Wii VS. PS3

[geomartin]

I was at the local Toys R Us today in Stockton, CA.  They were, and have been completely sold out of Wii's.  They had nearly 20 PS3's in stock!  Is Nintendo winning the console war?

[ChadTower]

So far they have dominated the price and word of mouth wars, that's for damn sure.

[FrizzleFried]

I read "somewhere" that the PS3 is bringing in "dismal numbers".   It's hard to justify the purchase when they are essentially selling "next gen now",  but in fact we've had "next gen" since the 360 came out...for less.

Consoles are for kids anyway.
 
 

 

[somunny]

Consoles are for kids anyway.
 

So are TRIX, but I love the fruity flavor.

What a ridiculous statement.  But if feel the need to to justify the maturity of your hobby, fire away.

[Grasshopper]

The short answer is yes, at least in the short term.

It's not really surprising. You'd have to be mad to buy a PS3 at its current price. The 360 is significantly cheaper but it's still hard to justify buying one at the moment.

I'm pretty sure that both M$ and Sony will reduce the prices of their respective consoles by whatever it takes to compete with Nintendo, even if that means selling them at a loss, because their business models depend upon achieving a big market share.

Neither the 360 or PS3 has a must have game at this point. So the smart thing to do is wait. In six months to a year the games will be better and the prices more reasonable.

[AlanS17]

Neither the 360 or PS3 has a must have game at this point. So the smart thing to do is wait. In six months to a year the games will be better and the prices more reasonable.

That's a sad statement for the 360 if it's true when you consider that it's been out for a year now.

I've found PS3's easier to come by, but that might be coincidence. I've been to two places that had them available right off the shelf, but I talked with the stores and they assured me that they're selling quickly. They say I just show up at the right moment. Sure enough, people come up behind me and buy them. (This was at Fry's and GameStop.)

It doesn't matter either way here, though. By the time we finish opening gifts at Christmas, we'll have a PS3, a Wii, and two 360's.

[Grasshopper]

I think the main problem is that the last generation of consoles simply finished too quickly.

There is still plenty of life left in the PS2 and Xbox because games developers haven't yet found ways of utilising all the extra processing power available on the 360/PS3. OK the 360's graphics look slightly better but the extra power hasn't improved gameplay. The same applies in the PC world as well. Hell there's still life in the Dreamcast and they haven't been made for five years!

That's why Nintendo's decision to focus their efforts on the controllers instead of graphics and processor power was such a smart move.

[SithMaster]

The dreamcast is a special case though.  Its easy for anyone to develop games for so it sees a lot of homebrew and even some commercial games.

That and it looks better than most games on the ps2.

If consoles were for kids id doubt games like GTA and Doom 3 would be made for them.  They are for everyone hence the E to M ratings.

Wii currently surpases the 360 and PS3 until Halo 3 comes out then the 360 will have a surge of sales like the xbox did when halo 2 came out.  And Grasshopper is right about the gameplay over graphics move.  I dont care how uber realistic the game gets if i cant stand playing it.  Though the wii isnt exactly something youd be able to play for long hours unless you have madd dexterity.

[AlanS17]

People can't go completely writing the PS3 off. If it weren't for the price tag, it would likely be beating out both the Wii and the 360. As the price drops, it'll become more popular. Over the long run, you can expect to see it gain popularity. In the end, it has the potential to still come out the winner. That Blue-Ray drive is going to either be a blessing or a curse.

[ChadTower]

If the PS3 weren't electronic it may be a cow too.

[AlanS17]

If the PS3 weren't electronic it may be a cow too.

[lloydcom]

I think the big problem lies with the saturation of the Sony product in the market place.  Not only is the PS2 still doing well (pricewise) but also the PSP.  Very well in fact in the UK.

I think the PS3 will come into its own next year - when a good catalogue of games are behind it, and sales are gauranteed.

The UK market is too crowded at the moment, with Wii, Sony and Microsoft still jockeying for position.  It has always been the case for many years the the UK market is the most active when it comes to video games, and you would think it was Japan!

No the PS3 will dominate next year and the PSP will be a good purchase as it will work hand in hand.

If only Sony wouldn't introduce new media types.  The UMD is bad enough!

[Samstag]

I wouldn't pay $250 for a PS3 right now, and I don't have anything against it.  That's just too much for a system with one good game and the ability to play $45 movies (if I also buy the extra HDMI cable).  I've spent at least $600 on my PSP and feel like it was all worth it.

I'll most likely buy a PS3 in a couple of years when the price is lower, the game library is better, and the DVD format war is over.  But I want a Wii now!

[AlanS17]

There really seems to be a general discontent for the new PS3, and it's primarily over the price. I think the big price increase comes from that Blu-Ray drive.

I tend to follow game studios rather than consoles, but I've really come to like Sony because of a couple of studios they have close relationships with. It'll be a sad day if Sony tanks, but the game devs will just jump to another console (that I'll likely already have). They won't just decide to stop making games because their console-of-choice went down the tubes.

Until things settle down, I won't be buying any hi-def DVD players (or game consoles masquerading as such). Maybe by the time I'm ready to buy a hi-def player, there will be some sort of standard (or at least a dual-drive player).

I've got my bases covered for the meantime with an XBox 360 and a Wii.

I think the Wii could really put a dent in the PS3, but it'll be the XBox 360 that reaps the rewards.

[Samstag]

I tend to follow game studios rather than consoles, but I've really come to like Sony because of a couple of studios they have close relationships with.

I never gave the PS2 or the PSP a serious thought until buying both for GTA games.  If GTA4 is cross-platform from the start, there goes Sony's best chance of hooking me.

[AlanS17]

I never gave the PS2 or the PSP a serious thought until buying both for GTA games.  If GTA4 is cross-platform from the start, there goes Sony's best chance of hooking me.

I'm a big Square-Enix (formerly Squaresoft) fan. They've got FFXI for the XBox 360, but the overwhelming majority of their work is on Playstation and Nintendo platforms. I'm already looking forward to the new Dragon Quest game for the Wii.

With all the exclusive licensing issues that Sony has been having, maybe Square will warm up to the XBox 360. I don't think they have a very good relationship right now, though.

I do like Xenosaga, though. Hopefully the third installment will be cross-platform.

[shmokes]

The UK market is too crowded at the moment, with Wii, Sony and Microsoft still jockeying for position.  It has always been the case for many years the the UK market is the most active when it comes to video games, and you would think it was Japan!

Are you on cold medicine?  What is this supposed to even mean?

[boykster]

The UK market is too crowded at the moment, with Wii, Sony and Microsoft still jockeying for position.  It has always been the case for many years the the UK market is the most active when it comes to video games, and you would think it was Japan!

Are you on cold medicine?  What is this supposed to even mean?

He's loopy from using his highlighter on his own personal copy of the DMCA 

[markrvp]

Neither the 360 or PS3 has a must have game at this point. So the smart thing to do is wait. In six months to a year the games will be better and the prices more reasonable.

I have to disagree.  GEARS OF WAR for the XBOX 360 is hands down the best looking game out for consoles and the gameplay (both campaign and multiplayer) is superb.  I have played it online every night since its release on November 7.  My friends who work for retailers that sell 360s have all told me that 360 sales have gone up with people buying both a 360 and Gears of War.

However, 360 sales will still be average until the release of Halo 3.  That should be when all the current XBOX owners who are Halo fans finally bite the bullet and upgrade consoles.

Bioshock (released in April) should also be a boon for the XBOX 360.  Microsoft is winning the "Exclusives" battle right now and Sony had better hope it hasn't lost all its support from developers.


The absolute killer for the PS3 right now is that it only has one good (not great) exclusive game.  I have bought a PS3 and Resistance: Fall of Man for Christmas, but I haven't played it yet.  I was pretty disappointed that there aren't any other exclusive games available. 

[shmokes]

I'm kind of amazed that nobody launched with any killer 1st party games.  1st parties have longer than anyone else to work with the console during development.  They have the most access to information about the console.  Generally speaking Nintendo comes through in spades (Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World, Super Mario 64), but this time the only reason they even have a killer app is because they cannibalized it from the Gamecube.  The best they did in-house from the ground up is ExciteTruck, which isn't even very good.

All three of the companies dropped the ball on the launch lineup, IMO.  All three relied exclusively on third parties to provide a killer app, and Sony's actually the only one who was lucky enough to have a 3rd party come through for them with Resistance.

[ChadTower]

The killer "app" for the Wii is the controller.

[ClubNinja]

I'm kind of amazed that nobody launched with any killer 1st party games.  1st parties have longer than anyone else to work with the console during development.  They have the most access to information about the console.  Generally speaking Nintendo comes through in spades (Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World, Super Mario 64), but this time the only reason they even have a killer app is because they cannibalized it from the Gamecube.  The best they did in-house from the ground up is ExciteTruck, which isn't even very good.

All three of the companies dropped the ball on the launch lineup, IMO.  All three relied exclusively on third parties to provide a killer app, and Sony's actually the only one who was lucky enough to have a 3rd party come through for them with Resistance.

You can't say that there are no killer aps at launch, then say that the Wii has one, even if it was "cannibalized... from the Gamecube".  It's still a Wii launch title, a Nintendo exclusive, and selling like crazy.  There's some statistic out that 75% of Wii owners also bought Zelda.  Sounds like killer ap material to me. 

I can agree that the PS3 and 360 didn't have stellar launches, but I don't understand the beating the Wii launch is getting.  Zelda, Super Monkey Ball, Excitetruck (despite your opinion on it above), Rayman, Trauma Center, and even the Wii Sports pack-in are all excellent games, getting top reviews, and creating the important word-of-mouth buzz that Microsoft and Sony could only dream of. 

Regarding the subject of Wii VS PS3, I don't think the comparison is actually valid.  The two machines are in entirely different classes.  The real question is 360 VS PS3 in the "high-end" gaming class.  With the availibility issues, the price-point, and the lack of must-play games for the PS3, I see the 360 soaking up the benefits.  Buyers who were initially looking into the PS3 are going to buy 360s instead.  I heard it said numerous times, and agree entirely, that the Wii + 360 combination pretty much covers everything one could want from the new console generation.  The Wii is going to do just fine on its own and the PS3 is going to suffer - not for that, but for the increased and renewed interest in the 360.

[somunny]

Shmokes:  Not to be a d!ck but...

I mean that the PS3 is launching with a killer app, which is nice.  The Xbox 360 did not, which kinda sucked.  And I mean that the Xbox 360 naturally has more killer titles than the PS3 right now seeing as it's been out for a year now.  I suppose I also mean that Gears of War looks as good, probably better than Resistance: Fall of Man, but Gears of War is a second gen game and no game that launched with the 360 looked (or played) as good as Resistance.

So, basically take it for what it's worth.  PS3 launches with a killer app.  That's nice, and it's something the 360 didn't do.  The 360, is cheaper, though, and has more killer apps right now because it's been out longer.  I think they PS3 is probably more powerful than 360, but in the same way that the Xbox was more powerful than the PS2.  It's a bit more powerful, but both systems are capable of playing all the same games.  So it mainly comes down to developer support, and Sony reducing their retarded price.

From this thread:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=60136.msg595163

[shmokes]

The killer app can't be the controller, for the obvious reason that the controller is not an app, and without an app the controller is just a piece of plastic that is no more fun to wave around than a spatula.

And it does matter that Zelda is cannibalized.  It's not even an exclusive, since the same game, with the exact same visuals is available on another system -- a five year old system, to be exact.  Zelda for the Wii is a port and nothing more.  It's a Wiimake, just like Cars and Spongebob.

I know that Zelda is a killer app in the general sense, since it's a great game.  My point is that it's not exclusive and it's not even a system seller.  You don't buy a Wii so you can play Zelda.  You buy a Wii because of the controller.  It's selling at a 75% rate, or whatever, because people who are buying Wii's anyway would rather play the game on the Wii than the Gamecube.  But if they weren't already buying a Wii they would just pick up the same exact game for the Gamecube.  It would be exactly the same as if Sony had released God of War II (due in February) for both the PS3 and the PS2, with exactly the same textures and resolution and everything, but with new features that take advantage of their new controller and called it their killer PS3 app.  Zelda is a Gamecube game.  It was developed from the ground up for the Gamecube.  No matter how you look at it you can't get around the fact that the only games Nintendo developed for Wii and had available at launch are Wii Sports and ExciteTruck.  It is sad that its Killer App is a port, and not even a port from a next-gen system.

What I'm faulting Nintendo for is not developing a single game from the ground up that really showcases their new system.  The Wii is about twice as powerful as a Gamecube, yet Zelda: Twilight Princess can run flawlessly on the Gamecube.  Same resolution.  Same framerate.  Same Dolby ProLogic 2.0 sound effects.  Same game.  The Wii is capable of more than that. 

[shmokes]

Shmokes:  Not to be a d!ck but...

It's fine.  You just didn't read my post correctly.  I didn't say that Sony didn't launch without a killer app.  I specifically said that of the three companies, all of them relied on third parties for killer apps instead of delivering them from in-house (even though the in-house developers have all the advantages on their side), and that "Sony's actually the only one who was lucky enough to have a 3rd party come through for them with Resistance."

My point is that the first party studios for every company failed to deliver a killer app.  Nintendo squeeks by with a port and Sony squeeks by because a 3rd party developer put together something great for them (Resistance).  And MS simply did not launch with a killer app.

[ChadTower]

The killer app can't be the controller, for the obvious reason that the controller is not an app, and without an app the controller is just a piece of plastic that is no more fun to wave around than a spatula.

A general definition of "killer app" an application program that intentionally or unintentionally gets you to make the decision to buy the system the application runs on.

The word of mouth that is driving the Wii and Nintendo's early success is all controller driven.  Whether or not it's an app unto itself I would say it's actually better than a single killer app.  The controllers affect every app and thus is more likely to be a deciding factor for people who would be convinced in that direction by a single game's existance on one or the other.

Maybe the better term is "killer innovation", but whatever you want to call it, thus far the Wii's controllers are the single biggest success of the three new consoles.

[ClubNinja]

You don't buy a Wii so you can play Zelda.

Not according to the people who were in line with me for it's launch.  20 available systems, 19 available Zeldas, and the 20th kid in line freaking out that he wasn't going to get a Zelda with his system.  He got it though, since I was the only one there not buying a Wii specifically to play Zelda.  19 out of 20 were.  And I don't think the lineup in my little town is an exception to the national trend.  

You're not entirely correct when you say "It's not even an exclusive, since the same game, with the exact same visuals is available on another system -- a five year old system, to be exact."  You can argue that Zelda's a "wiimake" like Cars (and many others), but the difference it has is that those others were released prior to or at the same time as the Wii version.  Right now, the only way to play Zelda is to own a Wii.  It is NOT available on another system - not right now.  Sure, it may be available for the GameCube in a few months, but people want to play it now.  Having the ability to play Zelda right now is justifying the purchase of a completely new piece of hardware at launch for numerous buyers.  

By definition, a killer app is a game that can single-handedly justify the purchase of a new piece of hardware.  What makes this even more interesting is that I'm sure the majority of the buying-a-Wii-for-Zelda crowd already owns a GameCube.  If Zelda wasn't such a big deal, then they'd just wait.  It is a big deal and it's driving people out to buy new hardware for it.  If a game that inspires buyers to go out and buy an entirely new system when the hardware they already own will be able to play it a few months later isn't a "killer app", then I don't know what it is.  

And, although wikipedia is hardly the place to gather facts, I find it interesting that if you look up "killer app" there, you'll see Zelda for the Wii listed as an example.

[shmokes]

The N64 had an equally innovative controller, as did the NES.  Yet we got Super Mario Bros. for NES and Mario 64 and Waverace for N64 to show those controllers off.  Super Nintendo's controller was possibly not as innovative as those other two, introducing only a couple more face buttons and the shoulder buttons, but we got killer apps to take advantage of that controller too with Super Mario World and PilotWings (and third parties came through big time here too with games like Final Fantasy II). 

I agree that the Wii controller is a phenomenal innovation, and is reason enough to buy the system.  But LIVE for Xbox is also a pretty great innovation, but much like the Wii Remote, is only as good as the games you can play on it.

Let me clarify.  There are many good reasons to buy a Wii.  Wii Remote (obvious).  Nintendo game studios.  Price (compared to the competition -- though by any other measurement it's a mediocre price at best). 

Zelda is not a good reason to buy a Wii.  Zelda is available, in its entirety, on another system that costs 1/3 as much, and is five years old so you likely already own one.  You buy the system for the remote, not for the game.  Hence, Zelda's not the Wii's killer app.


ClubNinja posted while I was writing.

ClubNinja, Nintendo may be artificially creating the circumstances of a killer app, by vonluntarily withholding the Gamecube version, but that doesn't turn it into a Wii game.  People are buying the Wii for the remote.  They want Zelda with it because Zelda is the best game available for the system.  Those same people would be in line buying those same Wiis even if Zelda wasn't available.  And Zelda is still a game developed from the ground up for the Gamecube.  It's a Gamecube game, regardless of whether Nintendo delayed its release for the sole purpose of making up for their inability to get Super Mario Galaxy or Metroid ready in time for the launch.

And you're right.  Wikipedia is not the place to gather facts.  Wikipedia is updated by users, so you could have been the person to list it as a killer app for all I know.   

[ChadTower]

Wikipedia is updated by users, so you could have been the person to list it as a killer app for all I know.   

 

[shmokes]

You know, the fact that Zelda, a game developed for and soon available on the Gamecube is the Wii's supposed killer app is exactly what I'm talking about. 

Ask yourself why the Wii's killer app is a Gamecube game and then ask yourself if there is any other possible answer besides Nintendo didn't have any Wii games ready for the launch besides ExciteTruck and Wii Sports, neither of which are good enough to be considered killer apps. 

Exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.

[ClubNinja]

People are buying the Wii for the remote.  They want Zelda with it because Zelda is the best game available for the system.  Those same people would be in line buying those same Wiis even if Zelda wasn't available.

But I just told you that 19 out of 20 people in my launch line were buying the Wii for Zelda.  The kid in front of me in line waited for 17 hours for a Wii.  I asked him what he was looking forward to: "Zelda".  I asked him what else: "Nothing really, just Zelda."  I bet Wii Sports will be fun though: "I don't really like sports.  I'm just going to be playing Zelda."  

People are buying Wiis to play Zelda.  You're completely wrong.  It doesn't matter if the game quality (technically) is on par with GameCube, Super Nintendo, or the Atari 2600.  It was released for the Wii, therefore it is a Wii game.  And in the real world where consumers aren't spending their time crying that it's only as good as a GameCube game, it was selling machines before they were even available.

[ChadTower]

Maybe, just maybe, innovation is doing what innovation tends to do.  It is defying your established notions of how to succeed at launch and defying your established terminology.

People were initially clamoring for PS3s and the Wii was an "also out there now".  Now, after word of mouth, people are clamoring for Wiis and some PS3s are actually staying on shelves for a little while.

The intensity of demand has shifted to the Wii.

Isn't that compelling?

[ClubNinja]

People were initially clamoring for PS3s and the Wii was an "also out there now".  Now, after word of mouth, people are clamoring for Wiis and some PS3s are actually staying on shelves for a little while.

Absolutely true, and a good point to clarify my arguement.  At launch, most (not all) buyers wanted to play Zelda.  Immediately.  So they bought a Wii.  Zelda sold most Wiis at launch, which is why I believe it qualifies as a "killer app".  Now, as Chad has described, word of mouth on how much fun the system is to play has sparked a second wave of interest that totally overshadows anything the PS3 has to offer.  While I may insist that Zelda is a killer app in the traditional sense, the innovative and enjoyable gameplay of the Wii in general is certainly the second "killer app" in a more abstract sense of the term. 

[AtomSmasher]

I have to disagree.  GEARS OF WAR for the XBOX 360 is hands down the best looking game out for consoles and the gameplay (both campaign and multiplayer) is superb.  I have played it online every night since its release on November 7.  My friends who work for retailers that sell 360s have all told me that 360 sales have gone up with people buying both a 360 and Gears of War.

However, 360 sales will still be average until the release of Halo 3.  That should be when all the current XBOX owners who are Halo fans finally bite the bullet and upgrade consoles.

Bioshock (released in April) should also be a boon for the XBOX 360.  Microsoft is winning the "Exclusives" battle right now and Sony had better hope it hasn't lost all its support from developers.


The absolute killer for the PS3 right now is that it only has one good (not great) exclusive game.  I have bought a PS3 and Resistance: Fall of Man for Christmas, but I haven't played it yet.  I was pretty disappointed that there aren't any other exclusive games available. 

I realize you're probably only talking about consoles, but I just thought I'd mention that Bioshock is also coming out for the PC in April and its rumored that Gears of War will be released for the PC sometime next year.

[shmokes]

Absolutely true, and a good point to clarify my arguement. 

Way to appropriate Chad's support, but he didn't say that the first wave belonged to Zelda and the second wave of demand comes from the hardware.

Chad,  you're reading more into what I'm saying than is there.  I'm not talking about whether Nintendo's strategy will be successful.  I have no doubt at this point that Nintendo is sitting on a gold mine thanks to their innovative controller (not to mention that the hardware is already profitable so they don't even have to make up for enormous losses like their competitors). 

I'm saying that it's disappointing that none of their first party studios were able to have any Wii killer apps ready.  They took a Gamecube title, tacked on Wii controls and that became the killer app stand-in to make up for the fact that the rest of the software was still incomplete as of launch time.  It's a great game, but it's not nearly as good as it would have been had it been developed for the Wii hardware to begin with, because the Wii hardware is considerably better than Gamecube hardware.  In fact, even the control scheme would probably be much more fleshed out if it was developed from the ground up for the Wii rather than just wrapping a game developed for the Gamecube controller around the Wii remote.  All the motions you make in the game represent nothing more than a button press.  A game developed from the ground up would likely have given us one to one sword controls and the like.  But who knows?

WTF?  I'm not saying Zelda is a bad game.  I'm saying that Nintendo has studios creating Wii software and the only people who came through were the Zelda group, because their game was already finished for Gamecube and all they had to do was retool the controls so they'd have a version compatible with the Wii remote.  I don't care how you define Zelda.  It can be a killer app if you want.  You can even say that for that reason the Wii did, in fact, launch with a killer app (though I still think you're full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about Zelda being the primary reason anybody is buying the Wii -- Chad's spot on:  it's the controller).  It doesn't take away from the fact that Nintendo did not finish a single killer app for the Wii in time for launch.  They managed to finish Wii Sports, ExciteTruck, and they managed to port a Gamecube title.

[versapak]

Zelda is not a good reason to buy a Wii.  Zelda is available, in its entirety, on another system that costs 1/3 as much, and is five years old so you likely already own one.  You buy the system for the remote, not for the game.  Hence, Zelda's not the Wii's killer app.

Well...

You were NOT able to buy Zelda:TP for any other system but Wii.

Going buy your logic... Halo was not a killer app for Xbox, because it also went to the PC. The same for Halo 2.

Was MGS 2 not a killer app for PS2? I personally played it on Xbox.


Zelda: TP is definitely a killer app on the Wii.

Sure, the time gap in those examples I listed is far off from the gap between GC & Wii Zeldas, but still...

It was a timed exclusive, and it does have some exclusive features that make it THE one to own (I couldn't imagine playing it without the Wii controller, and I certainly couldn't imagine playing it in the crappy 4:3 aspect ratio that the gamecube version is limited to(unless of course I still had a 4:3 tv as my gaming tv, but I don't so...)).

Also, as some have said, the controller is the killer app of the Wii. No, it isn't an app, but most of the "apps" that it is used for are enhanced by it, and it IS the selling point of the Wii, which is what would make a killer app killer in the first place.

With the refreshing new take on controls that the Wii offers, and its collection of above average titles that make use of that controller, the Wii didn't need to have some heavy hitting juggernaut (though I stand by my statement of Zelda:TP being that).



BTW...

If you ask my kids, the Wii does have a killer app, and that is the Wii Sports title that came with the Wii.


I do understand what you are saying about a title that pushes what the system is truly capable of, but that rarely happens at launch anymore for any system. Those kinds of titles take millions, and years, so with a launch these days, it is great just, at the very least, to have some titles that are fun, and the Wii most definitely provided that.

[ChadTower]

Or, maybe, they made a Wii game and are making a version available for the GC at a later date.

Who says a killer app has to be on the bleeding edge of technology to be a killer app?  Where is that in the general definition?  It has to sell systems, that's it, no more and no less.  And Zelda is absolutely selling systems.

Hell, it's possible that the Wii's killer app is Wii Sports.  That's the one everyone is looking at and saying "dude, you gotta play this".

[ClubNinja]

I don't care how you define Zelda.  It can be a killer app if you want.

It is, then. 

[ChadTower]

So, now the Wii has two killer apps.  Awesome!  That explains everything.

[AtomSmasher]

I'm saying that it's disappointing that none of their first party studios were able to have any Wii killer apps ready.  They took a Gamecube title, tacked on Wii controls and that became the killer app stand-in to make up for the fact that the rest of the software was still incomplete as of launch time.  It's a great game, but it's not nearly as good as it would have been had it been developed for the Wii hardware to begin with, because the Wii hardware is considerably better than Gamecube hardware.  In fact, even the control scheme would probably be much more fleshed out if it was developed from the ground up for the Wii rather than just wrapping a game developed for the Gamecube controller around the Wii remote.  All the motions you make in the game represent nothing more than a button press.  A game developed from the ground up would likely have given us one to one sword controls and the like.  But who knows?

It was the same situation when the DS first came out, the first wave of games for it were ports and minigames.  The problem with unique controls is it takes developers a little while to figure out the best way to use them.  I agree that the Wii launch lineup is not as good as the SNES or N64, but it is better then the launch lineup for the PS3 and the 360.