Ryan Dolley

This piece of information has absolutely no effect on my decision to opt for the Wii60 this fall and sit on the fence with the PS3.

I CANNOT afford to get a TV that would take advantage of this console. I plan on purchasing an HDTV this fall/winter, but I'm in the 1,200 - 2,200 range - I don't think 1080P is available in my economic bracket.

I would guess 'romanticism' in videogames in almost inevitable in that, for many people, attempting any more modern artistic mode would make a game unplayable.

Imagine a post-modernist first-person shooter:

You enter a room. There's a monster. He's got bat wings and big jaws and he's covered in blood. He's been feasting on your mom. You loved your mom. You circle around the monster a few times for emphasis, and prepare to fill him with high-powered plamsa rounds, when it strikes you - what does 'love' mean anyway? What is the monster's perspective on 'love'? Can you say objectively that the monster eating your mother doesn't 'love' her, in it's own crude, monsterly fashion? You can't - in fact, you can't say anything objectively, because everything is open to interpretation. You start to question your own vocabularly searching for true meaning - what is 'plasma rifle' or 'monster'? You only call it 'monster' because you fail to understand it's needs and objectives. But as you search for reality, you understand that there can be no real truth, because you and the monster would never agree on what 'truth' was to begin with. So, recognizing the death of your old understanding of the world, and acknowledging that your new understanding leaves you awash in a sea of Godless uncertainty in which your every action must be questioned in light of a truthless universe, you decide to shoot the monster eating your mother. Only now, he's eating your dad.

But what is 'eating' anyway?

#27...

I can provide a personal example of this: My girlfriend. She plays PC games all the time, owns a Nintendo DS, and shreds at Guitar Hero, but she cannot, CANNOT manage to effectively use a Dualshock 2. She really enjoys watching me play certain console games (Zelda, God of War) but wont try them herself.

Just last night I offered to buy her a PS2, but she said she wouldn't play it. I asked about the Wii, and it was all smiles.

I guess my point is that, on some level, Nintendo's philosophy and non-gamers and our current complicated controll scheme is right: If you missed out on the buildup to a sixteen button pad, you really have a hard time using one.

When I first heard the news about the 'dualshake' I thought that, at the very least, Sony had included a feature in the PS3 that would give the illusion of similar functionality to a generally uninformed public. During a 30 second TV commercial, Sony could convincingly showcase their own motion sensing technology, along with superior graphics. I thought it looked very bad for Nintendo, because the PS3 can 'do the same thing.'

A little more thought, though, and now I feel the exact opposite. By including the Wii's primary function in the PS3, Sony has put the two on the same plane, and may have made the Wii in to the obvious 'better deal.'

What really strikes me is that the CEO's profit was ONLY 500K. The phantom is an obvious scam, so can't you come away with a little more money than that?

C'mon! We've all seen Greed. This guy sucks as a top shelf money stealer.

Actually, guys, I think you've gone a long way to prove EXACTLY why Nintendo chose this name. You've shown how popular brand names positively evoke images relating to the way a company wishes it's products to be percieved. So, explain to me how 'Wii' doesn't evoke community, participation, and inclusiveness? Because it DOES. And that's what Nintendo is going for. So, on that level, it's probably sucessful.

You may not like the name. I don't much like the name. But your attempt to etymologically prove that Wii is crappy or somehow unrepresentative of Nintendo's stated goals for the console has failed completely.