That's funny because since I started here, I was always asking where the wii games were. IIRC Nintendo got one good mario game a year, and little else. If I were to agree with you on any level of your statement, it would be that Nintendo dropped because no quality mario game releases.

Nintendo NEVER supported the wii full force because doing that goes against maximum earnings. You don't release a 20m selling game every year. You sell it every three years, otherwise, you're both liable to sell less, and you have to pay more to develop. I think the 2011 was very much similar to the lineup every previous year. There was just no mario.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree. I see a 25% drop in sales, and 8% loss in market share starting from the time competition entered the same market. You see it differently, and I think that difference is minimal. No amount of argument is going to change this.

And I said nothing of the sort that the wii limits the developers ability. I said Nintendo limits their ability by making it risky to make games on the platform. They have BAD third party policy. They didn't inform anyone of the wii until soon before the launch, and they had their own strategy and played their cards in their own hands. They were never in the market for cooperation. Now, it's starting to look differently with this 3ds analog scenario.

They don't give devs the control they need, they don't help games that would help the system (like both other companies do), they are very restrictive about third party releases, manufacturing and price control. It's no wonder that devs praise MS and Sony for being open. Of course, Nintendo was powerful enough to demand those terms, whereas sony and MS couldn't. Had the situations been reversed, well, who knows.

I believe that it helps with 3D (not the popping out kind) games, where the second analog could be used for the camera. It also adds flexibility for developers with controls, as the second analog can be used for other things besides the camera (think something like a God of War-esque action game, where the second analog can be used for dodging).

When games with heavy camera involvement or shooting mechanics come out, the 2nd analog stick makes sense. If Nintendo stuck with the DS style games then they should have no problems, but since they are now trying to cater to games like RE or MGS, they need that 2nd analog stick.

oh man, this. I didnt even think about MGS, i was always wondering how the hell Konami might work there way around control issues for that game. Because Snake Eater, used every damn button on the PS2 controller. And both damn sticks. I guess we have our answer??

All I see is Nintendo down by 5m and 360 up by about 4 million, ps3 up about a million. Who increased those sales? New gamers? At a certain point you have to either concede that they got new gamers, or took some gamers. Because I've seen you say no to both.

And I'd counter by saying that your point was that Nintendo didn't give the market what they wanted with 2D gaming. They released more 2D gaming in 2011 than any other year. You're wrong about what is demanded. What is demanded is new experiences, to which I'd say Nintendo failed to provide, but where others, like Kinect, were able.

Wii is not sustained by 2D gaming. it is sustained by it's library in addition to unique experiences like Wii fit, and Wii sports, active games propelled the system to its heights. I'll put my point forward again that the only active games released in 2011 by Nintendo were quickly becoming stale sequels to wii sports.

Also, Nintendo basically never told developers about the control style, never informed them of who to target and who they themselves were targeting. Devs heard about the console and were like, wtf do we do with this? Meanwhile, Nintendo had been working for 2 years making their own games. It is an incredible obstacle when as opposed to normally, a dev is forced to think differently under pressure. It's not like a traditionally core system where you're like, OK this system is going to have these types of games, and we can start working on some things now and work towards tailoring it later. It was like, "Hey devs, surprise! Good luck with figuring out what games to make".

While I wouldn't say devs went balls to the wall and put all their resources into making quality wii games, I would ask you if you would. You have absolutely no experience making those types of games, the market is iffy on preference, and you'e done no research/had no time to do research. If that wasn't all, you have to compete with zelda and Nintendo, who have had 2-3 years of research, and you also have to deal with their retarded policies of production, pricing, and releasing.

You can't ignore the facts. Nintendo had a plan all drawn up. Wii Fit was planned from the get-go. They knew what direction they wanted to take the market, and left devs unable to keep up. Look at the core games that were released, madden, mortal kombat, even RE4 BARELY outsold the GC version, despite supposedly having brand new customers, and is what many consider the definitive version.

And yes, I know everyone put them in dead last, but then right away the console was successful, yet nobody made games for it. I know your answer is that all those games suck, but at some point you have to admit that nothing worked until ubisoft made a crappy dance game that sold millions. Your answer is that devs should have made quality games? Tell that to Ubisoft, who made more selling shitty games than anyone else.

Look at the goddamn charts. The top 20 are virtually 75% nintendo. Are you really going to argue that no other dev put out anything quality? Are you going to argue that because of earlier failures, casual consumers wrote off devs? I really don't know what you could possibly argue. Aside from the bundled games, it's mario kart, wii fit, mario, mario, super smash brothers, just dance. Even Guitar Hero sold more on the other systems than on the wii. How do you explain these occurences with your theory? The top selling non mario games are guitar hero, fitness games, just dance, and carnival games.

And again, I never said there was stringent quality control, so stop twisting my words. I said that Nintendo had bad third party policies and made it difficult to be successful on the wii.

Finally, just no. Previously to the wii, it was never Nintendo's fault why a game sold poorly. And it doesn't happen on the other systems. This is what one would typically refer to as, well, atypical, which means that something is wrong. And there was something wrong. Nintendo went out of it's way to compete unfairly, and the same games, the very same games that appeared on other consoles sold nothing in comparison to ps3 or 360. You will most likely still call them shit games, so then I guess your point is that 360 and ps3 owners have lower standards, am I right? because those same games sell much more.

Wii sold on fresh experiences. Nintendo knew this, and others didn't because N had the time to reasearch it.

In case you forgot, I have a wii, and all my favorite games are not made by Nintendo, and all sold poorly, and will always sell poorly because that market is interested in new experiences, which is not what devs were ready to get into. Sure they might have a unique concept for a game, and most of the games I like are just that, but unless it's active and healthy, and superficially mainstream, or targets some completely different audience (like just dance) then it's not going to sell. End of story. Your point about quality is only a fraction of the big picture, but it's a fraction you enjoy looking at.

Take for example the move. It works with a sizable number of quality games. Games the wii never got. Yet it barely sells. Why? Because it isn't fresh. What's beating it? Kinect's new experiences. Will 360 see fair profit in core kinect games? No. Why? Because the expanded market isn't interested. They want soemthing to help them learn a language, or help them exercise, or relax, etc..