i don't undestand why u people believe all HD games have to be expensive.
if you want to get all u can from the hardaware of course it's going to be expensive, but if work well with art style you can make a decent looking game like little big planet.
there area some ps3/360 games that were cheap to develop than games that push wii to the max.
look as games as flower or Valkyria chronicles.

with things like PS Store and XBLA it's clear just making a good game it's enough to meet those standards, i assure you those Low budget HD game look better than high budget Wii game.

Little Big planet was done by a team not more than 35 people, and its one of most beautiful games on the console.. and better looking than all the wii games.

or Valkyria chroncles which is now the SRPG to beat this gen, they didn't have to spend time pushing a hard ceiling saving time and money.

Funny, I don't see a lot of better looking games then the 8 year old metroid prime.

A high budget wii game aka Nintendo game(it's a synonym) usually have a lot better quality then any other game. Just look at super mario galaxy, metroid prime 3, zelda: the twilight princess, super smash. bros brawl. Find me one game on PS store that looks better then the games I mentioned. And graphics go far further then just hardware...

Ps: It's not hard to make a better looking game on ps3 then wii games. Stop spouting bullshit because the hardware makes it easy to make better looking games. Your average HD game costs a lot more then a SD game... That's a fact and the only thing that matters in your pointless discussion. Little big planet doesn't have much content, well it does have much content, but that's because YOU can make levels and share them.

@Xoj: No it's not. They need to meet a certain graphical level and go through the quality control process. I don't know the specifics, but atleast high-definition graphics is required and on 360 there is some XBL requirements in general.

Obviously, being a good game isn't enough, since Capcom needed to make HD version of Megaman 9 for XBLA and PSN.

I don't know why are you bringing out single games, when it obviously isn't the trend. World of Goo had a dev team of two guys, who spent 10 000 USD to create the game. Naturally, most of the games aren't done that way, so pointing it out was rather pointless.

I normally do not post must in regards to my opinion on these kinds of matters because it seems pointless. However, thinking about this for a bit made me realize a few things.

Third party developers shunned the Wii from day one. They few that backed it in some decent regard have done well. The rest, apparently, either don't get it or don't want to. The Wii has had it's fair share of awesome games. Some by Nintendo and some by other companies.

I think you can look at video game production several ways. You can make a game to make money, you can make a game to be creative, or you can make a game look great. There are probably more ways but that is a good summary for the point of my debate.


*****
I'd like to take a moment to personally define "core" or "hardcore."

Back during the 80's and 90's the only people really playing video games were those of us that really enjoyed it. We were called dorks in school and our parents (at least mine) got on our case that we should go do something else because video games are a waste of time. We played games because we loved them. If someone else didn't like it, they didn't matter.

Other people played games from time to time, mostly because one particular game really caught them or simply because there was nothing better to do at the moment. However, the mainstream public still viewed games as "dorky" so they wouldn't play them more than that one game or from time to time.

The PS2 changed the world's view of video games in my opinion.

(I remember hearing people in my class during my senior year in high school talking about getting together after school to play Super Mario Bros. These were the people that called me a Nintendo freak all the time. The people who were making fun of me for years for what I enjoyed were not organizing get together to play a game that I had beaten nearly 10 years earlier.)

It became acceptable to enjoy games and you were no longer considered a dork for doing so. This is where things get crazy. In this new world of gaming there are all the people who play because it's now cool and okay and there are the rest of us that play because we simply love it. Those of us that play because we simply love it are core/hardcore and the rest are semi-casual. (Yes, I just created another gamer label..)

Then there's the new wave of gamers that are brought in by the Wii and Wii Sports type stuff. Those are casual gamers. People that play games now that they are not as complex as we like them. People that play games because they are "PUnP" (pick-up and play) and don't really have a learning curve. A game they can understand without having to put much into it.

No offense to anyone in any of these three categories. (I apparently defined core/hardcore and casual all while creating semi-casual and creating "PUnP".. Hah!)
*****

Wii is getting the sales it is because of the motion based and simplicity appeal that is has. Nintendo has taken the money/creative approach. This mostly means the casual and semi-casual market at this time simply because the Wii is not as powerful as the PS3 and Xbox 360. Some of the core gamers are intrigued by the possibilities that the Wii presented. Of these core gamers, some of them have bought the system while others do not. The ones that do not buy it are not helping matters any.

Third parties are not getting involved in the Wii because I believe third party developers are stuck in "make it look great" mode. Here's why I think that is.

It seems that video game technology was relatively stagnant between 85-94. Some improvement but no significant leap or bound. Back then, what I consider the golden age, it was about how creative you could be with your game. (Uniracers!) Back then we all loved the games but we all imagined how awesome they would look if they had more power. What if the game was in 3D, had better lighting, had bigger worlds, went on forever, etc. There just wasn't the power available to do what we wanted to see.

1996 rolled around, thing changed and all bets were off. Quake and Mario 64 brought 3D gaming (I'm not sure if they were the FIRST but were some of the biggest) into the view of the world. Since then, the technology powering games has gone supernova and those of us (myself not included) who imagined and then BECAME developers, use that technology to realize the dreams we once had.

This is where gaming has been stuck at since 96. Make everything 3D, make everything bigger and make it look better. Don't get me wrong. There have been MANY awesome games, some of which I've never played, but awesome none the less. Creativity has taken a back seat to the sheer size of games. Mario and Zelda, and even Metroid, are awesome in 3D but I get sick of roaming huge landscapes and only fighting a handful of enemies. Put 150 goombas in a level in Mario Galaxy 2, not 5, and I'll get excited.

Nintendo decided to change how they approach gaming but the third parties have not. Nintendo is trying to make money and use some creativity while doing it. Of course, third parties are also trying to make money, but it doesn't seem like that is the first and foremost objective. The biggest priority seems to be making games that are "bigger and better" technically speaking. I think the third parties are comprised of the old gamers who learned how to develop and want to realize dreams from back in the day.

So, third parties are committed to making games that we've all wanted to see for years and only the PS3 and Xbox 360 can really run them. (I'm leaving out the PC because this is about consoles.) They won't go to the Wii because the Wii isn't meant for them and won't ever be. The "core" games being released on the Wii are not the same "core" type of games. Just as good in their own way but just not the same.

So, the video game market is X in size. A majority of X is the new wave casual/semi casual crowd and the remainder is the core/hardcore crowd. Nintendo and some select third parties are trying to capitalize on the sheer size of the "majority of X" crowd while most third parties are making games that we once imagined and are selling them to the "remained of X" crowd. I believe the problem is that these games cost so much to make and are targeting a slightly smaller demographic and this will eventually cause a financial problem. The developers keep making them look better without bringing in fresh blood for sales.

The PS1, PS2 and Xbox all were introduced and thrived during the shift from old school gaming to new school gaming but didn't realize that a shift was happening. Sony, Microsoft and the third parties still function like gaming is back in 96 without realizing the market shift that has occurred in the subsequent 13 year. You basically have the PS3 and Xbox 360 catering to the core/hardcore crowd with a bit of the semi-casuals thrown in and the Wii is designed for the casual crowd with some semi-casuals thrown in. Third parties are making games the core/hardcore crowd want to see and so they don't publish on the Wii.

The next generation won't be any different and here is why I think that is. The next generation will be equal console-wise. Nintendo already has the controls and will bring in the power. Sony and Microsoft already have the power and will bring in the controls. All three will basically be the same. If the third parties make it through this generation making games for the PS3 and Xbox 360, and the core/hardcore gamers don't shift to the Wii, then they will just stay there next time but will finally be onboard with the motion control idea. The core/hardcore gamers that are not into motion control right now will be then because their systems will finally have it.

I think the next generation could drastically split the video game market into two totally different groups. Those two groups currently exist but are blended together. The next generation could separate them and then we will basically have two video game markets.

I'm done because I'm sick of typing... I hope it makes sense..

@r4in - I think this generation has split gamers into two groups already. Not that the PS2/GC didn't cater to casuals last gen but this gen instead of both casuals and core sharing one system, they've been split between Wii and HD with only slight overlap. And to a slightly lessor extend between DS and PSP too.

If anything I think next gen (if there's a next gen) will bring them back together as you can see MS is already looking to do that with Natal and things like 1vs100 and Avatars. Not sure what Sony is doing, and I wonder if they do either as I don't see their overly expensive me-too motion controller appealing to anyone.

@r4in: Except that NES did the same as Wi tries to doi; it stopped the videogames being geeky. NES was fun and could be enjoyed by the whole family. The only ones that had anything against it, were the kids who didn't get a NES. Once the accessibility of NES games went away next generation, videogames started going back to being geeky and kids stuff.

One of the major things Wii is doing, is trying to get the people back, who quit gaming after NES, basically this is the people who quit when the games went to 3D.

The "casual"/"hardcore" you used, pretty much describes what the 3rd parties think, and that's why they keep on failing on their Wii efforts.
And, you didn't define the core and the "hardcore" in your post, as you said you would.
Core is pretty easy, since it's the existing audience, the bread and butter of an industry. "Hardcore" is a little harder, since how it's used in the gaming forums, it seems to be meaning whatever people want to mean with it, but by judging how people who call themselves hardcore, are viewed outside, they are usually the ones that called as geeks.

And I point those jokers to the Wii's 50 million plus sales.

The whole Hardcore Casual thinking is exactly the sort of narrowminded and limiting viewpoint that has ccasued many third parties to lose money in the first place. Talk about demographics and market just adds to the confusion and causes further tp's have success on Wii evade them. Even with Bioware talking like they haven't "figured the Wii out" it isn't rocket science.

I don't recall the whole casual/hardcore talk during the NES era and beyond. Maybe heard murmurs during the PS2 era, but nothing like it is now. I think its reall just viral marketing really and an attempt to have a segmented gaming industry. The heart of this OP, the heart of the Wii hate, the heart of hoping Wii third party titles fail is that the other Console owners want comfort in knowing that games won't stop being made for their platforms. All the PS3 vs 360 changes the moment Wii is involved to become Wii vs HD.

Third Parties flocked to the PS1 from Nintendo back in the day under many of the same circumstances facing the PS3..and lesser extent of the 360. PS3 is in a strange situation because it is almost dependent on the 360 and plagued by it.

I may be alone in thining this but I don't think this gen is going to end as early as everyone thinks it is, and I also think that just like the NES the third parties will be more visible on Wii toward the latter half of this gen.

Will Wii get the kind of third party support PS2 had? probably not, but also some third parties that were around during that gen might not be around by the time this gen closes, or at the very least bought out by some bigger 3rd party conglomerate.