The Wii is a fairly decent console which is clearly at the top of the market, but seeing as things are now, I believe Microsoft's predecessor of the 360 will exceed it by far, as it has done now.
The Wii is a fairly decent console which is clearly at the top of the market, but seeing as things are now, I believe Microsoft's predecessor of the 360 will exceed it by far, as it has done now.
Maybe. But Microsoft would have to change their marketing techniques. Just look at the 360, it was released almost two years before the Wii. But just look at the sales, Microsoft still has some catching up to do.
But I don't think current Wii sales will go on forever. Sooner or later Nintendo will have to lower the price of their console. Heck, Microsoft and Sony already did it.
Maybe. But Microsoft would have to change their marketing techniques. Just look at the 360, it was released almost two years before the Wii. But just look at the sales, Microsoft still has some catching up to do.
But I don't think current Wii sales will go on forever. Sooner or later Nintendo will have to lower the price of their console. Heck, Microsoft and Sony already did it.
Sales will presumably stop around February - March, according to GameSpot. Also, even though the 360's sales are obviously lower, their game library is by far greater and more collective. And that's factuality.
Sales will presumably stop around February - March, according to GameSpot. Also, even though the 360's sales are obviously lower, their game library is by far greater and more collective. And that's factuality.
Again, because it was released two years earlier.
Just give the Wii some time, it's been barely a year since it has been launched. It took a while before the DS had some really good games. I remember buying my DS on March 2005 (or whatever) and it had some pretty crappy games, even a year after that there still weren't any "killer-games". But look at it now. It's selling like crazy and new games are getting released on a daily basis.
Just give it some time 
Again, because it was released two years earlier.
Just give the Wii some time, it's been barely a year since it has been launched. It took a while before the DS had some really good games. I remember buying my DS on March 2005 (or whatever) and it had some pretty crappy games, even a year after that there still weren't any "killer-games". But look at it now. It's selling like crazy and new games are getting released on a daily basis.
Just give it some time
Very true.
But you may have misunderstood me. By "greater", I meant "more superior", not as in "amount."
The Wii is going to run into some limitations sooner or later due to underpowered hardware, and the controller can only be intuitive and exciting to a point. The only "family friendly" aspects of the Wii is that you have Wii Sports and Play, and the other minigames like Smooth Moves... that's about it. Your parents probably aren't going to be able to play RE4, Prime 3, SSX Blur, or Smash Bros Brawl. (Although Metroid Prime 3 owns your mom's face 3 times.)
Secondly, sales are not a determining factor of how good a console is, this only shows its popularity. The PS3 and 360 are superior to the Wii in everything except for controls and probably the price, but you get what you pay for.
It's not the power that matters within a system, it's the ingenuity that matters. The Wii has the best of both worlds, graphics (Have you seen Metroid Prime 3 , or Super Mario Galaxy's) and most of all controls (The Wiiremote revolutionized gaming controllers).
So it's not what's on the inside, it's what people think of it and how they use it, and enjoy it.
The Wii controls are different, not necessarily better. I've had lots of ****ed up swings on tennis or the grapple beam in Prime 3 not responding efficiently. Revolutionary is an exaggeration, because there was the Eyetoy, that was a very similiar thing to play around with, Nintendo just developed it more.
Secondly, do not even start on graphics. Prime 3 and Brawl are exceptions, but the 360 and PS3 definitely both have the Wii beat in power.
Furthermore, the Wii is too bubbly. It's obvious that younger folks will be entertained by it more. Do you stop to listen to the sounds or the menu effects? They are very bloopy and clicky... and the menu buttons are rounded and flashy.
The Wii also has less multimedia and online (game-wise, I'm not talking about Miis here) functions than the other 2.
Less multimedia?
I wonder what kind of channels will be released in the upcoming 2 years.
The Wii doesn't have High Def graphics though like the PS3 and 360.
*sigh* I try getting this point to people, it's not the graphics that matter, it's the gameplay. I mean someone's not going to stare at a wall and look at how pretty it is, they're going to blow up that wall and continue through the level, if you get what i mean.
Graphics do matter in a certain sense. Imagine Wii controls on a game with SNES like graphics 
I'm sure it wouldn't appeal to the 'main stream'.
I think Nintendo's plans are pretty good. They're targeting a much larger audience right now. Heck, even my dad enjoys a game of Link's Crossbow Training. Of course the 'hardcore' gamers want something more deep. And that's why Nintendo is still making adventure like games such as Metroid Prime 3 and Zelda.
Besides, if you want the best graphics, buy a new PC. It might be a bit expensive, but it'll last for a few years. And on top of that: it even has multimedia functions
Nintendo Wii would probably go on forever, BUT, there maybe few people who'll play it still, Wii is like an emulator, it can run all classic console games, and thats enough to keep it going, coz ppl will want to play the classic games from the oldest and greatest consoles ever like; Turbo-Grafix, SEGA, SEGA Saturn, SEGA Megadrive, NES SNES, N64 etc...
The Wii doesn't have High Def graphics though like the PS3 and 360.
It's the things like this that dissapoint me. Everytime someone says something like this, I have questions that will confuse them: "So what?. You only wanted the system because those pretty and fancy lights entertain you?" Come on. It's the game, the story, and the characters that matter the most.
The Wii will be popular for quite a while because not everyone has one yet, like Shrukan and Midna...
Graqphics do matter...but barely. Like Beta said: If you have a NES/SNES graphic Wii game you'll just lose customers. But if you have GC graphics and AWESOME gameplay, you can probably beat PS3 AND XBOX 360.
So just having OK graphics helps.
Also, just like LOTT said: They won't stare at a wall, they'll blow it up continue!
Sumrak Ritsar: Wii, Wii, Wii. The best console of last year!! No super awesome graphics where you can that tiny football players sweat. Or Sora's muscle's bulging out from killing thousands of Heartless and Nobody's.
You getting, my....all of our points.
Wii, will last longer than even OoT! Maybe though.
Gamer 1: "I like this pretty wall!"
Gamer 2: "Blow it up, get on with game man!"
Gamer 1: "No, it's so pretty!"
Gamer 2: "Fine, I will do it for you." *Pulls out rocket launcher*
Gamer 1: "NO!!! *Kills Gamer 2*
Gamer 2: "You forgot we respawn, didn't you?" *Blows up wall*
Gamer 1: "I quit.*
Gamer 2: "Why?"
Gamer 1: "You blew up a perfectly good wall, it had the best graphics!"
Gamer 2: It's about the gameplay, not the damn 'pretty wall!'"
<THE END>
Do you realize how completely ignorant it is of you guys to bring up the graphics argument? I'm guessing... no.
For one thing, the good gameplay portion is pure opinion. When was the last time you saw a game that was really violent with having no good gameplay at all? God of War? Incorrect. God of War was actually considered, by many, one of the best games of the year for its gameplay, besides the violence involved. GTA? Even more incorrect. Like GoW, it was considered one of the best Action games because of its gameplay and unmatched open-endedness, besides the violence. Besides, it has some of the worst graphics out of any of the last generation games. Is that saying anything to you?
I can't think of any other violent games like these right now, but my point remains. If you're going to accuse the game companies of making crappy games with lots of violence... actually, just don't, because it's false.
Also, the violence isn't just there for "BLOOD WHOO" responses. The violence is there to make an emphasis. The violence is there for you to remember the game well. You'll think back and say "Woah, I remember that scene where...*cue gore*". It's simply to make you reminisce about it. The other reason for a high violence is because of the fantasy factor. You know how Mario and Zelda are very fantasy-like and are virtually completely fictional? Well, the violence is exaggerated or emphasized because we cannot do the same things in real life. It's the same concept, only done in a more mature way.
The majority of the Gamecube/Wii's games are first-party. (Made by them) People accuse Nintendo of making childish games. This is partly true. The majority of the Gamecube's best-selling games were anything involving Mario and friends, Starfox, and Link/Zelda, (except Metroid, that's awesome). All of these games, (Besides TP) are rated E. These games are made by Nintendo themselves, so if people accuse Nintendo of making childish games, they are partly correct, due to the game company behind them as well as the console itself being in conjunction...
Furthermore, please do not get the impression that I hate Nintendo. Their reputation for releasing games geared more for somewhat younger kids (Pokemon, Mario and friends, Link/Zelda) is what turns me off to them, but I do not think they're a bad company at all. Their games are great in content, but what skins are put onto that content is the deciding factor for me.
They haven't changed much over the last 20 years. They're still using Mario and Zelda in their games, through all of the generations, and they're still utilizing fantasy stories much like fairytales you would tell children.
I don't understand the "Sony fanboy/girl" or "Microsoft fanboy/girl" accusations against people who only have those systems. You're attacking someone for having a console that hardly has any of the respective company's games on there... which is silly.
The graphics are being heavily upgraded, but it's up to the game company, not Sony or Microsoft, to come out with some good gameplay, which can already be done. Remember, do not think that just because a game has an excellent level of detail means it automatically has bad gameplay. The level of detail in a game is objective, whereas the enjoyability of those games are not. Do not tell me otherwise.
Graphics are important these days. You can disagree with me all you want, but they do make a difference. I'm not saying they're the only thing that's important, but a game with good renders and a smooth framerate is more enjoyable than a game that is lacking aforementioned things.
For one thing, the good gameplay portion is pure opinion. When was the last time you saw a game that was really violent with having no good gameplay at all? God of War? Incorrect. God of War was actually considered, by many, one of the best games of the year for its gameplay, besides the violence involved. GTA? Even more incorrect. Like GoW, it was considered one of the best Action games because of its gameplay and unmatched open-endedness, besides the violence. Besides, it has some of the worst graphics out of any of the last generation games. Is that saying anything to you?
The graphics aren't everything. Most people don't really care about the graphics. To most people, gameplay is the larger factor. I wouldn't want to play a game with graphics that you couldn't tell what anything is, but you don't see any games like that. As long as the gameplay is good, it's fine by me.
I can't think of any other violent games like these right now, but my point remains. If you're going to accuse the game companies of making crappy games with lots of violence... actually, just don't, because it's false.
A lot of people thought highly of Assassin's Creed. It had a lot of violence. Then again any game with the word assassin in it I would expect to be violent unless it's a cartoon-ish sort of game. There was a lot of blood and fighting in Assassin's Creed. Hell, if you bump into a guard a big fight starts and theres bloodshed everywhere.
I don't understand the "Sony fanboy/girl" or "Microsoft fanboy/girl" accusations against people who only have those systems. You're attacking someone for having a console that hardly has any of the respective company's games on there... which is silly.
I find it stupid to attack somebody for just having a certain console. It has even been done to me before.
Graphics are important these days. You can disagree with me all you want, but they do make a difference. I'm not saying they're the only thing that's important, but a game with good renders and a smooth framerate is more enjoyable than a game that is lacking aforementioned things.
Yes, they do make a difference, but aren't everything. As stated earlier, I wouldn't want to play a game with horrible graphics in which case you can't even tell one thing from another. They make a big difference.
Nope...unless the XBox 360 and PS3 stop sucking.
Nope...unless the XBox 360 and PS3 stop sucking.
When you provide a somewhat decently thought-out message with something worthwhile to say, and for us to read, you can reply again.
