not to long of a read - http://wii.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=9651

 Solution better games duhh like they said but, can they stand and bang with games made on far more powerfull hardware.

There were couple of things that i find interesting from the article. He found it shortsighted that Wii does not do HD. But i would say that Wii supports HD compatible TV:s, it has 480p output (pretty much same thing saying that 360/PS3 don't support SD). Without that it would have been shortsighted. Of course also i critisize Nintendo about the lack of HD (even that it doesn't matter to me personally), since now you have to choose between HD graphics and new control methods. It would have been better to have both. Games were also his argument, but there are "big" games under development for Wii. Of course i agree, that games so far have been mostly party games or cheap ports, basically Twilight Princess being almost only exeption. I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be any "big" or "epic" games for Wii, since Twilight Princess has been selling well overall. Depending when does the novelty wear off, is it when next generation comes with more advanced pointer/movement sensing controllers, or is it going to happen before that. If novelty wears off, when Wii has a lead of 30M to 360/PS3, it doesn't really matter anymore, since the lead is so big that most games are on the Wii and due to bigger install base, it's also the platform where publishers want to get their games. If novelty wears off before Wii leads big enough, it doesn't matter that much to Nintendo, but to gamers it's not so good, since developers lose their interest (just like with Cube or PS3). But we could also think that has fancy graphics lost it's novelty? At the moment it looks like that. Even if Wii would lose its novelty, it doesn't matter if fancy graphichs has lost it too.

You just have to look at the games Nintendo is targeting toward the more mainstream gamers: Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime: Corruption, and SSB: Brawl. Then ask yourself, would high-resolution graphics make these games more popular? Personally, I don't think they would. Certainly gamers are more concerned with the art style in Mario and Brawl than the pixel count, and while Metroid Prime was one of the Gamecube's flagship titles as far as graphics, its appeal is that it's a Metroid game (i.e. exploration and puzzle solving), not a fast-paced graphical powerhouse like Halo or Gears of War.

The novelty of analog sticks and 3D environments wore off around 1997, didn't mean I never wanted to play another 3D game again.  The bigger question is whether motion controls feel better than using a controller, the answer to that question for me has been yes for the most part (e.g., I never want to open another door by pressing a button again).  The few games that play better with a controller can use the classic controller anyways.  Great games are great whether they have the PS3's graphics or the Wiis.  Nintendo games will be there and if it continues selling well the great 3rd party games will be also.

When the novelty wears off I sell it like I did with my PSP and XBOX360. I didn't buy a Wii because it was a novelty, I bought it for the games I know Nintendo will bring out, without even considering what other developers might release. Anything they release is a bonus.

Okay, I have to pick this piece by piece:

However, while Wii sales are healthy, and the immediate future for the platform looks bright, the console’s tidal wave of a success might not last as long as many think.

 Might? And this is just the first "probably" that this article poses. You can't base an analysis on that. You need DEFINATE things.

Traditionally, consoles do suffer a drought of new software shortly after launch. Typically, consoles release in the fall with a slew of launch software, but during the next six months of a new system’s life, new releases can be few and far between.

The Wii has not been immune to this post-launch flu. Between January and May ’07, the platform has been rained upon by mostly ports and party games. You can blame this on the fact that publishers like Electronic Arts (and other big name companies), who initially shrugged off the Wii during the pre-launch development cycle about a year ago, for not having “real” software ready for the first half of 2007. After all, games aren’t made over night, so many big publishers that missed the first ride are now scrambling to jump onboard what appears to be an unstoppable mainstream train.

Big games – other than ports and cheap party games – are on the way from big third-party publishers. But in the interim, the Wii user base is being subjected to PlayStation 2 port after port, as well as the occasional party game with little depth to be had. And yet Wii continues to sell. Perhaps it’s because there are millions out there that want games like Wii Sports. It’s no wonder, as the game continues to receive attention from the mainstream even half a year after its release.

  Post lauch droughts don't prove anything. It's how soon the drought is recovered that matters. And past history has shown that can take as much as a year. Yet that didn't hurt the PS2, DS, PS1, 360. Yet some did suffer, but that was due to bad recovery from the drought, like the N64 and PSP (in terms of game sales, not system sales).

The Wii Sports out there have a place in the industry. They have phenomenal mainstream appeal. But the question is what happens when people get tired of shallow pick-up-and-play games? Currently, the Wii is a novelty. It’s new, it’s never been done before, it’s fresh – it’s different. But what happens when those things are no longer true about the platform? At one time, pressing buttons and having an on-screen image respond was “new.” That novelty eventually grew old, and people wanted more depth. Won’t the same be true for Wii?

 First of all, people get tired of shallow pick up and play games? This was the same argument to why the PSP would crush the DS. Gamers were supposedly tired of the games the Gameboy thrived on. Yet that was not based on a single actual study, only hype from fanboys. So it was proven wrong when Brain Age and Nintendogs tunred into such hits.

 Second, for the novelty fading, and people wanting more depth, that always happens when gamers turn from casual to serious. What this guy fails to realize is that the point of Wii Sports is to get them to casual gaming in the FIRST PLACE. Then they turn to deeper games when they want more depth. That's what games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 are made for. Then there are games like Fire Emblem for the  hardcore gamers. The mainstream isn't going to turn away from the Wii, saying "we already played Wii Sports", when there are actual games for them to buy. That's how the gaming business has worked for years.

In the coming months to years, Wii will find itself in the midst of already-awkward transition of standard-definition to high-definition TVs made worse by short-sighted design choices by Nintendo. As consumers grow to be familiar – and thus less impressed – with the Wii’s unconventional controller, will they once again begin to crave advancements in game visuals and other new technologies? Sure, it’s easy to say, “Forget fancy graphics, the controller is so fun!” But the fanatics screaming these kinds of statements are far too high on the new Wii drug to realize that the euphoria could be temporary.

 Ah, the supposed need for HD argument. And acting as though the need to advance the technology now suddenly has a faster cycle than before. This is also based on not actual study. And they still seem to think it's no more powerful than the Gamecube, so it's had to have peaked already.

Rayman: Raving Rabbids, WarioWare, Wii Sports, Wii Play and other pick-up-and-play games are fun, but they are not “great” video games. They fail to offer any kind of true depth, and they certainly don’t mature the art of video games. They instead serve as helpful demos to developers on what the Wii controller can do. Had these games been released on any other console but Wii in the last ten years, they would have been slammed for primitive, superficial design. Only because the Wii remote has never been done before are these games even accepted.

 That may be bad from a hardcore player's view, but from a CASUAL player's view, it means those games weren't as fun without the Wiimote. You just pressed buttons, but didn't feel like you were actually in the game. That's why the Wiimote changes everything.

nteracting with video games through motion and pointing-based controls is something that’s here to stay. These controls create another dimension of depth for both game developers and players alike to dive into and experience. However, they are not the end-all-be-all final innovation. A unique controller cannot be the sole justification for owning a console. Eventually, that novelty wears off, and without deeper, more satisfying video games, Wii will have been nothing but the flavor of the month. At the end of the day, good – great – software is what makes a platform worth owning. Without that, no console can win, and neither can you.

 Half truth fallacy: points out games are needed, but does not proves the games that are need won't be there when they are needed. So far, there is only the drought that every system has. And the PS2 was declared to be on borrowed time it its first year as well. So was the DS, and SNES, and PS1.

This article could have been written by Kwaad. The only difference was, that the author didn't call the wii a fad.

 or maybe not every one buys into what the wii is selling.

Everything is a fad on a long enouth time line. 

Better graphics on Metroid I think would help its sales actually I think in NA, if that and Zelda looked like PS3/360 games it would be amazing. Other games like Mario or Smash Bros. to me wouldn't change much if they were at higher resolutions...