Because it's a fucking multitouch screen. Almost any device that has a touchscreen should have a multitouch screen. My phone has a multitouch screen. My iPod does too. If you're trying to make a modern multimedia capable device then a multitouch screen is a must. EDIT: Well, if you're having a touchscreen, using a stylus-based method is just stupid.
I'm not the only one who says a stylus is more precise. Plus it keep less fingerprints on the screen.
No I didn't. The new slew of stuff they're pushing is gimmicks. Improving upon the last generation's features which were thoroughly advancing such as online play, graphics (regardless of what anyone says, the graphics really do help push the gameplay), even the fucking storage space of a game (considering how space cramped CDs and carts were in the PSX/N64 era, moving to DVDs and eventually Blurays is a big plus).
How does graphics, but not 3... Know what not going to go there.
How much graphics well you need 'till you satisfied? How long can graphics "push gameplay". More graphics force more space.
No, they are. I don't find myself waggling my Wiimote to add a lot to a good portion of games. Some games, sure. Other games, not really.
Now did you say some games? Then I do not see how they are so stupid.
Why can't use the word moving? Waggling sounds like you doing just to do despite the game.
I'm not just saying better graphics. I'm saying online functions. How I'm able to interact with my friends online seamlessly. See what they're playing, join their games, have a conversation while I'm playing a game, all that stuff. Nintendo isn't advancing really. Their online system on the Wii is worse than last generations. The graphics are only a small improvement. Instead they just added motion controls and expected it to compensate for the huge shortcomings. Sure, it sold well, but I'm sure many gamers will still see the Wii as a system that, for its time, was completely overpowered by its competition and only won in sales because they had a huge marketing campaign on the casual crowd.
Nintendo just treat online differently and tries to make it safe like.
How you know the sell wasn't good because of a broad section of customers?
They seem like they working on it well with the 3DS.
And it's not quite fun when I feel like I'm playing games that feel thoroughly dated because of the system. I played Red Dead Redemption and despite what seem people say, I was blown away. Same goes with Mass Effect or some other games this generation. There's been plenty of Wii games I enjoy. Hell, No More Heroes could easily be my favorite game. But they still don't blow me away in the sense of scale, quality, and yes, detail that those games have.
You might be thinking about graphics to much then the actually game. So as long a game blow you way it good then?
I don't play No more Heroes, then be like "Hey this game doesn't blow me away in terms of graphics. Let me buy 4 times the price for a system because that make the game "much better" because of graphics ".
Or say "this has bad gameplay and feel boring",but it a must buy because of graphics.
Or even when comparing similar games, this game was made portable, but because of graphics it not good enough to buy.
But not nearly as much as just designing a game to be fun without having to rely on cheap tricks.
That why I said add on not rely on.
Or I could look at things in the old way and play something completely new. It's like the difference between seeing an old movie in 3D (not really a jab at 3D, it's just the "new thing" nowadays at movies) or just seeing a new movie that's not in 3D.
Or have both, see a new movie with 3D.
I usually consider innovation to be a concept that's groundbreaking enough that it can easily be applied to all games of the future. There are certainly some older games that added features that we see today. Shaking my Wiimote to attack doesn't.
So you saying if a innovation doesn't apply to everything in it subject it not innovation? That doesn't make any sense.
Like saying some medicine isn't really innovation because it doesn't apply to everyone.
If it was up to you with your precious details we wouldn't have any innovation.: Then you didn't read my fucking argument.
Seriously, do you read a line of my arguments and just go off on that or do you actually read them? My whole point was to not having innovation in the ways we play games, but have innovation in the games themselves. Introduce new, bold concepts that advance a genre, not rely on waving around my hands to make it new. I'll be more blown away if a game can innovate the way we play a genre using the same controls and ways we've played them since yesteryear than a game that just "innovates" (I use that term loosely in this sense) by adding a bunch of stupid motion controls.