Yet, I don't feel gaming would be gaming without games like Mass Effect 2, which offer single player entertainment instead of multiplayer entertainment. Both will coexist.

Phazevariance

that's true, mass effect definitely has its place in gaming. i personally prefer it to wii sports, but i just can't ignore the amount of fun i've seen families have with wii sports - the type of fun that they'd just not have with mass effect.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

the market dictates what is acceptable in terms of hardware, not the kids posting on gamespot forums.

and it has been clearly proven that the market found the wii's hardware performance more than acceptable for its purpose this generation.

Conjuration

"The market" has also declared Wii Play and Wii Sports as the directiongaaming should be headed.
You think that's progress? Something we as gamers should accept and be pround of?
This is just one big bubble that's most likely going to burst.

YES, i consider revolutionizing the user interface of gaming consoles as significant progress.

wii sports brought a lot of fun to many families and households - way more fun than what games like mass effect and resistance ever could have provided.

I think hardcore gamers definately exist.
And i suppose I could split hairs even further by elaborating on my definition of a "typical" gamer:
I was referring to the long term core audience. The people who buy a console eachround and expect, nay, demand a vastly bigger, more robust, and technologically superior version of the previous generation.

Great games matter. But it's not the only thing when it comes to a new generation of hardware. There has to be some value to that.
I'm convinedthat a typical gamer is interested in great games, aswell as demands progress in the hardware department when new consoles are released.

Conjuration

the reality of current times is that hardware performance is of less importance now than it was before.

electronics are moving in a more fuzzy direction now, where other factors are playing more significant roles.

power consumption is becoming as important as processor speed for mobile devices/tablets (which are predicted to overtake PCs in the consumer market in the future), user interface played a significant role in making apple and nintendo winners this decade.

in the end, it's about how the product works as a whole. processor power is one significant part of the end product - other things, like user interface, ergonomics and quality of gaming software, also play significant roles.

it has been proven that nintendo chose the winning strategy last gen by innovating and significantly improving the HCI (human to computer interface) and ergonomics of their console - while MS and sony paid the price for dragging their feet and not attempting to innovate and improve their HCI one bit.

sure, maybe the hardcore/typical gamer that you describe exist - but if more people are buying wii's and kinetics - that tells me that they are being outnumbers by a new generation of gamers who care about other things way more than hardware clock speeds and core processor count. soon that typical gamer you described will only form a niche market - and you can bet that big companies like sony and MS don't give a damn about niche markets.

MS proved that they can make motion controls work with Kinetic.

now they can feel confident that they can go into next generation with a console that will compete with nintendo.

sony on the other hand, they got a lot of work to do.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/24/sonys-hirai-playstation-network-not-yet-profitable/

This is interesting. I'm pretty confident Sony will go the Xbox Live route next gen.

jimmypsn

also a glaring sign that both the PS3 and PSN were colossal failures

the market dictates what is acceptable in terms of hardware, not the kids posting on gamespot forums.

and it has been clearly proven that the market found the wii's hardware performance more than acceptable for its purpose this generation.

nope.

sony dropped the biggest flop this generation will ever see.

but wait guys, i thought the experts of system wars were certain that motion sensing was just a fad...

turns out that the wii really was a revolution.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"] History will prove me correct. 3D comes and goes every couple of decades. It was big for a few years in the 50's, then it fizzled. They tried it again in the 80's to much success, but once again it fizzled due to many movies looking like crap and making poor use of the effects. Now, it's happening all over again. A couple 3D movies make tons of money and some others manage to sucker people in by putting "3D" on the poster despite the effect being crap, and sooner or later people are going to get bored or even fed up with it. The lack of good content is ultimately what makes 3D go away every time, and the fact that once the novelty wears off people stop caring when they see the words "3D."

Timstuff

Except we have the technology for 3d.. Its not going any where, 3d earlier was primitive and didn't look really good.. And yet again just because YOU have headaches does not some how mean thaat every one does.. Nor does it mean automatic failure.. Yet again i was pointing out how ridiculous your argument it is when I have pointed out I had headaches when playing games at times, but long and behold my very narrow view of such things does not account for every one.

times are different.

blue/red glasses limitted the user experience by limitting color from movies. a SIGNIFICANT limitation.

there is no such limitation with glassless 3D gaming. you can receive pretty much the same things from a 2D expereince, except with 3D. that is a very different circumstance.

[QUOTE="kuu2"]

[QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"]When the technology is there to not have to wear glasses, why on EARTH would you still push for the technology that REQUIRES them?Timstuff

When the technology is there that does not give people headaches and eye problems it will take off.

same concept could be applied to the wii and motion controls, or any new gaming technology for that matter. too many develops use it as a gimmick to attract customers. too many developers add motion control for the sake of motion control. rumble too.

it's the developers that put the technology to GOOD use that create the lasting appeal. and with nintendo and sony behind it, there are bound to be games that put 3D tech to good use. just like there were for the wii - and motion control is the future of gaming because of it.

you can't deny that 3D gaming provides a user experience that traditional 2D gaming can't. because of that, there is potential for the technology. its up to developers to make sure the tech reaches its potential.