More Wii ranting

[DJ_Izumi]

I think the important thing to considder is that the Wii is an ENTIRELY different breed of console than the PS3 or 360 are.  The PS3 and 360 are traditional consoles, they're faster and shinier than their previous generation versions and that's what they focus on.  Faster, better, more shiny.

The Wii went in a different direction, it's ment for different kinds of games and different kinds of gaming.  In many ways it's just not the same thing that the PS3 and 360 are.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.

[shmokes]

I think it's hilarious that people say this and mean it.  It's the equivalent of thinking that pork really is the other white meat.  The Nintendo Wii is a traditional gaming console. 

The Nintendo Wii is a Gamecube.  It is so much a Gamecube that it comes complete with gamecube controller ports on top, and will read and play Gamecube discs in hardware!  There's no extra hardware inside, like the PS3 had PS2 hardware for backward compatibility, or like the PS2 had PS1 hardware for backward compatibility.  The Wii doesn't need that.  It is a slightly overclocked Gamecube.  It will play the Gamecube discs natively.

Do you mean to say that had Nintendo released the Wii Remote as an accessory for the Gamecube, that system would have been magically transformed into an "ENTIRELY different breed of console?"  Frankly, it's not even that big a jump.  The differences between SNES gaming and N64 gaming are far more profound than the differences between the Wii and PS3/Xbox360. 

The Nintendo Wii is exactly the same breed of console as last generation, but it took a typical controller, complete with analog stick, D-pad and buttons, and put a wonky accelerometer inside, and incorporated an IR pointer on it.  The controller IS novel.  Don't get me wrong.  It is innovative.  But it doesn't transform the Wii into a sacred object any more than the PS3 would have been a different breed of console merely by making the Eyetoy a standard pack-in.

[patrickl]

Even though the Wii itself may not be a different piece of hardware in itself, it does entertain a whole different market from the PS3 and Xbox 360. It's positioned and marketed to a different market (casual gamers and kids) than the next gen consoles (hard core gamers). Party fun and easy of play are the buzzwords for the market the Wii is catered to. Realism and depth of play is what the next gen consoles mostly go for.

The reason why the Wii can reach their market better than the next gen consoles is because of the controller. The Wii is bound only to this market because it doesn't have the power to entertain the realism and depth of play that hard core gamers ask for.

[DJ_Izumi]

I think it's hilarious that people say this and mean it.  It's the equivalent of thinking that pork really is the other white meat.  The Nintendo Wii is a traditional gaming console. 

The Nintendo Wii is a Gamecube.  It is so much a Gamecube that it comes complete with gamecube controller ports on top, and will read and play Gamecube discs in hardware!  There's no extra hardware inside, like the PS3 had PS2 hardware for backward compatibility, or like the PS2 had PS1 hardware for backward compatibility.  The Wii doesn't need that.  It is a slightly overclocked Gamecube.  It will play the Gamecube discs natively.

Do you mean to say that had Nintendo released the Wii Remote as an accessory for the Gamecube, that system would have been magically transformed into an "ENTIRELY different breed of console?"  Frankly, it's not even that big a jump.  The differences between SNES gaming and N64 gaming are far more profound than the differences between the Wii and PS3/Xbox360. 

The Nintendo Wii is exactly the same breed of console as last generation, but it took a typical controller, complete with analog stick, D-pad and buttons, and put a wonky accelerometer inside, and incorporated an IR pointer on it.  The controller IS novel.  Don't get me wrong.  It is innovative.  But it doesn't transform the Wii into a sacred object any more than the PS3 would have been a different breed of console merely by making the Eyetoy a standard pack-in.

A computer's a computer dude, what defines it is how you purpose it.  I do however think that calling the Wii an overclocked gamecube is unfair however, it likely has additional instruction sets in the CPU and hardware features in the GPU, which go unused when it operates in GameCube mode.  It's an interesting idea really, more like the generations of the IBM Compatable, you just put in faster parts and you basicly have a newer, faster, better machine.

So, yes, the GameCube with a funny wiimote would have been the same thing that the Wii is, just less powerful in terms of graphics.  It's the wiimote that defines what the wii is because it's a unique control interface and changes how you use the wii.  Cause, well, if you look at it, any video game console otherwise is just a computer with a TV for a monitor.  Video game consoles become 'consoles' by how they are designed to be used and become used.  The Wii just wasn't designed with the same goals as the PS3 or 360, or heck, most consoles since the late 1970s.

[DaveMMR]

Not like any "should have" advice from any of us actually changes the situation or helps in any sort of way.

It is certainly a pretty valid reason to do a little venting in a msg board rant.

In all fairness, I don't think anyone's intentionally telling him to go back in time and pick a different system.  And a "little" venting was more like four or five threads.  But I don't discourage it because I do like seeing (and joining in on) the debates that ensue and, agree or disagree, shmokes makes many valid points about the many weaknesses of the current console front-runner.

But if you've been into home gaming long enough, you'll know that Nintendo has always makes a system with hardware-related weak-points.  They have always been somewhat outdated out of each and every gate.  For example:

NES - Weakest hardware of it's main competitors (Sega Master System, Atari 7800). They couldn't even fit the entire contents of their most popular arcade games (i.e. Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) on their cartridges.
Gameboy - Monochrome screen which blurs when fast action is introduced on-screen.
SNES - Slow processor.
N64 - Despite being graphically superior, stubbornly stuck to cartridges that effectively alienated many of their third-party allegiances (Square).
Gamecube - Proprietary 3-inch discs and absolutely no commitment to online gaming despite the availability of require peripherals.
Gameboy Advance - Lack of two extra buttons to make it a viable portable SNES.  Also: no backlight for the screen (later fixed with the SP).

But with each of the above mentioned systems, you'll find plenty of genre-defining classics that can't be had anywhere else.   After four generations of Nintendo hardware, it's hard to expect anything more from the Wii than just solid gaming.  The bells & whistles found in modern systems have never been Nintendo's forte.  I expect similar complaints to be lodged against the Wii's successor in about four years.   





   
 

[shmokes]

Look at the library.  The vast majority of titles are games that can also be found on another system.  The Wii might change the control up a bit (for the worse, far more often than not, it's worth noting), but that doesn't make it an entirely new type of console.  There are games for the PC in which you can choose whether you want to use a gamepad or a keyboard/mouse combo.  The game doesn't magically transform into a brand new type of videogame when you switch between the two.

Look at the best games on the system:  Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Paper Mario, Zelda: Time Princess, Resident Evil, Super Mario Strikers, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers.  It is a traditional console.  The Nintendo 64 gave us a claw shaped gamepad with an analog stick on it.  If that didn't set the N64 up as an "ENTIRELY different breed of console" compared to the Playstation, I simply don't see how shaping the gamepad as a remote and putting a pointer on it manages the same for the Wii.  The pointer is cool.  You can do really cool things with it that cannot be done on other consoles.  The same goes for the original gamepad on the NES, the analog stick on the N64, the analog click-trickers on the Gamecube.  Every new generation of consoles brings controller innovations to the table.  The NES, N64 and Wii were perhaps more pronounced than others, but it's not like we're suddenly stepping into virtual reality here.

[versapak]

Not like any "should have" advice from any of us actually changes the situation or helps in any sort of way.

It is certainly a pretty valid reason to do a little venting in a msg board rant.

In all fairness, I don't think anyone's intentionally telling him to go back in time and pick a different system.  And a "little" venting was more like four or five threads.  But I don't discourage it because I do like seeing (and joining in on) the debates that ensue and, agree or disagree, shmokes makes many valid points about the many weaknesses of the current console front-runner.

But if you've been into home gaming long enough, you'll know that Nintendo has always makes a system with hardware-related weak-points.  They have always been somewhat outdated out of each and every gate.  For example:

NES - Weakest hardware of it's main competitors (Sega Master System, Atari 7800). They couldn't even fit the entire contents of their most popular arcade games (i.e. Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) on their cartridges.
Gameboy - Monochrome screen which blurs when fast action is introduced on-screen.
SNES - Slow processor.
N64 - Despite being graphically superior, stubbornly stuck to cartridges that effectively alienated many of their third-party allegiances (Square).
Gamecube - Proprietary 3-inch discs and absolutely no commitment to online gaming despite the availability of require peripherals.
Gameboy Advance - Lack of two extra buttons to make it a viable portable SNES.  Also: no backlight for the screen (later fixed with the SP).

But with each of the above mentioned systems, you'll find plenty of genre-defining classics that can't be had anywhere else.   After four generations of Nintendo hardware, it's hard to expect anything more from the Wii than just solid gaming.  The bells & whistles found in modern systems have never been Nintendo's forte.  I expect similar complaints to be lodged against the Wii's successor in about four years.   

Yeah...

The Wii is the first Nintendo console where I felt I didn't get my money's worth though.

It is the first time where I really felt like not even the Nintendo games were worth the price of admission.


I guess it is because we are at a time where a lot of big changes are happening to our home entertainment environment as a whole, and Nintendo basically made a console for everything that I have replaced there.

The biggest being that there is no surround sound (DPLII doesn't count), high def, and their online play is a tragic joke.

It isn't like their handhelds, where they actually control the whole aspect of your entertainment setup. When I had a Wii hooked up, it was noticeably inferior, because it was clearly in an environment it wasn't intended for. That environment that I used to have.

Nintendo brought next gen ideas and philosophies to the table this time for sure (with the exception of online, which is full of nothing but fail in concept and execution), but they did it with last gen's hardware.

[DaveMMR]

Well then I guess Shigeru Miyamoto was right when he said that "Donkey Kong Country proves that players will put up with mediocre gameplay as long as the art is good."    

He later apologized for that comment but he could apply that to today's gaming scene as evidenced by many of the comments focused on the Wii's graphical deficiency despite an above-average amount of solid exclusive titles for a system that's still relatively young.  On the other side of the coin, many 360/PS3 games are lauded for their graphical beauty while neglecting to point out that the game play is just a rehash of an older title but with a new coat of paint.  Yeah, I'm generalizing - but that's what the gaming landscape looks like to me right now. 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong for their opinions towards the Wii, but there's this hint of resentment as if Nintendo had somehow misrepresented themselves when you purchased the system.  Forget that there was tons of print coverage and reviews long before and after the Wii's release that picked apart the system's capabilities.  Even just some basic screenshot comparisons would have shown you Wii's hand long before you hooked it up. 

And I don't get why you didn't feel you got your money's worth Vera?  What exactly were you expecting when you bought it? 

If anything, the fact that the Wii was the first major console in a long time to actually come with a decent pack-in title since launch and a fairly steady release stream of excellent entries to their beloved franchises (including Super Mario, Metroid, and Super Smash Bros.) makes the $250 asking price not completely unreasonable in my opinion.  YMMV 

I do admit however that the online is lacking compared to competitors and I can do without these impossible "friend codes".  But online play is not all that important to me anyway. 

[shmokes]

On the other side of the coin, many 360/PS3 games are lauded for their graphical beauty while neglecting to point out that the game play is just a rehash of an older title but with a new coat of paint. 

Yeah . . . cos Nintendo would never put out a rehashed sequel with derivative gameplay.    Out of curiosity, have you played Mario Party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8?  How about the new Smash Brothers or Mario Kart?  Twilight Princess (or any other Zelda since Ocarina)?  Pokemon?

Nintendo is great.  Best developer/publisher on the planet, IMO.  But I think the pedestal you're putting them on might be a little too high.  Also, both the 360 and PS3 have larger libraries of good games than the Wii, and the 360 beats either in terms of good exclusives at this point.  I'm not talking about games that are just pretty.  I'm talking about games that are good.

The truth is, the biggest reason to own a Wii (or a Gamecube or N64 for that matter), is not because it has the most exclusives, but because it has the most (only) games developed by Nintendo.  Mario 64 may be the only Mario we ever got on the N64, but that's one more Mario than was on Playstation, and it was reason alone enough to own an N64.

The big difference, and source of disappointment this time around, is that in the past, a Nintendo system could more or less give us everything the other guys could give us AND it had Nintendo games.  That's not the case this time. 

[versapak]

I dunno what I was expecting.

Just more.

I am not a believer that a pretty package makes mediocre great, but it certainly does have an impact on an overall feel, and in certain game types has a huge factor in immersion.


The Wii may be trying for a total different kind of gaming experience, but it doesn't have a library of games that support that yet. Instead it has a bunch of games that make use of a gimmick, but could be done easily on a standard controller.

It still has the same kind of games, and gets connected to the exact same equipment as the other consoles. Because of that, its weaknesses were glaring to me.

The Wii isn't different enough is what I am getting at I suppose.

[DaveMMR]

On the other side of the coin, many 360/PS3 games are lauded for their graphical beauty while neglecting to point out that the game play is just a rehash of an older title but with a new coat of paint. 

Yeah . . . cos Nintendo would never put out a rehashed sequel with derivative gameplay.    Out of curiosity, have you played Mario Party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8?  How about the new Smash Brothers or Mario Kart?  Twilight Princess (or any other Zelda since Ocarina)?  Pokemon?

Fair enough, but I also wasn't being clear.  I was referring more to genres rather than individual games.  How many GTA clones came out after III became popular?  How many FPS's have come and gone?   You like Resident Evil?  Here's fifteen other survival horror games of varying quality.  Here's Tony Hawk on a snowboard, bicycle, surf board, etc.   Looking at my PS2 library, it seems that for every one truly original game play experience (Katamari Damacy, Rez*, Ico), there are literally dozens of unoriginal titles that are knock-offs of more successful entries.   I'll take sequels that add nothing new over quick "cash-in" attempts at "insert-genre-here" games any day. 

(*Yes I'm aware Rez is just Panzer Dragoon with different graphics.  But it's more the style than the game itself with that one.)

I seriously applaud the Wii for daring to try something different and making games that are more casually oriented than the 360/PS3.  And if I'm putting the Wii on a pedestal it's because I'm actually enjoying the system.  I like what it has to offer despite its shortcomings.  But perhaps our gaming needs are different. For example, you see more excellent exclusives on the 360 whereas I see absolutely nothing that makes me what to run out and buy one.   Except that you've kind of shoehorned yourself into the Wii even though you're wanting the graphical monsters that appeal to a more "gamer oriented" mindset. 

But again, my needs are met.  I can see why someone who's more into hardcore games would be hating on the Wii.  Nintendo does have this vendetta against going toe-to-toe with some of the 360's and PS3's offerings.  That's one of their big mistakes.  They can actually knock the Playstation off the map if they threw the more dedicated gamers a bone here and there.

[patrickl]

They can actually knock the Playstation off the map if they threw the more dedicated gamers a bone here and there.

[DaveMMR]

I take it you disagree?  I don't want to derail this thread but since you've thrown the ole' rolley-eyes at me, allow me to elaborate.  While dedicated gamers might be willing to pay top dollar for Sony's machine with their still "underwhelming" line-up of exclusives, many others would opt to spend less on gaming.  That means either an Xbox 360 or Wii.  Sony's target demographic is entering that age where their gaming dollar has to take a backseat to mortgages, bills, kids, etc.  Sony entered the race stumbling hard with their ridiculously high price tag and, although I admit unlikely, this could be their final system if they don't start catering to gamers instead of home theater buffs.   If Nintendo were able to fill more niches (i.e. better online community, wider array of adult titles, supplying demand) then between them and Microsoft, there'd be almost no incentive to buy a PS3.   This is doubly true in Japan, the only territory Sony was able to secure a second-place spot.

Again unlikely but not fantasy.

[DJ_Izumi]

I personally am gunning for a PS3 but I am by no means a fanboy.  The PS2 was awesome, mopped the floor with the competition in the 6th gen by leaps and bounds even if it was the second weakest in terms of graphical power, second only to the Dreamcast.  The PSP actually impresses me a lot, it does everything but take cellphone calls and I love my PSP.  But the PS3 lacks a lot of interesting games, though I'd like to get my hands on Time Crisis 4 and I hope for more Guncon3 games.  I'm going to wait for a cheaper PS3 and ultimatly get one just so I can have PS3, PS2 and PS1 games all in one machine and reduce the heavy shelf space a lot of consoles use.

[shmokes]

They can actually knock the Playstation off the map if they threw the more dedicated gamers a bone here and there.

Oh, sweet common ground. 

This line more or less sums up what I think is the most bizarre and frustrating aspect of Nintendo's missteps here.  I fully agree with this.  This is what I find so perplexing.  Nintendo released a system that was so underpowered that they guaranteed that they could not compete with their competitors in a VERY important segment of the market.  Had Nintendo released at $300, they could have gone toe to toe with the Xbox 360 and PS3 in all the areas where those systems excel, while ALSO bringing to the table all of their controller innovations.  And they would have been extremely competitive on price.  They'd have sold just as many.  What sane person would buy a 360 over a similarly powerful and identically priced Wii?  And anyway, Nintendo's supply problems have created an artificial ceiling on sales so the low price isn't really doing that much for them.

And to be perfectly honest, if Nintendo had nailed the controller, I don't think I'd have these complaints.  My problem isn't just that Nintendo released a weak system.  My problem is that Nintendo explicitly forsook graphics/processing power in favor of a new control scheme, and then they completely botched half of that new control scheme.  What we're left with is a system dominated by shovelware.  Publishers are flooding the market with rushed crap, or PS2 ports that have tacked on "waggle" controls.  Take a look at Metacritic.  Of the three systems, the Wii has not only the fewest good games of the three systems, but the smallest ratio of good games to bad games. 

We can debate all day over the reasons behind the lack of good games on Wii.  I think the underpowered CPU/GPU are the biggest reason because it keeps third parties from releasing their best stuff for the system.  I think the second biggest reason is that the accelerometer in the controller is junk.  But regardless of the reason behind the mediocrity of the Wii's library, I think it provides ample basis for a Wii owner to be disappointed.

[shmokes]

By the way, I just read a quote from some guy (maybe the President) at Epic Games.  It's funny cos I just played my Wii recently for the first time in about four or five months, so I relate.

It’s a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they’re like, “Oh my God that’s so cool, I’m gonna go buy it.” So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they’ve showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. Obviously there’s a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I’m still waiting for that one game that makes me play it.

It's obviously not entirely true, since not only hardware, but software is being sold.  Smash Bro. was the #1 selling game over the last month, for example.  But I know a lot of people (well, four or five) who COMPLETELY ignore their Wii for months at a time.  I don't know any PS3 or 360 owners who do this.  On the other hand, I'm not sure I actually know any PS3 owners, to be fair.

[DJ_Izumi]

As much as you don't like it, you have to give the Wii credit for making money.  Each Wii is sold for profit, from $10-$70 depending on the region it's bought in, unlike the PS3 and 360 which are sold at a loss in  hopes of game sales recouping and making the income.

...So Nintendo is already winning if you just buy your Wii and stuff it in the closet.  Any any income for Nintendo from it's products or third parties and bam.  Nintendo's primary goal is to make money for itself so it can continue to exist and it's doing that quite well with the Wii and DS.  You can't deny the Wii for being what it is, it's something that's profitable that everyone wants.

...Well, all I can say is, at least a lot of rail shooters are being ported to the Wii, but I'm terribly not fond of the Wiimote or it's shells for guns.  :/  Gimmie a Guncon damnit.

[shmokes]

Oh, the Wii is making money.  No doubt about that.  But if I cared about that I'd be listening to Britney Spears and eating at McDonalds.  I couldn't care less whether Nintendo "wins" the console wars except to the extent that it means I win as a consumer.  In fact, I do want Nintendo to win, cos between the three companies Nintendo is and has always been my favorite.  But I don't want them to win for the sake of my favorite company winning.  I want them to win with a machine that deserves to win.  I don't think the Wii does.

[Singapura]

It's funny to see a discussion about processors and consoles on a forum like this. As a matter of fact, I personally  don't give a monkeys uncle about how many teraflops the thing can process and how HD the graphics are. All I care about is gameplay. I have a Wii, an Xbox, Xbox 360, a PS1, PS2, DS and PSP and not to forget a kick ass PC. What I play depends on my mood and can be anything from Pong to Crysis but ususally has nothing to do with the graphics or processor power. When I first had my PSP I was thoroughly disappointed, not because of the machine itself which is amazing but because of the lack of good games. The line up looks much better now (Patapon is fantastic) so it's in heavy rotation again. I recently installed an old Xbox in my LAN and am having as blast with emulators and XBMC.

My Wii hasn't been touched for some time ( ) because there are simply not a lot of games that apeal to me. Mario and Zelda are about the only real good games and Lego Star Wars is not bad either but truly amazing gameplay I only get from Wii Sports. I wish they would make a game like Mario tennis but with the control response of Wii Sports. Again, it's all in the gameplay, something you can't produce with only raw power but which requires creativity and originality.

[versapak]

My Wii hasn't been touched for some time ( ) because there are simply not a lot of games that apeal to me. Mario and Zelda are about the only real good games and Lego Star Wars is not bad either but truly amazing gameplay I only get from Wii Sports. I wish they would make a game like Mario tennis but with the control response of Wii Sports. Again, it's all in the gameplay, something you can't produce with only raw power but which requires creativity and originality.

That is my problem with the Wii.

They made a system that could offer something truly unique an exciting, but unfortunately for the most part doesn't.


The best game to utilize the Wii's uniqueness is still the pack in game from its launch a year and a half ago.

It has some other great games, but nothing that truly capitalizes on the only feature that separates the Wii from the rest.

Like has already been stated...

My Wii sat for dormant for months, and that is the case for literally everyone else I know that has one. I regularly see that mentioned by others as well, which leads me to believe that is the norm.




[EDIT]

Interesting...

Literally the second I posted this, I went to refresh digg, and lo and behold...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/technology/21wii.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin



 

[FrizzleFried]

Anyone played the latest Tiger Woods Golf on the Wii?  How does it play?


EDIT: I just read the article linked above and agree to an extent.  I can say that I,  for one,  am not interested in the typical "console" game for the Wii.  If I want a Call of Duty I will play it on the PC or get an Xbox 360 or PS3.  I am really only interested in titles that utilize the unique controls...period.   Does Super Smash whatever it's called?  If not,  I'm not surprised it's not selling...

[ahofle]

I am really only interested in titles that utilize the unique controls...period.   Does Super Smash whatever it's called?

No, not at all.

[shmokes]

Well . . . the answer is no, Super Smash uses traditional controls.  But not selling???  Have you gone mad?

[FrizzleFried]

Well . . . the answer is no, Super Smash uses traditional controls.  But not selling???  Have you gone mad?

Uh...did you read the article linked above?  Beyond the first few weeks incredible sales,  they've gone...well...flat.

But sales dropped more than 90 percent over the first four weeks, according to estimates from VG Chartz, a team of analysts who study video-game sales.

Some major retail chains — including Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us — have already begun bundling the Smash Bros. game with Wii machines for sales online, a sign that the base of hard-core gamers who went looking for the game has been depleted.

[shmokes]

Ah . . . I see.

Well, to see where my comment is coming from, it's sold over 2.5 million units, which already puts it in the top 20 highest selling videogames of the last year across all consoles.  And that's only after a month.  I'm sure it'll go on to sell at least 3 million (if it hasn't already).  Still, I basically agree with everything the article says.

[clok]

Super Smash Bros for the Wii has already outsold the gamecube version, and its been out, 2 months? I myslef own um all (unfortantly, Wii, PS3, 360) I only got my Wii about 3 weeks ago. I was firmly in the "wii is a toy for kids" camp, and have only slightly changed my opinion. Right now i ahve been playing the Wii alot, so much my arm is sore. I agree the Wii has almost no games that a "hardcore" gamer woudl want to play. One thing to think about, nintendo themselves didnt think the Wii was going to do anything but have a nitch market. They didnt expect to sell alot, developers didnt expect it to do anything either so very few games where in production. Nintendo has proved its brillance in marketing (i dont think the controler is anything special, if you look on youtube there where many before it). They found they had a hit on there hands and found out they couldnt keep up with demand. Then they found that if they kept the supply just right, they could keep the HYPE machine rolling. Nobody can tell me a company as Big as Nintendo couldnt turn out enouhg Wii's to satisfy demand by now. I understand it takes time to ramp up production, but we are over a year later, pure marketing (that is working, why change it?). Nintendo just need to keep selling more then Sony and MS, keep that margin for Press releases.  Right now I think Nintendo has struck marketing GOLD, even if they didnt expect it. We all know POPCAP games and others like it are the KINGS of games played now. More people play Bejeweld online or at home then play Halflife (err counterstrike, whatever you want to call it). Nintendo has seen the market for causale games and it saw it first on consoles. MS had the idea sorta with XBLA, but buy aiming at the "hardcore" gamers (who normally buy Gears of war, or Halo) missed its mark. Most XBLA games are not for mom and dad, or your sister who doesnt play games in the traditional sense. The Wii has games grandma can play (and ya, its been pointed out a 100000 times already). Nintendo will live or die on "throw away " games.. everybody likes a quick game of Bejeweled, but not that many play it all the time (well ok some do) .  I truley believe the Wii will hang in there and in the long run possibly beat the 360 or PS3 as leader this gen, not becuase of the motion controler though, but becuase the games are somewaht simplier to play (have you played Madden nowdays? its takes a PHD to remeber the buttons and the combo's). G Hero has shown a remake of "simon" the memory game can sell big (and as a side effect shown that you can make $100 controlers for one game sell big too.. watch out for a rack to hold all your differnt controlers now). I personaly dont like the MS buisness model, pay for everything 2 or more times. pay for the game, pay to play it online, pay to add the stuff that should have been in it to start with. But that model is here to stay now.. just wait for the Xbox 360 pysics addon that is only 3000 MS points and is required for "halo 10 -  The tenth remake of Halo 1" (hey they are going to run out of cool names for a remake sooner then you think).

Sorry for the long rant, I'm oldschool (or i wouldnt be ina forum about playing pacman and Donkey kong like i did in 82). I really believe the Wii si succseful for the cusale gamer, but not so much for the hardcore.. the Controler bought it a few weeks/months of GEE WHIZ factor.. but .. that wont last forever. I for one will agree 100% alot of Wii games , I  HATE the controler, they make you use it for totally stupid stuff that adds 0 to game play (metroid- pulling the door lock out and twisting and putting it back in... how is that fun? it just drags the game to a stand still for a sec or two). To many games use teh controler just to use it.. thats is no fun.

PS3 and 360 have both proved Pretty sure dont mean fun... I like my Wii, for some games... I love Battalion Wars 2, Ghost Squad ( so sue me), and have spent alot fo time On Dragon Quest (which got horrible reviews)..but stuff like Wii sports? ya fun for a few hours with a friend, but not much after that. The trama center memory games which use teh Wiimote in a good way.. well the game isnt that good IMHO.. just a game of memory, do this before that , in right order.

360- do they make any games that arent FPS? yes, thats and exagation, but not by much..

PS3- I wish i could put something ehre, but there are just no games to talk about really. I was so frigin Hyped about LAIR.. then it came out (while i dont hate it like 99% of the world, it was pretty subpar).

I think the Wii will settle down and most people witll start to see it for what i believe it is.. something fun for a few hours, with average graphics and most of the time easy to pick up gameplay(that last one is a big one! learn from it all you game companies that want me to remebre 65 button combos to play a game succesfully).

Oh and last thing! quite making games that mimic SIMON (or Dragons Lair if you like that comparasion better).. i want to play my game, not be told how to play it.. hit green buttone then blue then white.. AHHHH you hit green blue green you die!