How does dev cost or meta score have anything to do with epic and artistic?  Christ, metascore is a handful of opinions of a few dozen 20 something year old males, and I can sell you a piece of dog shit for $30 million dollars but it won't be epic.

 Xbox, and playstation are multimedia devices, that do much more than just play games

thank you for your post. as you can see it is very difficult to portray exact thoughts when you know they are going to cause trouble. i think i meant more that nintendo has moved into all ages entertainment whereas sony and ms are sticking with a smaller demographic of entertainment.

i agree that they are different as i'm sure you've noticed but there is no point re-writing the whole thing. maybe next time i will write drafts of everything, since this was a good learning experience as to what titles intros and conclusion statements actually do for the reader.

None of that will matter as i'll just end it right here. You can't prove a game is "epic". In most cases, epic just means long and drawn out. If you post metacritic averages to prove epicness, you would have to include Mario Galaxy into the equation, which I know you won't want to do. If you post average dev costs then the most epic game ever is Shenmue, which is capable of running on a Wii in theory and the two most epic games afte that are probably Too Human and MGS 4. Face it. You cannot prove anything you've said in this entire topic.

All three consoles are toys and nothing else MS and Sony have additional function to their toys but they are only additional functions. By not marketing a toy as a toy they are not getting as many customers as they deserv since most costumers that look for videogames are looking for the toy that plays said videogames and when thay don´t see MS and Sony as a toy because of their marketing the only thing left is Nintendo then add that they actually evolve gaming this generation with a new and so much more fun, immersive and cool way to play the choice for the said customer isn´t hard especialy since most videogame customers are not that well educated about videogame companies in general.

Any reason why you didn't include the Wii there? Hmmm...internet, weather, news, game videos, photos, etc. None of that ring a bell?

So the cost of games now means it's closer to "art?"  I guess so, Spider-Man 3 really was a masterpiece, wasn't it? 

Oh, and metacritic... of course, of course... Because GTA4 is the greatest, most artistic game the HD consoles have to offer.

As for Nintendo being "smarter" than the others - I guarantee you, both would love to be in Nintendo's position.  Only Sony may have something to lose, as they seemed to focus on pushing blu-ray and HDTV's this gen.  Their motives have nothing to do with creating "art."

my point is that i feel ps60 games challenge my abilities on more of an intellectual level, rather than reflex level, or sometimes both. i've had a wii, i was not challenged. i've also owned some of the hardest games that have been the consensus for being hard on this forum.

Ouendan (EBA for japan) was not hard, niether was that surgery game, which i draw a blank to right now. They were taxing on my reflexes but in general i prefer something like better ai, and so forth. Games on the wii, their difficulty, has been, how shall i say, cheap, in the same way sports games are made cheap, by letting the other team foul you without penalty.

this is not to say that the games don't exist. I'm just saying, right now, nintendo hasn't really provided that kind of experience. If anything xbox has done the best in that department by having almost every game online where difficulty ramps up with the player. i don't even own an xbox btw.

you should try using periods, they really help. but yes they are not getting as many customers as they deserve. But this does not mean that they "fail" to a console that is "so much more fun, immersive and cool way to play"

My added point is that i enjoy my console just fine, so stop trying to convince me that it "fails"

i 80% agree with the thread....