Devs who know what they're doing have made some amazing games that work with the Wiimote.
Yeah, I've seen games that use the motion controls in amazingly intuitive and useful ways, and others that try to do the same thing and just can't do it for shit. I don't think this is a problem with the hardware (since I've seen it work), it's a problem with the developers not knowing what the hell to do or just not caring enough to do it right.
So maybe that's ultimately a problem with Nintendo. This was a big problem closer to when the Wii first came out since I had read that Nintendo didn't release the dev tools until pretty late in the game, so the devs didn't have much to go on and then really didn't have a lot of time to get things right before launch.
But now days, they really have no excuse as far as I am concerned.
The good games, always tend to be games that fans get mad about waiting for because they keep getting pushed back (Duke Nukem Forever excluded hehe) because the dev actually wants the game polished, rather than "Get it out for Xmas rush!".
This has always been a problem for as long as I can remember. Gotta rush it out to make money. You'd think they'd have learned by now, but it must be worth it as long as it makes the cash they want.
When dev houses are adding crap like the above, it's definitely taking development time and dollars out of making a better gameplay experience, leading to a lesser product (At the same price!).
I suppose that's a good argument, but I get the feeling this could be a first party "feature" anyway (I didn't read the whole article, so I don't know for sure) so if Ninty wants to do that in their titles, then let them.
<WARNING: Opinions being thought out while writing this ahead! Contradictions are possible! Fact checking has not been performed!>
And back to one point made...there were A LOT of bad NES games (let's not even talk about the 2600 in that regard). I really don't think that when all is said and done that only "1 out of 5" games were bad for that system. People say that games now are just rehashes of the same shit from over the years, but the same is true back in the NES days. Seriously, one sidescrolling game is NOT that much different than another in most cases. Same idea, same premise, same basic ways of failing. They may have 'all' been good in their own ways, but the basics of the games were all the damn same.
But I'll admit that at that point you could try a game and probably enjoy it to some regard regardless of what it was (mostly because most of the games were so similar at their core to begin with). But then again, now days you have 1000s of resources to consult before making any kind of purchase decision, so if you buy a shitty game, it's your fault. If only everyone would do that much to prevent decent returns on crappy games - perhaps that would limit the number of them that companies release (more on this below).
As far as I'm concerned, every system has ALWAYS had a significant number of horrible games verses good games. I think that can be proven by the fact that when most people talk about their favorite 10-20 games for a given system, there's a good chance that most of those titles will be the same regardless of who you ask (assuming that we stick to a limitation of titles that were available to all people being questioned - for example, excluding imports, etc). Granted, this is based on personal experience talking with other gamers over the years - nothing official, obviously.
HOWEVER - when you look at the total number of games developed for the NES in its lifetime vs the number of, say, the PS1 games (not sure what this is, but I'd assume it's probably more than double that of the NES), you could argue that there is a higher number of bad games out there now. So perhaps the ratio is higher than it used to be, but go back and play some of those games you loved when you were younger but might not have played in YEARS. See if they really seem all that great to you now. There's a good chance you won't understand why you thought it was wonderful then.
And we can get into that debate if you all feel it's needed, but that should probably be a separate thread as this thread has already begun to get fairly off topic.
In closing on this point, the real problem is probably that games (overall) are cheaper to make now, the companies who make them are larger than they once were, and they can push out more games than they once could. So in theory, the more games you have out, the more money you make. If you have enough people to work on multiple games at once, then it's more profitable to split those devs up on separate projects to get as many out as quickly as possible. So now the company is able to push out, say, 10 games at once instead of only 3. They could have devoted more time/money to just those three "big" titles that they already KNOW will sell no matter what. But then they wouldn't get the sales from these other 7 games that they expect will be mediocre at best. So maybe the big 3 are not as 'good' as they could/should have been, but who cares as long as it all makes money?</WARNING>
I really didn't mean to go into all that. Scout's honor. And I really don't know if a damn bit of it made sense.
So what? Gamers who aren't as hardcore get a chance to get to the end of the game they paid 50-60$ for. Those who don't need it won't use it. How does this lessen your experience?
His argument is that money is being wasted on a "feature" like this rather than being devoted to the core gaming experience. Maybe what they need is a team of devs who do nothing but add this feature to games, so as to not take away devs working on the actual game itself. I think a form of his concern is that by having the devs work on such a feature he won't use, the game may not come out as polished as it could.