Plus 1

I see Qays is yet another person brainwashed by the industry into believing that the Wii only sells because of its shallow "casual" games.

Wii sells because it brings gaming back to its roots, which are arcade style games with the extra BS like cutscenes, endless dialogue, and other movie features cut away. These style of games, like 2D Mario, are the games that are accessible to the most people. This is why Wii sells.

Take a look into a Gameworks or some other arcade next time you go to one. What kind of people do you generally see? It is not mostly male nerds 18-25, but rather people off all ages, both male and female. THIS is the key audience the Wii si selling to, IN ADDITION to new audiences like Wii Fit. Saying casual games is the reason for its success just shows you are not able or willing to understand the reality of what appeals to the mass market.

Most people want games that jump right into action, offer the freedom to do what you want with minimal linearity, and fast paced action. Wii offers this moreso than the HD consoles, which is why it is more successful. Most people don't WANT to play games that are trying to be movies. They want fun, and they want it NOW. Mario Kart Wii is the perfect example of a game like this, which is why it currently is one of the most successful games of all time. Same with NSMB Wii, Smash Bros, and even aspects of Wii Sports and Wii Play.

These are the TRUE games of quality in the eyes of most people. That is why I gotta laugh when people like Qays rant about" Wii gamers DON'T BUY QUALITY!!1" Well then how would YOU define quality? And what if MY definition of quality differs from yours? Who is right? There is no God of Quality out there who judges what he deems quality. The only TRUE definite way to measure quality is sales, because it shows the games are appealing to the most people. Wii accomplishes this.

Man I apparently missed this thread yesterday I'll read up when I've got the time, some of the debates are simply hilarious.  Though some of it sounds like parroting the "hardcore" view that has been pandered by trolls, game sites, and just people too friendly to one company or another since 2007, that's just gotten old.

Game enthusiasts  typically just see Wii as a different form of game entertainment rather some plague on the game industry, the people I've met that actually do say things like that in real life are obviously in one companies camps and don't even give other consoles the time of day so why does their opinion matter? They're obviously not the masses and they aren't game fans they're fans of companies, so it's hard to get a good opinion of one system vs another from them.

Anyway will be back to read up later

Don't know why people are expecting the 3DS to keep the handheld crown again for another generation when no one knows the competition it's rather ridiculous if I do say so myself. That's like in early 2005 some people can say the X360 is going to be the console leader because it's got good graphics and Live, and yet they know nothing about the PS3 or Wii yet, see makes no sense. Wait and see what Sony's offering first and then we'll judge.

The PSP was Sony's first handheld, they learn a lot from it and what to improve to make it better, the PSP2 is only going to be that much better, and now that Sony knows what there competition is they can do whatever they want to make it that much better then the 3DS. 

The Playstation brand is still defined through it's big games, Sony has the most first party studios then any other gaming company and they constantly pump out AAA games, Playstation is still known to have the best games, just not as much as they use to (third party games). Microsoft is moving in a different direction the Sony and Nintendo anyway with Kinect, (here's another anything can happen line) hell next gen it could be Nintendo and Microsoft competing and Sony in a different group all together or Sony and Nintendo competing and Microsoft being in a different audience. You never know :)

@HappySqurriel, You don't know that, maybe people were actually buying the Wii for the Motion control instead of price, no one knows that so you can't assume price is the main decider for the market leader (but it sometimes is).

First of all,  I really don't count handhelds in a console game discussion.  The ownership type doesn't necessarily cross paths and the things required to win a handheld war is not the same as a console war.  Nintendo has a good formula for handhelds (And their general strategy works very well in the handheld space).

When you move into the console realm, prior to the Wii.  They've had two successful consoles (NES/SNES).  Two failure consoles (N64/GC).  Very much 50/50 proposition.

As to your points defining what Nintendo is :

1.) Fair enough.

2.) How do you define this? Any good business plan is to try and reach AS MANY people as humanly possible. You don't think Sony / Microsoft want to expand their active pool?  You always want to expand your audience.  Always.   As for fighting over an existing pool of gamers?  Why then did Nintendo drop the price and come out with other colors?  Why put the effort in?   Make no mistake about it, Nintendo is fighting over the existing pool of customers just as much as Sony and Microsoft.  Just because they went in a different, more financially frugile direction doesn't mean they aren't.

3.)  I would say that the inclusion of the "Mii" in almost every one of these types of games as well as the fictional design of these sports titles covers both bases of fictional and including mascot characters.  It may not be another 'Mario _____'  game but it surely is another version of the same song.

4.)  First of all,  Cutscenes really didn't even gain prominence in any way (Nor were truly possible) until the PS1/N64 eras.  So while the NES may not have done it....It was probably more out of a lack of technology rather than 'desire'. Secondly, Nintendo did focus on this during the N64 era especially.  Games like Mario 64/Zelda/Mario Kart/Diddy Kong Racing/Goldeneye/Donkey Kong/Banjo/Ken Griffey Baseball/ Etc.    The N64 had pound for pound just as many 'Nintendo' titles as the Wii does if not more.  The N64 just lost the price/hype battle, IMO. Something the Wii clearly dominated Sony and MS this generation. 

5.)  Again this has to be considered more the exception....Not the rule in regards to Nintendo.  Was SNES a trend setter?  Did they do something other than an iterative improvement?  How about N64?  Gamecube?  I mean Nintendo has actually been more of a follower/non-trend setter more than they HAVE been given this context.

6.)  I love me a good 2D Mario game as much as anybody.  Big fan of platformers, 2D Shooters, Etc.  But they disappeared for a spell because people grew tired of them and 3D was the new in thing.  Now we're starting to see more of a retro-reaction.   Which should give us a broader selection of choices.   However, the NSMB was not the reason the Wii was a critical success.  It was a critical success long before it's release.  It's more of a chicken versus the egg.  Is NSMB the reason Nintendo has been successful this time?  Or is the Wii's success this time really aided the success of NSMB.  I personally, believe the latter.

As for what is "Not" Nintendo.

1.)  You really believe Nintendo isn't fighting primarily over existing gamers?  Why lower prices?  Why make additional colors?  Why engage in some PR words disregarding the competition?  Business is business.  Don't mistake the fact that Nintendo is trying to grow the overall 'gaming' crowd.  So is MS/Sony (Albeit in different directions).  Nintendo is also trying to take as much of MS/Sony crowd as possible.

2.) Not true. I distinctly remember Wayne Gretzkey Hockey for N64 and Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball. Again this is a chicken or egg type argument.  I would say that many of these titles we see on the Wii, are a result of the Wii being a success not because Nintendo was Nintendo.  Let's face it, the Wii received horrible support from third parties while being the overwhelming market leader,  how good of support do you think it would have received if it were sitting in third place? Again, you might have a point if  Nintendo didn't push out almost nothing but mascot games (Even this generation).  Almost every Nintendo sports game is a Mario game.  Just look at the software list. 

3.)  But as you just said, several Wii games included this. (Super Mario Galaxy for one).  Yet the Wii was a success at around 15 million consoles by the time Galaxy had released.  So it really wasn't Nintendo being Nintendo that caused this.  It was some other factor. 

IMHO, Unique-ness/Significant price difference (Which opens doors to trying unique-ness)/Hype were what sold the Wii initially.  Not anything to do with Nintendo being themselves. 

Noone knows the competition? Its kind of obvious really as you've got in order of current market power:

1. Nintendo. (3DS)
2. Apple. (iTouch, iPhone, iPad)
3. Sony. (PSP2??)
4. Google. (Android)
5. Microsft/Nokia (Win Mobile 7 or Symbian)

You know the PS3 was Sony's third console, the N64 was Nintendos third console and the Saturn was Segas third console. Just because a company is learning and evolving doesn't assure them market position or power. Even if the PSP2 is better than the PSP it doesn't mean that its going to be better relative to the competition of the time.

If the Playstation brand is defined by the big third party games which Nintendo now has, and the critically acclaimed Sony first party games how can they compete with the critically hated Nintendo games if said Nintendo games sell in the multiples of 5M just as often as a Sony title crosses 2M? How many new 10M selling franchises has Sony made since the PS1? 0. How many 5M selling new I.P franchises has Sony made since the PS1? I think 0 as well. How many 10M selling franchises does Sony have? 1. How does Sony as a publisher compete with Nintendo when 34 of the top 50 best selling titles are Nintendo published?

There are many good reasons why the PSP2 probably can't compete with the 3DS. Sure anything could happen, but the betting folk will still say Nintendo 99/100 because.

1. 3DS is first to market with all the momentum of a system winning console and all the hype.
2. 3DS has all the major third party support.
3. 3DS is supported by Nintendo, the most prolific creater of system selling software in existance.

Only way Sony has a chance: numbers 3 and 4 are the same. Android needs a flagship, and a PSP2phone family of devices is perfectly situated to be just that.

Obviously I don't know what Sony has up there sleeve so I can't answer how they'll beat the 3DS but saying the 3DS is going to automatically win next gen is stupid, Sony has just as much a chance. When the PSOne came out no one expected it to be as big a hit as it was, yet out of nowhere Sony comes out with a video game console and completely dominated Nintendo for over 12 years. They can easily get back on the top just like Nintendo did this gen.

The only reason why the Wii has such high sellers compared to the PS3 is because it's double the user base of the PS3 so obviously there big games would have such high sales compared to PS3's big games, and Nintendo Fanboys go nuts over Mario games. From what we've seen this generation Sony is doing just fine with there First party games, a lot of 3 million sellers is good enough they still make tons of money off sales of 3 million. Also Nintendo has pretty well no third party support for the Wii and they seems to be doing fine so why does Sony need it so bad?  exclusive third party games isn't what makes a video game console the leader.

Like I already said next gen could be completely different and Sony and Microsoft could not be in direct competition like this gen, why would history repeat itself next gen. Sony said themselves that Nintendo and Microsoft are more then likely going to come out with a next gen console before them, so they'll have plenty of time to come up with a product to take back the crown, who knows what they'll come up that the world will go nuts over, obviously there not going to do what they did this gen and they'll likely go back to there roots and come out with something interesting and affordable.

Correct if im wrong but hasnt Nintendos  games  always sold more than Sonys.

People always talk about past records being a major driver for peoples further purchases. I think its nothing more than 50/50 and could be alot less. I was an avid Nintendo kid. I still think NES/SNES is the best gaming ive ever had. Yet I knew right away that N64 was not good, I could feel it in my bones and thus waited until GC days to even buy it.

Nintendo could easily make a dud. It doesn't really matter that the 3DS is the successor to the best selling handheld ever. If its cost is too high and it doesn't have the same compelling games as the DS or if SONY does it right and has the same price point with the same games as well as the games nintendo doesn't do, it could one up the 3DS.

People didn't buy the Wii for its motion controls, rather they bought the Wii for the games that were made possible by motion controls. I think this is an important distinction because as far as im concerned the 3DS is completely missing this lesson.