If you're anything like me, you were pretty pumped for the Revolution when it debuted. "This will change everything!" was the general consensus about the future of video games. Since then, the console was renamed "Wii" and a veritable avalanche of crappy shovelware lines the Nintendo section at game retailers, with a few corn nuggets of first party goodness mixed in. Regardless, the machine can move units, enough to force Microsoft and Sony to play catch-up (which we all thought Nintendo was supposed to be doing a few months ago).

This is actually a genius move by Nintendo (David Houghton of GamesRadar UK has a fantastic piece about this). The gist of it is that Nintendo has learned what casual games can do to alienate your fanbase and has figured that the casual video game market is a fad, just in time for Sony and Microsoft to swoop in and - hopefully for Nintendo - crash and burn. At the same time, they're returning to their roots at putting out a new system and whole slew of high quality games. If this is the case, then Nintendo probably shares my views on the matter.

The whole point of motion controls is to "immerse" you in the video game world. The "closest we can get" to virtual reality. But who can honestly say that they've felt like they were the hero of a different universe with sword and spells or guns and war by waving the Wiimote around? On paper, good motion controls implemented correctly should produce the desired effect. Take Metroid Prime 3, for example. This is my personal favorite Wii game that I've played to date, and one with very simple places for motion control that can really pull you in. But even in such a expertly crafted game, if you subconsciously let the remote drop out of the allowed area, you're walking around with your face at the floor. Granted, this is a minor annoyance, but it's the minor annoyances that kill immersion and subsequently remind you that you still have a controller in your hands.

Do you remember the first time you played a Mario game? If you're on a GameSpot forum, I'm going to assume that you do anyway. If you were still new to video games, you probably, like me, fumbled with the controls for the first hour or so. But what about the point where you started to get good at it? You stopped looking at the controller every time there was a particularly long jump, or more than a few enemies. After a while, you forget you have a controller in your hands, and you're just having fun. That's why gaming is our hobby, really. We become faint at the first glimpse of a new console or hardware, but in reality, we play games to have fun, to escape reality, at least for an hour or two.

So, if one controller didn't do it for us, why should two, or zero? Why, especially, should a casual gamer - someone who only plays every once in a while, or whenever they have company - go out and buy another console AND their motion controllers? They aren't in love with the hobby, and they already have a machine that lets them do the exact same things that these new machines will do. Do realtors sell houses to homeowners? No, they sell to people who used to rent, or have moved on to the next step of their life. Why are Sony and Microsoft selling us the house next door when we're still paying off the mortgage on our current house?

That's why I think there's a metaphorical housing market collapse on the horizon for the video game industry. I think we're headed for a (probably, but hopefully not) brief spell of high-quality, inventive, and innovative games popping up: first from Nintendo - as they have the head start - and then Sony and Microsoft, in an attempt to re-win the hearts of the hardcore crowd, the people who are sticking around. It's a pretty great argument we have here, because if I'm right, we get great games, and if I'm wrong, gaming gains more mainstream acceptance and we'll start seeing a larger quantity of games. I love for people to prove my opinions wrong, so if you've got something to say, sound off in the comments.