well i doubt it will continue but i think when assassins creed will launch for ds and pc it will pass smg again but then smg will win in the end

I wish you would be right about the bad lineup of the Wii, but it isn't true at all. Even taking into account that I don't want SMG, because I don't like Jump&Runs I have a must-buy-list: Zack&Wiki, Endless Ocean, Mario&Sonic@Olympia, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, Nights: Journey of Dreams. In short time other titles will be released: Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Fire Emblem (I'm in europe, it's not here yet), Okami Remake, Mario Kart Wii. But the games I already own eat up my budget: Metroid Prime 3:Corruption, Zelda:TP, Resident Evil 4 Wii, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Link's Crossbow Training and Eledees. All are fun.

Mostly off-topic but related: Anyone that thinks Assassin's Creed can be counted as one on two different consoles, should NOT complain about same-generation Pokémon games being counted as one on the same console. So that argument goes through the window /rantover

In this comparison, AC has an unfair advantage over SMG since they are both well acclaimed games, but one's on 2 consoles. Of course, the one on two consoles will win easily.

To be fair, sales of multiplatform games ought to be "normalized" in some way.

 How will reading the reviews on it give someone a more objective aspect on the games?  I dont need to read the reviews, ive played both games.  Hell, i just finished AC 2 days ago.  Reading reviews doesnt give someone an objective look at a game, just has you follow the opinions of others.  I rather make opinions for myself by playing a game before i come here and tell people whether or not their opinion is bullshit. 

And how will this stem whatever tide you talk about.  Also, since when did i say anything that has to do with "One is better then the other" and that related to which system they are on?  There isnt a single post that says anything to that sort, in fact, i think i tell which i feel are both there strengths and weaknesses.    

Your comparisons arent the same, as both Prey and Glaxay's rely on "interesting" gravity and physics systems to make the gameplay.  Thief can only be compared by time in history, and Hitman and AC are similar in the sense that you have to kill people.  Their commons aspects are not as vital to the main gameplay mechanic as Preys or Galaxys is.  Killing someone is AC is just the goal.  How you get there and do it, the open ended world attempt, and what you do on the way is what makes AC ambitious and new.   

Doesnt matter anywayz, what i said was purely my opinion.  Though i do got to admit, i love how someone automatically tells you should rethink your opinion and read what others think just because your opinion of a game doesnt fit their fanbase ideal of it being perfect.  I hate that people, with certain games, cant stand someone even suggesting its less then perfect.  

AHHHH!!! TEH INTERWEBZ ATE A LONG POST I MADE!!!!!sigh.

Anyways, here's a recap.

Galaxy = not a rehash. Galaxy also = not better with a Gamecube pad.

1. Gravity, foo! If the gravity doesn't save it from rehash status, only two platformers in history were not rehashes: the very first one, and the first 3D one. Obviously that's not fair.

2. Shaking Wiimote = good. Jumping is the primary action in a platformer, but a poor primary attack in 3D. Guns and targetting systems ignore platformers' twitchy roots. Shaking the remote to attack allows both attacking and jumping to be equally important primary actions within twitchy gameplay because they are performed so differently.

3. Pointer = good. New ways to interact with games are fun, even if secondary. Co-Star is made possible with pointer. Co-op with non-gamers = fun.

Due to these reasons, the public has clearly rejected the idea that Galaxy is a rehash. Wii's success alone cannot fully explain Galaxy's awesome sales.

So you're saying the game that has higher development costs, less sales, is third party multiplatform (porting costs are minimal when you compare it to the royalties that have to be paid per sale to Sony/MS, which are much higher than an exclusive title) somehow made more money?

Please explain, how did you come to this ridiculous viewpoint? There is absolutely no way that Ubisoft has made more money from AC than Nintendo has from SMG. You're right, when games have sold 5 million copies the development costs are insignificant, but considering Nintendo has sold more copies and makes a much bigger profit on each one, I don't quite understand where you're coming from.

This of course doesn't begin to take into account all the extra Wii sales and sales of other games that Nintendo would have benifited from with SMG. 

It will not continue that way because SMG gonna have great legs through the life cycle of the Wii.

It's not that simple...multiplatform games always get a significant boost, simply because two separate userbases are buying up the game....they simply sell more if you combine all the sales together.

Nobody compares COD4 on 360, PS3, PC, DS, PSP?'s combined sales to SMG's sales on the Wii...I don't get why AC on 2 consoles gets compared to SMG on one...because SMG is so big it should be winning?

It pretty amazing, I never expected Assassin's Creed to do this well. Good for Ubisoft. It really was a technically impressive game with the climbing, though I didn't play it too long.

I am pretty SMG may have longer legs though; not because I think it is better (which I do, but my opinion is irrelevant). SMG will stay up there longer because there are fewer "AAA" titles on Wii for the "hardcore". I don't mean this to knock either game or any platform.