Damn. So much for that deal, i guess. Or maybe it have'nt gon into effect yet, but then again november is just around the corner. Time to get worried? XD

Maybe!! I'm not sure what the deal entails. I do know that all big games and Xbox One and PS4 have had cardboard stands at the entrance of the shop, WiiU has never had anything :/

GTAV had one outside for over 18 months lol

Then you have nothing to say about my logic. You just find one of my examples to be invalid. Fair enough...although I disagree with the "zero impact" of Wii Sports. The game might have been made some people to by the Wii. Many or few? We will never know.

In my opinion (that you say no one else will agree with), "retro" means past. Thus, a retro game is a game that has 1 or several aspects similar to games from the past...which are different from the games from the present (otherwise is would make no sense to use the term). For example, graphics are 1 aspect of games that evolves along the time. If a game has graphics more similar to game from the past than games from the present, that game can be considered "retro". If it has physics more similar to game from the past than games from the present, that game can be considered "retro". The same with AI, dynamism, rules, sounds, menus, content, etc. A game like Wii Sports has several (if not all) of its aspects more similar to games from 5th or 6th gen than to games from 7th gen. On the other hand, since games have been always evolving very fast, games from previous gens generall seems mini-games when compared to games from current gen. For example, Wii Sports seems a mini-game when compared to FIFA 13. Of course there are exceptions, and that's why we can't put things as you were suggesting: retro games = mini-games. They are highly correlated but they are not the same thing.

As for the hardcore and casual, just forget it. They are even less correlated and I've already said I was not being straight on that paragraph (and I explained why).

You just gave 1 example and it was about a port. That means nothing. I assure you that if Killzone 2 was ported to X360 it would be worse than the PS3 version...and that doesn't mean PS3 is significantly more powerful than X360.

I see Gran Turismo 4 (PS2) holding graphics that no Game Cube game presents. How is that possible from a console "significantly inferior"?

Do you find any Wii game with better graphics than the best looking PS3 games? Of course not.

Final-Fan said: And the difference between the Genesis and SNES was really massive.  If you look at the system specs the difference is pretty obvious, and I actually did a detailed comparison in 2007 that I literally just spent an hour trying to track down to no avail .  Power difference between SNES and Genesis was at least as big as between Wii and PS3 IMO.

That's your opinion, not mine. Do you have any arguments to support yours?

That's why SNES wasn't demolished by any competitor. It has actually won the generation at that time. But you have to admit that N64 and its games weren't as evolved when compared to competition, regardless the innovations some brought. And Game Cube was even worse, once Nintendo brought even less innovations while caming late and with no significant power advantage. Sales speak for themselves.

When I speak about Nintendo being in the low-budget kindergarten niche, I'm not talking about the times of NES and SNES. You need to understand that.

First of all, I respect Nintendo for what it is capable of. I just don't like the greedy attitude they've adopted since the 5th generation. I'm not a hater. I love the videogaming industry. I like Sony and their PlayStations, I like Microsoft and their Xboxs, I like PC and I even like Valve and their Steam platform. I just dislike Nintendo's behavior...precisely because I love the videogaming industry. Nintendo was extremely relevant with NES, SNES and even some N64 games were remarkable and inspiring. But since then Nintendo has changed for the worse and I believe millions of people agree with me. PS1 and PS2 sales prove that. With Wii, Nintendo has revealed even greater greediness but it wasn't harmed in sales for 1 single reason: it brought more people to the videogaming market.

So, regarding your question, they didn't stop working. They've just stopped trying to deliver the best games (focus on gamers) to work only for the easy money (focus on themselves). You can see that in the games they develop, the kind of positioning they now adopt and the money they re-invest on the industry (in comparison to what they profit from it).

No, I'm not. I can remove Dreamcast from the "game" and still find examples where the logic "generation defined by time" doesn't make sense. And, yet, there's nothing wrong with the Dreamcast example: it came 2 years after N64 (the same 2 years it differs from PS2) and both lived until more or less the same time. Zeebo is another interesting example: it came 3 years after PS3 and Wii (4 years after X360) and the same 3 years before Wii U. Then it could be 7th gen as well as 8th gen...or it could be 8th gen and make the Wii U to be 9th gen. It turns into a hell of a logic when we see generations based on time. Tech provides a much more solid approach...and more useful too.

Just as absurd as seeing generations based on time. Absurd situations and consequently absurd logic is what you get. Either you stick to your own criteria no matter the example and you're able to show it's a good criteria to use or, if you find some examples to be absurd, you're just proving you're not using a good criteria.

Your questions are even more proofs of how your weak criteria is.

They can change it now. But since the Wii's production was already ceased in Japan and Europe, it wouldn't make much sense for them to continue to have plans for the Wii, would it?

You perfectly understood my comment (I think it's the first time) and, as you said, we can talk about 2 different expectations: then one Nintendo had in 2006 and the one they had in 2007 and for many years. Which one do you think it's more relevant to comment?

Regarding PS3 and X360, they've already overtaken Wii on software and PS3 has some chance to overtake it on hardware too.

No, kindergarten is about games with cartoonish graphics, basic gamplays and linear contents. For example, GTA is non-photorealistic but it's not kindergarten at all. Still, photo-realism is a good filter once I don't know about any photo-realistic game that is in the kindergarten niche (do you?). And that's why I was asking if Nintendo produces or has produced any photo-realistic game.

Physics is just one from many aspects to take into account. Mario Strikers could even have more sophisticated physics than MLB The Show (which I very much doubt) and still be on the kindergarten niche.

Yes. The RPG star coin gameplay, the energy circle system, the coins that fill the energy circle, the slow 3D environments, the camera behavior...every thing has been the same since Mario 64. The only difference are some secondary gameplay "innovations" like the  gravity gameplay in small planets from Mario Galaxy (copied from Sonic Adventure 2). The New Super Mario Bros games are as "innovative" as the 3D Marios. And that's not cute, it's sad. A company making so much easy money and, on top of that, having poeple applauding...

No. Mario is just a character.

Are you kidding me?! It doesn't make them worse, that's for sure.

Are you refering to ModNation Racers and Kinect Joyride? Yes, they sold nothing compared to Mario Kart Wii. There are several reasons that can explain that: Mario has reputation (a HUGE reputation) ; Mario Kart Wii came first ; Nintendo is far more experienced than Sony or Microsoft in the "easy money" attitude.

This is an example of a game that was thought for the PS3 and X360 and ported to the PS4 and XOne since Sony and Microsoft have surprised the industry with the announcement of the early releases of PS4 and XOne already for this year.

Go look at the differences between NFS Most Wanted (original) for the X360 and PS2 and you will take the same conclusion about the 6th and 7th generation.

Nintendo Tesco deal:

*Nintendo has booked extensive in-store space at Tesco, will send a five page leaflet to Tesco customers and give vouchers offering money-off games.

 *There will also be national press advertorials, major online activity, plus a huge out-of-home promotional tour aimed at reaching shoppers.

*Ads for all Nintendo franchises, which will run continuously from half-term to Christmas. Ads will be targeting kids and parents.

Well, they aint getting extensive space in store, that'd take away from Xbox One and PS4.

But half term has just started so that might be why I've seen nothing.

Your prior post had implied that third parties were all but nonexistent (third party not present "to any great degree").  I see what you're saying about PS3 and 360 gamers "not losing out" provided they don't care about Nintendo games, but it's a false dichotomy.  Just because I like Killzone or LittleBigPlanet doesn't mean I wouldn't like Gears of War or Banjo-Kazooie.  Same goes for PS3 and 360 owners and Nintendo games. 

Also, FF Crystal Chronicles games were on the Wii, just for a counterexample. 

Ugh you're convoluting things. My original point was all the decent third party games (like I said, vast majority) were on PS360 so they didn't miss out. Which is what matters more than which console sold the most (or should do).

1. What is your evidence for "vast majority of decent 3rd party games"?
2. What is the difference between a first-party game from another console being unavailable on your console versus a third-party game being unavailable on your console?

Metacritic, general concensus? What more do you need? It's common fact Wii didn't get any of the big blockbuster third party games. Do you really want a list? I'll be here all day.

You're just being silly now, I'm not continuing the discussion, I've proved my original point.