Wii60? I'd rather get a WiiS3... or rather... a Wii - S - TRIPLE!

Of course the Wii is competing with the PS3 and the 360. The simple matter is that people only have a limited amount of time and money, and only a small amount of it can be spent on gaming. The simple matter is, if the Wii did not exist, I would probably buy a PS3/Xbox when they come down to a reasonable price and get some interesting games. People who buy multiple consoles are rare and for the rest of the world a choice has to be made. As well as this, they will be competing for developer support. Whenever you get people choosing between different options they are competing, and most of the world simply sees them as two different gaming machines (at least, the large portion of the world who don't spend thousands of dollars on games)

'I don't like endless repeats/sequals of PS2 games and it seems a lot of the games I will be able to play on the Wii anyway, so i will never buy a PS3 unless it comes down near PS2 prices.' This is complete bullshit, look at 360 and Wii both of their big games are mostly sequels of games from the last generation so it's not the PS3 doing this along, also you think you're gonna be playing any of the big sequels to PS2 games that are coming to the PS3 on the Wii? You are mistaken...

I'd say yes 20% and no 80%

The Yes: 20% goes to some hard core gamers who have liked what Nintendo has to offer over the years(even MS and sony fans)(ones in the closet not ready to come about about the wii.

The no: 80% no in the fact that it appeals to everyone, kinda like the  board game at a family function where everyone can play. But there are other games/cards for adults as well. It is not that it is a gimmick but something that everyne can enjoy, if your kid wants to play a kiddie game or the adult wants RE$ or something more bloody etc.

This is the reason I think Home may be an exercise in futility. Home could be a Disneyland for adolescent jerks and griefers.

2 main reasons:

1) Nintendo doesn't completely rely on these old franchises, but every console generation they introduce new IP's as well as new games from their old trusty franchises.

2) Nintendo generally introduce something new with every iteration of their games keeping the same characters but with different gameplay machanics (with the exception of Twilight Princess and Pokemon).

Besides, Nintendo would have to be INSANE to stop making Mario/Zelda/Pokemon etc. These are guarunteed huge sellers. 

Of course, I can't blame Square Enix, etc for releasing heaps of Final Fantasy games, since they will make a lot of money and sell lots of games. I CAN blame Sony for making a machine with prohibitavely expensive development costs, meaning companies can't take a risk making games for their system, and causing them to solely rely on old franchises.

I don't think that many people will turn to their PC for their hardcore gaming. For me, I play nearly all my games on PS3, and only use my PC for RTSs. This is because, in general, my computer cannot handle the best looking games, whereas my PS3 will be able to play all the games avaliable. I hope that developers realise this, and concentrate more on PS3/360 as everyone who ones those consoles can get the best out of them. Somewhere I saw a thread comparing the graphics of Crysis to MGS 4 and Uncharted. They all looked as good. However, everyone who buys a copy of the PS3 games will be able to enjoy those superb graphics, but only those who have the most powerful computers will be able to enjoy Cyrsis to its full potential.

Back to the main point. I beleive that at the moment, the Wii is in a different market to the PS3/360. But, when Singstar, Eye Toy LBP all come out, that is going to change. Of course, by then the PS3 wont be more than double the price, so it will be able to compete with the Wii while competing with the 360.

Concerning the whole sequels argument, the game I'm most looking forward to is Uncharted (hence the pic), but anyway, the only problem with sequels if the original was great. for example God of War 2 wasn't praised as highly as it could have been, because GoW was so incredible, and it did little to improve, but it did not need to. I don't think a sequal should be particually judged on what it is like compared to previous games in the series, but what it does itself.

Last point, although Final Fantasy games all start with the same name, there is very little to connect the games, other than moogles, airships and chocobos. Each game is completely different, although they are all RPGs, but of different natures. If you compare FF X to XII, they are comletely different games, as the main battle system is completely different. Even if you compare FF X to X-2 they are completely different games despite one being a direct sequel of the other. All I'm trying to say, is that there is no reason to complain about more final fantasy games, as the only thing that is consistent is the extremely high standard. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with a remake, it gives plenty of gamers a chance to play a game that they were never able to play before, with improved graphics

Its not at all competing with the PS3 and 360.  They exist for such different reasons and the capabilities are so different.......They all play videogames on your own tv...and thats it.

I dont get how so many Wii fans that want to declare dominance dont embrace the difference.  They want to think they ARE competing head to head so they can say "we beat them" but to be honest, i dont get how Wii fanboys dont understand how the reason the Wii is IMMENSELY more popular than both at thsi point is because it IS different.  Its not a similar product, consumers have decided thus far its different and they liek it better....embrace that, because its true.  Dont deny it to grow your epeen and say you slayed sony and MSFT, the Wii is selling liek it is because it IS different and its not thought of as a replacement to the 360 or PS3, its considered its own thing and a different type of entertainment.....which is why its great for gaming as a whole because people will make their investment in a 360 or PS3 but want a wii as well to experience the different entertainment.

IMO. 

well, if the Wii did not exist I would eventually buy a 360 or a PS3. Therefore, Nintendo took my money that would have otherwise gone to Sony or Microsoft. Therefore, they are competing, for my dollars as well as everybody elses. I don't get this whole "they are different, so they aren't competing" mantra that everybody is spewing. Do PSP's compete with iPods? Well, someone who owns a PSP might decide not to buy an iPod since the PSP serves their needs. Does the PSP compete with the DS? of course! They compete for the handheld gaming dollar even though the PSP is also a movie and music player. Would the PS3 and 360 sell more if the Wii did not exist? YES (at least one more). As such, they are competing for consumer interest, as well as developer interest. The markets may be different, the demographics may be different, but anyone who thinks they aren't competing against each other is either deluded or have an ulterior motive for it (and that goes for Nintendo execs, as well as Sony and MS)