Hi guys, as is the nature of things in the gaming world, there will always be people who complain not because they are actually interested in the solution, but because they simply want to complain to put the console/maker down.

Lately, the issues have ranged from everything from no ethernet port to no core games.

So, I propose a thread where we can go over these things and look for the best ways to dispel them. The idea of the thread is to be as resourceful as possible, and actually look for valid counterpoints and answers, rather than reactionary opinions.

The first topic I want to address is the concern that the Wii did not have as much core content as the Cube or the N64. Is this a valid concern, and what are the arguments for or against this?

What kind of content would a person saying that be asking for, and how does that compare with the cube or N64?

Nintendo doesn't make new ips..

Countered with http://nintendoenthusiast.com/updated-75-new-nintendo-ips-since-year-2000/

Somehow I don't think the people who make those threads are going to bother to read this one first.

Wii had a great line-up of games, imo but I understand the comparison to GC as even I myself have ended up going back to buy GC games like Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Splinter-Cell, Beyond Good and Evil and Gun because those types of games are sparce or non-existant on Wii itself.

Edited your title to be a little less inflammatory - some people do see those complaints as legitimate; they're not all trolls.

I think there are 2 metrics we can use here:

1. In comparison to respective rivals/in the context of each gen (however you wish to phrase it) - The Wii's amount of core content is slightly above abysmal thanks to excellent first party, compared to it's competitors. How did the Cube and the N64's library of core games compare to their respective competitors?
2. Directly in comparison to each other.

Which one is better? Should we use both?

I do agree the Wii didn't have as much to offer like the N64 or GC, but there are still a ton of games that are truly amazing. Just because it didn't have many really good third party games doesn't mean the system sucks or that there aren't any good experiences. 

In fact neither the N64 and GC had like a ton of third party support, but a lot of people love those systems. So what's the difference? It's funny to see gamers saying the N64 or the GC were there favorite consoles and hate the Wii when those 2 were amazing mostly because of first party games (just like the Wii). I think most gamers were blinded by the Wii because it had motion controls, which people consider a "kids" way to play.

I'm not sure! But that is an excellent question.

Hmm, if we were to compare in relativity to the rivals, is that a fair comparison? For example, should the performance of one maker be judged based on the fluctuating performance of another?

It could be argued that as a console maker, the content must be competitive with the rival makers. If one raises the bar and the other doesn't keep up, that could be a legitimate concern.

In threads that contain a non-constructive criticism attitude, but a legitimate complaint, this could be a good question to ask off the bat, to see where the goalposts are.

That brings us to another interesting point, how important are goal-posts in these contexts, and how important is it to focus on the goal-posts?

Your question highlights exactly that and that's why I like it.

From nintendo it got as much core content as the others. It just took a while to show up. Its really third party support where wii suffered.

Aw I thought that the thread title implied we would track down all WiiU haters, literally go to their house, and beat the crap out of them.

Jay and Silent Bob style :D

Like Invisible Obama. There's also an invisible Nintendo.