Yeah, I know you Wii guys don't care much for the opinions of the reviewers because they don't conform to your opinions about certain pieces of Wii software; however, those reviewers got their jobs for a reason so they must be qualified to do what they do and their opinions turned out to be pretty good in previous gens.

Tales of Symphonia wasn't on the PS2 in America.

HIGH FIVE!

Most big games last gen weren't multiplatform.  That's the real change this gen.

It's not about conforming to my opinion, it's about reflecting public opinion.  The industry press doesn't anymore, they focus on the dwindling hardcore niche.  Can you imagine if were the same in other entertainment industries (film, music, etc)?  They're a relic, and and some point the industry as a whole will pass by those that can't adapt...

Tales of Symphonia wasn't an exclusive.  Unlike Tales of Graces.

I agree with what you say here about reviewers.  To make a comparison many game reviewers today are rating games that are like the movie let's say "The Incredibles" as if they were games like the movie "Lord of the Rings"  They obviously don't have the same target audience, the elements of the movies that are important are different, and what may be taboo in one genre may not be in another (imagine a shallow cliche storyline in an action/adventure movie like Lotr or using cel-shaded graphics for the next world war 2 epic)  That being said there is indeed a lot of shovelware on the wii, but many reviewers are even hating on games that are pretty great, just because they're not the next Mass Effect.

It would only be a big deal if it had taken these nongamers and had them picking up the core games on Wii in the same amount that they pick up these fitness products that they were interested in. But, as we see, these people don't pick up Muramasa, No More Heroes, or even the original Mario Galaxy in the same numbers that they do Wii Fit. That was supposed to be the original goal of the Wii to take non gamers and turn them into core gamers but it hasn't happened.

And there hasn't been a real profound change in gaming. Halo, God of War, Gears of War, they all sell as they did in previous gens. Heck, Allen Wake may be only getting an 8.5 at Metacritic but it's still likely to sell its 3 million copies even if it only manages a million that's still more than any horror game on Wii by quite a bit.

Tales of Symphonia was exclusive to the Gamecube in America. If it wasn't name one US store selling the English language PS2 version.

lol.  Open your eyes, if Nintendo hadn't fundamentally changed things we wouldn't see Microsoft and Sony scrambling to graft on their own similar solutions.  Natal and Move are basically an admission that Nintendo (not them) was on the right path all along.

Wii wasn't marketed as "cheaper", in fact it's the most expensive home console Nintendo's ever released.  Up until last October it was even more expensive that the cheapest 360, now they're the same price.  And if the audience is really made up fitness oriented non-gamers, why is the tie ratio almost 9 (on par with PS3)?  Why is Mario Kart Wii the best selling racer in history (with 10m above most Gran Turismos)?  Why is basically every "core" Nintendo series doing better this gen (Zelda, Mario, Smash, etc)?  Nintendo actually has turned all these new gamers into 'core' gamers, and they're dedicated to (chiefly) their own games.

Gaming always changes.  It fundamentally changed with NES.  It fundamentally changed with PlayStation.  And now it's fundamentally changed again with Wii.  You shouldn't fear change...

The whole reason why the Wii is a Nintendo Gamecube *2 is because Nintendo were being conservative with the hardware. They were taking a risk on the interface so they needed a system which was easy and straightforward to develop/prototype new game ideas for and wouldn't break the bank in terms of development/hardware costs that could be sold for $200. The next generation Nintendo console isn't taking a risk on the interface anymore so theres no reason to be as conservative on the hardware and now they have many new game ideas they don't have to worry as much about a more expensive system to develop on as they have far less need to prototype risky game ideas.

I don't see any reason why they would delay a next generation console if the need arose. However noone can really say what their priorities truely are in the console space except perhaps that they would want their next generation Wii to encompass a larger proportion of the overall market and if they need more performance to do so then so-be-it. Given modern architectures they could easily make a system which is powerful by todays standards within the heat/packaging restrictions of a console around the same size as the current Wii.

The performance benchmarks aren't being set at what a dedicated desktop PC is capable of anymore. The real benchmark is the semi-capable laptop architecture as laptops are far outstripping the desktop machines in terms of user adoption and their performance just needs to be relevant compared to $600 Laptop computers with dedicated graphics. The next generation Wii will probably be powered by AMD second and third bin laptop Fusion chips which for whatever reason cannot meet the TDP or clock requirement for installation in Laptops.

Whats clear to me is that one thing Nintendo has to do is stop bucking the entire ecosystems paradigms entirely. This means that multiplatform games need to be portable to their system both from the current DX9 dynamic duo and the future DX12 Speed demons in order to have a well balanced library and thus a well balanced ecosystem. Having a more powerful console released sooner is not about the expanded market opportunities, its more about ensuring that the core markets Sony/Microsoft hold aren't closed off to them entirely as both Sony/Microsoft entrench their positions with their respective userbases whilst leaving Nintendo little hold over their own expanded market.

Pachter needs to an account here.

He'd be a fantastic troll.

It was NOT because of the interface that the specs were not up to the other systems. They wouldn't have made the system that powerful no matter what. So this "ecosystem" (as though a buch of technology is natural) is just trying to still pretend that Nintendo needs to catch up to the other guys.

Even if that isn't what you intended, you are still implying that. Nintendo is the leader. Their mistake wasn't the specs. The third parties made the mistake of thinking the specs made the games.

It is funny that he is calling the Wii successor not coming out a delay. It's as if his prediction was set in stone, and Nintendo was following his shitty predictions in lockstep until now.