I get that gamers feel this way but when exactly has Nintendo gone for a realistic "mature" approach with their core franchises? Mario was still Mario this generation and he was better than ever. We could complain that his overalls lacked their deniem look from Super Smash Bros. Melee but I doubt that had an impact on Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2. Zelda had a strong showing with Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, in fact Nintendo even moved away from the cartoony graphics of WInd Waker with the Wii. Metroid Prime 3 was just like the first 2 games. Mario Kart was still Mario Kart, and so on.

Yes Nintendo also broadened their horizons by releasing numerous games geared towards a younger/casual audience. Does that make the games on the Wii, or any other platform for that matter, any less fun? Was No More Heroes impacted by Wii Fit taking off? My point is that just because these games are out there and aren't for you or me doesn't suddenly discredit the games that are there and are truly good.

I'm right there with you in enjoying games like L.A. Noire, Heavy Rain (this was why I purchased a PS3), and Portal 2 was fantastic this year. I spend more time gaming on my PC than anything else and my Wii collects dust 90% of the time. I just don't see a reason in laughing off games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, and others based on other releases for the Wii. It may not mean that the Wii is the right purchase for you, but it doesn't mean these games are any less either.

You're right--Nintendo has never appealed to a "mature" audience. But they refused to grow up with said audience. During the 8 and 16-bit days, they used to have all the third-party studs. And frankly, I'm a bit sick of the endless first-party franchise repeats. How can anyone take a storyline seriously that essentially consists of the exact same character being reborn every generation? Seriously?

Nintendo didn't just "broaden their horizons." They clearly moved towards a more casual audience, and most of their "core titles" are the same first-party iterations they always have. Where's the fresh, original IPs that expand gaming's potential as a storytelling and artistic medium? From that perspective, the Wii is very clearly not for gamers like me.

I recognize that plenty of younger (and older) gamers enjoy games like Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess, and Super Mario Galaxy, but for those of us seeking experiences like Alan Wake, Portal, Heavy Rain, or Uncharted, the Wii cannot deliver.

Nintendo made the conscious decision to abandon me and those like me, and that's fine if they can survive on a different audience (which they seemingly have). But they also shouldn't be surprised when gamers seeking mature experiences feel betrayed and refuse to support the Wii. They made their bed...etc.

I agree you with you whole heartedly on this, Nintendo made the decision to not pursue the same audience as Sony and Microsoft when it came to the Wii. At the same time though I enjoy the different experience Nintendo brings to the table with their franchises. Mario still manages to provide some of the most challenging gameplay experiences I've played this generation.

Once the Wii-U arrives it seems like Nintendo will be bringing the core gamer back into focus and is going to be providing more of a core experience.

What the Wii offers I've enjoyed and their main franchises haven't felt like a rehash to me of previous work. I can sit down and enjoy most of Nintendo's work without any issue as well as enjoying what the PC, 360, and PS3 offer. In fact with the 360 and PS3 being so similiar in terms of what they offer it was pretty nice having the Wii there bringing something different to the table. And if what they've been releasing recently on the 3DS is any indicator of what the future holds I've got many great gaming experiences ahead of me on that platform as well.

That's like saying that Hotwheels and Fischer Price suck because they didn't start making "mature" toys when you grew up.

Well my point is that just because the Wii is host to plenty of shovelware doesn't detract from the games that are truly fun. Did you enjoy Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Fire Emblem any less because of the lack of other games?

I'm not saying the Wii, or any other platform, is going to have plenty of games for you, me, or even Jason but that doesn't make the games that are good any less.

The Kinect can be a lot of fun, but it was never meant for core gamers...and the central thesis behind it ("your body is the controller") necessarily precludes those types of experiences. When Natal/Kinect was brewing, and the various marketing and PR types were touting the motion-sense peripheral as the future of gaming (and claiming that it would cater to, among others, core gamers), I shook my head.

Jarrod, you're assuming that everyone considers the Mario and Zelda franchise titles "good games." Matthew and I (among many others) prefer a different sort of experience. I realize that mine might be the minority opinion. And that's fine that you enjoy those titles -- you're in good company...but you shouldn't assume that everyone feels the same way. If we don't enjoy the Wii's preeminent releases (and there's not enough games catering to our tastes), then for us the console is severely lacking.

Games like Mario, Zelda, and the like aren't for everyone. I recognize this because there isn't a single game out there that is for everyone. This isn't about any one specific game though. Whether it is Zak and Wiki, House of the Dead: Overkill, No More Heroes, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Xenoblade, Last Story, Little King's Story, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, and many others these games aren't less fun because of other games.

Sure not every game is for everyone but there are games on the Wii that are good. I just don't see a point in acting like the entire platform offers nothing and that everything on the Wii isn't worth a "core" gamer's time.

I've always disliked the term "core gamer" as that is a rather elitist attitude. It presents an idea that every game designer or system maker must center their entire approach around this realativly few amount of gamers or suffer a death of their industry. It also doesn't help the stigma that comes with the term "gamer" of being insular social outcasts. A lot of people who call themselves "core gamers" tend to have the idea that gaming is "their" hobby and that the "outsiders" shouldn't be able to participate lest they dilute or contaminate the pool.

Nintendo has never taken that design philosophy of following these self titled "core gamers" like a lost little puppy largely because there's less money in it. Sure they could have made a more powerful system that could run the latest big ticket testosterone fest and charge 2-3 times the Wii's asking price. In my honest opinion however, after looking at the sales flow of the three systems, that probably would have been far more detrimental to the industy. Sure, the gamer's hobby would have been insular and secure for another generation, but at what cost? Don't forget a lot of indie developers (which have been the most creative ones this generation by far) do tend to focus more on the streamined side because the mechanics are easier to code. Nintendo proved that there's a market out there that appreciate that type of design philosophy, and has produced a far more diverse gaming community than ever.