I absolutely never claimed quality in this post. I have even specifically agreed that many of these don't appeal to me.

But you were one of the people doubting third party support for the Wii, Ck. You've stated it repeatedly. Well, here's the start of it. You don't go straight from Gamecube-level third party support to my-system-has-all-the-best-exclusives.  

This thread isn't supposed to be about Wii games being better than PS3 or 360 games -- or the other way around, for that matter. If you prefer the 360/PS3 games, have fun. What it IS supposed to show is that 3rd party developmental funds are shifting in precisely the way that they stated. Wii development is clearly increasing.

Developers only began shifting focus earlier this year (say, 3-5 months ago). Here's the first crop of games to come out of that shift in focus. Obviously, the games that come out first are not going to be AAA titles; most will be easy, simple, and expiremental, and a few will even be good.

When there were very few titles in development, people complained that the Wii had nothing; now that there are a good deal of titles in development, people complain that they're all B or single A titles; in January, people will complain that they're only AA titles, and no AAA ones. 

This isn't a random string of events, it's a pattern. A system that sells extremely well in the first 3 months tends to sell well in months 3-6; a system that sells well in months 3-6 essentially always sells well beyond that; a system that sells well in months 6-9 tends to gather more third party support; a system that tends to gather more third party support tends to sell better, and tends to get even more third party support, and so on.

These are links in a chain. The pieces are not independant -- they follow after one another. And yet, whenever we show that the next link in the chain is there, people say: "Yeah, but that's the end. The next link in the chain won't be coming."

The Wii has gone from low expectations for sales, to selling well for a while, to selling well for a sustained period of time, to getting more third parties to announce support, to having the first new crop of third party titles announced. It's a chain reaction, one follows the other. If people would stop acting like the chain could fall apart at any time -- even though it's basically never happened to any system in history -- then we wouldn't have arguments like this, Ck. 

I think a lot of companies, like Namco with Soul Calibur: Legends, and Capcom with Umbrella Chronicles are playing the "test the waters" strategy. If the game underperforms, which could be a major concern considering Nintendo has more or less branded the Wii as the casual system, then they will continue to send their 2nd-string titles to the Wii. I still see a lot of head-scratching at this point, but if the Wii keeps selling so well 3rd parties might not have an option, unless they just throw more watered down games at the Wii which are cheap to make and generate an easy profit.

Christmas '07 and how well the 3rd party games for those companies mentioned above and others sell as well as how well the Wii sells with respect to the 360/PS3 could have an ENORMOUS influence on the rest of this generation.

Of course it matters! The goal of this post wasn't to show that the PS3 won't have any good games (it definitely will) or that the Wii has all the great exclusive content (it doesn't). Instead, it's intended to show shifting developer focus towards the Wii.  

The topic is quantity, not quality. It's been repeated ad nauseam. By Bodhesatva, to start with.

But no, I'm in no way surprised that the thread was flamed to hell. Just another display of how biased this forum is against the Wii. Even moderators trash talk the Wii now, with totally off-topic digressions. And yes, this last paragraph is nothing but pure sarcasm. I have a lot of respect for the moderator in question, about as much as for the original poster. That's part of the reason I called him out in the first place.

The guy making the list does need to do a better job of weeding out old PS2 ports.

I'd say there's at least a half dozen games in that list which will be high quality, and just as many (though not all the same titles) which will be high sellers.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think landing titles like Hannah Montana exclusively isn't important for console sales, regardless if the game sucks.

Anyways, even though I think CK was basically OT in this thread, Wikipedia knows of the following amount of games for each system:

360: 338
Wii: 316
PS3: 246

The difference between 360 and Wii can likely be made up mostly by an extra year of annual franchises. If you don't like those lists, change 'em.

I'd say that's a pretty significant lead for Wii.

Also, considering that the thread title says "third party explosion," its pretty significant that 30 of PS3's 47 exclusives are 1st party.

Hahahah that's funny!!!

HERE! let me play too!!

If you were a PS3 owner, would you prefer Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire or Super Mario Galaxy?

hahahahahahaha!!!!

QFT.

The PS2 has a library full of crap games. It also has some of the best games. In the end, sheer weight of numbers wins out.

Argue all you want - but the facts are that 3rd-parties are flocking to the Wii. 

Everyone - feel free to create a thread nuking the Wii for a lack of "quality" games.

All this talk about Ninja Bread man most certainly makes me want to play, and eat him. Though I hope he's not made of ginger. Only one of those sentences was said in jest. I do fear that this comment will involve me paying 50 dollars for a horrible game, but I have faith in ninjitsu, taijitsu, and genjitsu.

Ninja Bread Man, outselling every Naruto game by a factor of 3, and Ryu Hyabusa may need to give up his spot in DOA.

Even if the games are pure, unadulterated crap, if that game alone sells one console that wouldn't be sold normally, is that somehow bad for the console maker? 50 horrible games that may only sell 50 consoles, 50 > 0, and they may pick up other games and blah de blah.

Um no, for it to be a fact you would need actuall FACTS.

PSP PS2 ports, missing PS3 games sure dont show anyone flocking to the wii.

 Then there are the games that are on PS3/360 but NOT on the wii.

Just a quick question: The fact that they are bringing games, albeit not necessarily original ones, to the Wii means they aren't flocking to it? Cash grabs and shovel ware don't mean flocking?

Isn't that a quality argument that got people angry oh 10 posts ago or so? Also, a horrible semantic argument that's not really worth getting into yet I bring up because it's the internet, and aside from porn, it's what it's for?