I'm both sick and at work (I'd be home but my other 2 coworkers are sicker and already home), so I'll just give this a short response:

1. Are you conceding that the "weakest points" people have picked apart were in fact wrong, and you now want to concentrate on what you still think you got right?

2. As for the lineup:  Nice. I think that the Wii's is not as far behind it as you think, even with your silly "third party" requirement.  More importantly, though, you ignore the point many have made, most recently RolStoppable:  If 3rd parties would have believed in the Wii, we would have already seen several big budget 3rd party games released by now.  The 3rd party games so far have had either a small or a medium budget with the exception of Red Steel (although lack of development time meant that the money was wasted).  Given that the Wii success only became apparent to 3rd parties several months after launch and that quality games usually take 18-24 months of development time, we can expect to see the first bunch of bigger efforts of 3rd parties in fall 2008.

The PS2 was widely expected to take the console generation by storm, and it DID.  This incentive to developers was exaggerated by the fact that at the time, aside from the Dreamcast which was largely ignored, the PS2 was the only "next gen" system in town, the other two following a year later.  The Wii was exactly the opposite:  launching a year after the frontrunner and with analysts predicting it to be in third place just like the Gamecube, if not worse because of Microsoft's growing lead and experience.  (Note:  we knew that analysts are stupid and wrong, but they all have jobs so obviously companies listen to them.) 

3. Developers are not feeling the incentive to pull together huge teams to make Wii games. They see that they need them to be successful on 360 and PS3.  They don't have endless amounts of spare cash and manpower.
Your argument works against you.  If developers have only limited resources to spend on game development, why on earth wouldn't they want to spend it making games on a system that's much easier and cheaper to develop for, AND has much less competition by your own statement, AND is going to have an audience at least as large as the other two systems combined without the extra expense of making a port? 

In fact, counterpoint 3 was a last-minute addition to this response, and it grew into what I consider the strongest counterargument of all.  Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow...

I'm still not convinced there is any problem with this.   You have not explained why this is a problem in any way.

 Alright then I will pick apart your post on every point and we will see what you think then. Of course PS2 developers didn't refer to their games as casual. That is a buzz word that was started this generation. Sony has said they are going to use the PS2 as their "casual" machine. Define "casual games" for me and I will be able to get you a list of games from previous generations that fit the mold. I need more than examples as well, but an actually list of criterion that can be applied to a new game. The old Monopoly, Wheel of Fortune, and Family Feud games immediatly spring to mind though.

 Ninjabread man is not a Wii exclusive. The industry has always lent itself to shitty games being popped out in hopes of making a quick buck. Ninjabread man is no worse than the thousand and one movie tie-in games that are always released and always suck. You could say that the Wii's lower average review score means something, but the PS2 also has the lowest average review score of its generation of consoles. The most popular system always has the lowest attach rate and the worst average review score. Thats just the way it is.

 Nintendo has an amazing quality control department. Point me at the first party game that is poorly made and I will be floored. At least for the last few generations they have been great. SNES had some interesting gems admittedly. Looking past that poorly worded sentence I would like to point out that the last company to have a quality control department for third parties was Nintendo. It is one of the reasons third parties hate Nintendo so much and avoid the console. Sony and Microsoft have never had a quality control department for third parties and never will probably. The day and age when that was useful is over.

 Beyond that, you can expect third parties to up the quality of the games on their own. Good games sell more copies than a bad game. Further, if you build up your reputation for making amazing games then people will flock to whatever you put out and buy it en masse. Just look at any Blizzard title to see examples of that. An expensive critically aklaimed game must make more money or they would never be made. If there was more money to be had in just cheap shovelware for the Wii all PS3 and 360 projects would be canceled and the Wii would be the last console ever made. Te question of which one makes more money is just absurd.

 Sparse list of first party games from Nintendo? Are you serious? They had around 10 million+ sellers before the console was a year old. Have you forgotten the old bash against Mario being whored out to everything under the sun? Here we again have your claim that shovelware is a new phenomenon which you later decided to go back on and admit the PS2 suffered similar problems.

 Here we have the crux of your whole whinefest here. You don't like the newer games and feel not enough classic style games are out on the system to serve your interest. I will say nothing bad about you for that, and no one else should. I tell people to look at all the games you want to play, and then buy a console for that. I really enjoy some of their easier games, and they have enough of their classic franchises returning that I am very pleased overall with the line-up and my purchase. Please refrain from projecting your displeasure at the line-up on me. It is very much targeted towards me.

 No I don't and some of the evidence of that is in your post. The turn has been slow and it will never be super dominating. All I want, and all I expect is for more big titles to end up on the Wii. It won't pull support directly from the competition but indirectly due to limited developer time. Namco, Square-Enix, and Capcom seem to be happily supporting the system to name a few. I am eager to hear when the next proper Resident Evil game will make it onto the Wii (and you better believe it is coming).

 Worst example possible. Capcom has taken a PS3 exclusive, and previously Playstation exclusive series, and turned it into a Wii game. The development for the other games was well underway when they decided to support the Wii much more than their original plans. If you are waiting for all the titles for other systems to be cancelled then you will always be dissapointed. If you are expecting no quality titles to make it to the Wii you are just being stupid.

 The PS2 was expected to be the market leader and by a lot. The Wii was expeted to come in dead last and by a lot. Compare it to the PS1 line-up and I suspect it will be very similar. The evidence of third parties losing faith in the current HD consoles is shown by the number of exclusive that are going multi-platform.

A few points about shovelware.

The winning console has had the most shovelware. While ET has been cited here, it was not shovelware but a bad first-party game (liken it to Lair) and a movie tie-in. Look at titles by everything from dog food companies (Chase the Chuckwagon) to porn companies (Beat em & Eat em) to really bad designers (anything Mythicon did) if you want to see shovelware for the 2600.

Nintendo controlled access but that eventually got it charged with unfavorable business practices. And even then, there were plenty of bad NES games. Same thing goes for the SNES.

When Sony opened things up, the PS1 and PS2 got their share of trash. The PS2 trash is now moving to (or showing up at the same time) on the Wii.

People don't produce junk software for consoles that don't sell. Hence shovelware is the price you pay for having a top seller.

Also, review lists don't usually show how bad those are because most shovelware titles don't get reviewed (or reviewed enough) to be included on said lists.

If anyone let us down, it has been the third-party developers. Some have rushed things out. Some have made nothing but shovelware (some would say this is a Conspiracy theory). But no one is making anyone buy it.

Mostly people buy games because there is nothing else out there or because they are fun. Red Steel sold 1M because it was a launch title. Carnival Games is fun, even though reviewers hate it, so it sold 1M. (Carnival Games also is advertised -- a lesson for other companies).

So if you don't like the games or the system, don't buy them or it. But people should not speak for others or presume to do so. After all, selling something to everyone seems to be working for Nintendo -- even if it is not what everyone where wants.

(Just remember, not everyone wants to play Halo or Rachet or Heavenly Sword or Forza).

Mike from Morgantown

How about this? Forget the PS2. Both the Xbox and the Gamecube had better third party support in their first 1 year and 4 months. The point I was making about shovelware wasn't that it was bad, or abundant, but that this time around, it was actually affecting third parties decisions on how much effort they'll actually put into this console.  Here's Gamecube straight up against the Wii on third parties from Metacritic:

Gamecube/Wii 

90-99= 9/1

80-89= 30/9

70-79= 43/29

60-69= 41/46

0-59= 42/67

Even the Gamecube, which was famous for bad third party support and was the third best selling console last gen beats out the Wii in quality. Nintendo was coming off of strained relationships with many third parties after the N64. You can argue that GC games were easily ported from PS2 and you'd be correct. That's also a problem that Nintendo brought upon themselves when they decided to not compete graphically with the other two consoles. Do I feel Nintendo deserves the whole blame? No. Do they deserve some of it? Yes.

My point with the mentioned third parties is that they still have many projects for the other two consoles into 2009. When does the Wii finally get some of those developers' time? 2009? 2010? If you want to say 2008, you can, but it would be hard to back up at that point with any releases scheduled so far. Just because the Wii is getting slightly better with third party support does not mean it's getting or will be getting what it deserves. The winning console has always had the most shovelware AND the most quality titles. I can see how the Wii will have the most shovelware, but what proof does anyone have at this point that it will also have the most quality titles? 

^^

If it makes you feel any better, I don't feel your posts are anti-nintendo or counter productive. I think you've raised some good points but the one thing everyone can agree on is the wii is selling huge numbers. If the system continues to seem like it will break 60, 80, 100 million, then better games will continue to come.

Cause, if the trend continues, companies will have a better understanding that they're not just dealing with the casual market. Then you will see the metal gear/CoD4 quality games.

Also, I think someone else commented on my ps2 post. I was saying that if you showed someone the best 600 ps2 games (which average 70%+) and told them to pick there favorite 10, 30, 50, whatever games, I doubt they would complain.

This is gettin' ridiculous: you just can't compare a console with a five year library with another which is only 16 months old, and with a brighter future ahead...

On the GC, we've only got a few exclusive third parties, à la Baten Kaitos, Tales of Symphonia, etc... and other good 3rd parties games were multiplatform, Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, etc...

But c'mon, how could you state the Wii won't have many great exclusive titles in a near future? Have you seen the thread i already mentioned in my earlier post here?

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=14526

We don't know if all of these games will be AAA, or just good or average... but most will certainly not be shovelware, that's for sure... and it's only a beginning, wer're in february 2008 !

If you look at the X360 history, didn't you notice its first year was not THAT great? It was in its second year that many good games came out... at least for the FPS lovers... 

And if you look at the PS2 history, most of the really best and impressive games have been released between 2004 and 2007, when 3rd parties finally knew exactly how to get the best out of it... and i don't even mention the PS1 in its first years...

We all know the Gamecube was superior to the PS2, and Wii is superior to Cube, so after now one or two years, some devs will find the way to get the best out of it... sure, it won't be in 1080p... but nice graphics in 480p with a smooth framerate may already look very nice, even more with some "artistic" design, so what? Where's the problem?

Till now, most of the first 3rd party Wii games didn't push the hardware, because....

1) Nobody knew the Wii would have such a success, so small budgets for the early Wii titles...

2) Devs were so busy figuring out how to program for such a different console that they didn't take the usual available time for the game design and the graphics quality only... they had to make things too fast with a small crew...

3) They've released crappy games for easy cash-in (which i hope they didn't get)...

Now, they have the time, now, they know the hardware a little better (no experience on the Cube for most of them)... now they have more pro tools in their hands to make it easier... and maybe they'll have a correct budget too... and now they know the Wii will be a success, with a very large userbase... so just as with PS2, the graphics will improve over the years, and we will have many excellent games...

If the 100 million Sony userbase was satisfied with the games they had for the last 10 years, the Wii userbase has already all the reasons to be satisfied with the actual quality, which can only get better and better, on the graphics side as on the controls side...

I think most of the answers you got in that thread show you the way most Wii owners feel, and i really think you should trust us... or forget about the Wii if you're really allergic or so negative about it... 

 Well, I hate to say something that sounds like "Nintendo domination starts in 20XX," but most AAA-quality titles take 2-3 years to develop. Since 2007 is the year that Nintendo proved that Wii sales weren't just a fluke, you can expect that it's also the year when major dev studios really started taking the platform seriously. So we should see AAA third party titles showing up two years later.

 Again, I know it sounds really weak to say, "just you wait until 2009," but the Wii really did catch most people with their pants down. And because of the weaker hardware specifications and unorthodox controls, developers can't just port a project over from PS3 or 360. 

Some of us have been saying this for months. Expect lets of new project announcements for Wii titles in late 2008, with release dates in 2009. I know waiting sucks, but Nintendo have put a lot of work into creating a spectacular 1st party library while we wait.

 And if '08 passes without a bunch of major Wii announcements, you can rub it in all of our faces if you like. ;P 

Well thanks for understanding that I'm not trying to step on everyone's hopes and dreams here. Nor do I hate the Wii. I like it a lot and hope for it to succeed with quality gaming. I'm just trying to bring up that the Wii is in a unique situation of having the success without the games and what that might mean for the minds of third party developers.

I can't prove my points without a shadow of a doubt, but I feel like most of the responses against my topic are merely speculative. There's no true ground yet that the Wii will have this great third party gaming lineup in the future. Think of every game known to be in development for the Wii from third parties, and tell me how many you expect to exceed the 91% that Resident Evil 4 got? Okami, probably. It's the only one. Also notice they're both ports of previous Capcom successes.  When will we get even one "from the ground up" Wii game from a third party that can hit the 90% mark? I hope E3 has answers, because no one in this topic has given any yet.

By the time the third parties step it up, will it already be too far into the console's lifecycle? 2009? 2010? That seems like a long time to wait for quality(not counting first party).

There's also the original point that this may be partly Nintendo's fault. They opened the market up and defied logic by pulling off this miracle of a success. However I feel devs are taking this "beginning gamers" approach of Nintendo's too true to heart. So many third party titles are catering to "easy to get into" experiences, which is fine as long as you can support those that want something a bit more involving. I'm just asking if anyone believes Nintendo may have scared developers away from putting in an effort by going too far away from the beaten path?