@guidic no Nintendo has not ruined anything for me, I have a PS3 and a WII and DS, I got everything but 360, I KNOW TEKKEN (I should have said Tatsunoko VS. Capcom, better example) is not for WII I was using it as an example simply stating that this new market would not automatically start playing the traditional games like that. Sure I can play Wii Sports with those people, but will they want to play anything else besides that. Nope!!! Thats all good, I guess that is what online is for. Mario Galaxy, just because a mechanic is introduced in Mario game for the first time, does not mean that some game has not arealdy beaten to the punch, so it is not original at all. another fine example is NSMBW, you have co-op now. WOW because no other platformer has ever had co-op. This was done in SONIC 2

I have never said Wii games are inferior, just shovelware

shovelware is not good, you know?

I know about NSMBW. Nothing is innovative in that title. It's a fun pick-and-play title but I don't agree with you on Galaxy - Many mechanics has never been used before.

What the hell are you talking about? The experience could be even better on the PS3. Online play, and downloadable content would make the game better.

That's what he said and I don't agree at all. Why would online play and DLC make the game better? Is that a fact?

I never said it would not work on PS3, killeryoshis said so. The experience of gaming would have been the same.

And it would not have sold 8,6 million, but 1 or 2.

fuck this shit. I bet there are more casual (or as the industry likes to call it retarded people) players in the ps3 and xbox with their own userbase. I can make shit up too, guess what my friends have on their ps3 and xbox360s. codmw, cod waw, and codmw2.

@guidic I know I've played a game with some kind of anti-gravity thing, but what the hell i'll probably play it more once im done with Red Steel 2. You could be right

Nintendo doesn't deserve it, in my opinion, because: #1, it's too damn expensive. Ok this is kind of a fact, not an opinion. Nintendo has made ALOT of money on this generation with software, and hardware sales, and yet they the console's price is ridiculous. I know it's naive to think that Sony/MS don't want the same as Nintendo - money, money, money and more money - but an Arcade costs less than a Wii! An XBOX360, costs less than a console that in terms of hardware, is between this generation and the last one.

#2, if we compare the PS3/360/Wii software by metacritics score, we have... 86 games on the 360 with a score superior to 85, on the PS3 76, and 32 on the Wii. I know I shouldn't use metacritic like this - we can't simply define which console has the best software by the amount of games with a score higher to an x value, that would bestupid. But I'm not trying to do that, I'm just pointing out the lack of good games on the Wii.

Conclusion: Software and Hardware have deep flaws.

About that sentence on the PS1 and PS2... yeh you can say that. But you have nothing to support your theory. PS1 revolutionized the gaming industry - Third Party support - and the PS2 was a console that was good for casual and hardcore gaming. It has 150 games with a score superior to 85, and over 320 to 80.

And casual isn't a myth lol It's just an expression often used to define a certain type of gaming and/or gamers. Most of Nintendo's games look... well, here's the reason why I often say casual - if I say childish, people will just rage against me because they will assume that I'm saying that the Wii is for kids. Let's be reasonable please, you can't possibly compare the complexity of a MGS plot with a Mario's "Your princess is in another castle" - not saying one is better than the other just because of the plot, in fact, I'm not even comparing them because I simply can't. But if you ask me which one I'd prefer to play, between Mario Galaxy or MGS, now that's a completely different question.

Listen, or better yet read, don't take this too seriously. You can't expect to have everyone by your side, congratulating Nintendo for its success, 'cause some people simply think that MS or Sony should be on the first place, for the reasons I've listed above.

Except PS3 has the handicap of no motion control and that wand contraption isn't out and I hear has some lag, Galaxy looks graphically fine and far better then any GC game the way it is and you want to know why Galaxy is one of the best games in history it's not the hardware it's the concept and execution, the logic you're employing is like saying GOW3 and so on would be a much better game on PC. I know many PS3 users on this site who argue about Crysis would be just as good on consoles then PCs. Galaxy is praised because it used the Gravity concept in manipulating the physic of gravity to solve platforming puzzles, PS3 would offer nothing new to this concept that isn't done on Wii already it would also play differently which would hit various missions and reduce their appeal as well.

As said before it would be no different on PS3 infact it probably would suffer more like NMH has with the removal of MC despite touched up graphics. More power doesn't mean a game would be better on that platform.

please spell my name properly. It's guiduc.

well I dont see how galaxy could've been better on the ps3 the game got nothin u can complain about

ps3 got ratchet and I dont see how the games are much better than the ps2 ones beside graphic and mario galaxy looks 10 times more beautifull

the only complain I got is the nunchuk
hate that sh**

@guidic my bad