People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

Well, that was a redundant post .

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

Well, that was a redundant post .