Not to say "nintendo was always known for omg graphics" but I think you're taking their credit a little too much. They were always good for their price-range, IMO, which is quite under that of PC's and more expensive hardware and that's a compliment.
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Game Boy: Always considered shitty-looking, even without competition
The principle of withered technology, yes. But it still was a portable NES back in 1989, and I'd argue it's best games look way better despite the grayscale palette than it's NES counterparts. Link's Awakening for the GB looks way better than Zelda on the NES for instance, as does Mario Land 2 and Mario Land 3 - Wario Land next to almost any NES game.
Of course it was artistry that made it possible, but still. It was a good platform for it's time, balanced and all of that (portable without having to take a army of batteries with you, too). One could argue it lasted for too long, but it's 1989 hardware still; it has to be judged as such and not from your seemingly "96" vision, by then the GB was really old and fatigued (but pokémon happened).
Joe Shlabotnik said:
SNES: Marginally better than Genesis, on average
Not really, color depth and mode 7 made quite a difference. And I'd argue it wasn't only "marginally better" everyone could see the Genesis was having a hard time picking up from a technical/feature standpoint althought the software for it was still good enough to keep it going.
Joe Shlabotnik said:
GBA: Nice for a handheld, except for no goddamn backlight
N64: Generally better than PS1, but everyone is way more impressed by FMVs on the PS1 at the time anyway, however bullshit that may be.
Both GBA and N64 were quite good for what they were, even if the N64 was a bottleneck pitt of despair, it was back when that extra hurdle for a little more juice was worth it; no way PSone could achieve OoT's hyrule field and stuff... and in the end those N64 games made more of an impact than any PSone game going by the best games ever lists, in part because of what the N64 enabled as much as it was criticized at the time.
Joe Shlabotnik said:
GCN: In between PS2 and Xbox
Considering Microsoft lost money with every Xbox they sold until they phased it out qhile Nintendo was selling gamecube's at $99 and making a profit... (while the PS2 couldn't possibly be sold at that price) the GC was quite an achievement for it's time. And one could argue it was not really that inferior, just different strenghts; it pulled out the bigger polycounts of it's generation at 30 and 60 frames (willst the xbox was a bottleneck monster) and was a texturing beast. The best designed hardware of it's generation, even if it was RAM/DVD storage starved.
Joe Shlabotnik said:
DS: Well short of PSP
Wii: Well short of 360/PS3
Sure.