Of course I'm arguing semantics, my field of study is next-door-neighbors to semanticism and linguistics is one of my passions. Arguing semantics does not somehow invalidate my point.

What you're doing is not comparing an F-16 to the Wright Brothers plane, you're comparing a Harrier to an attack helicopter. Neither is necessarily more advanced than the other, they just use dissimilar technology to achieve superficially similar ends in very specific (but different) contexts.

There are two separate arguments that can be made here, and those are the only cases in which "advanced" can be accepted as a descriptor of two technologies that achieve similar ends through distinct means.

The first is in the sophistication of any given technological part: the fact that Natal is able to read depth via an IR sensor that reads wavelengths and so forth is considerably more sophisticated than, say, the Wii remote's IR sensor, but I don't know if it's necessarily more sophisticated than the gyroscopes and accelerometers that WM+ uses. I'm not an expert there.

The second is how close it is in achieving a given purpose (your hammer is a more advanced nail-pounder than your computer, for instance), and on this front I don't have enough data to say for sure one way or another, but it looks as if playing games via motion has been made more intuitive and more efficient on the Wiimote. I don't know that for sure, of course, so I won't pass judgment, but I have the feeling that this is the definition of "advancement" that will end up mattering most. Until Natal proves itself, anyone who cares will be able to say that Wii remote is more advanced as a motion detecting game device.

Well I guess that's the point we're making, technologically I feel Natal is more advanced than the WM+ because it's doing things that no one else in the console gaming community is doing or has done.  3D sensing cameras are far more current technology than gyroscopes and accelerometers, as brilliant and groundbreaking as that controller was to video games.  Just as the Wii remote is more advanced than the Sixaxis controller. Nevermind also have face and voice recognition.  Whether one is more adept at being used as a game controller is another debate altogether but I think the technology behind Natal is more current ie. more advanced, than what is used in the Wii controller.

Just my opinion anyway.

You cannot be serious.

What you are saying is that non-parallel technology progression can necessarily be compared in terms of linear logic, which is fallacious. You cannot be more wrong than you are being right now. Not all technology is "forward leaning", whatever that means.

The technology used in Natal and the technology used in the Wiimote are not comparable in that way. They are just different. One is not inherently more "advanced" than the other.

What you are describing is not "stripping away the need for" technology, it is finding an alternative method by which to produce the same results.