Also, I have to say I wish we could dispel the notion of "casual gamer" as a second-rate human being. The fact that they don't spend hours dwelling on forums discussing how Earthbound may or not be the pinnacle achievement of gaming or salivating over a batch of 15 new screenshots being released for Call of Duty 7 doesn't mean that they are unable to discern whether a game is of high quality or not, as if we elite gamers possess some uniquely inherent ability to sort the shoddy from the superb. My girlfriend, who is taking baby steps into the world of gaming, can tell that Super Mario 64 is of a higher quality than Sonic Adventure 2: Battle just from observing my brothers and I play the two, though she may not be able to use the particular vocabulary that we enthusiasts have developed over the years to explain why that is.
"Casual gamers" are not mindless drones who mindlessly who consume poorly constructed titles without objection or evaluation, they are just lacking in the tools and resources we have developed to pick out the diamonds among the rough due to their inexperience.
That said, we also have to consider that perhaps these new gamers understand the faults and flaws of these games in terms of quality but derive enjoyment from these poorly constructed titles in other ways? A good example of this would be licensed titles. Most would agree that the majority of licensed titles that are based on movies are second-rate at best, as even the LEGO games could hardly be considered the paragon of game design. Despite this, many consumers are able to bask in the interactive participation in these worlds which fascinate them despite the title's numerous blemishes.
I suppose my argument is that any game that has any pretentions of truly sustaining or intensifying the Wii's momentum needs to marry this fascination with the world being explored to well-crafted game mechanics and design that appeal to everyone and do not prevent someone from finding enjoyment in it.
