And sorry, but most games didn't use the CD's capacity.
Most of the best games did. There's also the fact that N64 ROMs were much lower in capacity than CDs, so you didn't have to use anywhere near the CD's full capacity to do better. And I shouldn't even have to mention the fact that CDs were a lot cheaper on top of all this.
So "able to squeeze maximal performance from" means "obsolete" now
The fact that the Wii will be obsolete in a couple of years is separate from the fact that its potential is already almost fulfilled, though the two are indeed related.
And based on the ongoing sales of the PS2, I think it's clear people care about "obsolete" a lot less than you.
Sure there are people who are behind the curve. However, that's not the market that the publishers of new games (aside from the shovelware you usually see in the twilight of a console's life) are after.
I didn't know magnificent games required a certain power level unachievable before this generation. I guess Halo 1 was ass then.
Does the word "progress" mean anything to you?
Good thing being able to aim in an FPS is just a gimmick, just like those PC users and their mouse gimmick.
Good job at pointing out exactly why the Wiimote isn't that big of a deal. PC users have been using mice to aim in FPSes for over a decade, and aiming is about the only thing that the Wiimote does that's at all extraordinary for consoles.
Seriously, you sound like the DS detractors in its first year (which, since your first post made it seem you aren't aware, I'll let you know was light on quality 3rd party support and heavy with "gimmicky" mini-games).
Oh, I'm aware. I'm also aware that, again, the portable market is very different from the console market, and that the time it took for quality third-party games to show up on the DS was less than a year. And of course there's the fact that you don't have to use the DS's unique features if you don't want to. And the fact that the touchscreen (unlike the dual screens, which were the gimmick that Nintendo hyped up first, if you remember) was actually a good idea that had virtually no drawbacks. And the fact that the DS was the successor to the massively successful Game Boy series of portables, giving it a huge marketshare from the beginning.
Competitors called the analog stick a gimmick too when Nintendo introduced it to consoles.
Where? The goofy gimmick was the three-handled design, which of course was terrible and was fixed by Sony. No one had a problem with the analog stick in and of itself, except maybe the few people who had memories of the Atari 5200.
People buy Wiis because they play them at a friend's house and find it to be fun.
I presume that's why the Wii has a bad attachment rate? Why there are a lot of people who got a Wii and just play Wii Sports on it nearly a year after launch, assuming that they haven't already shoved it into a dusty corner?
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why should I believe that most of the game sales (not most of the Wii sales) aren't from people who are fans of Mario, Zelda, and the like who want to play the franchises' newest installments?
the fact that there are fun games on the Wii does not make games on the XBox360 or PS3 any less fun, and the fact that a Wii is worth owning does not stop the XBox360 and PS3 also being worth owning, and the fact that the Wii has an amazing controller doesn't stop the XBox360 having amazing online services and the PS3 having amazing processing power.
Ignoring the fact that the amazingness of the Wiimote is still an open question, none of those things make Nintendo fanboys any less smug or holier-than-thou, unfortunately.
What game for the PS3 would have been impossible on the PS2, if we aren't worried about cutting graphical quality?
Oblivion pops to mind immediately; the PS2 wouldn't likely have been able to handle the AI, physics, and so forth on such a large game without at least a massive hit in graphical quality. And yes, such a hit would affect gameplay, due to fog, difficulty in recognizing objects, and such. There are other similar examples, and we're only in the first couple of generations of games for the PS3 and 360.
Wii is selling much better than the Gamecube and N64
Sure the controls are going to be different, but how much development time would it take to program in using WiiMote vs a stock controller as a percentage of development time?
How much time would it take for developers to come up with ways to use the Wiimote that would result in at least equivalent gameplay to the other consoles despite fewer buttons and the near-mandatory inclusion of waggle? I'd say a lot for most games.
PSP is PS2-level hardware while DS is N64-level hardware.
Ah, trying to make equivalent the portable market and the console market, even though the two are not similar and never have been.
Speaking of N64, it was vastly more powerful than the PSX (see Waverace vs Jet Moto if you don't remember), though the PSX had the advantage of CD storage which was important for some games but not most.
So in other words, the N64 wasn't really all that much better than the PSX? The idea that CD storage wasn't important is total bull, BTW.
And I don't remember ever hearing anyone say that having it take 5+ years to figure out how to get the promised performance out of a console is a good thing.
As opposed to either being stuck with an obsolete console for years or having to migrate to a new one every couple of years with all of the hassle that entails?
Having "gotten it" they are not planning on continuing, instead they will be developing titles that play to the Wii's strengths.
And the Wii's strengths are towards gimmickry, not towards the magnificent games we've been seeing on the other systems like Bioshock and Oblivion, neither of which would really be difficult to port to the Wii if it had the required power. From there, the argument follows that you won't be seeing Wii-exclusive games of the quality of Bioshock or Oblivion either, except possibly in a certain small subset of genres (like party gaming). This is the crux of the problem.
You haven't actually said how any of these things are negatives for game developers
Because those go against the things that the market wants. The fact that a lot of Wiis are being bought doesn't mean anything if the games aren't being bought with them, if the Wiis are just being bought out of impulse and hype.
Yeah, they're all going to ignore where the majority of the current-gen market is going to be (Wii is now bigger than 360 and growing faster than 360 and PS3 combined).
I'm sure you have proof that most of the current-gen market is going to be on the Wii. Obviously past performance is the same as future results, everyone knows that!
You can say what you want about the platform, but bean counters will see "potential market". They'll tell the developers to suck it up and produce for the market that makes them the most money. The tech-geeks looking at specs and the wierd controller just aren't the ones deciding the platform.
But the tech-geeks are the ones who are going to make the games, so...
Of course a mediocre game for the Wii can sell better than a great game for the PS3 right now, since the Wii has a lot more units sold. Draw a fair comparison by changing "PS3" to "360" and you'll see a dramatic difference.
It's funny that people think that all there is to processing power is "graphics and eye-candy." It's like they haven't been paying any attention to the reasons why games have improved since Pong.
And yes, the Wii does have popular titles without online multiplayer. Unfortunately, all of them are made by Nintendo, and they're mostly being bought by long-time Nintendo fans who obviously never cared about online multiplayer to begin with.
If you don't use the waggle but do use the nunchuk, you only have an analog stick, a D-Pad, and six useable buttons. The PS3 and 360 controllers have two analog sticks, a D-Pad, and twelve useable buttons (including the stick buttons, though I can't remember if the 360 has those). Many games on the latter two systems use most or all of those buttons and sticks. And of course the Sixaxis has motion sensing on top of all this. Waggle can't replace all of those missing functions.
What "waggle" does is break the symmetry between consoles.
Which is horrible from a third-party standpoint. A publisher doesn't want to produce a game for only one system out of three unless that one system's parent is paying a lot of money for an exclusivity deal.
Adding a unique control scheme forces game studios that want to follow that same model to either port games to the Wii poorly, or port games from the Wii poorly.
And it's going to be (and already is) the former, not the latter. The reason why is three-fold. (a) The Wii is competing with two similar consoles, not just one, making it the odd man out; (b) the attachment rate is much lower for the Wii, especially for third-party games; and (c) the Wii is too weak for many of the games that developers are doing and wish to do. The simple metric of unit sales doesn't mean much in the face of those three things. At best, as I said, you'll see a lot of shovelware from third parties on the Wii.
The only way that logic makes sense is if you have the unstated assumption that 3rd parties are incapable of making good games for the Wii
OK, I'll state it now. Third parties, in general, do not want to go through the effort of making games that will somehow be better than their PS3 and 360 counterparts despite the poor processing power of the Wii and the complications of the Wiimote. They instead want to use the current Wii hype to make quick, easy money, and the best way to do that on the Wii is to rely on mini-game gimmickry.
In each case the largest library and the largest player base was on the weaker system, in some cases vastly weaker.
In what cases vastly weaker? I don't remember ever seeing a console succeed whose full potential could be realized so quickly. Less than a year into the Wii's lifespan, we already hear speculation from developers that they're approaching the limits of what the Wii can do. And how do you explain all the games for the PS3 and 360 which have no planned ports for the Wii, even after the third parties are supposed to have "gotten it"?
Based on appearances N has fixed the problem with 3rd party relations
Not in my observation. The Wiimote discourages traditional games, the Wii itself is so weak that its full potential will likely be realized within a couple of years, and Nintendo is still lackadaisical about online gaming. Those things are strong negatives to third parties.
have been buying and are going to buy GOOD games and not much else. It was the same with the GameCube, and the same before that with the N64. Waggle doesn't change anything.
That's basically the exact same thing that I said. If you think that there are going to be more than a handful of third-party games that go beyond mini-game gimmickry, you're living in a dream world. Waggle really doesn't change anything.
I'm not sure what this guy is looking at in regards to the DS. Plenty of third-party developers have been coming to it since it became clear that the PSP wasn't going to be a giant killer, which we've known for at least two years now. I can name plenty of big-name third-party titles on the platform, and I don't even own one.
As for the Wii, while it's true that third parties were caught off-guard by it, I'm not sure that they should put too much effort into joining the "Wii game" to begin with. Most people who get the Wii, assuming that they get any games for it at all besides Wii Sports, have been buying and are going to buy Nintendo games and not much else. It was the same with the GameCube, and the same before that with the N64. Waggle doesn't change anything.
Game developers never really wanted to produce super-pretty games (they are very expensive to make after all), but they have been producing graphics intense games because it was seen as the only way to make a top seller; that may be about to change.
There doesn't appear to be any indication of that thus far. Removing pack-in Western sales of Wii Sports from consideration, the attachment rate for the Wii is much lower than that of the similarly-selling XBox 360 even despite the latter console's failure in Japan. Only eight games have sold over a million copies, only two of those over two million, and most importantly, the top six of those eight are all by Nintendo. And even if the Wii were to get more massively selling third-party games, it wouldn't change the fact that there are still millions of gamers out there impressed by beautiful graphics. Not to mention the fact that the processing power of the other two systems can be (and have been) used to effect in other aspects of a game besides graphics, such as physics and AI.
How do you know that moving the engine from one platform to another is the same difficulty, regardless of which platform you're moving from/to?
The 360 and the PS3 have very different architectures. The idea that porting from one to the other would be difficult regardless of the direction should be obvious.
In three or so years, yes it did. The below chart doesn't include non-Japanese sales for the DC for some reason, but the point that I'm trying to make is that the PS3 hasn't yet gotten to the "decline" portion of the DC lifespan. While the DC had nowhere to go but down after its excellent launch lineup, the PS3 has nowhere to go but up after lowering its excessive price, leveraging BluRay's strength in the next-gen media wars, and building towards a reasonable game library.
I've also put the 360 up there to show how well it aligns with the PS3, which is probably the most damning bit of evidence against all of the people who think that the PS3 is destined for failure.
The worse they do, the more resources US devs will shift to the 360, and Japanese to the Wii.
The US shift might happen, but not the Japanese one. The Wii simply isn't powerful enough to do everything that big game developers want to do. There's a reason why there are so many games from both Eastern and Western developers that are on the 360 and PS3 but not on the Wii. The games that developers want to do on the Wii--party games and substandard ports, mostly--they're already doing on the Wii, so there won't be any shifting of resources beyond what was done nearly a year ago when the Wii's sales surprised everyone.
The idea that none of the PS3's heavily anticipated titles are coming out this holiday season is incorrect, BTW, as noted elsewhere in this article's comments.
There have been plenty of demos of GTA4 running on the Xbox 360, but none of it running on the PS3.
That may be because the engine that GTA4 uses was made for an earlier 360 game. This leads to another valid argument: The PS3 version is taking longer to develop because of difficulties in porting the engine. These difficulties would be the same if the engine had originated on the PS3 and needed to be ported to the 360, so it's not a problem with the PS3.
It's safe to say that the cause for the delay is the well-known difficulty of developing for the PlayStation 3.
I remember that the PS2 also had a "well-known difficulty" of development, but that didn't seem to affect it so much.
Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Ratchet & Clank, among other non-exclusive games that may or may not drive sales based on looking better than their 360 counterparts. Not too impressive, but the Wii's library is not all that impressive either, and the 360 has had a year's head-start.
Slashdot Mirror
And sorry, but most games didn't use the CD's capacity.
Most of the best games did. There's also the fact that N64 ROMs were much lower in capacity than CDs, so you didn't have to use anywhere near the CD's full capacity to do better. And I shouldn't even have to mention the fact that CDs were a lot cheaper on top of all this.
So "able to squeeze maximal performance from" means "obsolete" now
The fact that the Wii will be obsolete in a couple of years is separate from the fact that its potential is already almost fulfilled, though the two are indeed related.
And based on the ongoing sales of the PS2, I think it's clear people care about "obsolete" a lot less than you.
Sure there are people who are behind the curve. However, that's not the market that the publishers of new games (aside from the shovelware you usually see in the twilight of a console's life) are after.
I didn't know magnificent games required a certain power level unachievable before this generation. I guess Halo 1 was ass then.
Does the word "progress" mean anything to you?
Good thing being able to aim in an FPS is just a gimmick, just like those PC users and their mouse gimmick.
Good job at pointing out exactly why the Wiimote isn't that big of a deal. PC users have been using mice to aim in FPSes for over a decade, and aiming is about the only thing that the Wiimote does that's at all extraordinary for consoles.
Seriously, you sound like the DS detractors in its first year (which, since your first post made it seem you aren't aware, I'll let you know was light on quality 3rd party support and heavy with "gimmicky" mini-games).
Oh, I'm aware. I'm also aware that, again, the portable market is very different from the console market, and that the time it took for quality third-party games to show up on the DS was less than a year. And of course there's the fact that you don't have to use the DS's unique features if you don't want to. And the fact that the touchscreen (unlike the dual screens, which were the gimmick that Nintendo hyped up first, if you remember) was actually a good idea that had virtually no drawbacks. And the fact that the DS was the successor to the massively successful Game Boy series of portables, giving it a huge marketshare from the beginning.
Competitors called the analog stick a gimmick too when Nintendo introduced it to consoles.
Where? The goofy gimmick was the three-handled design, which of course was terrible and was fixed by Sony. No one had a problem with the analog stick in and of itself, except maybe the few people who had memories of the Atari 5200.
People buy Wiis because they play them at a friend's house and find it to be fun.
I presume that's why the Wii has a bad attachment rate? Why there are a lot of people who got a Wii and just play Wii Sports on it nearly a year after launch, assuming that they haven't already shoved it into a dusty corner?
Rob
Is selling better, not has sold better.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why should I believe that most of the game sales (not most of the Wii sales) aren't from people who are fans of Mario, Zelda, and the like who want to play the franchises' newest installments?
Rob
The controls _obviously_and_clearly_ have vast potential.
I see now; asserting something repeatedly makes it more true. I apologize for my mistake.
Rob
the fact that there are fun games on the Wii does not make games on the XBox360 or PS3 any less fun, and the fact that a Wii is worth owning does not stop the XBox360 and PS3 also being worth owning, and the fact that the Wii has an amazing controller doesn't stop the XBox360 having amazing online services and the PS3 having amazing processing power.
Ignoring the fact that the amazingness of the Wiimote is still an open question, none of those things make Nintendo fanboys any less smug or holier-than-thou, unfortunately.
Rob
What game for the PS3 would have been impossible on the PS2, if we aren't worried about cutting graphical quality?
Oblivion pops to mind immediately; the PS2 wouldn't likely have been able to handle the AI, physics, and so forth on such a large game without at least a massive hit in graphical quality. And yes, such a hit would affect gameplay, due to fog, difficulty in recognizing objects, and such. There are other similar examples, and we're only in the first couple of generations of games for the PS3 and 360.
Wii is selling much better than the Gamecube and N64
N64: 32.93M
GC: 21.63M
Wii: ~10M
Rob
Sure the controls are going to be different, but how much development time would it take to program in using WiiMote vs a stock controller as a percentage of development time?
How much time would it take for developers to come up with ways to use the Wiimote that would result in at least equivalent gameplay to the other consoles despite fewer buttons and the near-mandatory inclusion of waggle? I'd say a lot for most games.
Rob
It hasn't, though. Not close. Oh... you mean graphics.
And everything else with the possible exception of the controls, which, of course, haven't been shown to really have any potential at all.
Rob
It depends on the game. Most modern games would not work on the waggleless Wii without actually resulting in bad UI design.
Rob
How? What has been done with waggle that hasn't been done before to much the same effect on consoles, other than better aiming in shooters?
Rob
PSP is PS2-level hardware while DS is N64-level hardware.
Ah, trying to make equivalent the portable market and the console market, even though the two are not similar and never have been.
Speaking of N64, it was vastly more powerful than the PSX (see Waverace vs Jet Moto if you don't remember), though the PSX had the advantage of CD storage which was important for some games but not most.
So in other words, the N64 wasn't really all that much better than the PSX? The idea that CD storage wasn't important is total bull, BTW.
And I don't remember ever hearing anyone say that having it take 5+ years to figure out how to get the promised performance out of a console is a good thing.
As opposed to either being stuck with an obsolete console for years or having to migrate to a new one every couple of years with all of the hassle that entails?
Having "gotten it" they are not planning on continuing, instead they will be developing titles that play to the Wii's strengths.
And the Wii's strengths are towards gimmickry, not towards the magnificent games we've been seeing on the other systems like Bioshock and Oblivion, neither of which would really be difficult to port to the Wii if it had the required power. From there, the argument follows that you won't be seeing Wii-exclusive games of the quality of Bioshock or Oblivion either, except possibly in a certain small subset of genres (like party gaming). This is the crux of the problem.
You haven't actually said how any of these things are negatives for game developers
Because those go against the things that the market wants. The fact that a lot of Wiis are being bought doesn't mean anything if the games aren't being bought with them, if the Wiis are just being bought out of impulse and hype.
Rob
Yeah, they're all going to ignore where the majority of the current-gen market is going to be (Wii is now bigger than 360 and growing faster than 360 and PS3 combined).
I'm sure you have proof that most of the current-gen market is going to be on the Wii. Obviously past performance is the same as future results, everyone knows that!
You can say what you want about the platform, but bean counters will see "potential market". They'll tell the developers to suck it up and produce for the market that makes them the most money. The tech-geeks looking at specs and the wierd controller just aren't the ones deciding the platform.
But the tech-geeks are the ones who are going to make the games, so...
Rob
Of course a mediocre game for the Wii can sell better than a great game for the PS3 right now, since the Wii has a lot more units sold. Draw a fair comparison by changing "PS3" to "360" and you'll see a dramatic difference.
Rob
It's funny that people think that all there is to processing power is "graphics and eye-candy." It's like they haven't been paying any attention to the reasons why games have improved since Pong.
And yes, the Wii does have popular titles without online multiplayer. Unfortunately, all of them are made by Nintendo, and they're mostly being bought by long-time Nintendo fans who obviously never cared about online multiplayer to begin with.
Rob
If you don't use the waggle but do use the nunchuk, you only have an analog stick, a D-Pad, and six useable buttons. The PS3 and 360 controllers have two analog sticks, a D-Pad, and twelve useable buttons (including the stick buttons, though I can't remember if the 360 has those). Many games on the latter two systems use most or all of those buttons and sticks. And of course the Sixaxis has motion sensing on top of all this. Waggle can't replace all of those missing functions.
Rob
What "waggle" does is break the symmetry between consoles.
Which is horrible from a third-party standpoint. A publisher doesn't want to produce a game for only one system out of three unless that one system's parent is paying a lot of money for an exclusivity deal.
Adding a unique control scheme forces game studios that want to follow that same model to either port games to the Wii poorly, or port games from the Wii poorly.
And it's going to be (and already is) the former, not the latter. The reason why is three-fold. (a) The Wii is competing with two similar consoles, not just one, making it the odd man out; (b) the attachment rate is much lower for the Wii, especially for third-party games; and (c) the Wii is too weak for many of the games that developers are doing and wish to do. The simple metric of unit sales doesn't mean much in the face of those three things. At best, as I said, you'll see a lot of shovelware from third parties on the Wii.
Rob
The only way that logic makes sense is if you have the unstated assumption that 3rd parties are incapable of making good games for the Wii
OK, I'll state it now. Third parties, in general, do not want to go through the effort of making games that will somehow be better than their PS3 and 360 counterparts despite the poor processing power of the Wii and the complications of the Wiimote. They instead want to use the current Wii hype to make quick, easy money, and the best way to do that on the Wii is to rely on mini-game gimmickry.
Happy?
Rob
In each case the largest library and the largest player base was on the weaker system, in some cases vastly weaker.
In what cases vastly weaker? I don't remember ever seeing a console succeed whose full potential could be realized so quickly. Less than a year into the Wii's lifespan, we already hear speculation from developers that they're approaching the limits of what the Wii can do. And how do you explain all the games for the PS3 and 360 which have no planned ports for the Wii, even after the third parties are supposed to have "gotten it"?
Rob
Based on appearances N has fixed the problem with 3rd party relations
Not in my observation. The Wiimote discourages traditional games, the Wii itself is so weak that its full potential will likely be realized within a couple of years, and Nintendo is still lackadaisical about online gaming. Those things are strong negatives to third parties.
Rob
have been buying and are going to buy GOOD games and not much else. It was the same with the GameCube, and the same before that with the N64. Waggle doesn't change anything.
That's basically the exact same thing that I said. If you think that there are going to be more than a handful of third-party games that go beyond mini-game gimmickry, you're living in a dream world. Waggle really doesn't change anything.
Rob
I'm not sure what this guy is looking at in regards to the DS. Plenty of third-party developers have been coming to it since it became clear that the PSP wasn't going to be a giant killer, which we've known for at least two years now. I can name plenty of big-name third-party titles on the platform, and I don't even own one.
As for the Wii, while it's true that third parties were caught off-guard by it, I'm not sure that they should put too much effort into joining the "Wii game" to begin with. Most people who get the Wii, assuming that they get any games for it at all besides Wii Sports, have been buying and are going to buy Nintendo games and not much else. It was the same with the GameCube, and the same before that with the N64. Waggle doesn't change anything.
Rob
Game developers never really wanted to produce super-pretty games (they are very expensive to make after all), but they have been producing graphics intense games because it was seen as the only way to make a top seller; that may be about to change.
There doesn't appear to be any indication of that thus far. Removing pack-in Western sales of Wii Sports from consideration, the attachment rate for the Wii is much lower than that of the similarly-selling XBox 360 even despite the latter console's failure in Japan. Only eight games have sold over a million copies, only two of those over two million, and most importantly, the top six of those eight are all by Nintendo. And even if the Wii were to get more massively selling third-party games, it wouldn't change the fact that there are still millions of gamers out there impressed by beautiful graphics. Not to mention the fact that the processing power of the other two systems can be (and have been) used to effect in other aspects of a game besides graphics, such as physics and AI.
Rob
How do you know that moving the engine from one platform to another is the same difficulty, regardless of which platform you're moving from/to?
The 360 and the PS3 have very different architectures. The idea that porting from one to the other would be difficult regardless of the direction should be obvious.
Rob
Dreamcast sold 10m, quoth Wikipedia.
l &cons2=DC®2=All&cons3=X360®3=All&align=1
In three or so years, yes it did. The below chart doesn't include non-Japanese sales for the DC for some reason, but the point that I'm trying to make is that the PS3 hasn't yet gotten to the "decline" portion of the DC lifespan. While the DC had nowhere to go but down after its excellent launch lineup, the PS3 has nowhere to go but up after lowering its excessive price, leveraging BluRay's strength in the next-gen media wars, and building towards a reasonable game library.
http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=PS3®1=Al
I've also put the 360 up there to show how well it aligns with the PS3, which is probably the most damning bit of evidence against all of the people who think that the PS3 is destined for failure.
The worse they do, the more resources US devs will shift to the 360, and Japanese to the Wii.
The US shift might happen, but not the Japanese one. The Wii simply isn't powerful enough to do everything that big game developers want to do. There's a reason why there are so many games from both Eastern and Western developers that are on the 360 and PS3 but not on the Wii. The games that developers want to do on the Wii--party games and substandard ports, mostly--they're already doing on the Wii, so there won't be any shifting of resources beyond what was done nearly a year ago when the Wii's sales surprised everyone.
The idea that none of the PS3's heavily anticipated titles are coming out this holiday season is incorrect, BTW, as noted elsewhere in this article's comments.
Rob
There have been plenty of demos of GTA4 running on the Xbox 360, but none of it running on the PS3.
That may be because the engine that GTA4 uses was made for an earlier 360 game. This leads to another valid argument: The PS3 version is taking longer to develop because of difficulties in porting the engine. These difficulties would be the same if the engine had originated on the PS3 and needed to be ported to the 360, so it's not a problem with the PS3.
It's safe to say that the cause for the delay is the well-known difficulty of developing for the PlayStation 3.
I remember that the PS2 also had a "well-known difficulty" of development, but that didn't seem to affect it so much.
Rob
Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Ratchet & Clank, among other non-exclusive games that may or may not drive sales based on looking better than their 360 counterparts. Not too impressive, but the Wii's library is not all that impressive either, and the 360 has had a year's head-start.
Rob