| jarrod said: Speaking of assumptions... I addressed this before, but you're mistaking "quality" for what's "better". Quality can certainly be a component in determining worth, but quality is inherently subjective, market performance isn't, and I'm speaking exclusively to the latter. I'd also argue games don't get any more "traditional" than Nintendo this generation. Deconstructed, the design of Wii Sports or Wii Play is about as gamey as you get, they're basically like mid-1980s NES games at their core. Something like Halo, God of War or even Mario Galaxy is hugely abstracted and further complicated by comparison, and thus further from "traditional", even if they use mainly decades old interfaces. The secret to Wii's success is in accessibility, but that's due just as much to software design as it is interface, and for as many people as it's brought into gaming, lapsed gamers likely account for just as many as legitimately new gamers. |
"Better" has absolutely no link to market sales, that is where you are going completely wrong. Sales are sales and mean nothing about a game being good or not. If that is the case, then you think that the Micra is a better car than a Bently because of sales. That is ludicrous.
"Traditional" i.e. least innovative. Yes the Wii has been wildly successful because it is accessible, but to an entirely different market than the other two consoles, and for different reasons to the same audience that may buy a wii or an iphone. The wii is an easy christmas present for the kids, whereas the iphone and Mac products are fashionable accesories for anyone, not just the kids, a bored wife or nostalgic gamers.
Nintendo seeing Apple as the enemy is like Microsoft seeing AMD as the enemy. Same basic market, but two completely different products aimed at the same people but for totally different reasons.
