Oh, well if Squilliam claims he finds analogue sticks as good as motion cotnrols for shooters then everyone must, including me *chucks Wii in the bin*

I hate to say it Squilliam, but (especially with regards to Move) no-one is thinking of having it do things that the Wii hasn't already done.

Move is being marketed and viewed by most Sony fans as an improvment on the Wii - with better graphics and 1:1 motion controls (also, before anyone reading this points out that Wii has 1:1, and has for a while, I'll point out that I am well aware of this, the Sony marketing team seems to be glossing over it however)

Even kinect doesn't really seem to be pushing  the angle of "we will provide core game experiences that the Wii can't/hasn't".

I suggest you learn to like motion controls for shooters, because next generation it will be impossible to play without them, either because the games won't support them, or because you'll just get constantly killed - your competition in multiplayer will have motion controls and the single player will have its difficulty tailored around someone playing with motion controls.

I think it's cuz those two are the newest motion controllers, we already know exactly what the Wii can do (functionality and sales) but those two are still unproven/unknown in that regard

you don't see anybody still talking about the "zomg capabities" of PS360, and comparing textures/pixels for both, it's not fun anymore >_<

Wii is far ahead. There is currently no competition with it at the moment. So, it is clear that MS and Sony are trying to overtake each other. 

But if sale of Wii falls in the next two years and 360 and PS3 sales rise, we will count all three.

I personally haven't seen much advantage in the Wiimote. Maybe I set it up wrong or something or maybe I have IR interference or maybe my TV size and viewing distance wasn't anticipated by Nintendo. In any case to me the Wiimote is just a less reliable mouse and if the next generation perfects the controller then I wouldn't mind it. However as it exists right now it is flawed and I can attest to the flaws because it doesn't work perfectly out of the box. However the current console controllers on the Xbox 360 and PS3 are certainly good enough. They do the job which is asked of them and they work on all the major genres you see on consoles today.

I never play online multiplayer, its too stressful for me.

The Wii is winning by 30 million, is it really necessary to put "but they'll never catch up to the Wii" after every comparison between the 360 and PS3?  Is there some reason you need to be reminded of how well the Wii is doing?

And as far as recently most articles not talking about the Wii that's a big part Nintendo's fault for not taking part in the press event that is currently dominating all the news. 

The Wii has already won, there is no question there in pretty much anyone's mind, tossing that in the article is as necessary as tossing in "but remember, the sky is blue"

Again, the leading sales argument applied even more to the PS2.

Plus the press participation smacks of the press wanting attention, which is still not being proper journalists. When the White House press corps jostles over the seating more than honest reporting, we don't give them a pass, so we aren't giving the media here a pass.

So what exactly do you want them to add into their articles?

"Wii hasn't had any new announcements because NIntendo doesn't participate in TGS and nothing has changed so we still expect it to be the market leader"

What if they just put an asterisk at the end of every sales comparison saying "As a remind even though we're looking at 360 and PS3 for this article the Wii has kicked the crap out of both and is expected to win the generation"