Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

[MikeStutzzzz]

yeah idk each console had their boons and baines, I do remember discovering Dreamcast in around 2009-2010 by burning CD-rs and was upset by how much I missed. Mostly just had a Sega Genesis and Ps1 but friends had different consoles etc.

[serin]

The only time I would refuse to accept them as a quality console manufacturer or games company is during the Wii era - absolute trash games, a cheap and trash piece of hardware.

An ignorant take. The fact that so much shovelware was made for the console only proves how successful and highly regarded the Wii was. The ps2 had just as much shovelware as the Wii but nobody says the same things about it. If a console sells so much that it's almost literally in every single homes living room then game companies are going to capitalize on that and throw as much crap at it as possible.

How that diminishes that quality of the console overall or the quality of the games that came out to GET so many people to buy it I will never understand.

I could name many incredible Wii games. Whether you personally like them or not is subjective. But you can not objectively say these examples are low quality, trash games.

I already stated that the Wii hardware was garbage and stated why. Shovelware isn't the reason for that, that's just poor design. The fact it is a Gamecube with lower output quality doesn't justify it as a new console at full price several years later. My take is not ignorant, it's taste based on the facts of the hardware itself.

I actually do not like the PS2 either. The difference is I've not played one because the graphical output is awful. It's a blurry mess. However the PS2 had a gaming market it was advertising to, and grabbed a core market of people actually into the gaming scene. The Wii did not. The Wii did something revolutionary in regards to who it marketed to - it sold to the elusive "I won't buy a games console" crowd. The proof was in the Wii U's launch, when almost the entire Wii playerbase seemed to drop off the face of the Earth and the Wii U sold less machines in two years than the Sega Dreamcast did. Nintendo relied on people upgrading their Wii to a Wii U. Outside of stout Nintendo fans, nobody who bought a Wii saw any point. They owned a Wii, they didn't need a second one. The downside of grabbing an ignorant market is that they don't follow you, out of ignorance. They're not repeatable sales. Again, proven in history by the Wii and Wii U.

Nintendo released some good games for the Wii. Nintendo always had a knack for that, still do. Outside of their "Nintendo Difference" era, they are generally consistent as some of the best game developers out there. However unlike the N64 era where each unique title was able to stand out and shine, several titles of quality were lost in the quagmire of the shovelware on the Wii. Especially those developed by people outside of Nintendo such as No More Heroes and Mad World.

And again, the hardware made any of these games look worse than they would have looked on a Gamecube. Ironically the initial post stated the SNES was graphically superior to the NES and I stated that was a given. But when I said that I hadn't yet reached the Gamecube to Wii debacle. It stands as the only time in gaming history I can think of where graphical quality went DOWN from one generation to the next. Sure the Wii had basically the same power as the GC, but outputting that via composite blurred and smeared the visual clarity into a total mess. This would be the second time Nintendo downgraded the output of a system too. The SNES had RGB capabilities but the N64 was composite only - the only reason it barely noticed was because of the jump from 2D to 3D. Had the N64 run more traditional 2D titles it would have looked worse than the SNES in terms of visual output, even with the extra power of the console. At least the N64 had additional power for 2D gaming and allowed for full 3D titles. The Wii didn't even have that.

You can't convince me. I've played the Wii and know exactly what it is and how poor the options are on it - and even then the motion controls were dire, which was it's one exciting killer difference. I don't deny it was insanely popular, but it's biggest starting flaw is hardware, which is nothing to do with shovelware games at all. And my point on the audience it marketed to was proven when the vast majority of the player base refused to pick up the Wii U. The Wii was a once-and-done concept, even Nintendo hasn't returned to it, but they should have marketed a brand new revolutionary machine off the back of the Wii, rather than a sequel. The Wii U itself, in regards to hardware, wasn't the problem. How it was marketed as a sequel or "upgrade" to the Wii is what killed it. And we know the Wii U wasn't a bad console, because the Switch is a slightly upgraded Wii U with most of the games transferred and it has been widely accepted and beloved. The Wii was a great success for Nintendo, but it tainted them when they tried to "sequalise" it.

If you love the Wii, good for you. I hope you get many years of fun out of it. I just can't abide the thing, not because of ignorance but because I know exactly what I got the first time and how poor the options still are for the machine. Hardware, controls and software. What else am I supposed to love about it when those three are fundamentally poor? Obviously it doesn't gel with me, but again, I hope you continue to enjoy your Wii for years to come. Some people can overlook things like these to enjoy what the machine does offer, I'm just not one of them.

It is a really good and useful bit of information. I appreciate you giving us this useful information. Kindly keep us informed in this manner.I appreciate you sharing.