Guest

Well, I don't feel like quoting right now, and I have something else to say so I'll just state this logical claim:

3DS = Quite a bit better than Wii graphics

PSV = Slightly worse than PS3 graphics

Therefore, outside of screen size(HD) which is negligible on a handheld, the differences between 3DS and PSV are close to the differences between the PS2 and GC, simply with their roles swapped. Plus 3D adds a lot to the graphical capabilities, some games profiting more than others.

Just the same, all the PSV games I saw were sequels or ports, and (I think) all of them were on PS3 as well. A remake is automatically better than a port, because many people missed it the first time, so the 3DS lineup > PSV lineup. Especially after what we saw at the conference.

TO MY UNRELATED POINT:

The WiiU seems like a huge slap in the face to the PSV, to be honest. After spending a large portion of their conference on the PSV, talking about how it is basically a touch-screen PS3 with slightly worse graphics that you can play in bed and share saves with the PS3 (Even though you have to buy BOTH copies), Nintendo pops up and announces the WiiU, a CONSOLE with BETTER graphics than the PS3 (Slightly-substantial, we can't tell yet) that you can play in bed as well as SWAP ONTO the TV (Buying only ONE copy).

Voice chat VS. Video Chat
PS3 ports VS. Next Gen. games
Unless Sony announces a battery that lasts more than 3 hours, along with many new exclusive games (Which I don't think is going to happen >.>) then they have competition with both the Handheld and Console Nintendo markets.

~Kirby

I believe I said in my Intro post that I was a self-proclaimed Fanboy

I don't think so. Whether it's religiously, mathematically, relating to ancient civilizations, or scientifically, there's facts to disprove it either way. I'd rather not bring up religion, since it can spark debates, but scientifically, if the world were to end on 2012, the magnet poles would already be shifting, scientists would have detected a meteor heading toward the earth, and there would be trusted newspapers and scientists saying it would end. I won't bring up the mathematical one either, since that involves religion, which can spark a debate. If it was the end of the world because of facts relating to ancient civilizations: their calendars didn't end on December 21, 2012 because there were no days after that; that had about as much to with the end of the world as our calendars ending on the 31st of December each year, not to mention that if ancient civilizations could predict the end of the world, wouldn't modern scientists be able to? Of course, the world could end, just like it ended 13 days ago. . . and 5 years ago. . . oh, and the Y2K. Is it just me, or has the world been ending a lot lately?

If there's one thing I WILL be getting next generation, you can bet your families future that it will be this.

The Super Smash Bros. series has always been great games, including the last installment and some people, singlehandedly prevents their Wii from being taken to the next store, it's that great. Super Smash Bros. Brawl may have made a few major errors (Eg. the terrible online system), but it succeed in providing a great experience overall.

If Nintendo learns from their mistakes and improve upon what they do best, the next installment will be even better then before. I will be all over it and will be buying it at all cost. So expect me to be talking about it for a long, long time.

I think that we'll see announcements regarding it in E3 2011 and if not, it will eventually come.

Let's go through all the posts first:

@Sirralart RCP120 (#8): I wouldn't mind a few more third-party characters, but in the end, as Feld0 said, this is mainly for a celebration of Nintendo's titles and games and I'd like to keep it that way. Street Fighter already have their own series, so they aren't really a good start for Capcom's characters in Super Smash Bros.

@Wertville (#14): Final Fantasy's characters are unlikely to be represented, especially considering that they went a whole generation disregarding Nintendo's platform. Plus the main games have not originated on Nintendo platforms since since March, 1994 if you consider it where Final Fantasy VI was first released. Good luck with getting any Square Enix's characters in the fourth installment.

Well that was quick, now to propose my idea for the next installment. Gotta get that done quick before the new installment spoils some of it for me.

My Ideas for Super Smash Bros. 4:

The Character Roster

* by the character name indicates unlockable players.

Mario:
Mario
Luigi
Peach
Bowser
Bowser Jr.*
Paper Mario*

Donkey Kong:
Donkey Kong
Diddy Kong
King K. Rool*

Other Mario Subseries:
Yoshi
Wario (Alternate costume same as previous game)

The Legend of Zelda:
Link
Zelda
Ganondorf*
Young Link* (Alternate costume is Toon Link)
Unknown*

Metroid:
Samus (Same alternate as before)
Ridley*

Kirby:
Kirby
Meta Knight
King Dedede
Gooey*

Star Fox:
Fox
Falco*
Wolf*
Krystal*

Pokemon:
Pikachu
Jigglypuff
Pokemon Trainer
Mewtwo*
5th Gen Pokemon Character*

F-Zero:
Captain Falcon
Samurai Gorah*

Earthbound:
Ness
Lucas*

Fire Emblem:
Ike
Marth*
Michaich*

Kid Icarus:
Pit

Pikimin:
Olimar

Golden Sun:
Issac*

Custom Robo:
Ray MK II*

Retro:
Ice Climbers
R.O.B.*
Balloon Fighter*
Mr. Game & Watch*

Third-Party:
Snake* (Representing Konami)
Sonic* (Representing Sega)
Mega Man* (Representing Capcom)
Bomberman* (Representing Hudson Soft)

Explanation (And a lot of it):

First thing we should do is to keep our expectation low. This is personally a roster I think would do great and a very satisfying one, but I have a feeling that the roster could go down to as much as 43 characters, as any of these listed could be easily omitted. That said, it will be higher then 35 characters, count on that. I expect the player roster to be anywhere between 43 and 56 characters, so a lot to work with, so my rosters works at a realistic wish list that I hope is taken into consideration.

Some of these are more or less merely suggestions from other players.

I think it's plausible to assume that all or some of the original unlockable characters will be made available from the start. Captain Falcon will almost certainly be in, so if F-zero gets a second representive, then someone should take his place an an unlockable character. I just think he makes more sense as a starter then an unlockable. Same with Ness on the latter reason, thought he should be playable from the start as well since he's more well known then Lucas. I'd be fine with Jigglypuff and Luigi being unlockable, but again, prefer them as starters.

I removed Lucario because he did not originate in a video game and as such, is the least likely out of all Brawl characters to come back; yes even less then the clone characters and third-party characters. Do some research and you'll see that he originated in an anime Pokemon movie. The rule states that no character that does not originate in a video game may make an appearance. By including Lucario, they are contradicting this rule. He may be a video game character, but he does not have video game origin. Mark my words, when the developers figure out this, he will be removed instantly with possibly no reference to him in the game. It's not something I want, but something we'll probably have to deal with.

I'm not sure if we'll get third-party characters in the game, but I'll say it's very likely that we'll see them anyway. Snake and Sonic will probably be back since Konami and Sega are producing games with both characters on Nintendo platform and Sega has remained as a consistent supporter of Nintendo. As for representatives from different companies, Capcom and Hudson Soft are the most likely since they've been regarded as Nintendo's strongest supporters throughout the years and many games they make land on Nintendo's platform. I choose Mega Man because he represents the feeling of a Nintendo character very well compared to potential third-party characters, he is the most requested 3rd party character not in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and that the majority of his games have appeared on Nintendo platform. Same with Bomberman, except that he isn't as requested, although still pretty wanted. This is, however, the part that I care the least about. As awesome as it would be to play with Snake and Sonic again and as awesome it would be to play with Mega Man and Bomberman, if they have to drop anything, this is unfortunately the place to do it as it is harder to keep third-party characters in then Nintendo characters. We'll get anything from nothing to four third-party characters here.

Now if we get all of the four playable third-party characters, either all of them should be unlockable or have just one starter. Obviously, it won't be Bomberman, but any of Solid Snake, Sonic, or Mega Man would be the possible starter. Of those, I lean towards Snake as he is the first third-party character in Brawl.

One thing I do not wish to see are non-video game characters making an appearance, mainly because there's no need to and it destroy the purpose of the series, to play with Nintendo characters. It's impossible anyway since it is clearly stated that only video game character can make an appearance and they must originate in a video game. You could argue that anime characters could get in since Lucario is in, but he technically did not originate in a video game, so as said before, expect him to not make an appearance as a playable character in the next installment. That said, if Lucario stays in the game, then that opens a new possibilities of playable characters of mainly video game characters that appeared in a different format. Obviously, Goku and Naruto stands zero chance, but a few more characters could get in, so I'm kind of hoping video game characters with different origins don't get kicked out.

"Sony and MS's consoles are going to be more powerful since they will come out after Cafe, but the gap will be small and all 3 consoles will be able to share ports unlike this generation."

That's one area where I have to disagree, I don't even view Cafe is truly ushering in the next generation of consoles because of the fact that according to most reports it's barely superior in power than the PS3...which to me makes it Nintendo's offering of a console finally worthy of the current generation whereas the Wii is more comparable to the systems of the previous generation just attaching motion controls. If Cafe truly is barely beyond the level of the PS3 that would mean that for the gap between the PS4/720 and Cafe to be minimal than Sony and Microsoft would have to make minimal advances to the power of their consoles...something I just don't see happening.

Oh really? Rumours say Nintendo is using an ATI 4850/4870 and a 3-core IBM CPU. That would make it much more powerful than PS3. So I don't know what you are talking about. There is NO feasible tech MS and Sony can use to blow away that tech especially when they'll be looking to launch at least a year after Cafe so it doesn't get two or more years on the market by itself.

If Cafe is barely more powerful than systems that were released 5 and 6 years ago than it shows that Nintendo obviously did not attempt to capitalize on advances in technological capabilities, something that Microsoft and Sony are both well known for doing and I just don't see any way that they don't do so for the 2014 consoles.

Maybe MS is well known for powerful tech, although this is only their second generation.

But Sony has never had the most powerful console in any of their previous gens. Both N64 and GC (plus XBox) were more powerful than PS1 and PS2.

This is Sony's first gen being the most powerful and it didn't end as well for them as the last ones.

Do I think they'll ignore Cafe? No, however...using the userbase as an example isn't the best way to go here. Look at the userbase of the Wii yet it can't be denied that 3rd party developers HAVE largely ignored the Wii in favor of the PS3 and the 360 and your kidding yourself if you believe that the 360 and PS3 having far superior power than the Wii isn't part of the reason for that.

It certainly isn't anything to do with ease of development for the consoles because it's well known that the PS3 is by far the most complex console to develop for yet the PS3 still has vastly superior 3rd party support (including exclusives) than the Wii.

The Xbox 360 was the base console for building games (due to the architecture) before porting to PS3. PS3 was similar in power to 360 so it was easier to port to it than Wii. Plus the combined userbase of the 360 and PS3 are more than Wii's alone.

The Wii's architecture was out-dated and almost required building the game from ground-up for it. That's why devs didn't port to it. It was too much of a hassle.

Nintendo is said to be using an easy-to-port to architecture, so Cafe won't be facing that problem. The architecture will similar to the one used for PC games and the 360, so ports will be easy.

why does the PS3, the most expensive system to develop for have a line up of 3rd party exclusives superior to that of the cheaper to develop for Wii? Your obviously overestimating the effect of development costs on a companies decision on what console to make AAA titles for.

Erm...3rd party exclusives are paid for by Sony. Devs get money to build those games. Nintendo doesn't really money-hat with 3rd parties for exclusives. They rely on their first party.

The reason is the exact same reason behind your statement that Cafe's touchscreen will lead to games the other consoles won't have. The AAA titles on the 360 and PS3 can't be on the Wii, the system simply doesn't have the power to support them. So who's to say the same won't happen again? With Cafe being barely above this generations most powerful console it would be easy for Microsoft and Sony to create consoles much more powerful than Cafe for a 2014 launch. If it happens we could once again see the power differential force developers into a position where games on the consoles from Microsoft and Sony could not be done on Cafe.

It won't happen again because, like I said before, Nintendo is using a familiar architecture and there won't be an HD gap nor a huge power gap between the consoles like this gen.

Games on 360 and PS3 CAN be put on Wii. It's just that it requires ALOT of scaling down and rebuilding  from the ground-up. That's just too much of a hassle for third parties and not worth the investment.

And even the touchscreen may not make as much of a difference as your stating, it COULD but there is no guarantee. How many quality titles were exclusive to the Wii because of the motion control innovation? Did it ensure the PS3 and 360 couldn't get some of the biggest games of the generation? In fact the exact opposite occured, 3rd party developers focused on developing AAA titles that took advantage of the raw power of the 360 and PS3 instead of focusing on titles that took advantage of the innovation of the Wii.

The motion controls did make a difference. That's why Wii is highest selling console this gen and why the others brought out their own motion hardware.

Nintendo didn't make motion controls to get 3rd parties. They made it to get the new audience.

Kinect was indeed a "me too" product because if it wasn't for the Wii Microsoft would have never developed and released it.

And I don't know where you got the idea that Move didn't sell well from because Move was a MASSIVE success for Sony, they couldn't even keep up with demand for the first 5 months after release and has sold over 8 million units so far, certainly behind Kinect which has sold over 10 million but still not bad for a product that "offered nothing new" (when in fact it was the first and STILL the only product in console gaming to offer true 1:1 motion capture).

Kinect was not as much of a 'me too' product as Move was. Move was too similar to Wii-mote while Kinect differentiated itself.

Kinect also moved hardware for MS, and a good number of software. Move didn't do much of that for PS3.

Exactly how did they learn that "fact" from this generation? By selling out every single console shipped for the first few months of production like they both did? By the 50+ Million consoles sold? The 360 sold over 10 million copies within it's first two years (only using the first two years because after that you need to start taking larger drops in price into consideration due to price cuts) the PS3 did the same, selling over 10 million units within it's first two years.

You truly believe Microsoft and Sony weren't/aren't happy with over 10 million sold in the first two years and over 50 million sold to date? Sure the Wii has sold more but since we're talking about price lets say the "average" price of every Wii sold was $200 and the average price of every PS3 and 360 sold was $300, in reality the Wii number is likely a bit lower and the PS3/360 number a bit higher but this will provide a fine example. Now, go ahead and do the math 70 Million Wii's x $200, 50 Million PS3's or 360's x $300. You may be surprised by just how small the difference in revenue is. Now factor in the fact that everything for the consoles right down to games and peripherals have those same price differences and you start to understand that while the Wii has sold more, it doesn't necessarily mean it's earned higher revenues.

And as far as this mythological shifted market, it's a complete fallacy. What proves it? Slower sales causing console price drops years after they are released just like every other console generation has had? Surely your not referring to the argument industry "experts" claim that Iphone games are replacing console games, no one is leaving their Wii, 360, or PS3 for Iphone games...your simply seeing people that would never normally get into console games playing Iphone games because they are so cheap and a good way to pass time wherever you are. Iphone apps will NEVER directly cut into the console market, personally I highly doubt they'll ever even cut into the handheld market.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Sony's Playstation division was operating at a loss during their 2006-2009 fiscal years. Their losses were pretty atrocious, and would've been much worse had it not been for the resilience of the PS2 and continued success of the PSP. Also, your Wii numbers are not correct. The Wii has sold approximately 85 million worldwide, not 70 million.

The shifted market I'm referring to is increased consumer demand for cheaper and inferior gaming that emphasizes innovation over processing power. No one would have guessed in 2006 that the Wii would take nearly 50% of the console market share, because no one believed that gamers would be attracted to the Wii's lackluster technical specs and performance. Personally, I'm not happy with the market shift myself, but it most certainly exists nonetheless.  

This is another statement already proven wrong by the current generation of consoles. Were Move and Kinect not extremely obvious "me too" products to capitalize on what Nintendo started with Motion gaming? How bout the implementation of Netflix into all three consoles after seeing it debut on one? Were trophies not a direct answer to achievements? These companies could care less if people thing they are "ripping off the competition", if it will improve their consoles, thus improving their sales, you can bet they'll gladly rip anyone off. That's not even something that only applies to the gaming world, it applies to literally every industry and is commonplace, once a company establishes "innovation" it WILL be copied by their competitors.

Kinect was most definitely not a "me too" product, and instead offered a unique experience. Playstation Move on the other hand did not sell well at all because it offered nothing new, and bundling it with the Playstation 3 increased the price to nearly $400. People don't buy products that they can easily purchase for a much lower price.

Netflix on the other hand is a service that doesn't require millions of dollars in research and development, manufacturing costs, etc., so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, this ties in to the first statement and the last statement but to elaborate further, people said the same thing about the PS3, there was no way at $600 it would be sell at the same level as the 360, go ahead and look up the numbers of the 360 from '05 to '07 (it's first two years) and the PS3 from '06-'08 (again, it's first two years). You might be a bit surprised that the console outrageously priced $200 higher (the PS3) than it's closest competitor (the 360) was stride for stride with the 360 during the two consoles first two years on the market respectively.

You also need to look back at the previous generation. The Playstation 2 sold nearly 140 millions units, while the Xbox sold a mere 20 million or so. The Xbox userbase was tiny, and gamers trusted the Playstation brand. The fact that the Xbox 360 sold at the same level as the Playstation 3 is actually a testament to the DRAMATIC shift in market share between the two companies that resulted from the Playstation 3's lackluster performance and high price. Sony was dominating the market from 1996-2006, but they completely blew it during the Playstation 3's first few years.

If your asking yourself why I always leave the Wii out of the PS3/360 discussion it's because the PS3 and 360 do NOT target the same core demographic and thus are NOT direct competitors with the Wii, just because they are all video game companies doesn't mean they view them as direct competition. The PS2 and Xbox did not contend directly with the Gamecube, the 360 and PS3 do not contend directly with the Wii and the 720 and PS4 will not contend directly with Project Cafe.

That's ridiculous. If the PS3 and 360 weren't competing with the Wii then they never would have released Move or Kinect in order to attract the casual market.

The same is true in the video game world and has been for over a decade now, Nintendo took the role of the cheaper company that produced the cheaper product starting with the Gamecube and Sony and Microsoft take the role of the "luxury" manufacturer making the fancy high end models starting with the PS2 and Xbox respectively. Don't forget that Sony ALWAYS priced themselves $100 ahead of Nintendo ever since entering the market with the original PS and the PS2 debuting at $299 (higher than the Wii at it's launch) while still managing to dominate both generations.

The very key difference is that back then the Gamecube offered absolutely nothing innovative. It was merely an inferior product that didn't catch the consumer's eye.

Hopefully all of this helps illustrate the point that being priced significantly higher than Cafe would mean squat for Sony and Microsoft, even with higher prices and lower sales revenues can be even and gamers have already proven they are willing to pay for the bells and whistles.

Except revenues have NOT been even. I don't know where you're getting your info from.

Your concept for the iQuo is really cool, Jade, but I'd love to see what that e-ink screen looks like from the top. The ability to carry the console itself around the house is very interesting and unique, but I don't think it's very safe to move it around with a spinning disc and hard drive inside. Also, I have strong doubts about the possible battery life of the thing, if it's really going to be as freakishly powerful as the rumours say.

Still, props for the excellent concept. I got your email, and added it to the big mockups page on the blog.

P.S.: Next time, can you please only post your images once, and the link to them from the other relevant threads? Thanks. It makes it easier to see everyone's feedback on them when it's all on the same thread.

Hi Peter. Thanks for the feedback! Sorry about the multiple posts, I will take this in to consideration for next time.

I'm planning on doing a few images or perhaps a video of the e-ink screen.
I also had concerns for the safety of the console due to it's portability, but if you made it correctly and used the right components like an anti-shock disc drive and a hard drive with out moving parts, which are all possible - I think it'll be robust enough.
If my idea for a system cooling unit was incorporated, then the majority of the battery power will be consumed by the surround sound speakers and LED lights on the underside of the console. E-Ink uses microscopic amounts of energy and same with a hard drive with no moving parts.

I personally believe that the actual purpose of a conventional "video game console" needs to change. The gaming console hasn't really evolved since conception:
- You put it in a cupboard
- Plug it in to the back of a TV
- Load a game into it
- Power it on... And that's it!

These are the only times a person directly interact with it. I view this as a opportunity to change the gaming console as we know it today.
There sits all this incredible technology, doing nothing more than what is expected of it. By removing the console from the cabinet, placing it in the center of a space, and making it completely wireless and portable (let alone including an e-ink touch panel), I visualize a home gaming console finally exceeding its expectations and potential in an unconventional manner.








NEW VIDEOS:

Here is my latest Nintendo creation called the nStream Controller. It is based on many of the rumors surrounding the successor to the Wii and is formally inspired by the visor of Samus.
Any feedback would be appreciated as I'll continue to develop the design over time.

Jade.

The design looks... *puts on shades* ...peachy. *intro scream*

Well, I believe console designing isn't something most of us are familiar with (especially myself), so I'm afraid constructive feedback will be fairly rare. I'll still try to provide you with some, with the mindset of a customer who wants to buy one of those.

The menu text is stylized and all, but it's hardly legible. Try spacing the characters a little more, and maybe experiment with less deformed fonts.
I like how the scrolling strip of text has a perspective.

Can't think of anything else right now, so... yeah.

Thanks for the feedback Ephesus, I'll take that in to consideration for my development, cheers!
In the mean time I have this...

My idea for the console called the Nintendo iQo.

Video of Controller interface:
Video Here

Original larger images of console and controller here:
Console
Controller

Depends how it's utilized...

For instance, am I going to spend $50 on a downloadable game, when I can spend the same amount and get a shiny tin case, too? No.

Would I download a game that would cost me $100+ to import? Yes.

This is a huuuge positive of downloadable games; they can save you ALOT of money when it comes to foreign games. Though I have yet to purchase a foreign game (i.e. untranslated ), I have stared at them often... Some people here may remember that I was planning to buy a Japanese 3DS before I realized it would be $500

DLC is a bit different...

Will I buy new songs for a rhythm game that didn't include any good songs on the disk? No.

Am I fine with a company releasing something unrelated to gameplay as payed DLC? Sure. (And if Marth ever gets an Archer costume in brawl, I will pay for it twice )

Will I allow developers to release games with slightly less content than expected, as long as they promise free new stuff? (via Spotpass, for example) Yes.

I don't mind DLC as long as I'm not paying for the game again. Which is what the PS360 caused by making the development costs so high... How else will they make a profit?

I was talking about how they don't produce great games because the risk of showing what they can do next to what nintendo can do would embarrass them.
It's far easier to hide behind an excuse like "Oh wii can't run unreal 12 engine so we're not going to have it telling the same story as the ps3 and 360 versions."
Like storytelling requires a hd game engine...

There is merit in the fact that the system has limitations, but work within those limits with the same story. Don't go off on a side story that's not even 1/9001th as good or thought out.
Actually try to implement the controls in a decent way rather than just thinking about it afterwards and saying "Oh well we can make shaking the nunchuk reload and the pointer can be the reticle".

Most multiplatform games are FPS, and if I ever wanted to play such a "hardcore" FPS, and the Wii version wouldn't be dumbed down, I would buy it for my Wii - because I can't stand dual analog controls.

Also, how can third parties complain about bad selling games if they dumb them down themselves?
I understand that developers like Capcom have every right in the world to complain about Okami selling bad, but most devs you're talking about already made dumbed down versions from the beginning. They didn't realize over time that they don't get revenue for their games, most of them didn't even try to make them good - or didn't make games for Wii at all.

This isn't due to the inferiority of the Wii compared to PS360, but only due to their laziness. Don't forget that there still are some devs who don't ignore the Wii. After all, games like Okami, Monster Hunter Tri, The Conduit, Red Steel 2 and Epic Mickey are some examples of good Wii-exclusive games that weren't made by Nintendo. These games might sell less than Crap Call of Duty, but they show that it's easily possible to make amazing games for the Wii.

Most multiplatform games are not just FPS. Yes, there are a lot of FPS games on the market due to the genre's popularity, but some of the best racing games (Need for Speed), sports games (NCAA Football), action RPG games (Mass Effect 2), open world games (Red Dead Redemption), action-adventure games (Assassin's Creed), fighting games (Super Street Fighter IV), etc are multi-platform third-party games.

Third-parties have to dumb down their games on the Wii due to the Wii's limitations. Graphics and online play are both inferior on the Wii, and third-parties have to spend a ton of money redesigning the game, making the game Wii compatible, and so on. When they decide to not publish a game on the Wii, they factor in a cost-benefit analysis. They ask themselves whether or not publishing a game on the Wii is profitable, and many third parties have come to the conclusion that it is not. Multi-billion dollar companies don't make these decisions because they're "lazy", they make them based upon very complex business models.

The fact is that a third-party like Rockstar doesn't see a point in publishing a game like Red Dead Redemption on the Wii. This is because they know that the type of people who play Red Dead Redemption want great graphics and great online competitive play, which the Wii simply doesn't offer. As a gamer, I still can't comprehend how Nintendo keeps screwing up its online play. The Wii's online capability isn't even comparable to the original Xbox Live back in 2003. Friend codes are a joke, and games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl lag far too much online. I'm optimistic for the future though because Nintendo has admitted their mistakes, and is planning on hiring other companies to manage their networking and online development. If Project Cafe can reach the level that Xbox Live is currently at, they'll win back a ton of hardcore gamers.

And yes, there are some good third-party Wii titles. But, the list you mentioned is miniscule compared to the amount of third-party games that are exclusive to the HD consoles and not available on the Wii.

I agree that Call of Duty is crap. Battlefield Bad Company 2 owns it.  

I just completed the interface design to my nStream Controller Concept for Nintendo's next gen console.

HERE is a 62second mock-up video showing how the interface could operate and below are a few images of the interface.