Oh I hear you, and I agree completely. FFXIII and ME2 are the prime examples of watered down RPG's, they are shedding a lot of in depth RPG elements in favor of near pure action elements, effectively taking a step away from the genre as a whole. I'm not saying that all RPG's should follow a set recipe (like most shooters do), that's shooting oneself in the foot if I ever saw it but molding something into an unrecognizable lump is a bad idea. I like variety in games, there's nothing worse than playing several games within one genre that feel the exact same, it gets boring fast but I wish that some things would remain somewhat holy and one of those things is the RPG. The whole point of an RPG is creating and guiding a persona with stats, items and a life filled with adventure and interaction so trying to make it more like God of War seems counterintuitive to me.

What if they started removing features and elements from racing simulators so you could only steer or control the brakes and throttle while the CPU did the rest? Wouldn't that make the entire game worthless in the end? Games are about interaction so removing that from the most interaction heavy genre seems entirely backwards. I fear we will never see another Baldur's Gate II (some say Dragon Age is such a game but I disagree) and that the RPG's of the future may very well revolve around staring at a screen while the CPU simulates battles and tells you the outcome via fancy, flashy effects and sounds and the occassional cutscene dividing the tedium every now and then.

The first post in this thread would be more accurately described as "nonsense with nonsense logic" than a valid opinion. In particular, the claim that Nintendo has not made any excellent games should be considered trolling and warrants lots of teasing of the thread creator and his spelling.

Spelling is important, but without grammar and punctuation it is not enough. I fixed your previous post and have put the changes in bold for you. Between CommonMan and I, the internet should remain a good place for children to learn how to communicate properly.

in HIS opinnion, nintedo never made any excellent games this gen, you dont have to agree with you, but you cant insult him and call his opinnion a nonsense.

also,you can keep fixing my grammar but i wont change my writing type. as long as people can understrand what i mean, there is no need for me to fix anything.

Again cliffhanger logic your point holds no ground and never will as the only improvement you can come up with is better looking games, your logic is again flawed here as the time between SMW and SMB is a whole gen so obviously the designers said we have ideas that can't be done on current hardware very much referencing Reggie's comment I brought up earlier and to kill off this part further look at the progression between SMB and SMB3 and this was on the same hardware not to mention SMB3 is the template that SMW is built on, by your logic it's like saying look at RE4 and then look at RE1 on PS1 and try and used it as a focal point to say why PS1 should of been more powerful. You're now comparing whole different gens with each other to try and prove your point rather then your initial stance that the Wii should of been as powerful as the PS3 to improve Galaxy as you can't think of any solid improvements a predictable move, different gens have loads of time between them for new ideas to form as R&D is constantly going on what the subject here is Nintendo's current venture not what they'll be doing next gen in this what if argument you're trying to push.

Nintendo's progression is based more on their creative path, they look at their ideas first then they fit the hardware around these ideas something you and various others don't seem to understand, they don't just bang out a console and then start developing for it their approach is set in stone long before the new gen. Why do you think Galaxy is one of the best looking games this gen let alone on the Wii and was out with in the first year, why do you think it's one of the best games in history as well as platform and will be remebered for years on end long after the likes of Gears and God of Wars, games like those don't just take months to throw together on a console both the hardware and software ideas were in sync and built from the ground up for each other that's how Nintendo have always operated. While everyone was thinking of more power they were thinking of MC so all this talk about if the Wii was as powerful as the PS3 is mute as the Wii is as powerful as Nintendo needed it to be as Nintendo already had their goals set.

You almost seem to finally get what I'm saying, although saying my logic is wrong is incorrect; it's your logic that's off.  You keep praising Nintendo's creativity like I'm disputing that, or their decision to go with Wii tech vs PS3 tech; I'm not.

Take your Resident Evil example.  The focal point of a system shouldn't be the graphics; but what you're saying is that RE on PS2 should limit itself graphically to what RE on PS1 offered.  That's where I'm pointing out you're wrong, just as I did when you originally said Mario couldn't look better on PS3.

I am enough of a realist to admit that, while I love the Wii, it is about a generation behind 360/PS3 as far as technical power goes.  So comparing two generations to each other in the case of Mario on PS3 is accurate.

I would never exchange Mario's gameplay and fun for better graphics.  Not to mention that Galaxy looks fine as is.  And it's true that not all of Nintendo's games push even Wii's graphical capabilities; look at Wii Sports/Play/Fit, NSMB, etc.  But when Nintendo has more power to work with in the future, their 3D Marios and Zeldas will look better than they do on Wii.  They will not base their next system on only looking better, but if it is indeed capable of looking better, Nintendo will take advantage of it.  Again you're wrong with your "cliffhanger logic" rant.  Just look at history, pal.  Marios and Zeldas have always been among the best looking games on their systems and Galaxy is no exception.  And when they have a system as powerful as PS3, said games will take advantage of that hardware as well.

Trying to backpeddle now, firstly point to where I said RE on PS2 should be like PS1, smoke and mirrors on your part or you simply can't grasp where you've gone wrong in this thread, you and a bunch of HD fans have come out and said Galaxy would of been better on a system like the PS3 if you contest to not supporting this then you should read the replies in a thread before jumping in. We're not talking about in the future when Nintendo releases a more powerful system we're talking about the beginning of this gen, you and your mob have so far come up with nothing, nadda, squat to say how Galaxy would of been better if the Wii was as powerful as the PS3 apart from better graphics so all in all it qualifys as cliffhanger logic no two ways about you've provided bugger all but an argument consisting of imagine what they can do while quoting different gen. The NES, SNES weren't even the most powerful hardware available at their releases they were behind in tech when put against the gaming computers like commodore and such so your Wii being behind PS3 argument to justify comparing different gens is weak and doesn't hold no ground as it just shows each company had different aims of getting their goal achieved, this further proves how out of touch you are in your argument.

Tube shot your stance down even further by pointing out NSMBW and such and how Nintendo's aim is not neccessarily pushing hardware, f**k your history shit because it's a weak attempt at saving your sinking ship as we're not talking about different gens, it's not a case of people not admitting more power can help it's a case of you and your mob not admitting that more power doesn't mean a better game, we know Galaxy is good mainly because of the creative input. Nintendo used good art direction with serviceable graphics, you're banging on about hardware and taking advantage of it when it's clear Nintendo are more concerned taking full advantage of their creativity instead, for all we know Galaxy may not have even been in HD and still the same on a powerful system and it's this you do not understand as clearly as Tube pointed out they seem more concerned in their creative goal then maxing out hardware.

They clearly feel they have all they need, I couldn't give two f**ks if it's not as powerful as the 360/PS3 as those consoles are gens behind mine and many other PCs available yet the same mob here would fight to the death against PC gamers would claim consoles hold their games back. You're not a realist in this sense just a dreamer much like some others here, dreaming of a HD Nintendo console when the company themselves sees increasing power as not the way forward, it's time to wake up, PS3/360 are HD because it's their path for this gen Wii went MC for Nintendo's path.