[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Wii is built and conceptualized solely around its unique controller, intentionally choosing weaker processing and graphics in exchange for a new, alternative approach to play. It is then reneging on this promise by simply offering a non-new, non-alternative approach to play, and even going as far as to put forth flagship titles that allow the user to not even use the Wii’s own controller, which once again is the entire reason for its existence.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Since revealing the Wii Remote, Nintendo has always said that the Wii would also have the capability for a traditional controller and the GameCube controller.
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
And here’s the problem with this; pursuing a casual, mainstream, middle-of-the-road audience is and has always been the death knell of creative, critical, and artistic success, which once again is the whole point of this OP. Movie studios catering/pandering to a casual, middle-of-the-road audience instead of cinephiles and movie hounds gives us films like College Road Trip and White Girls. The music industry aiming for a casual, middle-of-the-road, mainstream audience instead of real music aficionados gives us Celine Dion (see the OP/metaphor) and Creed. This approach is always terrible for quality, art, critical achievement, etc. because it requires making the product as inoffensive, dumbed-down, unchallenging and nonthreatening as possible in order to achieve that mass m.o.r. appeal.
[/QUOTE]
This argument might hold some water if it wasn’t for the fact that Nintendo’s big franchises already hit the casual, mainstream, middle-of-the-road audience.
There is no video game franchise more universal (and accessible) than Mario.
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
Perhaps this is for another thread and argument, but I really don’t buy that a new generation of “casual gamers” is here, in that we’re dealing with people that are “into” games as far as they’ll buy systems and buy games for them and play them but can’t really tell the difference between good and bad games and don’t really keep up with release dates and publishers and so on. Casual gamers have always been with us and always will be, but their numbers are no larger now than they have been. What we do have are a lot of people who have bought Wiis or DS’es based on the appealing gimmick of their interfaces (to these casuals) and then not continued to buy games for them and moved on.
[/QUOTE]
I have put this theory out there before, (and been laughed at for it) but here it goes again. There is not a major gulf between “good” games and “bad” games.
It is my belief that there are very few bad games, games with mechanics so horrible that they become unplayable. This just does not happen on any game platform. Any person reasonably familiar with a genre would be able to enjoy (at least on the surface) any game from a genre they enjoy.
This doesn’t mean that certain games aren’t better than other games. Your Grand Theft Auto will always be better than your True Crime for example. But if all you’ve ever played is True Crime, and you think its good, that’s not a crazy notion.