My standing arguement against the Wii.

So, a few of my buddies and me were talking yesterday about the console wars. Most of them were uneducated about what's going on, but I managed to bring across a point that I have been talking about for a long time.

The Wii is a failure to me because of some major issues. (IMO)

People always argue for the Wii-"Forget about graphics." No, you can't "forget" about graphics. They enhance a game, and when Gears came out, it was the best looking game and everyone bragged about it and raved about it. Graphics DO matter, and they truly enhance a game. I'd rather turn on Uncharted or Gears then turn on my Wii to play Zelda, where everything besides the controls is last-gen. Keep in mind I have all 3 systems. That's just my viewpoint, no one elses.

Another thing people overlook is the other things the Wii SERIOUSLY lacks in-

AI- The behaviour and characterization of you, your surroundings, and your enemy. The Wii cannot create advanced AI. Enemies that know what you want to do, and try to avoid it. Enemies that are always doing something and interacting amongst themselves to devise a new plan. That gets me annoyed, but it's not a huge issue.

Level design/depth- I understand Super Mario Galaxy has amazing level designs, but the depth isn't all that great. This is where graphics come back into play. Take Mass Effect or Ratchet and Clank for example. The level designs are amazing, and they are becoming more and more advanced, like in Uncharted. The Wii has yet to show me extreme depth within a game.

Character interactions/movements/physics- This is big to me. I love how in games for the 360 and PS3 you can see the person's facial expressions clearly and the emotions they are feeling? I love that. On the Wii everything is kept very basic and simple, and in-game physics are atrocious. I'm sorry, but movements are pretty choppy, and enemies aren't very smooth.

While one of these things by themselves may not be very important, together, they really are. To me anyways. I mean, the PS3 and 360 are more than 10-20 times stronger than the Wii, and it just bugs me everyone buys into the gimmick of the new controller while using insufficient hardware.

Then someone tells me, people like to turn on the system for just a little bit and play Wii sports, or another game. I say, you can turn on a PS3 or 360 for the same time and have a much more enrolling and exciting experience. You don't have to be hardcore super-gamer.

What's your opinions?

Tell me a game that has "advance A.I" and I will be quick to point out the flaws in it that makes it stupid A.I. A.I is a moot topic when it comes talking about next gen hardware, simply because it has advance much if any. Mentioning it is only grasping for straws.

Physics and character animation the Wii can do fine. Ever heard of Elebits? It has great physics. And look at Rockstar's Table Tennis, the graphics were downgraded but the character animations were still in tact. So a lot of your points are created out of ignorance.

And not the 360/PS3 aren't 10x-20x stronger than Wii lol. More like 3x or so.

you want three identicall consoles.

i want diversity

so your uneducated .deadmeat59

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"]so your uneducated .SolidSnake35

The Wii is anything but a failure in almost any measure of success in any business culture in the world.

Play Metroid Prime 3, Zelda, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, etc. Its not all great, but its got some great software.

So ignoring your other faulty points, the Wii "fails" because you personally place graphics above things like creativityand gameplay.Ehlohim

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"]so your uneducated .SolidSnake35

ROFL:lol:

you want three identicall consoles.

i want diversity

Always-Honest

Amen to that... Which is why I still have older consoles, that according to the TC.. can't create engrossing and fun games cuz it can't do the physics and "advanced AI" that the Ps3 and 360 can do. Does this mean Super Mario World is no longer supposed to be fun for me now that I know this? I am sad.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"]so your uneducated .deadmeat59

[QUOTE="Always-Honest"]

you want three identicall consoles.

i want diversity

dotWithShoes

Amen to that... Which is why I still have older consoles, that according to the TC.. can't create engrossing and fun games cuz it can't do the physics and "advanced AI" that the Ps3 and 360 can do. Does this mean Super Mario World is no longer supposed to be fun for me now that I know this? I am sad.

What advanced A.I? lol I don't think the TC knows what he is talking about. Unless advance A.I=playing online with people. Then I would agree, the Wii's online sucks.

[QUOTE="Always-Honest"]

you want three identicall consoles.

i want diversity

dotWithShoes

Amen to that... Which is why I still have older consoles, that according to the TC.. can't create engrossing and fun games cuz it can't do the physics and "advanced AI" that the Ps3 and 360 can do. Does this mean Super Mario World is no longer supposed to be fun for me now that I know this? I am sad.

Graphics, when done well, are an added treat, but they are far from being the end all of gaming.

I love my HDTV and PS3 and 360 as well, but even if Super Mario Galaxy is slightly blurry and jaggy (especially compared to some more graphically advanced HD games), the game is still fantastic and fun, and that is what I game for. Fun.

And so far, each and every system has provided me with fun games and experiences.

So, a few of my buddies and me were talking yesterday about the console wars. Most of them were uneducated about what's going on, but I managed to bring across a point that I have been talking about for a long time.

The Wii is a failure to me because of some major issues. (IMO)

People always argue for the Wii-"Forget about graphics." No, you can't "forget" about graphics. They enhance a game, and when Gears came out, it was the best looking game and everyone bragged about it and raved about it. Graphics DO matter, and they truly enhance a game. I'd rather turn on Uncharted or Gears then turn on my Wii to play Zelda, where everything besides the controls is last-gen. Keep in mind I have all 3 systems. That's just my viewpoint, no one elses.

Another thing people overlook is the other things the Wii SERIOUSLY lacks in-

AI- The behaviour and characterization of you, your surroundings, and your enemy. The Wii cannot create advanced AI. Enemies that know what you want to do, and try to avoid it. Enemies that are always doing something and interacting amongst themselves to devise a new plan. That gets me annoyed, but it's not a huge issue.

Level design/depth- I understand Super Mario Galaxy has amazing level designs, but the depth isn't all that great. This is where graphics come back into play. Take Mass Effect or Ratchet and Clank for example. The level designs are amazing, and they are becoming more and more advanced, like in Uncharted. The Wii has yet to show me extreme depth within a game.

Character interactions/movements/physics- This is big to me. I love how in games for the 360 and PS3 you can see the person's facial expressions clearly and the emotions they are feeling? I love that. On the Wii everything is kept very basic and simple, and in-game physics are atrocious. I'm sorry, but movements are pretty choppy, and enemies aren't very smooth.

While one of these things by themselves may not be very important, together, they really are. To me anyways. I mean, the PS3 and 360 are more than 10-20 times stronger than the Wii, and it just bugs me everyone buys into the gimmick of the new controller while using insufficient hardware.

Then someone tells me, people like to turn on the system for just a little bit and play Wii sports, or another game. I say, you can turn on a PS3 or 360 for the same time and have a much more enrolling and exciting experience. You don't have to be hardcore super-gamer.

What's your opinions?

Vorserider2

:lol: you mention advanced A.I. and PS3/360 in the same sentence.

No, it is not advanced A.I. I've had this debate too many times to bother debating it again.

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG. You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG. You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

OregonTrailing

No its not. Not to everyone, at the very least.

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG.You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

OregonTrailing

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG.You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

St_JimmyX

[QUOTE="St_JimmyX"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG.You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

deadmeat59

No, it does not, because reviews are opinions as well.

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG.You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

St_JimmyX

On these forums it is. If we can use the number of AAA's, and AA's to determine which console is best, I see no problem using aggregate review scores to determine the best game.

Tell me a game that has "advance A.I" and I will be quick to point out the flaws in it that makes it stupid A.I. A.I is a moot topic when it comes talking about next gen hardware, simply because it has advance much if any. Mentioning it is only grasping for straws.

Physics and character animation the Wii can do fine. Ever heard of Elebits? It has great physics. And look at Rockstar's Table Tennis, the graphics were downgraded but the character animations were still in tact. So a lot of your points are created out of ignorance.

And not the 360/PS3 aren't 10x-20x stronger than Wii lol. More like 3x or so.

Ramadear

NHL 08 for ps3 and 360..A.I can learn and shut you right down / 360 and ps3 are 3 times quicker in the cpu area. well no more like 6 times but the gpu and the rsx is at least 10-15 times better than that of the wii

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="St_JimmyX"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

Stopped reading when you attacked SMG.You realize it's the best game to come out in the past 10 years, right?

Then I started reading again. And it got worse. Where is this advanced AI everyone is talking about? I just finished Assassins Creed and let me tell you, if that is what advanced AI is, we have a LONG way to go. Anyways, you could recreate the exact same AI on the Wii with scripts, just like Bioshock used.

And you do realize that "20 times" is the same as 2000%?

SpruceCaboose

No, it does not, because reviews are opinions as well.

And it is an opinion that the PC is the best system because it has the most AAA's and AA's, but anyone who denies that is called a fanboy.

On these forums it is. If we can use the number of AAA's, and AA's to determine which console is best, I see no problem using aggregate review scores to determine the best game.

OregonTrailing

No, on these forums (See the GameSpot logo up top? ) its SMG = Halo 3 = Crysis.

And it is an opinion that the PC is the best system because it has the most AAA's and AA's, but anyone who denies that is called a fanboy.

OregonTrailing

The AAA and AA games based on GameSpot scores is only the rule of the forum where you choose to post. It has nothing to do with "reality", but is mearly a way to determine who is "leading" in the System Wars meta-game.

"AI- The behaviour and characterization of you, your surroundings, and your enemy. The Wii cannot create advanced AI. Enemies that know what you want to do, and try to avoid it. Enemies that are always doing something and interacting amongst themselves to devise a new plan. That gets me annoyed, but it's not a huge issue."

AI is a function of the programming, not the hardware. Theoretically, the PS3 and 360 could have more advanced AI, but no game released has even come close to reaching the AI limits of what last gen consoles could do. Hardware doesn't "create AI".

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

And it is an opinion that the PC is the best system because it has the most AAA's and AA's, but anyone who denies that is called a fanboy.

SpruceCaboose

The AAA and AA games based on GameSpot scores is only the rule of the forum where you choose to post. It has nothing to do with "reality", but is mearly a way to determine who is "leading" in the System Wars meta-game.

And why can't that same concept be applied to determine the best game ever? That would be a pretty big bragging right in this meta-game.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]

And it is an opinion that the PC is the best system because it has the most AAA's and AA's, but anyone who denies that is called a fanboy.

OregonTrailing

The AAA and AA games based on GameSpot scores is only the rule of the forum where you choose to post. It has nothing to do with "reality", but is mearly a way to determine who is "leading" in the System Wars meta-game.

And why can't that same concept be applied to determine the best game ever? That would be a pretty big bragging right in this meta-game.

It is the same rule. And here, its Super Mario Galaxy = Halo 3 = Crysis this generation.

I do see where the TC is coming from, and I too wish the Wii was comparable to 360 and PS3 (at least where it could run multiplats).

However, I can't really fault Nintendo for doing what they did with the Wii. I mean, they got worked by Sony (less-powerful consoles!) for two straight generations. They aimed for traditional gamers with the N64 and GC... and we all know how that turned out. By this gen, "hardcore" gamers had already labeled Nintendo as kiddy and ignored them, so what else could they do?

if nintendo decided to make the wii more powerful, it would've failed. the 360 already won the prize for hi powered gaming machine. they'd rather stay out of the fight and play their own game. rather than lose the fight everbody's in.Ungdi

Exactly. Now there will always be a few die-hard Nintendo fans (like myself) who will keep buying Nintendo systems. However, they basically got the message from so-called "hardcore gamers" that they were too "kiddy" and couldn't compete with GTA and Halo.

All I can say is, the only people who have a right to complain about the Wii are the ones who supported N64 and GC. IMO, the Wii exists as it is only because of the relatively low sales of those two previous console.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"]

Tell me a game that has "advance A.I" and I will be quick to point out the flaws in it that makes it stupid A.I. A.I is a moot topic when it comes talking about next gen hardware, simply because it has advance much if any. Mentioning it is only grasping for straws.

Physics and character animation the Wii can do fine. Ever heard of Elebits? It has great physics. And look at Rockstar's Table Tennis, the graphics were downgraded but the character animations were still in tact. So a lot of your points are created out of ignorance.

And not the 360/PS3 aren't 10x-20x stronger than Wii lol. More like 3x or so.

Bishop1310

NHL 08 for ps3 and 360..A.I can learn and shut you right down / 360 and ps3 are 3 times quicker in the cpu area. well no more like 6 times but the gpu and the rsx is at least 10-15 times better than that of the wii

lol sure thing. Thats what you call advance A.I? In Virtua Fighter 2 on Sega Saturn there was this option called Learning Mode where the A.I learned your strategies and how to counter you. So basically everytime you got better so did the A.I and you needed to mix up your strategy to win or else it wouldn't work. Note this was on Saturn in 1996, so much for the advance A.I the 360/PS3 can do.

Like I said, mentioning advance A.I is grasping for straws.

[QUOTE="Ungdi"]if nintendo decided to make the wii more powerful, it would've failed. the 360 already won the prize for hi powered gaming machine. they'd rather stay out of the fight and play their own game. rather than lose the fight everbody's in.--ProtoMan--

Exactly. Now there will always be a few die-hard Nintendo fans (like myself) who will keep buying Nintendo systems. However, they basically got the message from so-called "hardcore gamers" that they were too "kiddy" and couldn't compete with GTA and Halo.

All I can say is, the only people who have a right to complain about the Wii are the ones who supported N64 and GC. IMO, the Wii exists as it is only because of the relatively low sales of those two previous console.

It is the same rule. And here, its Super Mario Galaxy = Halo 3 = Crysis this generation.

SpruceCaboose

No, actually it is not.

Free debate reigns(as was already determined for System Wars), therefore someone could argue SMG > Halo 3 despite them both having a score of 9.5.

Using scores alone is faulty. WarioWare > Mass Effect/Bioshock? Zelda TP GCN > Zelda TP Wii?

Hahahahahaha. I love these posts saying I'm ignorant from Wii-boys. You see, the PS3 is WAY more than 3x stronger than the Wii. The graphics card is at least 10 times more powerful than the Wi''s GPU. If your saying it's only 3x stronger your saying the Wii can do almost .6 Tflops. That's a joke, the Wii CANNOT DO THAT.

Let's see the Wii create enemies that interact with each other fluidly. Impossible, and yes the hardware indirectly controls it. The CPU has to be able to handle all of these things at once, and you can't give the Wii more processes than it can handle.

Okay, WHEN DID I SAY WII GAMES ARENT FUN? No, I said the things I mentioned enhance a game greatly, and I can turn on Super Mario 64 and have the almost same experience as Galaxy. I like playing my Wii, but I'd much rather play my other consoles for a more exciting experience.

Enough with the innovate and creative defensive thing you Wii bots are saying. What's so "creative"? Games that are meant for children and another Mario game that scores highly to add to the 1032030 that are out?

Tell me can the Wii create complex characters that do a specific action like in Assassin's Creed? When you walk in the village people are conversing, buying things, and just plain living. You can't do that on the Wii, it can't calculate that fast. The Wii's CPU is only 729 Mhz! Not even 1.0 Ghz!!! 24Mb of RAM, and the graphics card is something like 243 Mhz. That may not be that bad, but it has to work with the CPU to create good graphics, which the CPU is not particularly good at. NO ONE ever brings up Wii specs, but always PS3 and 360 specs. Why is that? The Wii specs are really bad, no offense to you Mario-obsessors.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

It is the same rule. And here, its Super Mario Galaxy = Halo 3 = Crysis this generation.

blahzor

No, actually it is not.

Free debate reigns(as was already determined for System Wars), therefore someone could argue SMG > Halo 3 despite them both having a score of 9.5.

Using scores alone is faulty. WarioWare > Mass Effect/Bioshock? Zelda TP GCN > Zelda TP Wii?

Anarchy was shot down by Casey last I saw, and you don't compare pre-0.5 increment scores to post-0.5 increment scores as that is incredibly unfair.

Hahahahahaha. I love these posts saying I'm ignorant from Wii-boys. You see, the PS3 is WAY more than 3x stronger than the Wii. The graphics card is at least 10 times more powerful than the Wi''s GPU. If your saying it's only 3x stronger your saying the Wii can do almost .6 Tflops. That's a joke, the Wii CANNOT DO THAT.

Let's see the Wii create enemies that interact with each other fluidly. Impossible, and yes the hardware indirectly controls it. The CPU has to be able to handle all of these things at once, and you can't give the Wii more processes than it can handle.

Okay, WHEN DID I SAY WII GAMES ARENT FUN? No, I said the things I mentioned enhance a game greatly, and I can turn on Super Mario 64 and have the almost same experience as Galaxy. I like playing my Wii, but I'd much rather play my other consoles for a more exciting experience.

Enough with the innovate and creative defensive thing you Wii bots are saying. What's so "creative"? Games that are meant for children and another Mario game that scores highly to add to the 1032030 that are out?

Tell me can the Wii create complex characters that do a specific action like in Assassin's Creed? When you walk in the village people are conversing, buying things, and just plain living. You can't do that on the Wii, it can't calculate that fast. The Wii's CPU is only 729 Mhz! Not even 1.0 Ghz!!! 24Mb of RAM, and the graphics card is something like 243 Mhz. That may not be that bad, but it has to work with the CPU to create good graphics, which the CPU is not particularly good at. NO ONE ever brings up Wii specs, but always PS3 and 360 specs. Why is that? The Wii specs are really bad, no offense to you Mario-obsessors.

Vorserider2

Sigh......it shows how little you know since you brought up the Wii's processor speed. Its not a 729mhz x86 processor, its a 729mhz powerpc. There is a difference, powerpcs don't need high clock speed to achieve the performance of the x86. I'm not using this to say the Wii cpu is more powerful that the 360/PS3 because its not. If you want to compare it to a x86 then its probably more like a 1.4ghz or so.

Hahahahahaha. I love these posts saying I'm ignorant from Wii-boys. You see, the PS3 is WAY more than 3x stronger than the Wii. The graphics card is at least 10 times more powerful than the Wi''s GPU. If your saying it's only 3x stronger your saying the Wii can do almost .6 Tflops. That's a joke, the Wii CANNOT DO THAT.

Let's see the Wii create enemies that interact with each other fluidly. Impossible, and yes the hardware indirectly controls it. The CPU has to be able to handle all of these things at once, and you can't give the Wii more processes than it can handle.

Okay, WHEN DID I SAY WII GAMES ARENT FUN? No, I said the things I mentioned enhance a game greatly, and I can turn on Super Mario 64 and have the almost same experience as Galaxy. I like playing my Wii, but I'd much rather play my other consoles for a more exciting experience.

Enough with the innovate and creative defensive thing you Wii bots are saying. What's so "creative"? Games that are meant for children and another Mario game that scores highly to add to the 1032030 that are out?

Tell me can the Wii create complex characters that do a specific action like in Assassin's Creed? When you walk in the village people are conversing, buying things, and just plain living. You can't do that on the Wii, it can't calculate that fast. The Wii's CPU is only 729 Mhz! Not even 1.0 Ghz!!! 24Mb of RAM, and the graphics card is something like 243 Mhz. That may not be that bad, but it has to work with the CPU to create good graphics, which the CPU is not particularly good at. NO ONE ever brings up Wii specs, but always PS3 and 360 specs. Why is that? The Wii specs are really bad, no offense to you Mario-obsessors.

Vorserider2

You mean you actually studied the Wii specs and know them by heart? Wow.

I just love how you threw out some random number for Mario games. Jeez. Go count up the games in the main series and then you can talk. And since when is Mario a game just for children?

You want to know what I hate about the current state of gaming? I hate people who are too busy worrying about their macho image to play games that don't involve, as one guy said, "boobs and blood."

[QUOTE="blahzor"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

It is the same rule. And here, its Super Mario Galaxy = Halo 3 = Crysis this generation.

SpruceCaboose

No, actually it is not.

Free debate reigns(as was already determined for System Wars), therefore someone could argue SMG > Halo 3 despite them both having a score of 9.5.

Using scores alone is faulty. WarioWare > Mass Effect/Bioshock? Zelda TP GCN > Zelda TP Wii?

Anarchy was shot down by Casey last I saw, and you don't compare pre-0.5 increment scores to post-0.5 increment scores as that is incredibly unfair.

What? When was this! Anarchy won by a very large margin.

With WW having over a 9.0, are you implying that it wouldnt' have retained a 9 under the new score? How about Wario Ware > Shadow of the Collossus?
Regardless, the zelda example holds up my point. TP on the wii scored less then it did on the cube, yet gamespot officially stated that it was better on the wii.

If we cannot compare Pre 0.5 incrimental scores to post, why is it fair to compare across platforms and genres(scores only)? In fact, its probably more ridiculous.

Anarchy did win, but since then, its gone back to AAA and AA based on GS scores. There is even a stick on SW that lists them out.

Comparing review scores is unfair anyway you slice it, but generally here, its recognized that games after the .5 switch are viewed on an island.

Review scores are rediculous anyway. They are meant to tell you if a game would be something you'd like or not. SW has turned it into some word of the gaming gods or something.

Anarchy did win, but since then, its gone back to AAA and AA based on GS scores. There is even a stick on SW that lists them out.

Comparing review scores is unfair anyway you slice it, but generally here, its recognized that games after the .5 switch are viewed on an island.

Review scores are rediculous anyway. They are meant to tell you if a game would be something you'd like or not. SW has turned it into some word of the gaming gods or something.

SpruceCaboose

Just because anarchy won doesn't mean people aren't entitled to keep track of the number of AAA and AA titles. Does some sticky make mention of us using AAA and AA alone to determine systems quality? I don't have time at the moment to read this.. and i would love to know how this happened, after the landslide that was the original poll.

Oh i completely agree that SW is crazy for using review scores alone.. especially GS's, after Jeff basically said that the score is intended for those who don't know much about gaming(i believe, from a blog post. i'm sure you remember, the thread in SW was quite popular). However, it is faulty to assume that all games at a given score are equal.. unless, this is system wars ridiculous rule(and make no mistake, it is incredibly idiotic).

I don't see how this should be a rule.. System wars says it only goes by gamespots opinion.. but by claiming that score is all that matters, SW is going against gamespots opinions. *See Twilight Princess

basically, TC, ure bringing the power argument back.....its been done to death (and im sure itll come back again). but ok ill play

AI. please name me one game on a next gen platform that has seriously enhanced AI. halo 3? no. gears? erm...no. Ratchet? eh..no. in fact i can only think of 1 game that has worked on AI on a serious level....STALKER. thats it. thats the list right there. now u want to hear something thats really funny? i can name a game that not only has better AI than pretty much everythign today (stalker being the exception of course), but it also rendered its graphics on the CPU. and it was released in 2000. wanna know? why its called outcast. the AI in that game was so far ahead of its time, it wasnt funny. ppl would randomly wonder around the place and talk to each other. the AI was aware of where everyone else was at any moment (and ppl moved around alot). enemy soldiers would try and flank you and they would work together. it wasnt perfect but it was very convincing and still holds up today. wanna know something even funnier? it ran on a 500MHz P3. the wiis CPU could run it and still have juice left in the tank....and thats before u even bing the GPU in. my point? horsepower does not help AI.....a crap load of programming does. its a programming nightmare but it doesent really put a huge strain on hardware.

level design- im sorry what? level design is not about graphics, tis about the overall shape of the level and developing the challenges using the gameplay of the game. r&c (good laugh that it is) has pedestrian level design compared to galaxy. R just follows the usual platforming templates to the letter. mario takes them and goes completly nuts. for level design, depth is something mario has in truck loads.

Character interaction etc- thats a fair point. some of this is the devs faults but some of this is also down to less grunt. physics especially on wii will be dissapointing compared to the other platforms. in fairness there are many other ways to convey emotion in games other than using the face though. FF7 has no fatial emotions at all but it still is a tear jerker at times. this is achieved through great use of music, writing and body expression.

overall though im very happy with the wii. yes its week on the horse pwoer front but it has also brought alot to the table. its making devs think about the basics because they have to. FPSs control alot better on wii compared to normal controllers imho. MP3 really shows this....the game is just a pleasure to play. its also a game with alot of depth....depth achieved through gameplay. and it looks lovely. technically its not great of course but to just look at sky city...its a pleasure.

im always of the opinion that a great developer will make great games on any platform, they dont need a super computer. my fav game of all time is deus ex 1 on PC because its plays great, the levels are great, the writings great, the characters are great and so on. needless to say, the wii could run DE1 in its sleep. what makes a great game is a great developer. if bioshock want to make a deep and emotional journey and will make u laugh and cry on wii then they will. and u will laugh and cry by the end of it. if EPIC wanted to make a UT game for wii then they would and it would still play great and be great fun. imho it always comes down to the developer.