[BreakABone]

Wow that was well written, detailed and I almost feel bad replying. I don't really disagree with you on most points.
But on the same hand, think would be a disservice not to reply. And this thread is on its last leg as well.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I guess for me, the arcade became less enjoyable with each new generation of consoles. There was very little reason to go pay for games that I could play at home, unless those games were mutliplayer rail shooters or the classic fighting games like Street Fighter 3 or Marvel Vs. Capcom.

What the arcade lacked in depth, it made up for in multiplayer and gimmicks, like rail shooters which are fun for about 30 minutes until you realize how boring they are, and racing games where you get to use a steering wheel and a pretend clutch, which is surprisingly just as satisfying as a controller if not slightly less satisfying because it does not respond in a manner realistic to how driving actually is.

I will start by saying I have never been a huge arcade person. To me arcades have always been simple games such as Bust a Move or Buck Hunter and fighting games. Hell I've never really seen co-op machines like Gauntlet or Ninja Turtles. But I do think the arcade experience has some merit in the home console area and I think that is what really killed off arcades is when home consoles began to do the same thing sometimes better.

The Wiimote offers that sort of visceral feeling that you get from the arcade, and it is a fun experience. It is weird to think about but it is nice to stand up and play sometimes.

The shift to motion control adds a layer of interaction that will indeed be revolutionary for a select few games. But, to what degree can you truly interact and at what point does this interaction compromise game design or depth?

I think as long as it changes even a few genres, it has done its job. And I really don't feel that it would hurt game design. Unless, I'm missing something why would motions limit your imagination? If anything else, it should open up ideas. I mean do you want to introduce a new concept in the final half of the game that uses all these funky button combinations or can you introduce it with a familar motion people know?

Sure, you can swing your Wiimote to simulate hitting a baseball bat, or you can make the gesture of rolling a bowling ball, or you can flick your wrist. But, if you break down the motions you can do with the Wiimote, there's only a few. Flick your wrist, twist it, throw it, shake it....And making the motion of rolling a bowling ball or hitting a baseball bat with your Wiimote is never going to fill the void of not holding a real baseball bat or rolling a bowling ball.

Ok a few motions can go a long way.
The same way 2 buttons or whatever takes you far.
Look at something like Wario Ware that takes a core 12 motions (think being a bit generous but w/e) and gives raise to about 200 different types of games. The same thing could be done with any type of game.
The motion for throwing a bowling ball? Use it in an FPS as a way to throw a smoke grenade along the floor.
Swinging a baseball bat? A variety of melee weapons in a sandbox game?

I don't think anyone sees the Wii as filling a void from its real life counterparts. But why is the Wii the only console held to this standard? Should Guitar Hero fill a void of playing an actual guitar? Should Madden make me feel like the next NFL superstar?
We play games (or making an assumption here) to escape into a different realm from our own. It is why sci-fi games are so popular or why so few FPSes are even set in the current day.

For sports games or party games like Wario Ware, the Wiimote has potential ad infinitum. I even think that for games like Grand Theft Auto the Wiimote could be put to good use. But the Wii is just too underpowered to pick up titles like Grand Theft Auto. And with three platforms (PC, Xbox360, PS3), why would Rockstar go out of their way to develop a modified version of Grand Theft Auto to work on the Wii?

The Wii is too underpowered to get anything but a watered down GTA IV. That is true, but the Wii has a big enough userbase and different enough concept that Rockstar could look into something along the lines of the GTA Stories on PSP for the Wii.
I mean honestly, it would make more sense to waste efforts on a Wii version than a PSP version.
And it doesn't have to be just GTA. Scarface. Godfather and Bully have all shown the Wii works well for sandbox games. Now someone just needs to step up to the plate and create an exclusive one for the Wii.

But still, for me, and this is strictly person preference, I would prefer a standard controller over motion control for platformers (Mario Galaxy), first person shooters (Metroid), fighting games (Super Smash Bros.), Adventure games (Zelda), and for Football, Soccer and Basketball sports titles. RPGs have very low appeal to me so I can't comment, and Strategy games belong on the PC where you can use hotkeys and bindings.

And apparently Nintendo doesn't disagree with you much on this. Mario and SMash for the most part feature relatively little motion controls. Actually Smash has none. Metroid I don't believe is hurt by motions and I really think it is kind of lazy with some but a fun game. Zelda was a launch title ported from the Cube. I would want to see a ground up Wii effort before I spoke.

But that isn't to say there isn't room in those genres for motions. Just be smart about it. I am not saying EVERYTHING needs to be motion controlled, but the stuff that makes sense.

The Wii will never ever ever EVER further the First Person Shooter genre. Already, that is one genre that the Wii has made zero impact on.

I've already pointed out that I feel the Wii has already had an impact on the FPS genre. If it goes further than the Wii isn't up to me. But in terms of controls/interactivity the bar has been raised.

The Wii will probably leave very little impact on the racing genre, especially for serious racing game fans.

I doubt it will work for serious racers, but for arcadey racers. The wiimote is a fun thing. Try excitetruck may not be the prettiest girl at the dance, but she will show you a good time.

The Will will not leave any impact on the fighting genre, Super Smash Bros. remains a Nintendo exclusive. I doubt the Wii will impact platfomers very much or adventure games.

Agree with fighting. But to be fair, that genre either needs to change or it will only appeal to a smaller and smaller audience IMO. That is however a subject for another day.

I do hope that Galaxy has an influence on other platformers. Hell I am begging for the flood of half assed Galaxy games. I mean if they are half the game Galaxy was would till be pretty damn good.

How innovative can you get? Twist your Wiimote? Flick it? Repeat and make a sequel? Does there need to be a Wii Sports sequel? The one where you do the same stuff from the first one only slightly different?

I don't want to call you on this, but it has been a trend for this entire post. Motions aren't the only thing the Wiimote does different. Pointer functionality while in limited use has also been very important. Just look how well received Pro Evolution Soccer is for the Wii or why FPSes are said to control better with the Wiimote or aiming in general. Then there is the speaker, which I admit is a nice little gimmick, but it can add to the game experience as well.
I've used the bazooka example in Medal of Honor Heroes before and well the core idea is like surround sound it makes more sense for the sound to travel from your ear than behind you.
Also something like No More Heroes with the pre-fight trash talking phone call is cool.

I mean can't you see how the Wii is kind of gimmicky? It's going to leave very little impact on all the genres that people tend to gush over.

I can see how the Wii was a gimmick, but I think and this is my personal opinion. The gimmick has proven itself to be more than just that.
And as I mentioned before, if it will leave very little impact why are Sony and Microsoft in the market for motion?

Meanwhile, everyone else is going to remember their Halo 3, or Grand Theft Auto 4, or whatever immersive, graphically orgasmic, in-depth game that rocked their single player world for 40+ hours.

Here's the thing. Will GTA IV and Halo 3 be remember for being truly terrific games (I will argue one isn't but that is another story) or because they are Halo and GTA?
And I will state this as I have before, if there is one game that will be remembered from this generation. 10... 20 years down the road. It will be Wii Sports. It single handedly changed the face of the industry.

I don't think there's very much innovation behind the Wii at all. For most games, it's just another way to do things, only with less graphical horsepower, and more physical work.

Yes, sometimes it is another way to do something but to some people that adds something.
If it is piss poor motions like TMNT where you just shake to do combat that is just retarded.
Or they can make a bit of sense and add something like actually picking up and tossing back a grenade in CoD 3 or whichever was on the Wii. Or snapping someone's neck by twisting the controller in Godfather or by simply making a move such as Link's spink attack and Mario's spin more accessible.

But I can't call the Wii revolutionary, not yet. Because, personally, I could see Sony and Microsoft doing something similar to the Sixaxis for future consoles, but I can't see them abandoning the controller.

And in that regards Nintendo would be right.
The Wii has motion controls and a weird shape but it isn't that far off from a normal controller. The biggest issue is it really doesn't have a second analog stick. But other than that it has potential.

The Wii is an awesome horizontal step.

Then this is a bad bad can of worms.
What the hell are the Ps3 and 360?