The link itself doesn't seem to have that much basis, parts of it I can agree with, certain parts are just so far out there it's like "err... whut?" that said I'm not going to re-iterate what I've already read in this thread because quite abit of it I do agree with.

I've read through pretty much all of it though I skimmed through some posts but just throwing out something I've yet to see mentioned so far and that is, for such bland, same game over and over why do they all sell so much?

Surely the publishers whining about such high development costs wouldn't continually invest in a product that is failing over and over again, these games are all selling enough for publishers to want to milk it over and over again, something I'd have thought they'd not do if their return was practically nothing.

As I say I'm just throwing this idea out there in part for discussion, whether the means of the games being sold is just a fad between a common type of gamer, brainwash-like marketing or a great ability to hype games based on a series name, etc. I don't know but it's working enough to satisfy some big names to keep producing them.

It's like there is a trend we don't like but we all have different ideas of what that trend is. Do we not like sequels? No DRM or DLC? How about something different than just another FPS that looks the same as the rest? Is motion control really good? How FPS or games have changed since way back when we found it more fun which then resolves into a few different debates on stuff like, how realism is handled, how games have evolved to be more real but where the line is, etc. We're sort of stuck in this endless loop of trying to define what it is exactly that we don't like about the current trend and we all seem to have a different answer of what is wrong and how to fix it. One thing is for sure however and that is for all the debates on it, those games sequels with DRM and DLC that are the same FPS games with more modern realism, etc are coming out by the dozen and the public are snapping them up each and every time.

Just to finish up with an opinion in that there is a divided market, a market with some pretty big gaps to be filled and there will be devs who want to supply the demand where those gaps reside, whether they be smaller indie companies or not. It depends on your preferences in terms of games but for me personally 2011 has been a good year for gaming and is looking even better towards the end of the year and 2012. Again this is just because of quite a few games I look forward too or enjoy that have been released or are due to be released and none of them have been an FPS, unless you count Portal 2 in that category.

Excuse that I used this post as more like a think-tank, I went on a typing spree as I thought and well the result is a little longer than I originally meant, I just meant to bring up an alternate point that I didn't see in this thread so far. (though I may have missed someone else bring it up)

I think you bring up a good point, Yuica. The only response I can give is this: I believe it's much, much cheaper for developers to create sequels than new IPs (due in large part to not needing to design a new game engine from the ground up, no need for completely new assets, artwork, etc.) That's one reason for the plethora of sequels.

Another reason is they do, of course, sell well. Why? because the target audience is vast and most of them like what's familiar. They want more of the same. Not something new and different. More of the same is comfortable and easy to understand/get into. So developers come out with sequel after sequel and the target audience laps it up while the franchise also ends up picking up new players as well. I can imagine the ROI is very, very good and the risk factor is very, very low.

This right here is crux of the issue. It's a result of the same market mixing we both discussed above. I've honestly not played many Nintendo titles on the Wii, but Mario Galaxy, is one of the few times I've played a Wii game and thought, "Wow, this really can work." For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule, as it were. Again, the problem with the motion controls is not is the simplistic, family/casual models of control but with using that model games that don't fit with it to try to increase your market share (like bringing Kenect to ME, although voice control for ordering your party around in combat is cool, even if using it for the dialogue wheel is stupid). It can work, but one need only look to Kenect Star Wars to see the terrible, terrible result of of the new casual/traditional melting-pot.

The thing about the CoD port and other titles like Red Steel, is that the Nintendo still wanted to to try to get the Wii to appeal to traditional or core gamers( one need only look at their PR push on the hardcore-ness of the future Wii U to feel their desire for traditional gaming cred) which is part of the reason why some criticism of it for not being a PC, Xbox, or PS3 is present; Nintendo, to a certain degree, invitied it, although not, I agree, to an extent that warrants the often rabid hatred of that console for not beating the big boys at their own game. Nintendo understood the consoles strengths which is why stuff like Mario Galaxy shines, but they didn't stop 3rd party developers from producing (or trying to produce) core titles which sully their brand rep and bring on expectations which the system and its controls simply do not fit with.

I saw all these disasters coming ages ago. It's why I never left the 6th console generation.

I take a bit of an issue with this, cRPG is not dead so long as indies are churning them out, and they are. Now, you might not be seeing any Balder's Gate titles but there weren't that many of those even back in the day, most of the ones we liked were a lot more along the lines of Bard's Tale and Ultima III.
No, the real problem with the Wii was that the controls on the games were inaccurate as hell.

Also http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13/

The graphics really start to look sad on a HDTV which, while it wasn't a concern when the Wii was conceived, has penetrated a much broader market now.

Carpal Tunnel even trying to play the new Zelda game turned me right off. My kid ended up playing Super Smash Bro.s whatever with a GC controller plugged in and she liked it better.

The Wii controller was the Duck Hunt gun peripheral of the last decade, no one ended up caring, even thought it was a neat idea. There weren't very many games where it made the game better (not even shooting games, the obvious application, but ruined by the inaccuracy of the controller), mostly the same or worse (try playing Mario Kart Wii with a GC controller, it's way easier).

The Wii sold well, the Wii controller was an abortion as far as gameplay went, though marketing-wise very lucrative.

Tell me about it. First time I heard the Wii U was trying to bring back the core gaming crowd, I thought..."God dammit, Nintendo." :P

This is what gets me: Nintendo, being an actual gaming company, is relying on third parties that cater to other companies that have games as a peripheral among their conglomerate, in order to bring in more gamers.

When is Nintendo going to have an original idea again? Their entire lineup is rehashes of their old games. I'm not bashing them, because I did enjoy the new Mario Wii game, but really, where's the attempt at creating story, where's something besides pretty mediocre RPG and sidescroller? And I'm not talking the old Mario RPG, because that game was great for me.

Dammit Nintendo, you can do better than this.

I think the greatest limitation to motion controls is the lack of feedback. The "immersive" control scheme gets broken right after something stops your sword in the game, but nothing stops your swing in real life.

The only games where I liked the Wiimote were Resident Evil 4 Wii version and Metroid Prime 3 (I only have 7 Wii games, though), and both of those had those silly "shake that wiimote, baby!" moments that I greatly disliked.