration in PvZ:GW or the upcoming The Division, or Smartglass, etc.), but again, most importanly, you don't need the gamepad to play Mario or Mariokart or SSB or Donkey Kong, ironically Nintendo themselves, by introducing the Pro Controller, proved as much.

To get to a close (omg it got long enough once again ^^) I would strongly disagree with the whole "Nintendo uses a design model where they develop the hardware around the games they want to make" idea, in fact, you could turn it around and it would still be a myth. I admit it is a compelling and somewhat comforting one at that. The very fact, that they are failing, the second year in a row, to provide anything even approaching a "proof of concept" for the Gamepad, is absolutely telling imho, even the Wiimote had it's high point on the very day of the systems' launch, with the "poorf of concept" named WiiSports.
Sure, there were a handful of other games like WiiSports Resort (who would have thought) or Skyward Sword (although one could argue, that in fact Zelda WAS and WILL be, perfectly fine without the wiimote+). By and large, it was innovation for innovations sake, not for the sake of the consumer or for the sake of the software.
Overall Nintendo would be best off, either to re-establish those myths as facts, since at the core of any myth is a hidden nugget of former truth, which would require, like I said, a series of major miracles, or they should consider abandoning those myths, and try their hand at creating new ones. Both are about equally hard to pull off I guess, more realistic though, at least from my PoV, is the second approach, given the circumstance today at least. Also, some real, some usefull innovation might come off it in the end. A new mental framework, by which to approach problems, has never hurt anyone I think.

PS: I'm happy you to hear, that you feel right at home here in Europe! I've been to Amsterdam, it is a great city indeed, a perfect place to waste a night (or more) just partying away

Good points being brought up, here. I didn't read everything, but I think people have an idea what Nintendo should do. Considering Nintendo is actually the one in control of their business, they probably already have some plans to (at least try to)make their business more successful than it has been. I just think they've been going through a rough spot and are trying to endure it as well as they can.

For the record, some of Nintendo's games aren't selling spectacularly, either. W101, Pikmin 3, and even DK didn't sell completely awesome. That in itself shows that there is an audience for 3rd parties to appeal to. That's the thing. If certain games aren't selling, they need to make something that does.

It's always good to have some perspective, though. DLC and features missing is not going make people want your game. Missing features is not going to convince people to buy their games to "earn" that support. It doesn't work that way, and I think that's a point alot of people miss when we talk about sales. The games probably would have sold poorly anyway, but those actions just made it even more likely. I'm convinced that even if Wii U had said 3rd party support, people would still buy it on PS or Xbox.

I can't keep up with this one being away a day at a time. I saw someone mention that if the base would grow that 3rd party support would return. I'd argue that isn't quite the case. Having worked on the inside I can tell you that even a shoddy rushed port like Midway did from PS2 to GC/XB for various games back in 2001 it took like 6 months to do or more if I recall right and that was on basic stuff like NHL Hitz 2002. Given the complex differences in coding something to work versus work correctly on the WiiU I'd think you're looking more like a year on the lower end. A 'new' game minus the concept and into code you're looking more like 18+ months from start to store. Given that, how many of you really feel that people would dust off disused kits or actually buy the to support the system late in life? Odds are with Nintendo and their problems the thing has another 3 years left before it's outdated and that pushes up against where the profitability and value for the effort just isn't much there.

@tanookisuit

It doesn't take a year to get a game working on Wii U. Also the 18+ months estimate you have for a "new" game is just wrong. If the game is being developed for the Wii U at the same time as the other versions it would take even less effort to get it working. Even if 3rd Parties come back it is guaranteed that they will sell but Nintendo needs to bring the 3rd Parties back before their next system. If it takes longer than 6 months to port your game from one console to another then you are doing something wrong

@Ralek85 Okay, I'm going to have to make some friendly corrections now, because for some reason (still that darn language barrier?) you're not getting some of my points and most other things I explained are facts. They aren't debatable and they are proven. I'm going to try and clarify, hope you understand.

First off: No, no, no I actually DID mean vision, NOT visuals. In this case, visuals is just another word for graphics and is apart from vision. Sorry if that's confusing but it is what it is. Because of all my travels and work in Europe, I actually speak German, but for topics like these my German skills would not be sufficient, so I'm going to have to try again in English.

Maybe we should start with the concept "field of vision" from which vision derives in this topic. I am going to assume that you know what it means but just to be on the safe side: field of vision is all that you can see when you are looking in a certain direction.
If you keep that in mind for the rest of this explanation, then we are good to go and you will also understand that it is ab-so-lute-ly NOT the same as "visuals".

Let's grab the dictionary to make it 100% clear:

Visuals: a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.
Vision: the faculty or state of being able to see

Of course both can also have some other meanings, like having a "vision" of the future, but the two meanings I mentioned here are the first in the dictionary and are also the one's that are needed in this discussion, so bear with me.

Vision also has nothing to do with all the techie details, like I already said in my previous comment, so we can skip the part where you mentioned jaggies , frame rate and resolutions, because that is just the raw data.
Vision is, more than anything the human factor. That is also why developers, like illusionists making elephants disappear in front of your eyes, can use clever programming and tricks to distract you from what some people will see as shortcomings. (I say that because I don't see it that way)
Humans don't "see" in 1080p or 60fps or anti-aliased view so let's not mention all these kind of terms anymore for now.
(although I can't help but leave you with one interesting tech fact and that is that the human eye is actually capable of registering images at 120fps, so we have some ways to go with movies and games because even 4k video is still in 60fps)

Now, because vision is not directly tied to graphics, it also does not suffer from lesser graphics or what not. It is for the most part "what you see" and whether a picture is in 480p or 1080p, your vision is just as sharp. otherwise you would need glasses for one of them...

Moving on: the fogging example I gave was one of the past, so is not to be mentioned in relation to Wii U or other consoles because masking the limits of draw distance isn't necessary anymore since the hardware is so much more powerful today. I was just referring to how all these tricks started (they actually also had tricks on 8 and 16 bit platforms, but that would be too much to cover here and is not relevant either) and how they were implemented. I also said that the complexity of these tricks has now increased a hundred-fold, so there's even tricks that they use that we don't even know about. The fogging trick was also only revealed years after it was first used.

Remember field of vision from the beginning of this comment? Let's say you're in a racing game. Making transparent stripes blur your peripheral view (corners of your eyes) can not only give you a better sense of speed, it can also mask lesser graphics.
And there are so many more tricks, I can't mention them all and I also don't know them all, but suffice it to say, that there are numerous ones they could use, also aided by middleware as explained in my previous comments. Graphics, fill rate and what not do NOT take a hit when engines are using their scalers in an appropriate manner. The aim of these scalers is to make a game look almost just as good on every platform it can run on. Of course it will look better on a high end gaming PC than on a smart phone, but in general the artistic view and general look and feel of a game should be maintained through proper scaling.

Now, as for these effects when we compare Wii U to the other two consoles, here are some examples:

Pouring rain, like in a rain storm. If the engine (any engine) would have to display the same rain storm on consoles with less raw power, all the programmer would have to do is decrease the amount of drops that will fall, or put a little more space in between those drops. A very subtle effect, but one that could have a big effect on processor & GPU workload. You won't see it, and the overall idea on screen is more or less the same.
Leafs falling from trees in forests: same as with the rain: make less leafs fall and space them out so the hardware has less to do.
More examples: sea water - make it slightly less wavy or put a little less detail in the foamy tops of waves. Lighting: fewer beams, smaller beams, make it less dynamic. And I could go on. All of these effects could also be displayed only when needed: you don't need to see the light, the waves, the leafs or the rain move once you're past it. Well maybe not the rain because that is everywhere, but I think you should be able to get the idea. (come to think of it, you could make a "path" through the rain with simpler animations where needed and only full animation in your field of vision)

And once again, NONE of these things have to do with resolution or frame rate but with more or less and how much of it you can see at any one time if you're looking in a certain direction.

We agree on the Wii U's position and the fact that any solution I mentioned is purely theoretical, so we can skip that one too.

I'm also going to skip the whole Nintendo on other hardware part, it is of course sacrilegious and tablets can't replace Nintendo's controls. I would truly hate to see that happen.
And we can disagree on this, but it is a FACT that Nintendo designs their hardware AROUND the games they want to make with it, so it is not a myth. Mr. Miyamoto has given several interviews about this topic in which he also addressed the difference between Nintendo's philosophy and the other two. They may have fallen off the wagon a bit with their current console, but the Wii has certainly done an admirable job of it.
And even though the world seems to be against them now, they may surprise us yet. Just look at the New 3DS: people were also complaining about the 2DS but that has been a positive surprise so far and I'm pretty sure that the New 3DS will sell a good amount too.
If you want to know more about Nintendo's philosophy and why they always "seem a generation behind" (something that is actually only partially true since the launch of the Wii) then here is an old but interesting article that also has a couple more links in it that go into even more detail:
http://videogamesawesome.com/forums/topic/nintendos-philosoph...

As for gimmick: personally I hate the term gimmick because a gimmick is something that is added just for the sake of adding it, not contributing to the experience as a whole. (for example: building a swimming pool in the back of a truck could be fun but it does not add to the driving experience) Of course there was a lot of shovelware or games where the Wiimote wasn't implemented very well, but in most of Nintendo's own titles and (dare I name them again) the first person shooters on the Wii the controls worked like a charm and truly added something, so yeah, NOT a gimmick or gimmicky.

Same goes for the GamePad: it has so many novel and handy uses never before seen in consoles until we had some sort of cross breeding between smart devices and the other two consoles. Still no gimmick. The fact that not every game from Nintendo or third party is using it in a decent enough manner does not detract from the usefulness that it could have.

And although I agree that other consoles (got a Dreamcast and Xbox 360 myself) also have games that are fun, it is not the same fun that Nintendo offers and it's not just my opinion that ONLY Nintendo can deliver that feeling. They are still masters of their trade.
Even at 44 years of age. I still get a stupid ear to ear grin on my face from the pure pleasure and fun whenever I play a Nintendo game, almost like I'm a kid again. It is truly something else, they don't call it "the Nintendo Difference" for nothing... (Google it, there are quite a few interesting articles to be found on "the Nintendo Difference")

P.S.

This “normative power of the factual” theory is interesting but I have not heard of it before and I've had quite a few sales trainings as you can probably imagine since I've been in the business for so long already and you keep learning new tricks. I also think that "man's psychological tendency to accept established facts as the normal" does not adhere to sales and marketing, but it certainly could be applied to wrongful thinking of fanboys or "the eye of the public"....

Also, there were 3 system architectures to work with in 6th gen. They prioritized PS2 and x86, because one worked for PC by default, and PS2 was popular. That could easily push porting games an extra length farther than it is now.

@tanookisuit
In terms of how long it takes, it depends on how much they know about Wii U. They can either decide to work on Wii U specifically, which would take longer, as you say, or they can do it in one go by porting directly from x86, which is EXACTLY what they did last generation. Also, once a console is known and easier to work with, that makes the value for effort go up, which would make profitability go up. If Wii U gets outdated in 3 years, Xbox One will, too, because it is in PC land where the PCs will be 3 more years powerful in which ever way. That one is common sense. That's actually a good point, and if they are limited by hardware on all the consoles, it will add profitability/value for effort. That's why systems like PS2, DS, Wii, and 3DS were successful in the first place. They could get more from the hardware right away, because they knew it.

Xbox One in PC land =/= 3 years outdated from now =/= good thing for Wii U

PS4 won't be outdated nearly as soon, in terms of graphics, so it looks like Sony will be the only one pushing graphics to the max of PS4 like they did with PS3. So I guess we'll see how well PS4 does in PC land.

@SCAR392 By your definition (and for a fact actually) the PS4 is also in PC land. It is only marginally more powerful than the Xbox One if you look at the overall picture. And both consoles will be outdated by next year when even mid-range game PC's will totally destroy them on nearly every level.
ALL consoles of the current gen use outdated hardware, and the Xbox One/PS4 use quite a few off the shelf parts.The only thing that preserves a console's "best before" date a bit longer than normal is that all parts are customized in such a way that they are more optimized than a PC with the exact same hardware. Having said that, the gap will be closed much sooner this generation, because of the consoles being so much more like PC's hardware-wise.

Last gen all consoles had chip sets derived from the PowerPC family, so there was no direct porting from x86. It is true that the Xbox 360 (especially in the case of multi-platform games) was the easiest to develop for, but that had other reasons. Amongst other things PS3 not having a unified memory pool and being hampered by the complexity of the Cell CPU.

As for developing games on Wii U: that is no more difficult than making games for Xbox 360/PS3 so development trajectories should consist of an equal amount of months, and probably only marginally longer than working on the x86 architecture of the Xbox One/PS4.
The architecture of the Wii U IS known, so that is not the issue. Every other reason, fact and theory has already been covered in this topic, I think...

oh my god i came into this thread and i just saw paragraphs and paragraphs talking about this.But there all mostly by @TheRealThanos, so it looks like he's the only one here that makes sense.

@midnafanboy Well thanks for the compliment, but that is not really true. I'm actually in the middle of a discussion with 3 or more intelligent people. Just read the backlog if you dare...

@TheRealThanos
That was exactly my point, though. tookisuit said Wii U will be outdated in 3 years, and one really obvious answer would be that Xbox One will get outdated by PC, and we know that, because PC will continue improving on it's own in 3 years. That's why I said it's good for Wii U. The amount of graphics PS4 has over Wii U and Xbox One will carry it along PC for a while longer.

I just figured PowerPC was getting games from x86, because they developed on x86 to begin with, AFAIK. Even Nintendo develops on PC, I think. That's why there was a Windows version of Pikmin on the GCN disc.

I know PowerPC isn't an unknown architecture, but it still has enhanced parts, better parts, and more of each part. Nintendo is leading the development charge.

@SCAR392 Ah, okay. Partial misunderstanding then, my bad.
I do think you overestimate the capabilities of the PS4 though. What I said in the previous comment stands as far as I am concerned, they will BOTH be out the door at the same time when the next wave of powerful PC's arrives. Have you even seen what the latest graphics cards are capable of? Of course these are for high end PC's but this year's high end PC is next year's mid range PC, so they will be outdated pretty quickly. But I don't think that the console gamers care about such things. It does give me something to laugh about when they talk about their machine's high end graphics and whatever other fanboy drivel they can come up with.

And it is true that all games were developed on x86 but they had to use software to convert it to the dev kits and then optimize it. And that is another reason why I firmly believe that the difference isn't there, because in the case of the Wii U the same is true, so they know this and developers moaning about programming difficulties are talking utter BS. The time needed to develop for all these last gen consoles and the Wii U is more or less the same. The most realistic reason I can come up with is that their publisher was putting the thumb screws on for them to hurry so they just didn't get enough time, had to rush, made mistakes and blamed the Wii U dev kit for it out of frustration.

As for the Wii U: from what I've read and been told by people that are WAY more technical than me, the chipset in the Wii U is very similar to the Wii in how it operates except for the GPGPU that was now added. And the triple core setup and memory pool make it similar to the structure of the Xbox 360. That is also why I said somewhere in the middle of this topic that if games can be developed for the Xbox 360 that they can just as easily be developed for the Wii U, it's just that it is neither profitable nor interesting to do for third parties right now with things being the way they are at this point.

@TheRealThanos Ok, first off, sorry if this starts to sound silly to you, but while I think I did indeed get closer to "get" what you mean by "graphics" and "vision", I don't think I'm entirely there yet, unfortunately.

I'm just gonna addres a couple of points that still managed to confuse me, or confuse me once again: (Don't forget, patience is a virtue! ^^)
"And once again, NONE of these things have to do with resolution or frame rate but with more or less and how much of it you can see at any one time if you're looking in a certain direction."
I'm confused, because I thought that was the entire point, why else would you decrease e.g. the number of dynamic lights or the number of waves, or reflections, or whatever, than to lower the strain on the system, to allow it, for example, to produce 'more' frames, of the 'scaled-down' image, thus keeping FPS up. Basically, don't you do "less" of any-one-time, so that any-one-time, happens more often thanks to that? In fact, wouldn't even the FoV, how 'wide' = "much" you see, at times be able to directly impact FPS?
I'm really lost on this, since you come back to point out, that "decrease the amount of drops that will fall, or put a little more space in between those drops. A very subtle effect, but one that could have a big effect on processor & GPU workload."
But available processing power, as well as the level of the GPU workload, end up determining the resolution @ fps you're able to 'pump out' at any given time, as well as any ressources you might wanna apply to any post-processing.

I think, I'd probably just misunderstood that paragraph, and you meant something along the lines of no "direct" connection between the two of them, as they are separate aspects (though they do affect each other, since they 'share' limited ressources -> it's still basically a zero-sum game then)?
If so, ignore the entire paragraph.
If not, I'm really at a loss, you'd have to give me another shot. ^^

On a more general note, you keep saying, that those changes are mostly negligible or "subtle" and hard or basically impossible to notice. I'm curious why you consider this to be an objective fact, for several reasons.
First, the examples you gave, all imply the same thing, every scaling has it's limits. You cannot remove an unlimited amount of rains, or the rain is gone, the same is true for waves, sources of lighting, their breadth, number of reflections and so on and so forth. There is a limited number to begin with, so there is a limited number you can remove, before it's all gone, by the same token beams of light can only made so small before they disappear and so on, you get my point. Logic would imply then, that with every step of scaling down, e.g. by moving from a "weak" system, to an "even weaker" system, the differences become more pronounced, and in effect, easier/ more likely to be spotted. In the end, a point must be reached, where the lack of available ressources, overcomes the leeway for "tricks"
.
Second, part of your argument seems to rest on the assumption, that there are enough "background"/ "marginal" objects/ effects etc. to be scaled down, to reach the desired effect. What if that is not the case, what if you have to move beyond the "(e.g.) less grass, less grass-movement" etc. area of changes. This brings us back to the example of unit/ player count. Changes here are hardly ever subtle, definitely rather easy to divine and therefore notice, and they can be very drastic. We already mentioned BF4 for example, where there is just no missing it, or the aforementioned unit count in Dynasty warriors.

Third, I would assume, that there are several instances, were some of those tricks were already applied to the utmost degree on a higher-tier level platform. Your explanation of blur, strikes me as a good example, if a racing game has a high level of blur applied to all the relevant parts on the PS4 already, for which ever reason, e.g. as you say, to give the maximum amount of sense of motion, how does this "trick" help the WiiU anymore? Isn't it kind of 'exhausted' then already?

Four, a number of relevant tasks the system has to perform, have little to no effect on the vision at all. In that context, they are not variables subject to subtle changes, but fixed, they're constants. You talked about A.I. before, one could add simple examples, like the size of the world/ level, hit, dmg etc. calculations, physic calculations, as long as they are not just meant "to blow leafs through the air" ^^, networking, sound etc., after all a game is a LOT more than what you get to see of it on the surface.

So, in short, it seems to me, just logically speaking, that the amount of scaling that can be done, before it becomes noticeable "vision"-wise, is limited, furthermore, the number of actual 'addressees' on which said "tricks" can be performed, without being obvious about it, is also limited, and last but not least, not every "trick" is actually a "trick" in nature, but might as well be part of the intended vision, and thus be already used to great/maximum effect.

I guess, I'm just saying, the question, if those changes are subtle or not, if they indeed change the vision, is based on a number of variables and constants, and to account for any set of them, you'd have to make a number of assumptions. If there is a limit to the ability to scale down certain parts of the game, that pertain to vision as well as graphics, and if there is a number of other elements that can only barely or not at all be scaled down, then by that logic, it can't be a fact, that you could just scale basically any game down to any system you want, even the WiiU, while maintaing "in general the artistic view and general look and feel of a game".
For that to be true, you'd have to assume, that there is at least one part of the scaling process that can be apllied without limit.
More importantly, what mantains the "artistic view", "general look" and "feel of a game" is not objective, it is only up to that point objective, where the changes are in fact subtle and barely noticeable, once you move beyond that point, it is entirely subjective. Not only is the capacity for vision different for every person, but so is the amount of information anyone's able to process at one time, as well as things like e.g. "attention to detail", hence I'd have to assume, that logically that the 'tipping-point' beyond said threshold is in the end subjective.

I didn't have time to read everything in the link, I'll get back to it later, but I think I already heard about the basics there before, such as they were, as far as their philosophy is concerend. AS fore the core philosophy, I think it is worthwhile to keep in mind, that after about 20 years, it might not be all that sacrilegious, to take another look at it, and re-evaluate. Times change, mindsets, at times, need to yield to that change, and, in the best of worlds, turn said change into their tool. Also, not every change has to be radical to succeed.

As for the hardware part, I'm not exactly sure, how it is "sacrilegious". I didn't mean to offend, and I'm sorry if I did. I'm just curious about the Gamepad, is it not a combination of a touchscreen device (call it a small tablet, or a big smartphone ^^) and a physical controller? If so, in a way, the same is true for the Vita, and any smartphone with a controller 'clipped-on' (although those are mostly ugly, expensive and clunky so far). It could be replaced then, e.g. by ports of Nintendo games to the PS4.

In regards to the "fact", that "Nintendo designs their hardware AROUND the games", I just want to say this: If that were in fact true, then where are those games? Maybe we have a misundestanding here, but from my perspective, this sounds a hell of a lot like effect would have to preceed cause in this case. Or to put it differently, maybe with a thought experiment, if I were to say, that I'm building the perfect car, for the next race I'm going to take part in, then the answer to the question, which race would that be?, better not be: no clue ........ it'll depend on the car.
As for Mr. Miyamoto, he is part of that myth, and indeed not only that, he is the next best thing to it's current main proponent. Don't get me wrong, he is an absolutely swell guy, and I admired the hell out of him, but that doesn't really enter into it.
I mean for example, you're American, so I guess you are aware of the "Myth of Camelot", as it pertains to JFK. I respect JFK, and I respect the likes of Jackie O and Ted Sorenson, but that aside, what they do, is painting a picture, very successfully though, one might say. Unfortunately, not everything they say can be collaborated, some things can be disproved, others are mere interpretations or assumptions presented as facts etc. In the end, if we have to omit facts, twist them, or dispense logic to keep it up, well, then we are indeed looking at a myth, despite it probably having a kernel of truth to it. If we have to rely on emotions in the first place, to make it "sound" right and truthful, well, again then we are likely looking at a myth.

As for gimmick, I hate the word just as much, but still, if the shoe fits .. and all that. Let me say this though, I love playing shooters with PS Move, it's great fun, and can be rather precise for aiming (also I find the precision and speed of movement/turning etc. takes a hit in turn). That is beside the point though, since the example you gave doesn't really fit that well in my opinion, and doesn't work for the Gamepad either.
I think, a example would be, to suggest, that adding voice controls, like "break", "shift up" etc. in addition to the steering wheel, pedals, and stick, would "add to the driving experience". It might, it might not, it certianly has potential, it might also be counterproductive or in that case even very dangerous.
Unfortunately, I really don't see how potential use, what it could have been, would disqualify any part of a system from being a gimmick. Potential is rooted in anyone's imagination, which I for one believe to be endless in nature. By that measure, anything could be great, given the right set of circumstances, application etc. I wager, no 'gimmick' was ever thought of, that not at least one person considered to be full of great potential.

As for the ""the Nintendo Difference", I'm not saying something like that does not exist, I would deny though, that it is exclusive to them. If can speak frankly, I think that is really just part, an important at that, of this narrative, that very myth I was getting at ealier.
Fun fact, there is something called the "the Kennedy Effect", too, if you remember me mentioning JFK earlier. Ironically, it is closely linked to the idea of "it was a better time", or more precisely themes of innocence, tradition, honesty etc. and, in a way of course, loss thereof in the end :-/ ... It doesn't sound all that different from what you were saying about Nintendo really.

Mind you, I understand completely where you are coming from, with this, it has a similar effect on me, too, maybe not that pronounced but still. But, I also recognize, that part of that comes out of me personally, and is simply projected unto what is in fact before me. And like I said, it works for things, too, also other devs/ companies. I also apologize if I gave the impression that a) Nintendo was alone in creating and perpetuating such myths, or this b) that was somehow an illegitimate or bad thing to do, quite to the contrary in fact (depending on the circumstance of course).

PS: But public opinion, or better, how public opinion comes to be, as a widely accepted "norm", is important to sales and marketing, is it not? I mean in addition to that, there are theories in political science, like that of opinion leaders and multiplication for example, mostly in regards to election campaigns, that certainly apply to marketing, too, and are somewhat linked to that, I guess. Btw, those very theories play a huge part in explaining the current dilemma the WiiU and by extension Nintendo is in, at least imho. ^^

Prolly cause it sucks.

@Klimbatize Lies! All LIES! It's awesome.

I heard because PS4 makes blueberry waffles, and the Wii U can only make apple pancakes.

Pffft, they couldn't handle half the syrup of a PC waffle.

#BelgianWaffleMasterRace

Who cares about the types of waffles? (Unless allergic reaction) All waffles tastes good as long as they don't leave bad taste in my mouth, I'm want alll the waffles!