surak

So little time for games

Well you can call it a justification complex that I wanted you to agree that if a person doesn't have any allegiance to Nintendo, and they don't have a problem paying (-$50, +$150) more for an HD console, that the Wii is in an awkward place between last-gen and current gen. If current games weren't enough to convince this person, and knowing Nintendo's next entries are just as likely coming out for their next console rather than the Wii given their M.O., then advocating for the Wii -- as a sound investment in gaming -- becomes an even more tenuous position. It boils down to this: if it's a game where gameplay trumps hardware requirements, then any console including last-gen will do, and if it's a game where the more resources you have the better, then the beefier the console the better. And tiebreaker goes to gauging the console's potential based on momentum: recent and upcoming games.

Numerous developers have been quoted extolling how natural it is to program on a continuation of the GC architecture. It is far from the shitstorm caused by the PS3. Now if devs are hung up on motion controls when Xbox-quality games could be implemented on it motion control-free, well then it's got a lot to do with Nintendo deciding on a remote form factor controller that doesn't play traditional games well (and discontinuing Wavebirds really shows how much they care). And if it has to do with Nintendo holding out details on its SDK to third parties (like the well known complaints devs had about not getting info on Mii integration, network, motion+, and storage capabilities, all unnecessary to making an enjoyable game last-gen) then that's not exactly reassuring for the Wii being a good current-gen platform going forward. You can say that we should call the first 2 years a wash, but it's not like Nintendo is doing all it can to help third-parties, besides smugly telling them they bet on the wrong horse.

So basically it boils down to Nintendo coming up with a new approach to consoles, then repeatedly making design decision mistakes that negatively affect the non-grandmother class of gamer. Huge sales can mask this unhealthiness, but here on CAG amongst gamers, there is a sense that the Wii is on a downhill trajectory. The most worrying part is that Nintendo made similar mistakes in the past. Now with their attention focused laterally toward quasi-games geared toward non-gamers and "lapsed" gamer interests, that worrying is generating written comments on the matter. It's not like we have it in for Nintendo. Companies doing the same thing, like Ubisoft or THQ, are getting ripped proportionally to their prominence. Their actions are causing these reactions.

If I really were upset that my favorite console was not doing as well as the Wii, then I'd be writing screeds against the 360, considering numerous times when 360 exclusives have taken games I want. If I were confident that the Wii was a good enough console, I'd be much happier having it take those exclusives from the PS3 since I have both. Except I have a sense of dread when games suddenly switch to coming out for Wii, because I fear those games will do nothing for me. No matter what true combination of reasons caused the current state of affairs, the state of the Wii in reality is not going to change quickly or easily. You can call it a combination of development nuances or subtleties, gamer prejudices and ignorance, etc. The difficulty in solving any of those shows huge uncertainty in the state of affairs getting better.

"LBP"

I said quite specifically that the things the Wii does in this regard do not compare to PSN/XBL. Very specifically. I don't even know why we're still talking about it, unless we go in circles over the HDD subject, which I (and anyone else worth their salt) already has a sore spot for, and thinks it is ridiculous that no solution exists, AND that it limits the system both in terms of existing software, as well as scaring away new clients/developers from adopting it.

"Brawl"

No, I brought Brawl for a variety of reasons. The first is that I love the series and want every sequel to it. The second is that I liked the new things it added, which (again) I've tried to mention every time, but you consistently ignore. This includes new characters, new modes, all the little nostalgic touches that appeal to a fan, the music, the fact that I have close friends who play it, etc etc etc. Most of these things cannot be extended to other people, but that doesn't matter. You keep diluting it down into "oh you just like it even though it just has more polys and no motion" which is kind of like saying I drink water simply to survive.

You make a halfway interesting point in "wouldn't you just have liked it on the GC/N64?" N64, no - because limitations on 13+ year old hardware ruin any prospect of that. GC? Perhaps. Except I get a fair amount of usage out of the online, despite that I know it is broken, so that argument falls apart. Further, GC discs couldn't hold the same amount of data, couldn't keep the game running at 60 fps given the amount of detail in the characters/backgrounds, and would limit the roster due to space limitations. While we're at it, yes - the game SHOULD add support for DLC, because new characters down the line actually make sense.

Finally, the suggestion that the Wii is holding back the online is sort of a half-truth. It's pretty well known in the Brawl community that the netcode sucks, so that's more of a bad programming thing versus an actual hardware-determining-problems thing.

"Why settle for the Wii"

Because I LIKE NINTENDO. HOLY DAMN, WHY IS THAT SUCH A BAD THING? THIS is the attitude I'm so tired of.

There's a host of first party content I want access to, and will ALWAYS want access to. Again, anything third party that shows up is pure icing. In this case, I want Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, and hopefully things like Starfox and Kirby. I want Sin and Punishment 2 and Art Style:Cubello.

It is NO DIFFERENT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT HALO, KILLZONE, MGS, ETC. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

At least I can make the assessment and allocation that "Hey, some people only want to play shooters for the rest of their life, and that's okay." But then I see a double standard kick in with people telling me "Holy damn, why even bother with Mario anymore?"

That's just retarded, and it's pretty stupid that this crap attitude is so prevalent and so accepted by the "hardcore" because they are so pissed a machine with a fraction of the power is mowing down their asses in the sales lane.

It has nothing to do with money, it has nothing to do with release pace, it has nothing to do with some smug superiority complex of "graphics over gameplay." It is PURELY about choice.

For the record, this is the same reason I HAVE A 360. There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

And yet you're the one telling ME its just some victimized bullshit? That's ridiculous. It's been like this since the goddamn N64, except its just exacerbated to a point where - again - you can't even goddamn mention "Hey I like the Wii" without some built-in bullshit from the "hardcore" about how this suddenly instantly means you only like wagglefest mini games, as if that were a valid assumption to make.

Wii owners - those of us that give a damn - actually want valid gameplay experiences JUST AS MUCH as any regular 360 owner, and it would do the entire industry a damn bit of good if this retarded argument were ended once and for all. Notice that I'm the one who is willing to do that - you're the one who isn't. Saying it's a victim complex? Fine. YOU'VE got a justification complex, and some endless need to feel bigger than those around you.

You pretend I don't even find truth in those comments? I know there is. But at the same time I'm sick of the falsehoods. "There's no games to play." that. There's plenty to play, and even plenty of GOOD games to play, it's simply that they are in genres that the hip trendy hardcore fanboys don't care for. That's the bottom line.

"Wii Grandmothers"

Oh piss off. Why even give them more than .2 seconds of attention? They hurt no one, they actually don't drive the market, they never will, and developers are not going to focus on them forever. It's pretty sad a bunch of big mean manly gamers feel so threatened by Gladys having a roll of Wii Bowling. It's like getting mad that they watch TV.

"Developers caught off guard doesn't hold water"

Why? It takes - on average - 2 years to develop a game. Most people didn't even begin to think the Wii was worthwhile until mid 2007, and some a year after that. Even if we take the people who ignored it to begin with (Konami, Capcom, Square, basically all Western devs outside of EA), then there is no way they'll get games out before THIS year. And even then, there's no gaurantee that those games will be good.

Right now I'll admit this is a time-delay excuse. But at the same time, I'm patient enough to think that people might still be struggling with the hardware. If I judged the 360's first six months of software as the end-all-be-all, I'd have given up on it entirely, because those were dark days indeed, full of shoddy ports from PS2 and otherwise poorly executed games.

We've still got a situation where tons of companies completely ignore it (mostly Western at this point), which is fine if it weren't seen as such a condemnation, and ALWAYS was accompanied with some bullshit "Oh it's a toy" sort of dismissal.

This is just the same old "oh nothing but waggle in the future" argument, with built-in blinders about how there's absolutely no chance it'll ever improve. That might be the truth, but I'm not pompous enough to stop there and say it most CERTAINLY is, because I'm never certain about anything.

This whole tirade is ridiculous because so many facts are ignored, such as length of development cycles, the need to allow for adjustments, and refusing to make allocations based on who is doing what and who is looking like a cashing-in-jackass. There's absolutely no reason the games can't look Xbox quality or better (which I'd even just say is "serviceable" by today's standards), no reason the controls can't work, no reason why the whole system can't be treated like the orphan it is by the development community. But that's not going to change the fact that, say, Ubisoft is going to use it for shit games to fund their big projects, which make them less profit overall than if they actually attempted to give a shit.

In the end, this is the entire problem. It's a multi-faceted, multi-layered thing, but it's all a bunch of pandering to the minority at this point. It's screaming about how there's success in something that shouldn't be there, so let's diminish and refuse to accept. Then let's all sit back and be total douches to the thought that there's actually people with an entirely different perspective, who both want genuine experiences AND are enjoying some that are already there.

Instead, what it OUGHT to be is a sort of happy cease-fire, with qualifications that rest upon waiting to see if anything ever justifies all the stupid bitching that's already occurred.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about something different but I did use the phrase DLC as shorthand for both creator- and user-generated content out of brevity. You can look at my last post on blackjaw's blog entry to note that I explicitly mentioned it. And yes I know Blast Works has it, because it sits of my shelf virtually untouched. It pales in comparison to the level of interactivity that someone can put into a LBP level. And in this case more is better. Have you ever even played LBP content? It is not hard to find an amazing level like the ICO one. You may be happy being severely limited by the Wii's hardware, but that doesn't mean everyone is. The fewer limitations on creativity the better, and for this LBP moderation, bugs, etc. do absolutely get in the way, but those things are all fixable without buying new hardware and what it still lets an amateur do easily is a game landscape changer.

I don't consider my last-gen games to suddenly become crap, but that doesn't mean I would be happy if developers do nothing but keep chugging out the same thing for the forseeable future. I already said the type who are happy, the ones who limit themselves to Madden and Wii Sports/Fit/Play, are irrelevant to my assessment of a console, because they are happy with just about anything. If the only games I saw in the PS3's future were shiny sequels like Virtua Fighter 5 I'd be pissed too. Sure they're nice games, but not dollar-investment-in-new-console nice. I want innovations in online, interactivity, audio, storytelling, graphics, content, the whole shebang.

You claim developers of other platforms and people like me are faulty of believing shiny = "real" next-gen. I was tempted to use Animal Crossing as an example, but I have personal experience with Smash Bros and none with AC. Brawl's online is broken and to me that is the one innovation to the game that would have made a Wii entry anything besides an incremental update, and is a great example of the Wii superficially having a supposed next-gen feature yet failing to deliver. Rock Band DLC is another. Brawl doesn't even use motion controls, so a Wii seems entirely unnecessary except to push more polys. If you can justify your Wii purchase with noninnovative titles like Brawl, then you are proving that you derive more fun from a game because more computing power was thrown at it. Otherwise, why wouldn't you be satisfied with a sequel on GC or N64 instead?

Since we both agree that more polish can make better games, then why settle for a 480p Wii with bad default controller, online, and storage capacity besides 1) money, 2) allegiance to Nintendo franchises despite their glacial output pace (which will probably result in next entries not even being on the Wii), 3) a feeling of superiority over who you think are idiotic for spending more money when "graphics don't matter"? Admit that if 1-3 are not important to someone looking to buy a new console, then a Wii is not the right option, and people like me are spending that money because it actually does make games more fun. Admit that assuming that a large number of people are leaving their Wiis off so they can brag about it online is a reach, and is an explanation that protects you from admitting that some combination of 1-3 are what are important to you. I'm not asking you to stop enjoying your Wii, just that you ease up on the paranoia and victim complex. Realize beyond the mob gruntle that there is some glimmer of truth to the state of the console. It's unhealthy and not just because people like me are upset (I'm not but you somehow think I am) at the new Wii-owner grandmothers (otherwise wouldn't the PS2 have suffered an equally bad fate gamewise?).

I am engaging you in a conversation for legitimate reasons, despite your automatic assumption that I'm a troll because I think motion controls of this generation begin and end at gimmickry. Let me tell you more about myself so you won't automatically classify me as a raving PS3 fanboy who gets off on making fun of Nintendo fans. I have a Wii. I went from digging it (WarioWare) to being underwhelmed around the time of the first drought. I buy games for it and then don't end up playing them much because they're so damn shallow, compared to the PS2 games in my backlog. This makes no sense to me as the Wii is technically superior to the PS2 in so many ways, the architecture isn't a huge hurdle, and supposedly the demand and huge piles of money are there for the taking. The excuse that developers were caught off guard this late in its existence is getting less likely with every passing day. I've decided that I might as well play cheap PS2 games or PS3 games if I want to play recent games. The one Wii game that piques my interest is Muramasa, because I hope it fixes the Odin Sphere lag. If Muramasa ends up being a shallower version of Odin Sphere (less crafting, intricate storyline, lack of dual audio) or requires endless waggling, then I will change my opinion to "why bother?" and play Valkyria Chronicles or somesuch instead.

Finally, if you believe the industry is sick because devs spend too much to top each other at the expense of fun, consider that XBLM, PSN, and WiiWare are all available for good games. The PS2 is slowing down but still has legs thanks to Atlus. Handhelds are healthy. No console stands out as the single savior on that front, but on the "what's going to be the next great game" front, some consoles are better suited than others.

"DLC vs LBP"

Alright. Since we're differentiating and now talking about something different, it's worth commentating on further. Boom Blox 2 will have this feature. Blast Works already did. Yes, it is not comparable to what PSN/XBL can do. There's no way around that. Only other comment is that pretending that there's a wealth of good content from user-generated channels is laughable, since most people are bad at it (Yahtzee talked about this in his LBP review this week). That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, but it DOES mean that it is vastly overrated.

"Smooth Moves"

Oh, you meant pinnacle of controls. No real argument then. I took it more as "there's never been a better game since then," which I took as a dumb assertion to make.

"Brawl"

Because "people still bought it" is a poor justification for anything, because people will buy anything. You're still coming at this game in this "oh it was just a bare minimum" mentality, which I frankly can't understand. It had a wealth of online features, online gameplay, an OST that rivals anything that's come out in years both in quality and quantity, a huge smattering of characters, and the gameplay is absolutely technically perfect. The quality of the animations ALONE refute this - every character was completely redone, all of them swing weapons in unique ways, etc etc. There's a hell of a lot more going on than you give it credit for, and I'm quite sorry that you're so content to wave it off as so little for reasons that you're failing to explain. Which gets under my skin because the same thing in a 360 game is heralded as awesome, like Tomb Raider have "real time dirt accumulation" and other bullshit.

Here's a better example: Animal Crossing. THAT I could understand, since that truly IS a rehashing, with little to NO added content, save for some VERY small things. However, even THAT doesn't suddenly make me think the game is bad - if it still plays well, IT PLAYS WELL, and if I'm willing to pay for it, then that's MY decision.

"Just selling to addicts and those in caves" is stupid proposition. Madden does that. Halo does that. Both of them are selling to both the same core base AND have a big portion of people who ONLY play them. So yes - same exact thing. Why bitch about Brawl doing it when you've clearly got a double standard going on?

Just admit you've got some pent up baseless rage against the game for no damn reason beyond "I don't like it," and instead just want to dress those four words up in a few hundred to try and make it appear more substantial. Christ. Even I don't do that shit with games I didn't have fun with, no matter how disappointing, because I'd rather just make the assertion and move the on. Get over yourself, talking about one of the best games on the system in this entirely dismissal manner, as if that PROVES you are right and somehow weakens the whole system as a whole.

I don't like Dead Rising, but I don't condemn the 360 because of it. That's stupid.

"Gimmickry"

Pompous, pompous, pompous. I feel I should copy and paste that a few dozen times, but that would make me look like an ass.

Just because YOU don't get your money's worth doesn't mean OTHERS don't, which is more or less the ENTIRE problem I've tried to express here. I've gotten more play out of the damn thing than I ever did with my Gamecube OR N64, and that is for a host of reasons - nice games, being able to play with friends and family who'd never touch the stuff, etc etc. It's not fanboy, it's not blind praise - it's simple fact, at least FOR ME it is, which I'm always careful to make sure those around me understand, because I can't speak for others. Yeah, the experience isn't some world shattering thing, and I won't ever claim it to be. But this nonsense attitude so many people have these days that "Oh my god, it doesn't have ____ like the other system does" as if something is stopping them from having multiple systems is just a ludicrous position to have. I bought the thing for Mario, Zelda, Brawl, and other first party games - I don't give a less about third parties, since I count those as icing on the cake situations, or "other system" scenarios.

I've got a 360, and I haven't gotten $200 worth out of it yet. But I'm not bitching that I never will, because I know that will eventually happen, and also because I couldn't dare say it to all the trendy idiots that are rampant on the 'net these days, who would crucify me from not having any kind of interest in the three whole genres the 360 is flooded with.

I will say - without hesitation - that Braid is singularly the best gaming experience I've probably had in several years, and makes the 360 worth $199 by itself. But I'm still looking for that final dollar.

It's like you people don't even understand what you are saying anymore. Again, if these big manly machines make you feel so fulfilled, can you honestly tell me you couldn't enjoy anything before them? Really? That's so beyond logic and reason that it OUGHT to hurt one's brain, especially since it hurts mine so badly.

You know - again - I thought you had sent that message for some honest reason, perhaps to have an actual good discussion, but you're just ramming the same stupid shit down my throat that's shoveled all over the goddamn 'net these days - the same broken record opinion-as-fact falsehoods - and entirely refusing to even CONSIDER that maybe your perspective isn't end-all-be-all. And if that's the case, we're done here.

Keeping the format the same...

"Wii threads erupt"

That's for a few different reasons, but the main one is mob mentality and the crying of people trying to justify why one thing sells over their beloved. All of them end up the same way, all of them use the same tired arguments, and all of them are functionally useless. You said so yourself - it's cathartic to commiserate, but that's incredibly poor reasoning, a victim of peer pressure/groupthink.

"PCs doing it before = straw man"

Ok. Games before have done everything his generation, console and PC included.

"Wii is hostile toward networking and DLC"

Networking? Yes. No one can defend friend codes, and I've first hand experience at the absolute terror it is getting games of Brawl to actually work, to say nothing of lag, lack of voice chat, and the overall broken, un-unifed nature of the system. I'd be insane to argue otherwise, especially in the face of just how beautifully XBL works.

DLC? Phbhbbht. DLC - with the exceptions of Rock Band and Guitar Hero - is its own enemy. This is another discussion entirely, but the basic tenant is that you can't insert new data into something that was designed to have an end. Fallout 3, again, is the best example here - seems like the DLC there was a flop. Generally speaking, the problem is that you can't create an area with all factors considered - if I go in too powerful/weak, if I don't need the reward it will give me because I've already got something better, etc etc. So the solution is to just tack it on to the end of the original game, but this doesn't work that well because it almost always appears vestigial in execution.

I'd expound on it further but it's not really here or there.

"Brawl"

Again, I skimmed the article, found some nonsense about how "Oh the story isn't as good as Sopranos," laughed, punched myself in the nuts, and wondered aloud just how bad a writer the author was. If you wanted a story in Brawl, you were looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place, because it's pretty clear that the Subspace Emissary was there more as a "hey look - we tried to beef up the single player at least SOMEWHAT, because we know sometimes you can't play with friends, and even though this game is built for multiplayer, we at least tried to meet you halfway" rather than provide you with The Grapes of Wrath. That whole tirade comes off as little more than a "I knew it was going to be bad, and then it was bad, so now I'm going to say it was bad," and end up looking like a gigantic prick while doing so. It would have been like criticizing Madden for not having a story. Point being is that the story doesn't exist in Brawl. It never will. Everyone played this off like "Oh look the Brawl guys are telling us they are making big epic storiez," and that's just bullshit - they were appeasing, not promising something beefy. That's why you look like an idiot when you argue otherwise - you're putting words in their mouth, bitching when the expectations you made up aren't met, and passing off that disappointment as some sort of entitlement you were promised that never happened. And that's all bullshit.

Saying it has poor aesthetics I find highly suspect, because no one else had a problem with the graphics and all agreed it looked beautiful in motion. Which it does. You're also showing off - again - a really narrow minded approach here, when you dismiss a dozen new fighters as "useless crap," to say nothing of the (stupid) claim that poor online somehow = poor game altogether.

You don't like the game, fine. I don't need paragraphs to hear it, and every time I see one under any circumstances, I know the person saying it is just trying to appear intellectual in order to feel good about themselves.

You then trod off into something about "milking" but "not changing," which .... you know I have no clue what that means. The hardcore Melee fans hate Brawl. The hardcore 64 fans hate Melee and Brawl. So that doesn't hold water. Further, three games in one series over 8 years is milking? There's been more Halo, MGS, God of War, GTA, etc etc in the SAME time span, ALL of which are just as similar. The milking argument is a sore spot with me because everyone is SO BAD at truly understanding it.

You finish with some half-hearted comment that seems to say "no one new is ever going to like Smash," which I find....a poor thing to say, because there's no way to really argue for or against it, and as such, nothing is going to change there. But I can say that being so sure of yourself is the problem.

"I want the Wii to fail"

You can say that, but then "nothing good since Warioware." Really? Come on. That's pretentious in about ten thousand different flavors.

"Motion controls aren't the paradigm shift they should be"

Two main comments.

1) The current Wiimote sucks. I actually speculated a long time ago that Nintendo blew their wad with Wii Sports in terms of unique motion mechanics, because I recognized just how shallow it all was even then. Yes, at the time I was having a lot of fun, but it didn't take me long to see just how little could be honestly programmed. The Motion+ thing is supposed to fix this, but the point is that yes - it's not shifting anything because it really is so poorly capable of determining honest movements.

2) That first problem causes this one, which is that there is little being done development-wise to actually attempt honestly good motion. This is why there's so much shovelware, this is why even Nintendo can't seemingly think up much to do. However, the other side of this is that third parties either A) don't care, B) are hostile, or C) seemingly just want to cash in. There's so few examples where the motion is implemented well, first/second/third parties across the board. Again, does Motion+ solve this? The answer is that it CAN, but WILL IT is another story, because that requires devs to actually give more than two shits. I'm not convinced yet in the same manner I'm not convinced all this big bad powerful tech is actually providing me with new experiences. THAT is the main crux of my entire argument here, which is that I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh motion doesn't innovate," because NOTHING IS.

"Spent their load for real gaming"

That's just pompous. That's so incredibly pompous. That's like saying the Xbox is nothing more than a vehicle for Halo. There's plenty of good software out there, it's just that it isn't in the two whole genres the "hardcores" want. You can't sit there and tell me that because that's just another subjective opinion as fact bullshit.

"DS as counterpoint/banking on the PSP"

Very few companies banked on the PSP - Square and Konami might be the biggest examples. I think they knew it was a nice, powerful system, and perhaps are tired of Nintendo's stodginess when it comes to beefing up their portable systems. But the DS started selling well almost instantly. The difference between it and the Wii is that NO ONE expected the Wii to sell due to Nintendo's current console track record, but EVERYONE knew their handheld reputation was virtually spotless and full of sales. It's actually very little surprise to me that the DS turned into the success it was, simply because it had every reason to succeed.

At this point, I don't feel that the situation with the DS is comparable to the Wii for a variety of reasons, the main one being that so many developers actually attempted to make good software for it from the get-go, where as just now are we finally seeing some quality games from third parties showing up for the Wii.

2008 was a shitty year for the Wii simply because Nintendo seemingly turned off their software valve, which I suspect is because they feverishly tried to get a lot of their big titles out with the first 1.5 years. They succeeded, but then hit a drought once again (which they always do). It hurt more this time because third parties shunned the system, or released crap, or ignored it, or under-delivered, or whatever. I don't know. Frankly I don't really care because at this point, Nintendo could functionally not release software for a year, and sales would take a hit, but it would still be successful overall.

This all said, this year is off to a better start. But that's not going to change the minds of the trendy fanboys at all, because they'll do the same song and dance they've done the last three years.

I just wish I didn't have to sit there and be directly insulted by Nintendo, the development community, and every other gamer out there, simply because I enjoy what I've got and have high expectations that I'll willingly use AGAINST what is being plopped onto my plate.

I was trying to figure out if directly addressing me was some sort of bait or not. I don't really have the energy anymore to devote to these arguments to figure it out, so I'll just respond quickly and you can attempt to convince me whether or not an honest discussion was to be had. I'll keep this as short as I can.

I'll summarize from your last comment in blackjaw's blog.

"Ambitious games....can be made with better hardware."

No game this generation couldn't be replicated on previous consoles with a graphical downgrade. None. And all the arguments that supposedly support this - better AI is a good example - are bunk because all AI in all games suck. It doesn't exist. Again, Fallout 3 isn't anything that wasn't accomplished by, say, an MMO years ago on the PC. All these developers have all this grand technology, and it's like they can't figure out a single compelling thing to do with it EXCEPT make the graphics nicer, which is a great plan because it fools so many people so easily.

Further, this argument is just another flavor of elitism, because it suddenly assumes you HAVE to have bullet points X Y and Z fulfilled in order for a game to be good, which further implies that you suddenly couldn't enjoy a game on a previous system, no matter how good it was. It's annoying to think that there are people who would skip out on PS2 games simply because they are on PS2, as if they've magically been granted an inability to play them after booting up a PS3 for the first time.

"Ambitious games can have ______"

Again, none of the things you are pointing out - "unprecedented in-game activity" - couldn't be done on previous games. GTA4 is just GTA3 but prettier and with more stuff to look at, but it's largely the same game. Halo 3 is just Halo 2.5, but with more online options. These are not things the previous generation couldn't provide. So again, the notion that more power is suddenly unlocking new experiences is bunk because that's up to the developer to provide us, and those situations are extremely rare. Plus, it requires that a lot of money and research be done in ORDER to create that kind of new experience, and in the cutthroat HD world the industry is currently in, no publisher/developer is all that willing to really dump a lot of money on a risk.

One of the few times where a new experience WAS crafted? he jump to 3D in the late 90s. THAT'S how big the jump as to be to be noticeable, it's just that people are so quick to assume ANYTHING is on that level. Sony telling you "real time weapons change" back in 2005 at E3? Laughable. NES games could do that.

"The Wii can't do these things"

Extremely debateable. Your attitude tells me you're narrow minded on the subject so I won't belabor a discussion.

"Nintendo's stance on an HDD"

"Where are the Wii games?"

Hilarious that you're asking this as if you expect some sort of big contrary answer.

"Smash Bros sucks."

Sigh. I really hate passing off subjective nonsense as fact, especially when a quick look at the link provided looks like a blowhard trying WAY too intensely to make the relatively minute point of "I don't like this game." There's allusions to Bioshock and Sopranos....why, exactly? For fun?

"I need to address the state of what is the first place console."

Really? You do? That's exactly what you DON'T have to do, especially when it's pretty clear that the fanboy mentality is prevalent in the "hardcore" gaming community AND in the developer community. If the devs agree with that same minority, and then purposely CATER to that minority, and aggressively convince themselves that they are all doing the right thing, then you're in no danger.

And since that is the case, why not just be content in knowing your opinion is the hot topic of the day, that you're going to get pandered to left and right by the big boys, and leave "the console numero uno" out of your mind entirely? Dredging up a bunch of stupid fanboy bullshit about it doesn't make you look cool - it just builds up a false sense of security in the midst of trying to justify why you're so mad a tiny console is selling twice as good as the other two combined.

Think of it like this: If the Wii is so wrong and so bad and so fickle and so poor, it'll die off on its own. And when that happens, you can dance on the grave. Being a fanboy about it now just makes you look silly, save for the fact that - again - everyone on these boards are just going to blindly agree.

Entire point: There's no damn reason for these discussions. None. No one is going to change their mind, and the mob mentality is retarded. Instead, people should just go on their own manner, especially when there's absolutely no evidence that the current situation is as worrisome as people would desperately like to believe.