Wii Sports edged out Gears of War, even Zelda: Twilight Princess, for TIME's 2006 "game of the year" award. More fascinating, however, is the apparent split when dubbing a best game of 2006. Some say Wii Sports FTW while others (including the Joystiq consensus) say Gears FTW. Could you compare a more different approach in making games?
Calling a spade a spade: Wii Sports is simple -- almost caveman like -- fun, slim on features though it effectively leverages motion-based play. Strangely, it keeps pulling people in as existing owners continue to play the "tech demo" as some call it. Gears, on the other hand, is a proven shooter short on originality. It could be considered a case study on how to make an engaging shooter for a core gaming audience (dependable gameplay, jaw-dropping visuals, multiplayer, etc).
So if this isn't good ole fashioned subjectivity, it's almost as if the non-gamer line is being drawn right in front of our eyes. "It freaks me out, baby! Yeah!"
