You dont need to pay close attention or to look at gaming news to clearly see what a system might be capable of doing. If I look at a game from the WIi library and one from the PS360 library, without knowing anyting I can at least come to the conclusion that hey the PS360 is clearly capable of more than the Wii is.

As for PoP i was under that that game underperformed, period. IMHO anyone who was saying COD is comparble on Wii either really love the pointer controls and can deal with it running like crap or they are lying to themselves.

The problem with COD on Wii is even if it was "good" it still would be worst than the other versions, and thats exactly what has happened for the last few entries. The Wii simply cannot handle all that that game throws at it and you have things like screen tearing, texture pop in, MW3 had atrocious lag(they supposedly improved with a patch). Treyarch did the BEST they could do. And thats my point, no matter how well the Wii version would have been made it would still not do as well because the HD version would still be better (most of the time) just by the nature of those systems being THAT much more powerful than WIi and capable of more on all fronts. The irony is that COD on PS360 isnt even top of the line anymore its been running on the same engine as MW1, Bioshock, KZ, Halo, Borderlands, BF, hell id say even the lastest MoH blows it away visually IMHO. Now if WIi cant even run COD properly what hope did it have running some of the more taxing games.

COd on Wii isnt bad, its the best it can be.

I remember around the time Xenoblade came out in America that the Google search queries for "xenoblade ps3" went up quite a bit and I thought "Huh, I don't know what to make of this. Are people that stupid or misinformed? Or is it something else?". Also that recent (and hilarious, I think) Bayonetta 2 spat really shed the light on the idea of certain games and franchises must be on certain platform or else it's treason or automatically a bad business decision or the world will end or something. Basically what I mean is that sometimes platform doesn't matter. Xenoblade would've been amazing on a GameCube, Wii U, or any platform capable of realizing its vision. Yet I see people thinking as if it has to be available for a certain something in order to be, at the least, worth purchasing.

How does that relate to Xenoblade's sales? Not at all, really. Nor do I think Xenoblade is the shining example of everything the Wii can do. It's just more evidence that a great game can be developed for it. To answer the question, Xenoblade's sales tell me very little. It's as popular as Mother in Japan, supposedly, but sales don't reflect that. It's the highest-rated RPG to come out of Japan in a long time, but sales don't reflect that. I find that, in the grand scheme of things, sales paint no more than a vague picture. In Xenoblade's case, it's the picture of over 700,000 people across the world who have gained possession of a game I really like. It tells me that I'm not alone in my knowledge of the game's quality, even in the face of games I like significantly less sell 20 billion copies. What does all of this tell me about consumers? Every individual counts. If you're trying to make a point about how it would sell of the HD twins, don't bother. There's no point of comparision.

Now back to continuing from the first paragraph and tying it in with the topic. Some of the best Wii games are entirely possible on other consoles, but definitely not all. The willingness to market a unique, Wii-specific game stems from the assumption that consumers might like something different from the norm, as if the Wii is to be treated like a grounds for more experimental gameplay than a publisher would normally attempt with an established property. Marketing would have to revolve around the ideas implemented in the Wii version that aren't available in others (though the others would obviously have their own ideas relevant to the platform they are on). It's nothing more or less than doing what the Wii was originally intended to do - be a device where the best ideas, not graphics, succeed. Unfortunately somewhere down the line the experiment didn't go as originally envisioned. "What went wrong?" is the ultimate question.

The answer: A lot.

Can the situation be fixed?

The answer: Not without a time machiene.

What does this mean for the future of Nintendo and third-party support?

The answer: Hopefully, a better start (less mistakes) in the next generation.

I already explained this a few times in the thread, the curve was there to show the progression throughought, whether close to 50% or not, and at what point. More info never killed anyone.

If I show people that it's never hit 50%, or if I tell them as you prescribe, which is more effective in proving a point?