Talk:Wii/Archive 11

Archives

Requested Move to Nintendo Wii (17th-22nd May 2006 - concensus: Not Moved) Archive 1 (May 2005 - July 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 - September 2005) Archive 3 (September 2005 - December 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005 - March 2006) Archive 5 (March 2006 - April 2006) Archive 6 (April 2006) Archive 7 (Pre-E3 2006) Archive 8 (E3 2006) Archive 9 (Post E3 2006 up to 20th May) Archive 10 (20th May - 31st May)

Franchises

I edited this section per request by Ladlergo. To me it doesnt look right but I am on the way to try to make it look more presentable. But, once more titles come out, I would like to have it the way it was with a row of 4 or 5 titles under each party.--DivineShadow218 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It might look better without the bullets and with spacing tags added to separate the columns. Italics is another thing to try.

I really will contest a set of lists (as you had it before). It inflates the page length and causes eyes to skip. Ladlergo 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

once new games get announced, we will discuss it again. --DivineShadow218 04:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW... fixed it so it looks better for now. tell me if you like it. --DivineShadow218 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I just edited it to put the lists in alphabetical order. Ladlergo 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Like I said before, from now until the launch and even after, there will probably be more titles added to this list. At least once more games get confirmed such as Mario Kart, Mario Party etc. Once the list gets to long vertically, I shall format it back to the way it was with the new franchises.--DivineShadow218 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk Topics

It seems this page has mostly disappeared in the last 24 hours. Some has been archived, but I am not sure about all of it. If someone who has done more on this article wants to revert some of it or explain why it was deleted that would be a great help to me. Thanks. Sir hugo 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked and it is indeed all there. there were 35 topics before I archived, and in the latest achieve there are, well, 35 topics.--DivineShadow218 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess when I looked at it I didnt realize that the entire discussion had been archived. I thought you had just archived the oldest topics. I was just confused when I saw that some topics which had recent posts were archived. Sir hugo 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Blanking"

Doom127, please note that Dannybu2001 and myself are opposed to the paragraph that we keep on "blanking." HappyVR has also stated a preference for removing the section. Please explain why removing that paragraph is vandalism.

In addition, the paragraph contained an unconfirmed statement ("in response" may be true, but there are no Sony reps who have stated as such) and "had created gyroscopic PC controllers years before" gives false implications. Gates' quote, by itself, gives a biased view of how the gaming industry views the controller; there are no developer quotes, for example, and I would consider them more important than what the non-developer head of MS says.

The paragraph is also in the wrong place, as that paragraph is about the reactions to the controller, not the name. However, you may note that it is under "Reaction" under "Console name".

Unless you can give a rationale for keeping the paragraph, I will be removing it. Ladlergo 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-removed and posted a message on Doom's talk page regarding the matter. I don't see why he thinks this is relevant info, much less that it's even properly categorized. Danny 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your POV responses are disturbing, to say the least. The article heading had already been changed to "console" response (as opposed to name), but someone changed it back. Furthermore, the response of an individual who is speaking from terms of experience in the industry (what he said applies to ALL positional controllers, not just his own, or to the Wii) IS relevant. The Wii controller, given that it IS a positional controller, will have the same issues as other positional controllers.

That is, given any amount of fatigue and the requirement of holding the controller in a specific position, the arm or wrist will have a natural tendency to lower itself, and the lowering will register within the game and will disrupt gameplay. Removing what is a factual and nonbiased paragraph benefits Wikipedia in no certain way.

Even more certain than that is the need for addressing RSI potential with the wrist/arm movement inherent with the controller.

Indeed, this article needs, I believe, what other articles have- a criticism section. The Wii's unusual controller has caveats, and they cannot be merely wiped away. When I get back from vacation, if there is no such section, I'll certainly make sure that one gets created, and no amount of repeated vandalism will deny the truth as it stands. -- Daniel Davis 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please remember there were two issues here - the content - still being debated, and the position - it was in the wrong position - that will have been one of the reasons for the removal - changing the article heading to 'console response' didn't solve that problem as it was still in the section 'name'. - that's like having 'key first party titles' in the section 'technical specifications'.

Your points on RSI are interesting (and personally I've been a bit worried about this too) - however to address this issue we need some specific info and not an amusing and insightful quote (no sarcasm intended) from Bill Gates about 'put the controller down and the plane crashes' - though I still think it's a good quote I'd be 50/50 on it's inclusion.HappyVR 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but Gates has close to zero experience in the game developer area, so I'd put his quote very low down on the list. Try actual developers first. I'm not against a quote from Gates (although given that he's head of a company that's competing, I think PoV is close to automatic), I'd just like to see quotes from EA, Activision, Ubisoft, et al added before we get to the heads of Sony and MS.

That said, RSI is a good point to bring up.

BTW, the section was originally just on the name (way back when). It has been a fairly recent change to make it about the system as a whole. Ladlergo 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gates' quote is relevant in this case since he is a well-known public figure and the spokesperson for a major competitor of Nintendo. I added it under a new 'Criticism' section, which hopefully will be expanded, since many people have criticized the Wii, as sad as it may be, and no matter how much I disagree with the criticisms. Voretus the Benevolent 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gates has risen to prominence through his software company, not through games, and he shouldn't be treated like a game guru.

How about a "Game developer responses" section? I believe that would be much more balanced (Gates is going to be biased whenever he speaks on the record), as it would have hardware and software company execs and programmers giving their opinions. One quote by the head of MS does not a balanced article make. Ladlergo 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, any criticism section is going to have POVs, as that is the point of criticism in most cases. The best Wikipedia can do is report neutrally on what others are saying. Two seperate sections on criticism or any such responses would unnecessarily clutter up the article.

Gates is not being treated like a game guru, he's being treated as a prominent figure who is working with the Microsoft company, which is, as said, a primary competitor of Nintendo. If we were going with what game gurus had said about the system, we might say something about what TSA has said about Zelda in the Zelda articles, or some other equally experienced, but non-notable people in other articles. Since he is the spokesperson for the company, I feel as if Gates' quote should remain. Voretus the Benevolent 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the relevancy of the criticism section, but I'll go with the flow now that it's at least properly categorized. But Doom's behavior is actually in violation of wiki-policies: Accusing others of vandalism when they are not is clearly "assuming bad faith" and he removed my legitimate comments from his talk page about the reasoning for removing the Gates comments, a clear violation of wiki-policy for talk pages. Bottom-line, his grasp of the rules seems slim at best so if it weren't for Voretus' stepping in on the matter I'd say not to add this content at all as Doom is on the edge of being a vandal himself. Danny 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing biased and unsourced content (and it was) is not vandalism, especially not when multiple editors do it. Ladlergo 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That Bill Gates quote is almost nonsensical by itself... It doesn't add anything to the article for me (and of course Bill Gates is going to be biased.) I feel that the criticism section should be removed until more people have actually played the Wii in order to criticize it. Just my two cents. Grandmasterka 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The criticism section soley consists of a quote from a major competitor of Nintendo and provides no real constructive criticism of the console. It should also be noted that Peter Moore, who is also high up in Microsoft (their game division, specificly) has praised the Wii on multiple occasions.PhoenixJ 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Bill Gates is just trying to diminish the hype behind the Wii and by putting this content before the Wii is even released it very premature. I mean...has Bill Gate even used the Wii controller, I doubt it, so why would his opinion matter if he has not used it. And on top of that, game are still underdevelopment, what it boils down to is not necessarily the movement of the controller then the sensitivity of it as well as the usage of the movements within a specific game. So I say remove it and possibly make a Criticism and Appraisal section later on once the Wii is released if we all agree. --DivineShadow218 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Of course we're all apparently going to be in big twouble when Doom127 gets back from vacation if there isn't a criticism section. Danny 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One last comment as I wait for my flight (wifi on a laptop), especially given the POV rolling in from heretofore unseen editors here. Anyone who actually read the Gates quote sees, quite clearly, that he isn't "diminishing" the controller, nor is he being "biased". He's clearly speaking from a viewpoint of design work; that is, that positional based controllers are subject to some specific problems inherent in requiring the controller to be in a specific position. He wasn't even attacking the controller, the most strong words he had to say about it were "there's a lot to be learned about these controllers". The flaws aren't the controllers themselves, but the need to keep them in a certain position for an extended period of time- a neccessity in the way they operate. Furthermore, Danny and co HAVE BEEN vandalising the page, using Wiki's plain and simple definition- "Removing all or significant parts of articles". The Wii controller, as I said before (which was also entirely ignored in his attempt to attack me), is a positional controller, which carries with it a specific set of both advantages (which have already found their way into the article) and problems; problems including both what Gates spoke about (steadyness and fatigue), and the problems that are inherent with repetitive stress injury. If Gates were "just trying to diminish" the buzz regarding the Wii, the very specific nature of the comments wouldn't have come forth, he would have been much more vague. The article does need a critcism section, no matter how much editors with an agenda (including one who keeps jamming a "vandalism" warning onto my talk page, grr) might want it out. It's not just a problem that occurs with the Wii; the specific wrist and arm motions that cause the RSIs are present in other activities; the problem lies in the extent of said activities- while most won't play a game of Tennis, for instance, normally for five hours at one time, its not an unheard of length of time that is present within a video game. Fatigue, RSI and the nature of the aforementioned things are extremely important, as they can directly affect the health of the individual using the system. I'm sorry if there are individuals who think that I may be "attacking" the system they like needlessly, but it's something that needs to be mentioned within this article. -- Daniel Davis 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting legitimate comments from your talk page and then calling it vandalism is a violation of wiki-policy, as I mentioned on your talk page. Wait, you deleted it again, and I have in turn reported you to the admins. And it's pretty clear you're only here to defam the Wii, not improve the article, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to comments like, "I'm sorry if there are individuals who think that I may be "attacking" the system they like needlessly, but it's something that needs to be mentioned within this article." I don't recall reading any policies that say criticism sections are mandatory. And "needlessly"? What is that? Danny 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was PoV, several editors agreed that it was in the wrong location. That alone is cause for removal. Please also note that Sony has denied that their controller was in reaction to the Wii's; making that sentence unsuitable for inclusion. Whether we believe them (and I don't) is a separate matter. Ladlergo 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the article needs a critisism section, considering some of the controversy there has been around the design. However... it needs to be a much better fleshed out than a single quote from a direct competitor. I'll see what I can add. --Ritz 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that it should matter if the notable figures criticizing the Wii are doing it fairly (since it's not even out...), it's still being criticized. The criticism section is legitimate, as it is I don't think it shows any POV, and many, many good articles about huge products like these have a criticism section. I don't think the article would be as complete without one. Since the information is encyclopedic, it should definitely be left in.

On another note, I'm looking forward to this system the most out of any of them; it pains me to see criticism of the Wii since most of it seems unjustified to me, and I'm sure Nintendo has taken every precaution against hand and nerve troubles with using the controller. The criticism section, however, I must reiterate, should stay in. Voretus the Benevolent 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can empathize, Voretus, being a fan of Nintendo myself. As long as it remains NPOV, it should be ok though. As you might have noticed, I've added to it and included statements from third party developers. I think its better than the stand alone quote that was used previously. --Ritz 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that there's the bit from the creator of KD. Good choice.

IGN also had a bunch of quotes from developers (pre-E3). Generally positive, but a few people were skeptical. Ladlergo 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is debating the validity of RSI concerns. However, given that the system hasn't been released, I think we should be cautious. Real data will come after it's been out for several months. In the mean time, does anyone know if physical therapist or other medical professionals have talked about the dangers of video games? That would work the best for now. Ladlergo 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I too am concerned about the requirement of positioning the Wii remote and the dangers of RSI, constructing a 'criticisms' page on the Wii before it is released is both inappropriate and preemptive of public opinion. Perhaps we should wait until the console is released and more criticism is made by consumers before such a sub-topic is placed on the page. Sure, such criticism is valid, but as the only supporting criticism is made by Bill Gates it clearly shows bias as he is a highly opinionated stakeholder with regards to the issue. Bill's comments should be placed under a 'reactions' sub-heading or something else more appropriate instead. Smithers109 09:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "the" prefix

I had asked a related question earlier [1] regarding the use of putting "the" in front of the name Wii. I noticed that user Stratadrake had made an edit to place the word in front of the name at the beginning of the article in an attempt to be consistent with the majority of the other console articles. However, soon after that, user Dannybu2001 removed it "per context usage and general consensus". In the archived discussion, user DivineShadow218 argued that context didn't merit the removal of the prefix. Nor have I been able to find a consenses on the subject yet. So, since the edit really doesn't have a huge impact on the article, rather than edit back and forth, I thought it would be better to discuss what would be most appropriate first. Thoughts? --Ritz 08:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's "Wii" not "The Wii" end of story. It's not a word, it's a product name. You don't say "The PlayStation 3", you say "PlayStation 3, same with "Xbox 360", not "The Xbox 360". Just remove it has vandalisme, warn the user who added. Havok (T/C/c) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that based on Stratadrake's edit, we do say "the PlayStation 3" and "the Xbox 360", judging by the other console articles. I decided to check this myself, and sure enough, the text of those articles seems to favor "the" in front of the names. I'm not saying that it's the proper usage, but it is the prevalent usage. Dancter 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how I was seeing it; every other console article I've found so far (NES - SNES - Sega Genesis - N64 - XBox) has used "The" in reference to the console's name. It's not part of the official trademark, true (hence it's not in bold), but it seems to be a common usage convention when referring to a console itself. --Stratadrake 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, it's the wrong practice if you ask me, plus it sounds wrong. Havok (T/C/c) 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(sarcasm ->) Then don't forget about the 2600, 5200, 7800, NES, SNES, TG16, Genesis, PlayStation, Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, XBox, GameCube, and PlayStation 2 articles then, they all use the same manner. (end sarcasm).

But all joking aside, I'm just wondering what makes it sound "wrong"? --Stratadrake 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you changed many of the older systems. I'm thinking that probably wasn't the right course for consoles such as the Super NES, for which the official title acts more as a descriptor than an actual name. It's only recently (the last couple generations) that treating titles as proper names has become common for consoles. Dancter 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Wii" basically short for "Wii game console"? Wouldn't you say "The Wii game console kicked tail at E306" instead of "Wii game console kicked tail at E306"? Chromudgeon 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is "Wii", not "Nintendo Wii" or "Wii game console" or anything like that, it's "Wii" and only "Wii". I have removed the prefix on the consoles and handhelds I could think of at the top of my head. Havok (T/C/c) 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the name of the console is Wii, I totally disagree with not using the word "the". When I am refering to a car I say, the BMW Z3 is the best roadster ever, or for computers I say the Dell Dimension is a subpar system. For this console it should be the Nintendo Wii is the best console Nintendo has made yet. The word "the" isnt part of the title it is just proper english and the reference to Nintendo is the brand that it falls into. The article should be titled Wii as that is the product's name. When refering to the Wii though, it is more then proper to use Nintendo in front of the name and just plain good english to refer to any product using the word "the". Sir hugo 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See, this is where I disagree. While there's nothing too wrong about using Nintendo in front of the name Wii, I don't see many cases where it would be too necessary. How often do we need to call the iPod the "Apple iPod"? And "any product" is too much of a blanket statement to me. As a device, it's fine to use "the", but when referring to Wii as a platform, I think it's more appropriate to omit "the". As a platform, Windows is pretty much never prefixed with "the". Dancter 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of tricky. I prefer to refer to Wii without using "the" in front of the name when I write sentences. Due to this, I do prefer omitting "The" from the beggining of the article. However, when looking at products and brands like the Walkman and iPod, the use of the word "The" is used to introduce the subject. Looking at the article for the SNES, I notice it doesn't read very well without "The" introducing the subject.

Hmm... I come to think of an article like fire. It makes total sense to not include the prefix to introduce the subject. You don't say "The fire" when refering to combustion. However, if Microsoft, for example where to introduce a new handheld called "Fire", an article based on it would most likely use "The Fire is Microsoft's first handheld system" to introduce the article. Considering Wii is an console (object) and not a state (like fire), including the "the" prefix may be most appropriate afterall. --Ritz 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, "The firefighters put out the fire." Danny 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My use of the word "context" has to do with the grammatical nature of the particular sentence. I have stated previously that if a sentence requires the use of "the" before Wii, then by all means it should go regardless of Nintendo's wishes. But if it can be used properly without "the", then it's fine. The opening sentence can be read properly sans "the". Danny 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

it is all about sentence structure. This is ok: Wii is the name of Nintendo's fifth console, The Wii can accept wii games and gamecube games. This is not ok: Wii's has 3X the power of gamecube, the correct sentance structure is the wii has 3x the power ot the gamecube--DivineShadow218 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your changes, Havok, and am reverting them. The manuals for all my Nintendo products use the prefix "the" when referring to the console. It's common usage and proper grammar. "Where'd I leave the game?" "On top of PlayStation 2" is wrong. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The poll still stands on the CVG Project talk page, and if you havn't read it you should. If consensus was met on this page, the question should be re-asked for everyone who contributes to the computer and videogame articles on the project page, and not here on the Wii article. And before you go an attack my grammer like everyone else, read my comment first. They are both right, and I just happen to think that removing the "the" looks better. Havok (T/C/c) 22:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Using prior consoles as a reference is incorrect. We call it what Nintendo calls it, and they specifically call it "Wii", even in instances where people would otherwise think to use "The Wii", if it were indeed "The Wii". For example, on Nintendo's official Wii site [2], the word "The Wii" isn't used whatsoever- take these quotes, for instance.

• "Thanks to our unique controller, anyone of any age or skill level can pick up and play games on Wii." -Note that they don't say "The Wii". They just say "games on Wii".
• "In fact, Wii gives them the best gaming experience yet." - Again, no "the". Just "Wii".
• "When you get a chance to play, you will believe Wii is the next leap in gaming to a new generation."
• "Wii returns gaming to simpler times while innovating game development at the same time."
• "Wii shows that games have not outgrown them."
• "Wii makes you feel less like a player and more like you're in the game."

It seems obvious Nintendo does not intend on having Wii use a "the" in front of it in any capacity. -- Daniel Davis 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not used on the Game Boy Micro article either. And before anyone starts saying that it's gramatically wrong to NOT use the prefix "The" in these instances, are infact that people who are wrong. It is just as correct as using "The", so saying "The PlayStation 3" would be just as correct as saying "PlayStation 3". Of course you can't say "Please hand me PlayStation 3", it would be "Please hand me the PlayStation 3". But at the beginning of these articles it's not wrong to keep it out. My feelings on this subject is that it looks nicer without the "The" infront of it, so please do not tell me I am at fault, when clearly I am not. This is my opinion, and everyone can share theirs here. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 22:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When thinking about that, you are right- it is referring to a proper name after all. People don't call me "The Daniel"... -- Daniel Davis 22:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but then, "Wii" is a proper name of a thing not a person. Danny 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "hand me that console" above, "the" is used because the person is asking for a specific object. Ladlergo 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Another example, on the Game Boy site at Nintendo.com [3] they don't use "The" infront of the start of the article. Plainly stating "Game Boy is all about great gaming on the go." Havok (T/C/c) 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this "pure" interpretation is taking it way too far. As I've said, we cannot ignore proper grammar because of a marketing decision. And I know that Nintendo has gone out their way in interviews to not use 'the', but have they specifically said anywhere not use 'the' in everday common use? The only compromise is to purposely structure the sentences in this article to not require the use of 'the', and to use weasel words like the "console", the "system", etc.Danny 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, it is not incorrect grammer. Please read the discussion going on here. Havok (T/C/c) 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice discussion, but the person who said that "the" modifies nouns was correct. Opening the article without a 'the' is acceptable, blanket dropping it from all uses is not proper grammar. Just because people decide it is, doesn't make it fact. Read any grammar book. Danny 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I agree that readers should be able to get a "well-rounded" viewpoint from this article. However, having a dedicated criticism section (as it currently stands) doesn't seem to be the proper way to do it. I've checked the other 7th gen console articles (it's a new era, so I personally don't really care what's happening at the SNES, Genesis, etc. articles, related to the Wii article), and while they have references of criticism peppered throughout their articles, they do not have dedicated "Criticism" sections (unless you count the 360's malfunctions section.) Further, we already make reference to Bill Gates' comments about the controller... in the controller section. I do not see why we have to repeat this info in the criticism section. But if it were removed, then that leaves the final wiik comment (that could also be properly integrated into the controller section) kind of hanging. I think we either need some better critiques added, or we need to scrap this section... but, with any future criticism being added to the specific section (i.e. complaints about no HD or 5.1 audio be added somewhere in the hardware section, controller complaints in the controller section, price complaints [if any] in the price section, and so on.) What does everyone think? Danny 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... if you look at the discussion under the title "Blanking" a lot of this was discussed. Someone vowed that they would keep a criticism section in, or continue to add it in if kept being removed. However, when I made my initial sets of edits, the original section had a single verbatim quote from Bill Gates and it clearly wasn't good enough and didn't warrant a section on it's own. However, to avert an edit war someone promised to make, I tried to include a diverse set of quotes from industry professionals. I will agree the reaction made by Mark Rein that I included is not really relevant anymore.

If we are to keep a criticism section, we should pull out negative remarks and reactions from the specific sections and collect them all into one place. If we do that, I suggest the same be done on the other two articles speaking on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Otherwise, scrap the criticism section altogether and just add specific criticisms to thier appropriate sections. --Ritz 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that a critism section can contain both addressing of problems AND their responses- as I said last night, the Wii controller has caveats (problems) like fatigue. It also needs to be addressed that the controller deals with addressing RSI potential- the Wiimote will no doubt be helpful in addressing the problems of tendonitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, so it should be easy to include both viewpoints, both negative (fatigue) and positive. -- Daniel Davis 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the new RSI section. In practice, waving your arm around is actually less straining in the long run compared to my typing on a keyboard right now (i.e. different muscles with different sensitivities.) However, are there any reports about how difficult it is to hold a remote control up for long periods of time, related to the Wii Remote or not? EDIT: Also, the Wii Remote has a dedicated page, wouldn't it be more appropriate to but these issues there? Danny 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed the history, Doom127, and I must ask: How is saying an unsourced claim needs a citation considered POV? Danny 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a criticism section as per 'xbox 360 overheating' - that is - based on fact rather than personal preference - if when the console is released there are problems eg RSI as mentioned above then obviously they should be mentioned in the article. However suggesting that RSI might be a problem falls (with no info. presently as to whether the controller will/wont cause RSI) under 'wikipedia not a crystal ball', however I think it is good that this topic has been raised.

In general I'd prefer an article about the Wii using the facts that we have. I tend to view some of the added criticisms that have been in the article as 'Point of view comment by proxy'.

As for things such as no HD support - yes it should be mentioned - it's true - but to specifically criticise it is uneeded (in my opinion), like criticising the acceleration of the mini car. I think we need to accept the product that Nintendo is intending to produce - rather than filling the article with complaints about lacking features.

As a final note I think I'd find it strange to find General motors wikipage peppered with comments from executives of the Ford motor corporation and Mercedes. Just my opinion.HappyVR 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a Google search list considered acceptable as a citation? Danny 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, HappyVR, that the Wii controller isn't something unknown- we already know how it's going to be used very specifically, which allows us to trace exactly what kind of muscle movements are utilized in it. Honestly, it seems that Danny is more interested in extolling the positive aspects of this controller, rather than the caveats, the negative ones. Danny, you had no problem with the fact that the Wii solves the problems of RSI to any kind of an extent, but the oppositive POV of discussions around the web that (although unfounded as they may be) that attempt to link the Wii with RSI you are obviously trying to remove. Given that we have to keep a POV free area here, we need to keep both sides of the issue here. It's hard enough trying to add paragraphs here as it is- you need to help add to the article instead of trying to attack anything that doesn't fit into a specific point of view. I appreciate your grammar edits, for instance. Things like that, it's fine- but let's not get into another spat please. Keep a cool head here when you're doing your edits. And Danny, the citation merely needs to prove that discussions have been raised regarding the Wii- the reference link clearly shows that. -- Daniel Davis 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you change your mind on the Google ref? Danny 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah- when looking at it with a clear head, Google really shouldn't be used as a reference at all here on Wikipedia. Your addition of a citation tag was appropriate. -- Daniel Davis 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Danny 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even though we "know" how vitamins are used in the human body, and biologists theorized that taking multipurpose vitamins would be a good thing, a review of the literature shows that it might not be the case. I would suggest that an article detailing why there may be RSI problems is appropriate, but we should wait until adding one that says that there will be problems.

I would also say that adding RSI-related literature just in regards to the Wii, and not mentioning other possible RSI-inducing activities (other console controllers, typing, etc) gives the impression that only the Wii may be notable for this. Ladlergo 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The positive side had a source. The negative side originally did not, adding "citation needed" to an uncited claim is neccessary, it's not like I flat out deleted it. And I was unsure if a Google (or any search engine) listing was acceptable as a citation, since ever other cite I've ever seen has linked to specific articles on the subject (and not just here.) Danny 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm personaly wary about using a Google search engine as a source considering content on that page is dynamic and there is no way to grab hold of a static page for reference. Results within the linked search may change dramaticaly overtime and I am not sure that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I also don't think requesting citiation is at any point grounds to accuse someone of POV. Original research is not allowed, and unless its common sense (like "diamonds are hard") concepts and ideas should be sourced whenever possible. --Ritz 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple request for this section. to also add positive feedback from others, and have the section ultamitly named impressions or something.--DivineShadow218 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of most of the section either way, but surely a paragraph dedicated to the opinion of the CEO of a competing company isn't really warranted? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Caricatures

According to Game|Life blog, Wii will store caricatures in the hardware, and later use them in some games. Katsuya Eguchi: Yes. The caricatures will exist in the hardware, as data, as one of several profiles that you could save in the Wii. And if you insert compatible software into the Wii, it will pull up the images that you chose. [4] -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Danny 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Something along those lines was mentioned in the Kotaku interview with Miyamoto. That's already in the Wii Remote article, because it mentioned how the profiles can be associated with individual Remotes, but I didn't even consider its relevance to the main article. I think I read some other interview about Wii Sports that indicated that the caricature editor was actually in the game software, and only the saved profile is actually in the hardware. The seeming contradiction can probably be chocked up to imprecision of language, but whose? Dancter 06:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I get it now. If that's legit, that is awesome! I think we should wait for a more official announcement from Nintendo (which they'll probably do roughly two weeks after the system launches), before we add this. Very interesting though. Danny 07:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's already been put in. Twice. There's even another long quote. *sigh* Dancter 15:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wii60 article

Opnions please. --Ragnarok Addict 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it should be deleted. Internet memes are contentious articles on WP, and this one isn't even well known. Ladlergo 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Ladlergo; this doesn't deserve its own article. I'm not sure it even merits a mention in the console articles. Dancter 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not deserving of an article. Maybe a tiny passing mention in Wii and/or Xbox 360.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. The concept may be somewhat notable, but I don't think "Wii60" is all that notable. --Optichan 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's next, a "GameCube 1.5" article because Matt at IGN.com says it? Danny 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. I mean seriosly a Wii=a 360 costs less than a ps3. Wii60 ftw!!Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Voted delete. We are not an "ad" site, or commercial for that matter. We don't care if it cost less then PS3 etc. Besides, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Havok (T/C/c) 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Havok, You might not care, but lots of Consumers(aka the important people) do care.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most people are capable of doing simple arithmatic. Ladlergo 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wii Microphone

Should there be something about the wii mic in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.186.125 (talk • contribs) .

Eh...what microphone?--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They're talking about this rumor. Dancter 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then...no.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include it as speculation based on patents. Jaxad0127 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably be able to cite the specific patents before we even attempt to include it. They are the primary sources, after all. I've only been able to find one. Yanko indicates at least four. Dancter 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's all the patents with 'Nintendo' inside the assignee name field. One of them (number 20060052166) appears to refer to the wii-mote's ability to act as a pointing device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxad0127 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'm not digging through all that. And considering that Nintendo has officially confirmed the pointer function, citing a patent application isn't really necessary for that. Dancter 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or rumors. We will add it only if it is confirmed. Ladlergo 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

party status

An editor has recently been making changes to some Nintendo-related articles regarding party status, taking a bit of a brusque tone with those who have may have some misconceptions about the issue. As this issue seems to recur often, I feel that the issue needs to be directly addressed. I'm posting about it here because it does affect this article, and it seems that some of you may have relevant insights into the issue. My question is this: what is the defining characteristic of a second-party developer? As I understand it, there are two schools of thought; one which says that operational autonomy distinguishes a second-party from a first-party, the other says that ownership does. Which is it? Dancter 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use the definition from Second-party developer? This seems to be the commonly accepted one. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(From Second-party developer) In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer.

"Seperate entity" makes it seem that full ownership makes one a first party. Even if they generally act autonomously, there is no true autonomy of a fully-owned subsidiary. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You do see why I felt it necessary to ask, though. Perhaps another source of confusion is the availability of reliable and up-to-date information on ownership? Dancter 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo ON

Should we add an article on this? It's a lot more well known than Wii60, or some other stuff I've seen.--Supermariorobot 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumored name, don't add. Try an internet slang dictionary instead. Ladlergo 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a rumored name, it was a rumored eighth-generation Nintendo console. I don't really think it has all that much to do with the Wii itself.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumored? Not to do with the Wii? No, this was an entire HOAX aimed at tricking viewers into beliving that what they were watching was the true "Revolution" console--Supermariorobot 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo ON was just a fan made video. Nintendo had nothing to do with it and it's in no way official. Also, this also "Wii60" thing is retarted and I wish people would stop using that term. TJ Spyke 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a fan made video. And I know Nintendo had nothing to do with it. But I beleive the publicity it recieved deserves some recognition. It tricked me, and everyone I showed it to, until Nintendo came out and said they had nothing to do with it. Doesn't that mean anything? Why don't you people understand? Why?...*sob*Supermariorobot 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Ladlergo 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or is it?--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

While I don't like that list, notice that almost all of them are based off of actual objects, even if they're flash videos. Nintendo ON exists as a rumor and nothing more. Ladlergo 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...while I still think Nintendo ON could use a mention somewhere on Wikipedia, you do have a point.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Well since no one answerd my question from the above conversation about the Criticism section, I will re-state it here. I think that there should be positive criticism in this section too, not just a referance of one sentence. Does any one else agree?--DivineShadow218 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be an equal amount of negative aswell as positive criticism in this section. Havok (T/C/c) 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming the section to "Opinions" or "Response?" Cosmos 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly "Response." Not "Opinions," because Wikipedia isn't really an opinion place. Well, on the other hand, I guess such a section would be full of opinions...--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed in to impressions mainly b/c is sounds more neutral the criticisms. Do you guys like it, hate it, what?--DivineShadow218 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Reaction" would be my suggestion. RadioKirk talk to me 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section back to "Criticism" and removed the pov flag. It seems to me that the term criticism implies more negative comments than positive. If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo my change and/or add the pov tag again. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing it back to impressions b/c there will be more added positive impressions later on during this week.--DivineShadow218 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Include ALL criticism. Not half good half bad. Thats stupid.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Impressions" is a bad title for that section, IMHO. It gives me the impression (heh) that, say, Gates has actually tried the controller and is speaking from experience, rather than just trying to downplay an important part of a competitor's strategy. Indeed, I don't understand why he needs to be quoted in this article at all. For example, the "put the controller down" part. That is hardly specific to Wii. If you use a normal controller for a flight game and stop controlling the plane it'll crash too. It's just plain nonsense and an attempt at finding something negative to say about the Wiimote. Are competitors quoted in other Wikipedia articles? Numbnumb 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism works great, why change it? Havok (T/C/c) 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion remains "Reaction". Ideally, this section will be exceedingly brief, with only the most significant points on either side quickly made and closed. RadioKirk talk to me 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I asked before, why does Gates get a paragraph with a quote anyways? He's the CEO of a directly competing company. There are no quotes in the Linux article about how SCO thinks they've infringed on copyright, or information on Microsoft's various TCO studies. Having the Katamari guy in there is probably fine, since he's an independent developer, but Gates? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I've said it before, but I'm very opposed to quotations except where truly necessary. It looks amateur when we have blocks of quotations because people are too lazy to work on a way to paraphrase something well. Dancter 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Dancter, I think that this whole section is unnecessary and we should move the important quotes where they fit... if 1. they are important, and 2. if they fit with the article to make it better as a whole.--DivineShadow218 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes are a good way to highlight something, but shouldn't be used in any other situation if you ask me. Its use should be paramount to the article. And I agree, why is Gates quoted in the article? Havok (T/C/c) 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ontop of that... non of the other console atricles have a critisim section, why does the Wii need one?--DivineShadow218 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually beginning to think the same, why do we have it? Havok (T/C/c) 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We really don't. The other articles are actually encyclopedic, ie. they discuss the facts without allowing in much of any sort of bias. The criticisms section here only has negative feedback, and so it is a disproportionate amount to that which the console has actually recieved from developers. Besides that, positive or negative feedback really doesn't matter in an encyclopedic article. Again to Linux: no one questions keeping competitor's and other's negative opinions out of it. I scrapped the Bill Gates quote, and wouldn't mind if anyone took out the rest, since the consensus seems tilted that way. Straw poll? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this article is better then the others :)? Seriously, though, criticism sections are almost standard on featured articles now. The trick with these is to make sure you get responses from nintendo to the criticisms as well - also, I DO disagree with this removal - a quote from gates is definately worthy of being included, even if he may have little actual knowledge. Also, in response to Crustacean on of the reasons Linux isn't going to be featured anytime soon is because of the lack of criticisms (see the talk page). You don't have to have a criticism section, but otherwise you need to have the criticisms inline with the article content, which often times makes it difficult to organize stuff. RN 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Atleast tone it down. Havok (T/C/c) 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gates is a direct competitor to Nintendo. Why do you think his comments do not violate the neutral point of view? He's not a neutral party. The Katamari developer, on the other hand... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Why do you think his comments do not violate the neutral point of view" - Quotes are not required to be from a "neutral" party, neither are they expected to be from a NPOV - NPOV applies to article content, i.e. if we said in the article that Gates was a loser that would be POV, but if we quoted Linus Torvolds on that it wouldn't neccesarily be NPOV - but we'd need a response from the other party as well. If the quote is too harsh (which this one probably is) we can tone it down by paraphrasing it, but simply saying bill gates doesn't think the controller is ready for the mainstream takes out too much context - I'll try to redo it a bit. RN

That's not what I meant, but ignore it. Keeping his view points in there is fine, but not giving it such a large quotation. The rewording is good. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem - sorry about that :). Anything else that needs to be tweaked? RN 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gates' comments do not merit the space taken to express his point. Heck, I'm not even sure if Reggie's quotation needs to be in here. Any quotation longer than a sentence needs a serious justification for its full inclusion. People who want to read the Gates quotation verbatim can follow a link. Chop it down. This isn't a newsmagazine. Soundbites do not belong. Dancter 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a vote on this??--DivineShadow218 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss it instead (I thought it was ok as-is). Like I said before, it doesn't have to have a criticism section - it just needs to have the criticisms someplace :). If people think it is a better idea the other way I can take a stab at that as well :). RN 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've been thinking - the second paragraph there seems exclusively directed at the controller - what about moving that into the wiimote article, and then moving the first paragraph to the remote section in this article? RN 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

why not just move the good links to the proper places and delete the section?--DivineShadow218 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Game Informer

Game Informer seems to have given more information about Wii according to a post in the Nintendo boards. [5] There are some surprises there (Wii including a PPU? That is something not likely at all), but worth a view. Someone with access to the GI magazine should check if what it is being said there is real. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Screw the PPU, a built-in camera! Joyness! Anyway, what country is Game Informer in? Is it exclusive to the US or is it a worldwide deal? Ixistant 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's published in my city, Minneapolis, Minnesota!! Anyway, I have a subscription to it (and access to their full website.) I'll look into it later. Grandmasterka 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A PPU? I'm doubtful as well, but I'd love to see confirmation on this. Not sure if a magazine such as that is enough to include the information in the article (unless it's specifically sourced from Nintendo and not a rumour), but either way it could be interesting. Notice that the poster called it an upcoming issue, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Game Informer has an article in Wikipedia and is a notable magazine. Any speculation they include in the magazine can be added, as it comes from a reliable source. Even if they don't say from where their sources are, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. However, I am awaiting to get confirmation about the magazine contents, as all we have now is a post in a board and some gaming sites. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A magazine talking about a rumour does not constitute verifiability (magazines post rumours that turn out incorrect all the time). It could be included in the article because Gameinformer is so notable, but would have to make specific mention to the fact that it's but a rumour. If the magazine said it came from Nintendo though, then it could be included outright. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not commenting against stating it is a rumour. I was saying that, due Wikipedia policy, we can add a rumour that appears in Game Informer. Because of the same policy, we can't add the exactly same rumour if it appears in Joe's cafe blog. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Pie. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"A magazine talking about a rumour does not constitute verifiability (magazines post rumours that turn out incorrect all the time). It could be included in the article because Gameinformer is so notable, but would have to make specific mention to the fact that it's but a rumour. If the magazine said it came from Nintendo though, then it could be included outright. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | " When did that happen? I must have missed it.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should add the rumours to the article, but specifically state that they ARE rumours and that they came from GI, much like how the The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess article added the rumours that were printed in NGC Magazine (which turned out to be correct) about LOZ on the Wii. Ixistant 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to fight you on adding rumors. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Unless GI's source is revealed and can be questioned, it is a rumor and should not be included. Ladlergo 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am backtracking somewhat on this. I dislike adding rumours as well, unless they come straight from a Nintendo person (ie. through the Dojo or something). However, it is somewhat expected that an article for an unreleased system may be slightly speculative. But considering how much official information we have from Nintendo to make up the article, I don't see a particular need to include the GI stuff. Unless, again, it's presented as a non-rumour, but by the time such information would be out and verifiable in the magazine, other sources would have it as well. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Turns out this was a hoax, the new game informer issue will not have this info. Nintendo.com has even deleted the message from the site. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Message? I don't understand. Nintendo.com had a message on a site? Dancter 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted it on their message boards. Ladlergo 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. But wouldn't Nintendo delete it just the same if it were true? I mean, if it's a secret and all... Anyway, the rumor sounds absolutely ludicrous. It mentions a camera to capture an image for the face feature, when almost everything else out there indicates that the faces are "built" in a software application. It mentions a headset, but Iwata stated in an interview that part of the reason for the Remote speaker was because headsets were too complicated. It also mentions that Nintendo would release officially-branded SD cards ranging from 2GB to 7GB. Have you checked the prices of SD cards lately? How could anyone find this plausible? Dancter 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NOT a next-gen console

Wii (pronounced "we", IPA: /wiː/) is Nintendo's 7th generation video game console, Nintendo's fifth home console and the successor to the Nintendo GameCube

According to Nintendo, this is a new-gen console (whatever that means), and since it's not competing with the Xbox 180 or PS3, is it really part of the 7th generation era, or a new era? What do you guys think?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152265.html (McDonaldsGuy 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

It's called the Xbox 360. And Wii, like it or not, is still a 7th genereation console. Havok (T/C/c) 06:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what Nintendo thinks, they make it quite clear that this is not a next-generation console (and therefore, not part of the 7th generation). It doesn't matter if I like it or not, but I am just going by what Nintendo says. (McDonaldsGuy 08:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

The context of "Wii is not next-gen" is: <<"Next-generation" implies that the console is an extension of previous installments.>> (Iwata) So it's just marketing. Nintendo is trying to set itself apart from the other "extensions of previous installments". By that logic, Wii is indeed next-gen, since it's an extension of the previous installment. Moreso than the PS3 or Xbox360, since it's heavily based on GameCube hardware. It doesn't stop being next-gen just because Nintendo says so. Numbnumb 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's part of the seventh generation consoles, but a new era for Nintendo, who hopes it'll spread/evolve. That's what I think, anyway :) Shaun Eccles-Smith 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Psssst. The link doesnt work.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite what Nintendo's saying, it's a 7th generation console. They're not reinventing the wheel. Ladlergo 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia goes by facts? I guess we should delete this article because we are getting it all from Nintendo? McDonaldsGuy 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence the future product warning at the top of the article. Jaxad0127 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The generation typically refers to the time period anyways, as each of the major companies release new consoles. Besides marketing, there's no reason to not call it 7th generation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't call XBox 360 second generation because it's Microsoft's second console; we call it a 7th generation console because it is part of the seventh generation of consoles in general. --Maxamegalon2000 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "7th generation" refers to the generational time period that consoles/handhelds are released, not their technological capabilites or marketing schemes. Wii may not be "next-gen", but that's different than not being "7th gen". That's like saying I'm not a part of "Generation X" just because I don't act like everyone else from that generation. Danny 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But Nintendo says it is NOT a next-gen console, so we have to go by what THEY say in order for this article to be 100% accurate. Whether or not it's a marketing scheme is irrelevent. McDonaldsGuy 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you missed my point. I didn't say it was a "next-gen" console, that doesn't negate it being a "7th gen" console. There is a difference. "Next gen" = PS3 and Xbox 360 with their 'lastest, greatest' tech (at least to gaming consoles.) "New gen" = Wii with an entirely new take on (hopefully) mainstream gaming interaction. "7th gen" = All three simply because they are being released around the same time period. It's no different than if Nintendo, instead of releasing the Wii now, bowed out of the console game for another five years and released it if/when the "Playstation IV" and "Xbox 720" come out in 2011, it would then be a part of the 8th generation, "new gen" or not. Again, "new gen" does not equal not being "7th gen". Danny 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think they're going for a new species instead of a continuation of what already exists, so to speak. Jaxad0127 05:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That presumes that Nintendo is not only an infallible source of information, but 100% honest. We should not blindly go by what Nintendo says if we are committed to being accurate. Semantics aside, it is worthwhile to establish these systems in relation to one another somehow, if only to position them in a chronological context. Whatever the manufacturers are saying about not being competitors does not negate this. Xbox 180? It doesn't sound like an argument made with objectivity in mind. Dancter 05:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sure Nintendo knows more about their new console than you, and since they say it is NOT next-gen, then why shouldn't we believe them? Should we now, say, take down the Wii-mote section of the page because the Wii-mote might actually be a bomb (I dont mean it, just an example)? McDonaldsGuy 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Nintendo knows more about their new console than I do, too. That's not the point. Why shouldn't we believe Nintendo when they it's not next-gen? Same reason why we are skeptical when Sony says that they removed vibration from their PS3 controller because it interferes with motion-sensing. Nintendo has an interest in distinguishing their console from Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 by claiming that what they are doing is something totally new, even when it is not quite the case. Sony is also claiming that what they are doing is not comparable to other consoles, and is the only true HD console, in part because of its Blu-ray capability. Should we believe them, and not try to compare PS3 to 360? While we're at it, let's not compare PSP and DS, even though they're both portable game-playing systems, released in the same general time period, with buttons and screens and Wi-Fi and game software that you insert into them to play games. Sony and Nintendo have made statements they're not comparable, so why shouldn't we believe them? Dancter 06:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As it has allready been stated, the generation is a marker for when the console is released, not for how "high tech" it is. I re-added the line to the article. I would also suggest people to check the little box on the right at the bottom, Wii is placed next to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, should it have it's own line? "Not 7th gen since Nintendo dosn't want it to be." (this last part was a joke by the way). Havok (T/C/c) 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this directed at me? I agree. Dancter 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The :'s got a bit to much for me. :P Sorry about that. Havok (T/C/c) 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The link works now btw.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "next gen" is both vague and ambiguous in nature for the most part. Modern systems during pre-release are oftentimes referred to as "next-gen" as a standard practice of marketing, it's been that way for decades. Being such, the term has a tendency to only denote a console for a short period of time; the system stops being "next gen" when the "next" "next-gen" comes about. This, of course, makes the term differ considerably from calling the generation "seventh generation". That doesn't stop some people from confusing the two, of course (as seen above). If Nintendo doesn't want to call their system "next gen", that's up to their convoluted marketing department. But in terms of system release, it IS part of the seventh generation of consoles, as its release falls squarely into that timeframe. -- Daniel Davis 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to vague and unambiguous, or clear and ambiguous? ;) Ladlergo 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ambiguous: "open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance." [6] Nintendo's definitions tend to be both vague, and leave much open to debate and interpetation. And they like it that way. -- Daniel Davis 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuation from pg.7-"Creepy thing with the name..."=

This is a continuation from page 7, in the Wii Talk Archives.

but anyway, let me just make it clear... I WAS KIDDING. And as far as Daniel Davis's observation is concerned, ironically enough, I saw that episode right after posting this... and the first thing I thought was that someone would say I was copying. Also, I did not intend for this to be in the article, just wanted to say it. Just wanted to make all this clear. aido2002 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

removed criticism edit

John Guilfoil, of the Public Relations Blog, http://www.PRrag.com , cites that while Wii features a great new technology, it's video and audio fall short of both Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Wii only supports up to 480i resolution and has no digital audio outputs. Both Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 feature 1080 resolution and Dolby Digital compatible sound. http://www.prrag.com/2006/06/wiire-gonna-fail.html

While I'm sure someone criticized it like that, I don't think referencing a blog without an alexa ranking it the right way to go about it (also, some of it is self-evident). RN 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The editor has had a history of adding links to content by John Guilfoil. Dancter 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it's obvious the person quoted doesn't even have their facts straight: "Wii only supports up to 480i" and "Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 feature 1080". Wii is 480p, which is different than 480i. And Xbox 360 supports 1080i which is different that PS3's 1080p, he curiously just says "1080". Danny 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Party/First Party

Moved "Metroid Prime" from the first party section into the third party section because it is being developed by Retro Studios, a second party company. Also shortened "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" to simply "Super Smash Bros." because the list was listing franchises, not induvidual games. --Coolbho3000 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on "Smash Bros." It'd probably be best to cite a good source for Retro's second-party status. There have been some disagreements about that. Dancter 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retro is a first party as this these articles show[7] [8] It needs to be changed back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.110.201 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See what a good reference can do? Hopefully, the whole second-party/first-party debate can be considered settled now, at least for Retro Studios. Dancter 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your posts. ;) Dancter 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retro is a second party.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)