It all depends on what you want.

If you look at it, the Wii has far less negatives -- graphics and DVD -- and those were choices made by Nintendo. They were mostly for better (look at the sales) though to some they were worse. Then again, to those to whom they were worse

Sony has had blurred vision. It wanted the PS3 to move Blu-Ray and it has done that. But it has removed backward capatabilty (something that I look for) and has designed another tough-to-program-for platform.

Microsoft has a PC-lite which is easy to program, great for gaming and has a great on-line experience in North America. It has a very diverse (rpobably the most diverse) software library. Unfortunately, it fails far too often and that is a major problem (Could you imagine if one out of every three automobiles broke down on the road without warning or would not start in the morning).

Mike from Morgantown

Nintendo definitely hit their vision and I think Microsoft has likely accomplished 80% of what they wanted to this gen already. Publishers love the sales of thier titles on the 360 and they have taken a real bite of Sony's marketshare. While its not as much as Nintendo's they have to be quite happy with their performance this time around. The manufacturing has really hurt them though and likely will for quite some time. Sony is truly lacking this gen up to this point as they seem to have gone completely away from what made the PS2 successful. A more complex and expensive machine that has only given them one clear advantage: BluRay is likely the new standard in HD movie formats. Sony has much riding on this year and they could still turn everything around and throw what I have said back in my face. Europe being the exception I have a hard time seeing them taking America from the 360+Wii and stopping Nintendo's onslaught in Japan.

I dont think any of the 3 hit on a "perfect" system.
360 has issues with hardware, but great software
PS3 has issues with Software, but great hardware
Wii is fun even without the HD, but not great 3rd party support (so you have to wait about 6 months for each Nintendo developed game to come out).

Really though, I think all three have done well.

Except of course, you do have to choose. The cost of development increases significantly as the graphics get more realistic. Why do games take so long to make nowadays? Why are publishers less willing to take risks, and end up releasing more of the same? Because innovation is risky, and nobody wants to take any risks when your game cost 50+ million to make. Every game you mentioned is pretty much the same thing as a game we've seen before in a previous generation with prettier graphics. The only one that was even a little risky there was Bioshock, and that's just System Shock 2 in space, with less features and better graphics. GT5 took forever to make. I have to disagree with you on Mass Effect too: It is IMO the weakest Bioware game since the original Baldur's gate, and the pop-in, crappy interface, and awful self-shadows make me wish for KoToR.

Good graphics are relative too: People actually liked the Playstation's graphics, while today I dare anyone to actually enjoy going through Silent Hill's pixellated mess. But some older games do survive the test of time, because the graphics are good enough to convey the gameplay. Look at Symphony of the Night. Or Chrono Trigger. Mario 64. Sonic. I still play them today, because the graphics just work. Would Desktop Tower Defense be a better game with better graphics? No way.  

A cheap game is also more likely to be fun, because it's easier to tweak late in the game, after the art assets are very advanced. I see them as mass that forces the design team to stay the course: it makes change harder. Less realistic graphics also allow games to be longer without being repetitive, if just for budget reasons. Go try to pull off the 'reverse castle' trick in a 3d castlevania. Adding enemies is expensive. Adding voiceover dialog is expensive.

Remember how Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo and GTA were out before the PS2's second christmas? The newer incarnations of the series aren't out yet, precisely because of those extra graphics of yours. Consoles are taking longer to mature than they ever had. Releasing a game less than 2 years away from getting an almost finished SDK is asking for trouble, and at this rate, in the next generation it'll be 3 years, or we'll need teams of 300 for your average game.

Graphics ARE killing the industry. You just don't know it yet.

Iwata: Miyamoto, what shall we do?
1.
Make the cheapest system, earn 80 dollars (average across the world) pr Wii, and have record selling sales.

2. Make a HD thing with all kinds of stuff, for 3 times as much, lose money pr cnosole sold and more loses!

Why would I want to pay more for an in-built DVD player? I have 2 already.

Why would I want to pay more for hi def graphics? I don't even have an HDTV.

Nintendo didn't "forget" to include these, they know that most people don't want to pay more for features they can't or won't use. Looking at your avatar you're one of the small minority who have all the latest tech. Most people either do not want or cannot afford all this. If the Wii had been more expensive because it had included all this tech that most people cannot use I suspect sales would have been much lower. By the time the next gen roles round maybe 50% of people will have HDTVs and top quality graphics will be a must but for now they are useless to most people.

it's not about saying something bad about Nintendo, it's about saying something WRONG

 he specifically was talking about Nintendo getting Nintendo's vision right, not his or yours or anyone else's vision right

and Nintendo did accomplish their vision and continue to do so...unless u can show evidence that Nintendo isn't accomplishing Nintendo's vision, then you are simply flaming people who are pointing out that his post was incorrect

wii has been out 15 months now

Nintendo has developed 19 Wii games so far, so that's over 1/month, not 'every 6 months'

another issue that u guys are failing to recognize

if wii was in hd, then budgets would cost more and we wouldn't have gotten the following games:

elebits
zack & wiki
no more heroes
trauma centers
boom blox
etc etc

for those of us who enjoyed the above games (and the many more new and unique games that will come out this year and future years), we are happy wii isn't in hd...it just costs too much to develop for at the current time


wii owners are willing to lose some graphics detail for better controls and unique games...ps360 owners aren't

I thought of this question in another way.

What could they have changed to increase their total (now and in the future) profit? The only thing that really matters in the end to a company.