First of all, the reason it excites meto check updates and try the new wii shooters is simple. They get so much better they keep me on my toes. To summarize, i play ocassionally shooters on PC, their(sequels) use the same engine, feel really samey and while great, they often dont surprise me. Its a similar feeling from the yearly versions of FIFA . Is the same engine, some tweaks, some retweaks(lets remove this 2k9 feature, lets readd this 2k7 feature...).Often better, rarely really much better.Hell, sometimes Gears of War 2 is impossible to tell apart from Gears of War 1, and so far, Gears of War 3 isnt THAT different in graphical output.

Because of wii drastic changes in budget for game development, the changes are much more wild.New engines, better graphics , more features(stablished in other consoles often), but with the trusty wiimote controls. Is weird, but i like to see how far developers can go with the less powered system.The continuous change in the system perception to the developers and some of its public really amuse me so to speak.

I scored Reflex using the Gamespot standarts. For its console, and its time, its the prime shooter. Its as good as it could get for the console in 2010.That simple. I didnt compare it to MW2 on the PS3. i compared to anything the system offered at the time, and estimated what was possible by the industry for it last year. The game retained the great and awarded gameplay, refit the efficient shooter engine, put the crisp sound effects , and added THE best multiplayer the system ever had(with all the gigantic effort that goes with it).You dont give it a nice try for that.Its asinine to be afraid of scoring the game higher out of fear than the big guys will missunderstand you.Its even worse to score it poorly out of the anger produced by having one of the big games on the system you so much dislike inside. Or because you are not allowed to score a non cartooney wii game decently.The game was an ambitious project, and 100% of its award winning gameplay was brought to the system. A bigger experience than the system was supposed to afford, and because that was fresh for the wii owners , it deserved the score.It was new ,for the wii perhaps, but new.

I know, however, that now even bigger games are coming. The latest Goldeneye trailers shows a much more polished engine, that is particularly good looking.Sure, nothing against the systems heavy hitters, but SOMETHING against some moderate games like Bourne Conspiracy.And to think than the system started with stinkers like Red Steel and Far Cry vengeance shows how far it has came along.

I will test and review Conduit 2, Goldeneye and Black Ops. And if some of them raises the bar further, I will score it accordingly as well.

After beating Red Steel 2(and replaying it), i was truly amazed at the visceral new experience offered by Ubisoft. No game cames close to inmersing you into it(the game). All the shooters, and i mean ALL Of them to this date, reacted in canned ways, with riggid timeframes.Your melee attack (knife or punch),goes in a preset mode,hell in the analogs, you dont even aim as fast as you can in real life, but as fast as the analog setting lets you(and then the lack of precision kicks in).In fighting games, your punching speed is determined by a preset value depending on the fighter.Its(almost) out of the question in RS2.You are as fast as YOU are. While few other games in arcades or RS1 attempted it, the technical hidrances diminished the experience to the point of butchering it(you had to wait till the ingame move ended for instance).But no more.

This kind of feeling is the one that will be promoted with kinetic and Move, and in their games. Of course, since the majority of gamers(including Wii owners) ,havent played it, they will see it as something "new".Thats a shame.The game is right there in the shelves looking at them.They ignore it.They play the generic clone in 2011 with spiced graphics.They will say" wow motion controls are awesome ,look at this!" ...

I just think its a shame than the forefather of a succesful genre is being so ignored, and i cant really blame Ubisoft.Perhaps the promotion should have been bigger. It would have helped no doubt.Perhaps Nintendo should have helped them.Maybe theres was a lack of communication between them. To be honest, while the sales of RS2 arent particulary bad, i find just tad ironic than a good but overall been-there-done-that game like Red Dead Redemption sells millions while a game MUCH more entertaining that gets you right truly in the action like Red Steel 2 struggles for its million.Is not fair in terms of being an achievement(RS2 that is), but im sure its fair in terms of budget.

What happened here is a silent gem, and a shame at it.A new genre was born in front of our eyes and we overlooked it. I do hope the guys at Ubisoft get the recognition they deserve and that Nintendo supports these ips much harder even if they dont own them.Like they did with Monster Hunter 3.

Several times we have seen in several gaming sites how some bitter developers, say , Ubisoft or EA express their sadness and specifically address this: Is hard to sell in the wii, unless you have mario or something.Oh really?

Ubisoft biggest profile title, Assasins creed 2, never hit the wii.How can they tell it wont work?from low profile titles like Dead space spin off from EA?Yep. Comparing a Dead space extraction spin off to Assasin creed and i think its pretty easy how everything gets mixed up.

Ubisoft could declare the wii as a the console they wont support this year for instance. Is the console they never supported.Is like saying we gave you too much of nothing, and nothing sold, so now, you get nothing!. What?Raving rabbids is support?Well certainly Raving rabbids wont determine if Wii owners would buy AC. Turtles smash up! wont tell if wii owners could buy prince of persia!

Wii owners promptly buy as fast as any when quality and appeal is provided. After these statements or similar ones from THQ or Ubisoft(a publisher that never launched an important game on the wi), other developers had no problems reaching their markets.

In the case of Ubi casual aproach, Just Dance! just became a huge hit.Well no kidding, it didnt have mario, but it had a good idea, and some fun concepts behind. Voila, not rocket science , was it?

Now, Activision could tell you a thing or two. Activison actually brought their biggest franchise (call of duty), into the wii, and so far, the combined sales of those games are reaching several millions. Yep, thats why you never heard Activision once claim the "casual nature of the wii", "the 1st party addiction", or anything of sorts.And you wont for sure. Activision is the only developer who brought their biggest franchise into the wii as well as other consoles. Activision one of the few developers never claiming core 3rd party games dont sell on the wii.See the pattern?

Capcom took a gamble just recently on the wii.With tvc.See, its the first "real" capcom game released on the west(not a spin off, sidestory ,port).And yes, it selling, without mario, without parties, without babies. Take note capcom, because this is what wii owners want.Oh yes, in japan, Monster hunter 3 sold a million copies.A bit less than the best potential result, yet great regardless.

What wii owners want is nothing niche, dark, experimental or simplistic. 50 dollars for a rail shooter is not a good deal to many millions of players on any console. Thats why Time Crisis is not really a goldmine on the PS3. Time crisis taking so long to sell on the PS3 didnt discourage developers into making COD 4 ported into it.Why?because they were not stupid.

What is gonna sell on the wii?what sells anywhere else.What wont sell on the wii?what DOESNT SELLS ANYWHERE ELSE.

I must admit, that against most of my calculations, im still unable to properly gauge the success of certain wii games. Im refferring to realize what exactly wants the core wii owner, the old school gamer portion of the wii market.Its fair to admit we "gamespot" posters have little to no bearing if we compare our tastes with the average wii owner. Thats why Carnival and most of my Sims games sold so well, despite most of us didn`t buy those.So most wii owners are different than lets say, internet wii savyy owners.

Ok lets try to crack up why some game sell and some dont, because this year was a bit of a puzzle to me...getting the facts out first: -Nintendo 1st party games sell, no brainer. Wide appeal, family friendly, famous characters, insta buy, really. Metroid is less family friendly but its marketted properly.However i must add, Corruption sales were on par with Red Steel. And COD outsold rather quickly Corruption. To summarize, a third party game outsold a first party core game. Not that Corruption sold bad , but not as fast and good as Call of Duty World at War(which wasnt even console exclusive by any means).Right here we got a contention issue. A first party game selling worse than a similarly scoring third party? Samus not as popular?or it was the lack of online content?Figure it out.

-Core mature games DO sell. Third party. This is proven by a couple of onrail shooters, COD series which are more violent than the Cube(and also managed higher sales than the Cube COD`s ).Resident evil 4 (cube game), got similar sales than the old game despite no visual upgrades or pretty much any upgrade besides controls and bonuses. No More Heroes managed a sequel as well,with moderate sales. So , definitively, some do sell. Even tho it took a bit for NMH. To this point i was pretty much confident quality was a seller with mature titles(at Wii). Even less stellar games like Bully (a ps2 port) did sucessfully eventually and Quantum of Solace pulled through.What about the Conduit?sales are steady , we are up around 300,000 units and growing. For a flawed effort(lets face it, is not really very good), its going just fine.In fact most mature titles were doing fine! surprise there.

-But then this year. Well, tenchu was released, with a moderate gamerakings/metacritc. (6.9), although i personally enjoy terribly much. It had dismal sales of less than 100k over nearly a year. it was a big dissapointment. -Madworld. It sold under expectations. Fortunately, it managed to grow some legs and maintain enough reception to get the recent Sega statement. That they will keep trying to "crack" the core market. Good enough.

-House of the Dead OK pulled good numbers and Sega was happy. The onrail game outsold the Third person action game. Point taken.(Not as good as the 2&3 combo but climbing nicely). -Cursed mountain: the estimates are particularly bad. I expected low, but 50k low ?thats less than the conduit first week or 2. A third person good game with very dismal returns.

-Deadly Creatures: Yet another third person quality adventure with a mature style.And yet among the biggest failures. Price drops kept this amazing product afloat, but the 100k reception (in 9 months) is not good. THQ was dissapointed, although the sales did picked up afterwards.But it was after a cut.

-And now, Dead Space. While it started better than Tenchu 4, and Cursed Mountain,thats still not much to say. The game had much higher production values(Hours of spoken dialogue, and the highest resolution graphics on the wii to date-much much higher detail than ANY wii game), its obvious that this game had quite the budget unlike, lets say Segas Madworld or HOTD(its, after all, an "interactive cinematic experience" opposed to UC or GS). Like THQ, Visceral was baffled with the results. While some argue that "oh, it would have done better if it was third person" , i reply:" And why every other mature third person game bombed worse?. So i dont think it has to do with genre by any means. Although, in all fairness, i think Visceral shouldn`t call it quits yet, as the game is still new and many mature games do pick up over time. Besides, the game distrubution was quite slow and many stores didnt get it until a couple of weeks. So lets see how it goes. Im aware that Darkside will do fine , as well as COD reflex, not sure about the numbers, but certainly the buzz for both games is big. In fact, im shocked at the inmense fan reaction to COD Reflex despite it being old, and having little developer asisted hype(unlike Conduit).

Basically i want to seek your educated, non biased, non fanboyist opinion(is pointless anyway ,as we are an obvious fraction of the core market), on what the core owner buys and doesn´t on the wii. What do they want?(beside the COD and other games that broke through).Sorry about the long text.

PD:this was a post i made, but this way i think is better to keep it up

We know COD4 modern warfare for wii is coming, and boy,what an outburst it created. Theres a lot of hate going on.And i think some people has calm down and take things easily and rethink their arguments. I personally think,theres nothing wrong with a good game ported.Ok lets be specific here, since some people say COD4 is a bad game. Is generally accepted by the vast gaming population and critics as a good game. Lets get that out of the way first.

So its 2 years old...Very well, so was Okami ,Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil archives and loads more. Ports from past generations(not even current ones).Was that bad?did people complain? No and No. So why with MW2, a more current game?Because its from higher end machines(so its ok from inferior ones)? I feel this is illogic reasoning.A good game is a good game,bottom of the story.Should it have happened earlier?Probably so. Was it wrong it didnt happen back then?It depends. Okami didnt happen on the wii because the console didnt exist. And COD4 was stated to not being able to run on the wii back then.Theres a reason for both.It was a year later when Activision found a way to tuck the COD4 engine on the wii.Sure,perhaps shoveled in.But good enough.

But the argument redirects in defensive stance...Oh,because of the graphics. Now, heres the drill, The game on the wii (previous one), looked really fine(again, the general critics consensus,posting I THINK-or IN my opinion will never get anyone anywhere). Lets go with the consensus to stay on the same page.Now if you ask me, the game(WAW) looked fine for the most part. Satisfying.Now, theres a loss compared to the original version,definitively.How much did it affect the experience?it depends.Initially, yes.After some prolonged and heated up gameplay?no. When the extra corners are not your focus of attention,theres very little those elements do for the experience. If you keep the general presentation, the physics and objectives,gameplay, its a very similar experience in the end.Sure this doesnt apply for all games, like Dead rising(or the PS2 COD).But WAW did it.MW shouldnt be on the wii because visuals wont be exactly as good?even if they are great for the wii?Nonsense. Buying a whole new console or properly powered PC just for one game to look better?Sales of COD 3 and WAW proved people dont agree with that idea. 600 bucks(or 470 now)for that game because it will be look better?You really think every player is like that?

The main issue and the kicker here, is the fact that MW2 is coming out the same date.I think this is quite the biggest issue here.But understandable if you take in account all the factors. The truth is that activision didnt see the sales of COD games on wii to be so massive.Sure, not on par with the other consoles, but big ,huge enough. They expected decent sales of the white console ,not the big profits it reached this mid year. This turned their attention on the wii.It was huge loss not to include the market. But this didnt happen till MW 2 was far too into development.So they are now building the franchise they way it should, first the first, then (as they said, depending on the sales of MW1), the second will arrive. Sounsd fair and very feasible given COD 3 and COD WaW results. Sure, later ...But better than never.

"Every human being who had interest in COD 4 modern warfare already bought it for PC ,PS3 or 360".They bought the extra console or powered their PCs just for it". Seriously?Okami had no extra features on the wii..it came 2 years later than for playstation 2(a cheaper console!)...And it sold even better on the wii...Hell, COD3 for wii didnt even have online.Yet it sold.

Lets not forget,that several gamers enjoy a lot the controls for Wii in shooters.This, mitigates the visual loss.A full package, with all the maps from DLC that came after the launch?The million(or 2) of wii COD fans will jump on this wagon.Thats a bit too many from nobody.

All in all, theres no reason to get worked up.If you dont like the game, if you feel insulted by activision in a way or form,simply dont buy it.If you got it for another console, dont buy it.But dont even pretend for a second everyone is like you. Or like me.Because i have MW for PC.

I had a feeling ,perhaps optimistic due to my familiarity with proffessional journalists, that it was in the best interest of the job to pursue information ,news and objectivity.It saddens me to see some ,perhaps non-graduate "journalists" doing a poor job in representing the gaming branch of the tree. True enough, i think its only human to let some of your personal opinion pour into the subjects of coverage. But another is twisting completely the news to fit a false image , or to perpetrate a lie or a urban myth. If we get to specific examples, i think news displayed in gamespot have been very detailed and tainted, and here are the lines that caught my attention: "A bigger disappointment was The Conduit from Sega and High Voltage software. Despite being hyped as a hardcore first-person shooter designed from the ground up for the Wii, the game sold less than 72,000 units on the back of so-so reviews". While it as an standalone statement would make sense, lets check a few lines on the article to see why the writer couldnt hold his bias: "Though the Xbox 360 version of Red Faction: Guerrilla came in ninth place on NPD's non-PC chart with 199,400, the PlayStation 3 version didn't even make the top 20. In fact, the critical hit only sold 67,600 units on Sony's platform" Last time i checked, 72 k was a higher number than 67,600. So how was the Conduit a bigger dissapointment?Or a dissapointment for that matter?Because the Conduit was a big stablished franchise like Red Faction?because it was a low budget product? But wait there is more: "so-so reviews". This should sound fair given that Metacritics average is of 70 or above.But then again theres the line that breaks the argument of fairness: "Last and possibly not least is Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood from Ubisoft and Polish developer Techland. Released on June 30, the critically praised Wild West shooter "..Ok, theres the catch. Call of Juarez has the same average of 70(or lower) than the Conduit at Metacritics or Gamerankings." Critically praised" or "so-so reviews" sounds like a bit too many Mr Thorsen.Make it, Gamespot single review gave this game higher and this one lower, but that was not the consensus just our lone opinions.Of course the odds are that we are gonna give the game lower score if we are going to say the following: "Besides boding ill for High Voltage's other upcoming core Wii games, Gladiator A.D. and The Grinder, the game's poor showing underlined the risks of launching non-mass-market IP on the Wii." wow easy there, you say: Its fine and profitable to debut with 20k units (Call of Juarez) for the PS3, but is terrible to debut with 72k?Didnt Call of Duty World at war broke a Million after selling 45k in the first month?didnt Far Cry 2 for PS3 reach a million after selling in a worse way that the Conduit?Is noteworthy than The Conduit was an indie game, done without a publisher. An indie game sold like the average big budget next gen game.Thats a fact.In fact, no indie game has sold this well on other consoles.Id like an elaborated argument as why does this proves a risk. Gamespot goes out of its way to prove or explain why Juarez sold much worse than the Conduit "While the 44,000-unit total seems low, keep in mind it covers only five days, two of which fell during the long July 4 weekend--when travel, barbecues, and outdoor activities typically take precedence over gaming." It entirely skips the fact that all the hardcore games for the wii market tend to sell better over time than in the first days.At this point in the industry,and with the precedent of Red Steel, Call of Duty and WAW, it should be very obvious how wii third party sell.Even first party(such as Mario Kart).it entirely skips the fact the Conduit charted for 9 days too. So it is apologetic for the good PS3 but is negative for the mean Wii. If the answer i get is: Oh its good sales and is profitable, because there is no competition. Thats moving besides the point. You are admitting right there is profitable and they are making money,hence is not a risky endeavour.I dont care if the game sold fine because there was no competition, my point is proven, the system works. Appealing 50 percent of the market is not nesseary for any game to be a success, to be a proftable endeavour, to be a good idea. When the market is this huge, you can have a safe bet on a genre that isnt fully tapped on the system. Im not an advocate of the wii, im an advocate of better journalism, a more proffessional one, a MORE EDUCATED ONE, for its been the laughing stock of journalists for too long, thanks to people like him. Is tolerable to have fanboys express whatever false images they want, its unnaceptable for spokesmen of the media.