Smash_Brother said: Legend11 said:  The game scores will be taken from Game Rankings.  This is VGCHARTS, not VGREVIEWS.

Sounds to me like some people are afraid to have a real contest.

Xiru said: Cleveland124 You sir are not even close to hardcore if you think the Wii will "quench" your thirst for gaming. Here is your quote: "And I think if the PS3 was $150 now, it would probably be worth it and I'd buy it. But.. it's not. And by the time it is, the Wii may have completed quenched my thirst for gaming" I don't normally call people out like this as its rude, but this is the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time. I just wish I could brainwash myself like you did, to enjoy the Wii. All it does is collect dust until Smash is out. PS3 is worth the price its at right now. I suggest anyone who is truly hardcore to get it, not posers.

 y can't the wii "quench" ur thirst for gaming? It has more games rated 9.0 or higher than PS3!!!!! and with more good titles to come (SSBB, MK, etc), the Wii can surely quench most ppl's thirst for games (unless they are a Halo fan)

Devilstation said: @Rath 2.19+2.05+1.23+1.08=4.55???? LOL that's not what i make it. If you call Mario and Sonic A 3rd party that's fine, but Wii still has double the user base, so it should be selling double the software. Without Mario and Sonic PS3 has higher 3rd party software sales.

 Hah woops, bad maths there. Still, same point stands as the Wii number is still significantly higher than the PS3 number.

Anyway I wasn't making an attack on the PS3 attach ratio which undoubtably is higher than the Wii attach ratio if you don't count first party but rather the misconception that third party sells far better on the PS3 than on the Wii. It doesn't.

Oh and M&S is completely third party, its entirely developed by Sega which is completely seperate to Nintendo.

Legend11 said: Smash_Brother said: Legend11 said:  The game scores will be taken from Game Rankings.  This is VGCHARTS, not VGREVIEWS.    Sounds to me like some people are afraid to have a real contest.

 The real contest as defined by you perhaps. Critical review does not detemine the value of a game. The sales of a game are actually far more important in that respect. Wii Sports and Mario & Sonic both got mediocre reviews but are insanely popular which proves how well made they are. If a game sells well then it must be made well. That is a simple and universal truth. The better game will not always get the higher review score though sadly.

CrazzyMan said: Untill ps3 priceut, it`s pretty pointless thread. =) Wii is the cheapest console. CHEAP things usually sell better.

Everytime you say that a GameCube explodes.

I have a Wii, Ds & 360 and bet you could guess which one of the 3 doesn't quench my thirst for gaming (hint it's not the same manufacturer as the other 2).

The Wii has a fantastic library of games for a console just finished it's first year where 90% of the gaming industry wrote it off. Red Steel, Zelda TP, SMG, MP3, RE4, REUC, Korinpa, Mario Strikers Charged, Excite Trucks, Mario and Sonic and Zak and Wiki were just some of the best games i've played in a long time. It's only now when i'm beginning to have too many games to choose from with game shops now getting a Wii pre owned section together with other titles like Trauma Centre, Tony Hawks Downhill Jam, SSX Blur, Godfather, scarface, RRR all available for around £15 - £20.

Top this off with more third party support and new titles getting announced every time I browse the Web and that my wife will also play the Wii games with me then everyones a winner.

I originally bought into the Wii360 but now I think I may as well just sell my 360 cos I'm happy sucking at the nipple of Nintendo. After that my thirst is also quenched.  

TheRealMafoo said: NJ5 said: TheRealMafoo said: the is not a good comparison, because the PS3/360 do not compete with the Wii. It's like if I threw Cell phones in this thread that can play Java based games. In the end, you would have Cell phones with 12 points, yet it would mean nothing to Sony, MS, or Nintendo. Nintendo has no competition for it's market. It's why it's selling ungodly well. Absolutely. Also, Blu-Ray doesn't compete with DVD and the PSP doesn't compete with the DS. I had a post in here somewhere asking the question about how many people wanted an HD console and got a Wii, and then was satisfied with it, and also asked how many people wanted a Wii and got an HD console, and was satisfied about it. It got a lot of responses, and no one said the above ever happened. If you want a Wii, it's because it provides you with something the others don't have, and vise versa. No one sits down and says. Just because they all plug into a TV, does not make them the same thing. My Ipod plays games. It doesn't make it a DS or PSP.

 I must have missed that thread because I was originally planning to get a PS3 at launch and got a Wii instead and am extremely happy with it. 

Just curious but how many people did you sample?  What methods did you use to ensure there was no sampling Bias?  And where is your data to back it up?  

The point is that anyone can conduct an impromptu survey (and even more people can claim they did) but it doesn't mean that the survey is representative of a population.  A good survey is a lot more than a thread on a forum. 

There was a thread started by him asking the question he claimed. The results weren't quite as clear cut as he would make it but there was no more than 3 people who said they had gotten a Wii instead of their planned console and were happy. The problem with that question is you are asking people if they got a severely supply constrained console over a readily avaliable console. Plus, the group of people here are not a representative example as you said.

You could make a case out for all three to win.

The Wii because it is reaching a bigger potential demographic and has some very highly polished Nintendo games. Especially Wii Fit. The downside is the small number of genuine high quality third party titles. And the lack of HD support.

The PS3 because they have a whole string of AAA titles this year. Because there are tens of millions of PS2 owners waiting to upgrade and because it is amazing value for money. The downside is that they cannot afford to compete on price with Nintendo and Microsoft. The PS3 will always be more expensive to make.

The 360 because they will reduce their price further and faster than Sony. Because of GTA IV exclusive content and because Halo 3 has a very long tail. Also it is the easiest to run pirated games on, which appeals to some people. The downside is that this year's release schedule looks a bit thinner than last year's.

Bruceongames said: You could make a case out for all three to win. The Wii because it is reaching a bigger potential demographic and has some very highly polished Nintendo games. Especially Wii Fit. The downside is the small number of genuine high quality third party titles. And the lack of HD support. The PS3 because they have a whole string of AAA titles this year. Because there are tens of millions of PS2 owners waiting to upgrade and because it is amazing value for money. The downside is that they cannot afford to compete on price with Nintendo and Microsoft. The PS3 will always be more expensive to make. The 360 because they will reduce their price further and faster than Sony. Because of GTA IV exclusive content and because Halo 3 has a very long tail. Also it is the easiest to run pirated games on, which appeals to some people. The downside is that this year's release schedule looks a bit thinner than last year's.

Your aergument on 360's reasons seem flawed to me - yeah sure it's all about the games and AAA titles might get you a million or two sales but GTA exclusive content or Halo 3 having long legs is not gonna win you the console war.I just think 360 had a good start yet both the Wii and PS3 (it'll come in 08 / 09) has what the 360 doesn't - diversity in it's titles, only a diverse range IMO will appeal to enough people to win the console war.