Reality really is Wii-biased.

[Played_Out]

Time for a dissenting opinion then.

I am a PC gamer. I am not closed minded, and I do not own a PS360, yet I still find very little of interest with the Wii. I find the casual party games like Wii Sports and Wii Play, which comprise the largest part of the Wii library, to be extremely tedious and primitive. The more sophisticated games, like Nintendo's major first party franchises, may be good, but they are just not my thing. I haven't played Mario Galaxy, but have disliked pretty much every Mario game I have ever played (excluding Kart) and although I can appreciate that Zelda games are quality productions, it is clear that they are aimed primarily at a much younger audience, and I can't stand the way it feels like your hand is being held the whole time, and the inane dialogue is just insufferable (then again, I was a fan of FF7 so that alone is not enough to put me off). It is this obvious focus on young children as the primary market that has always turned me away from Nintendo (even when I was a young child - Sega FTW!)

I think the control scheme is little more than an interesting novelty and that most gamers will eventually tire of it and realise that a traditional gamepad is actually far more practical in most scenarios (although by that time, we may have 1:1 motion controls, which would be a lot more impressive). Waving your arms about to achieve something that could, in most cases, be achieved by pressing a button or using an analogue stick does not seem like progress to me, and I certainly don't find it a more immersive experience. Nintendo's stated intention with the wiimote/nunchuk was to create an input device that even a simpleton could master (they didn't use the word simpleton, obviously) but I prefer games that require a high level of coordination like Tekken or Tony Hawk's (back when it was still good).

I think it is good that Nintendo have split the market and offered more diversity, but I also think that on a comparative basis, the Wii is easily the worst console this generation. I certainly don't hate it, because it is just a piece of electronic equipment and it brings pleasure to a great number of people, but personally I still think it sucks.

So sue me.

On a related note, a PC is certainly much better for FPS and Strategy games and it easily has the most diverse library of games, but there are many genres that are preferable on a console, such as Fighting and Racing games (or pretty much any offline multiplayer). To say that the PS360 has only graphics to offer and is therefore inferior to a PC is unfair. I think PC gaming is better, but for the reasons I have already outlined. As soon as I feel there is enough console-oriented games to justify a purchase, I will pick up a PS3. I think MS are the only company trying to bridge the gap between PC and console, and that is the main reason I would not opt for an Xbox.

@ naznatips
In fairness, you can install linux on a console and perform most basic PC functions like word processing etc. Also, $700 is pretty much the bare minimum you could spend on a PC that will play most games, and 50fps is not nearly twice the framerate of most console games, as they are mostly locked at 60fps. And the multimedia functionality of a PS3 is obviously much better, not only due to the inclusion of Blu-Ray, but also the excellent audio output, DVD upscaling, and the superiority of the cell processor over desktop CPU's when it comes to streaming. You also don't have to build it yourself or deal with the numerous driver issues and other problems that plague Windows PCs. Trying to suggest you get more for your money with a PC, when the PS3 is still selling at a loss just seems a bit far fetched. Still, the suggestion that it costs $4000 for a gaming PC is even more far-fetched. Even in the UK you could probably get away with spending a quarter of that.