Wtf Nintendo? They're kidding, right? I'm really not getting sucked into Nintendo and yet I'm wondering what else they'd come up with. I mean, after motion control gaming, they'll definitely think of something more reliable, right?

Sigh...I don't know if I'll jump on the bandwagon this time. I'm not forking over my allowance to them.

Netflix support for the Kinect? I wonder if they'll have interactive boob touching for the rated-R films. Not real boob touching but...oh forget it. (Trying to leave my naughty thoughts out of this)

I really hope Nintendo relies on more than just hardware, this next generation. The way I see it, they got extremely lucky this generation. If they try to strike gold twice by, again, emphasizing hardware over software, it's going to bite them in the ass. Companies that have solely relied on hardware to push sales have a very deep history of failure. Case and point: SEGA.

I'm noticing a trend where Nintendo is slowly abandoning its traditional focus on simplicity--compelling gameplay experiences over flashy hardware. We went from the modest Gameboy all the way up to the 3DS, which sports highly-advanced autostereoscopic technology. Gumpei Yokoi would be spinning in his grave.

The Wii was a great success because it targeted a previously untapped market, and did so with fun, addictive gameplay, not spiffy HD graphics.

But Jason, the Wii did emphasize tech over gameplay. Yes, Nintendo didn't put money into graphics performace, but they did put everything into motion gaming. And I'd argue that the Wii's system library demonstrates that it's much less about new and innovative game design than it is about new ways to play (i.e., interact with) the same old games.

Indeed, but the Wii's motion control was a central component of several games, most notably Wii Sports. And apart from physical ailments, there isn't a percentage of the population that can't "experience" motion sense as there is with the 3DS. Whereas with the 3DS, Nintendo has admitted that 3D will be peripheral, not a necessary component.

Yes, a good portion of the Wii's library is simply the latest installment of a long-running franchise with enhanced motion sense controls (in this way, little more than a gimmick). But for the few titles that rely on motion sense, I'd argue the Wii represents gameplay innovation.

I'm afraid I'd have to side with Rob on this one. The Wii is a prime example of Nintendo putting their own design plans and convenience before those of third-party designers. The Wii is yet another Nintendo console where most (if not nearly all) of the good games are made by Nintendo. Not only has Nintendo retained the same stubborn relationship with third-party developers that killed them the last generation, but developers also seem confused as to how to properly design for the Wii.

I wouldn argue against the claim that the Wii was contributional to the medium as a whole. Rather than that, it was a mere convenience for Nintendo's design and sales strategies, and that, again, they got lucky to have gained the interest of the most casual market you could gain. The reason why developers aren't clammering to design for the Wii is because Nintendo are Nazis when it comes to their hardware, and, for the most part, the Wii is a dead end in terms of gameplay design.

Unless Nintendo can nail that same casual market in this next generation, they are, for lack of a better word, as fucked as they were with the GameCube.

By the way, that's not to imply what Rob said was in any way related to what I said.

I merely agree with what Rob said, himself. The Wii was another way for Nintendo to squeeze a little more money out of their old franchises. Again, they put their own concerns before the concerns of other designers.

I'm unconvinced, Jason. What Wii games actually furthered design with motion controls? Just looking at the pack-in title, Wii Sports, we have a collection of minigames that we've all played before in some form or another. Using motion controls for bowling doesn't innovate gameplay -- the mechanics under the hood are pretty much the same.

I don't intend to shit all over the Wii (Monster Hunter Tri, Animal Crossing: City Folk, and Shiren the Wanderer are all excellent additions to the console), but it's definitely a stretch to claim that motion control by itself translates into gameplay innovation.

Nintendo has been squeezing out third-parties since at least the N64 days. And they've consistently relied on first-party franchises since before that. A new Nintendo platform will inevitably feature a Zelda game, a Mario game, a Metroid game, and others. I don't buy in to this mentality (I still have no plans of purchasing a Wii), but it seems to work fine for the big 'N.

Although casual gamers tend to buy few games overall, Wii titles were still overly-represented in last decade's best-seller's list (4 of the top 10, and 3 of the top 5). I'm not sure if I would call it luck that they were able to grab the attention of casual gamers since it seemed like a conscious decision on their part to largely abandon the core gaming market for the casual. And they've been wildly-successful at it. But you're correct--if they can't tap that same casual crowd, they'll be fucked with the Wii 2. Casual gamers may just stick with their Wii's

@Rob

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the Wii. I don't own one, and have no plans to do so in the future. It's clearly not marketed to me, or those like me. But I have to respect how Nintendo took, as you point out, fairly simplistic mini-games, added motion controls, and presto, captured a large chunk of the casual gaming market. The resultant titles may be lacking in the depth department, but they're simple and fun to play (hence why they’re so appealing to casual gamers—heck, my sister, no gamer by a long shot, plays Wii).

I would argue that replicating the physical motion of throwing a bowling ball versus pressing a button or joystick is innovation unto itself. I don't necessarily think that the Wii or Wii Sports have advanced the medium, and I'm not personally digging their radical change of focus. But the Wii's impact (for better or worse) on the industry is undeniable.

Who’da thunk that in the dog days of the N64 and Gamecube that Nintendo would someday regain the lead, and in spectacular fashion?

Sure, that's innovation. What it's not is gameplay innovation, which is what I've been arguing.

@Jason

That's actually what I'm afraid of: Nintendo losing the market they gained this generation, because that same market will answer to the Wii 2 with, "But... we already have a Wii. Why would we want this one?" That will all be answered with time, though, and in no way can be surely predicted.

And don't get me wrong, Nintendo has never been some dead fish in the water. They've always managed to squeak by, even when their strict relationship with third-party developers has harmed them in the past. If Nintendo doesn't manage to capture that same casual audience with the Wii 2 (which there is a chance they won't), then they'll just manage to squeak by on their old franchises and a small number of decent third-part titles. In an industry where software is quite literally everything, Nintendo has (since the N64) been a company struggling to keep up with others, because they're so afraid of allowing crap onto their consoles.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the Wii 2 will be nothing more than a graphical upgrade and not feature the same abnormal features that gor the Wii to turn some heads. I highly doubt Nintendo is that arrogant, but, you never really know these days.

That same crowd, for whom the Wii may be sufficient, was probably sold on it largely due to the motion controls, and titles like Just Dance. I doubt these same casual gamers are pining for the newest Mario or Zelda--hell, I know that New Super Mario Bros. Wii wasn't intended for them. That game was *far* beyond the grasp of casual gamers.

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft are pushing the boundaries of gameplay and artistic expression with remarkable new franchises. I'm not sure that Nintendo can maintain the lead with more of the same: new Marios, Zeldas, and Metroids. They need that extra oomph provided by the fresh infusion of casual gamers. And if they can't recapture that market, then I fear they're doomed to slip to #3 again.

Nintendo's strict, draconian QC has been both a blessing and a curse. The video game crash of '83 was largely due to the mass proliferation of shovelware, causing overflowing discount bins, and the general devaluing of software titles. In that sense, Nintendo's strict contractual arrangements with third-party developers during the NES days was a blessing, and it arguably revitalized the industry. On the other hand, they've often been left with a dearth of third-party support (as during the N64 days) for a number of reasons.

I've always admired what Nintendo has done to bring this industry out of the 1983 dark ages. I also acklowledge the fact that this industry wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for them. But I'm not one of those people that can choke down Nintendo's bland repetition, just because they feel obligated to honor an industry great.

Does this make me a bad person?

Not at all. I was a huge Nintendo fanboy back in the day (NES-SNES), but when they refused to grow up *with* me, I abandoned them. I recognize that many people love the endless Mario, Zelda, and Metroid remakes. Me, I want something fresh and new (even if, in today's environment, it's merely an innovative narrative).

I can appreciate Nintendo for the historical impact they had on the industry (and fond childhood memories), while simultaneously decrying their sharp casual swerve (and at the same time, dispassionately admiring their business sense in capturing said market).

Sigh...I'm so divided over my opinion on Nintendo these days. I appreciated the first few games with the gimmicky motion control. I especially love Sin and Punishment 2.

I just wish that Nintendo would at least show a more support for developers other than themselves. There's more to this world than just Zelda and Mario. There's the Lunar RPG series, Blazblue, Ys, Persona and so many other lesser-known developers that they could have supported.

Even the head of Nihon Falcom, the developers of Ys, acknowledged that the PSP has attracted more of the third-party developers. It's become the hub for Japanese hardcore gamers, who are searching for the hidden treasures that Nintendo failed to attract.

I still hope that Nintendo can do something to impress me. I'd like to think that they're doing more than just reviving the same franchises all over again. Heck, I wouldn't mind if Kirby became the main mascot. :-P

On that note, I'd like to see the new MMO upgrade for Animal Crossing. However, knowing Nintendo, I'll probably never get my wish. Sigh...

In this thread: A bunch of people who either never played Super Mario Galaxy 2 or didn't recognize that it had a year-of-indie-games worth of gameplay innovation....

Yeah, but I think the real question is whether or not this new system will finally deliver 'Pixar quality' graphics?

I've been waiting, Nintendo.....

This new system will live or die by how it deals with it's online content and third party support, two sectors where Nintendo has been pretty weak for the past decade or so. The Wii was successful because it was playing a completely different game than the PS3 and 360. If Nintendo is going to try and step up to what Microsoft and Sony are doing, it has to have both of those things in place. Nobody is going to shell out whatever this thing's going to cost for photoreal Mii's.