I would like to say that regarding "Nintendo users don't buy third party games", at least accepted  by the media, fallacy Wii shows otherwise. Lots of crappy third party games have had very good sales, games like MadWorld or The Conduit didn't deserve to sell more than 1 copy and yet they managed to do very respectable figures. B tier franchises, I'm being generous here because I should say C tier franchises, only have a chance to sell well on Wii because 99.99 percent of these games would have bombed terribly hard on the HD platforms.

Out of Monster Hunter Tri, which according to Capcom's shipment figures did it really well, and Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition no game deserved big sales. Unfortunately in my opinion these two games are the only real AAA titles Wii has. Yes, I know there are very valuable niche gems, but these games aren't supposed to set the charts on fire.

I can't see in the future a change of paradigm in third party support, they are too stubborn to change their erratic trayectory, they'd rather go out of business before accepting they were wrong with their business strategy.

What I bolded is what I'm commenting on:  That's an example of the overly negative attitude (towards non-Nintendo titles) that constantly keeps down the 3rd party companies.  Why would they bother to make AAA-quality titles when A-quality don't sell (MadWorld is a high quality title in every respect, sans game length) because of this kind of attitude.  As I pointed out before, mediocre-quality, hardcore titles on other systems routinely trump slightly higher-quality (though still mediocre) similar titles on other systems.  Again, Haze generally scored about two (out of 10) points lower than The Conduit, but sold vastly better.

If Nintendo gamers are going to have that, dare I say, elitist attitude towards 3rd party games, while still wasting money on pure crap like another Mario Party game just because it's from Nintendo--then 3rd party companies are never going to care about putting their higher quality titles on the system.  Again, Red Steel 2 & No More Heroes 2--very high reviews, shameful sales.  Had they been on the Xbox360 or PS3, no doubt they would've sold much better.  And I'm talking sales numbers, not percentages. 

The RE:Chronicles games certainly aren't perfect, but they're still fun games, and effort was put into them--and they deserve sales.  So does Dead Space Extraction, for that matter.

I'm not ripping on you or anything personally, but simply using your post to illustrate the elitist attitude that I believe is often found in Nintendo gamers (which I had back in the day, to be fair).  Look at my collection now--I've grown a little.

Well, all three systems have very valid reasons for lagging in third party support (cartridges/sales/power). If Nintendo's next console is roughly equal in power to Sony's/Microsoft's next it will have more or less the same third party support as those consoles. The PS2 days of exclusives are over as development costs have increased and shareholder returns decreased.

Third parties don't develop for Wii because it's expensive to downport and there's a bigger market for their blockbuster mature games on 360 PS3 PC.If they didn't had to alter their games to be on Wii 99% of multiplatform games would have been there as well. Companies don't hate Nintendo, they just don't want to put extra effort in to change their normal way of working.

Elistest attitude? Pot, meet the kettle.

I used to think that Mario Party games were "pure crap". To be honest in all the years I thought that I'm not sure if I'd spent more than a couple of minutes playing them. Then I met my wife; the only video games she will play are Mario Party games. So in the years since I have played many hours of them.

Party games still aren't really my thing, and I wouldn't ever play them without my wife or son. But calling Mario Party pure crap is absolute ignorance. They are very well thoughout and designed games. They are absoutely excellent at what they purport to do. People don't buy them because they are Nintendo, people buy them because nobody but Nintendo puts so much effort into party games.

This is the whole thing that so many 3rd parties don't understand about Wii owners; they aren't biased towards Nintendo games, they are biased towards games that are well made. And any company that puts out crap, be it a party game, a sports game, a rpg, a fps or anything else suffers.

That... Actually makes some sense...

Those developers just refused to even try porting their games to Wii and instead opted for the PSP/iPhone treatment.

Can't forget Street Fighter 4, BTW.

erm not an atom that's wrong in so many levels. that's for sure, maybe gpu will be better but even a core 7i barely gets to floating point performance of cell based cpus.

and windows games have a performance hit of using directx and a slow system OS running on the back.

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.

Floating point performance isn't everything. The i7 isn't designed to be a floating point monster because it is designed to run an operating system like Windows and perform well at general purpose tasks. So sure the Atom sucks at floating point, but then again the Cell processor would suck at running Windows by comparison. Beyond that, they can lean on the GPU which is specialised at floating point operations, even more so than the Cell is.

It mostly depends on graphics, and in innovation

I'm talking real-world performance, not theoretical performance. The PS3 and XBox 360 have demonstrated in game performance that puts them in line with the Athlon 64 X2 and low end Core 2 Duos, which the Intel Atom D525 is in the same (basic) range. Both the PS3 and XBox 360 have (potentially) more powerful CPUs than the Intel Atom, but probably not to the extent that some would believe; and anyone who believes that the Cell can compare to an i7 in real world performance has been drinking the Sony Kool-Aid.

edit: Just to make my point clearer ... Back in the mid/late 1990s there were DSPs that were able to decode an MP3 in less time than it took an Intel Pentium II processor to do the same process; and these DSPs sold for 5% the cost of the Pentium II processor. This (of course) did not make these processors faster than the Pentium II, they just made them better suited to the task of decoding an MP3.

The Cell processor is really well suited to certain tasks (in particular in scientific computing) but very rarely will a task line-up in such a way where the theoretical processing power of the Cell can be realized. As we’re approaching the 6 year mark of developers working with the Cell processor, and it still showing very little benefit over processors with a fraction of its theoretical processing power, it should be obvious that the Cell processor is a poor fit for most modern videogames.