I find this thread a bit ironic considering the Wii U mechanically is more innovative than the PS4 or Xbox One. While the latter two are intended to play off of their higher horsepower and be pseudo-PC gaming and entertainment systems (which isn't a bad thing, just more predictable in expectations and function), the Wii U takes the bigger risk by having the gamepad as a extra layer of gameplay potential. When it was revealed I definitely thought they were a bit crazy to release a tablet controller of all things. Having used it now I find it quite fun and engaging to have the second screen for gameplay in a similar manner as DS/3DS gaming was excellent with its duel-screen concept. When I play the PS4 or Xbox One, it feels like more of the same functionally. I'm engaging with their games in the same ways I was during the previous console generation, while the Wii U feels fresher to play.

Even saying that I do think Nintendo over-uses Mario as a core character element, though Mario is a safe choice that sells and financially I can't blame them for their heavy reliance. People will get tired of it eventually though so they do have room for improvement. There's already a few out-there releases that don't take the same formula or characters, as has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread and in the community in general.

While new concepts is something I'm fully in support of and always excited to try, to be blunt a lot of people do enjoy a degree of more-of-the-same also. That's why a lot of ongoing game series or concepts on all of the systems sell really well even with releases every year that functionally don't change the pace too much. One could argue that you could replace the name Nintendo and put entire genres to make the same points. There's definitely some validity to what the TC is trying to say, but it's not just about Nintendo but the entire gaming industry that's at fault here. Indie game developers have helped counter some of it though. This thread is much better suited for a console-wide discussion, because aiming it just at Nintendo makes it appear to be a mild trolling attempt by limiting reasonable observations to one portion of the industry (Nintendo).

Ah yes, that wonderful moment of being 13 again. Back during the Nintendo 64 era, I first dabbled in the first-person shooter genre with goldeneye 007 back in 1998 I think it was. I was a bit younger than 13, but it was a similiar phase in my life. My parents made sure to sit me down for a proper talk on violence to ensure I knew this was just a game (they compared it to watching a james bond movie), and not reality.

15 years have passed since then and I do play first-person shooters on occasion, but I also play Mario and Zelda too. Heck I even own a 3DS which has mostly non-M rated games and its probably gotten the most of my gaming time the past year, outside of my PC itself. My game time is also much more limited than it was back then due to sustaining a job and such. The point of my mild rambling is: in the end your son doesn't care about realistic graphics as much as he thinks he does right now, as he'll eventually realize that maturity and video game choice don't actually correlate. It's about having fun.

My advice is more broad rather than direct game suggestions, as other posts have other covered specific games decently already.

It's definitely normal to want to transition over to more mature looking games at his age, mainly because his friends and peers are too and he doesn't want to be left behind or viewed as being too childish. My main advice is: follow through and let him move forward with some more mature games as listed, but also toss in the occasional Mario, Zelda or other quality (but non-M) related game along side. Make them go hand-in-hand as both being fun experiences in different ways, so he doesn't feel pressured to just pick one or the other, and in turn he'll get to enjoy more excellent games through the rest of his childhood.