Jason

Anyone whining about blue shells just isn't that good at the game. There's no better victory than fending off 6 blue shells and still winning!

I sure hope that the 3DS version is the same as the console versions (think SSFIV3D). If so, that's the version I'll be getting.

@(Unverified)
Totally agree. There is no better console than the DS for a 1 year old. None. The DS is the best.

@Nolan North

No, the 1 year old has my wife's hand me down DS original. My 4 year old has my hand me down DSi.

@Jonah Stein
Now for all you crazies who don't think I interact with my kids, you're full of it. We play together, read together, watch TV together, learn together, go to church together, and game together. That's a lot more than other parents do. That's why the average parent is clueless about what their kids are watching or doing because they wouldn't be caught dead playing Pokémon or Nintendogs.

My daughter began sounding out words at 3. Thanks to Scribblenauts she began to spell too. My son is learning cause and effect with Nintendogs. These are great educational tools. Do I sometimes give them their DSs and tell them to have at it while I work on grownup matters? Sure, but I do that with books, and television too. And if you think that's wrong, then you don't have kids. You cannot spend 100% of your time with them. Otherwise, how are you going to hold down a job, upkeep the house, or even pay the bills.

My kids (4 and 1) both have one (DS and DSi) and it does make a great babysitting tool. But my wife and I love the DS/3DS too! Right now I'm catching them all in Pokémon Black.

Two words Power Stone

@Jack Kevorkian
You're right. Nobody paid $200 to play (and neither did I). That was my point. If it costs $200 to play, and the audience who would play do not have a Gold Membership or a desire to get one, then they aren't going to play, let alone pay $200 to play with their family.

@copa
As guests, they have to play as clones as you. If not, I couldn't figure out how my wife and kids could earn their own achievements, etc... It's a crappy solution from Microsoft.

Let's not beat around the bush why 1 vs. 100 FAILED. It was a casual game that required a subscription dominated by core gamers.

The fact that it would have cost a family of four $200 to play this game doesn't make sense unless you are so wealthy that you don't understand just how much $200 is to an average family.

Had it been a completely ad supported program (no Gold required), and had the appropriate amount of marketing it would have succeeded.

Plants vs Zombies is totally not $4 unless I'm looking at the wrong place.