But that's just it. I love the Wii and it's possibly the most fun console I've played but it still has physical buttons! Only a tiny number of DS games rely fully on touchscreen controls.
At the end of the day
many popular genres will not work well on the iPod. There simply isn't the control capacity as the iPod stands.
And btw - EA, Sega and THQ aren't known for their quality products
Plus I wouldn't really call it innovative. We've had gyroscope based systems and touchscreens from Nintendo for a good few years now (and Pocket PC for a few years before them). It's just following the trend Nintendo have started.
Only difference is Apple are forcing single touchscreen on players, whereas Nintendo give the option of using traditional or 'modern' controls, or (better still) a mixture of both.
And can we stop going on about graphical performance
The most powerful (and also most expensive) handhelds never do as well as the cheaper, least graphically capable systems. It makes no difference at all!
The Wii has far fewer buttons than conventional controls - proving non-standard control methods can "take up the slack".
Has it occurred to you that the games we've seen on consoles are a result of the control systems those consoles have? We've seen loads of consoles with d-pads and platform games, because platform games work well with d-pads. With the iPhone, we'll see games that are suited to accelerometers and touch screens. They won't necessarily be better or worse, but they'll be new. And new is good.
As for the control system not being innovative, I've not played any console that had this combination of control methods. Which do?
I do admit I lied. I don't actually have a wet fish & pong smiley. You will, however, be struck in the face by a fish in a freak maritime accident, and all your games will implode leaving you only with pong to play for all eternity. It's karma. You have it coming.
Graphics matter. I'm not saying that you can't make a game with basic graphics, that's obviously untrue. But when you say graphical performance doesn't matter you're so far from reality, you can't even see reality. It's just a tiny (very pixellated, obviously!) blob on the horizon to you.
Let me give you (real world, not hypothetical) cases where graphics have a substantial impact on gameplay:
- I used to play Red Baron, a flight simulator, on an old, low end Mac. I had to play at near the minimum resolution, meaning I couldn't identify aircraft until they came really close. So, I ended up flying directly at every plane, if they shot at me I shot back (if still alive). If not they were friendly.
- I played the GTA games on PS2; and with the low res textures it was nearly impossible to read the road signs unless you stopped right underneath. On the newer, HD consoles, you can find your way around, without having to pull out the map from the jewel case!
- I played Prince of Persia on the Wii, and the graphics are dire! Nothing spoils the ambience like a messy, pixellated ray of light with compression artifacts shining across it. But far worse, at points you have to drop down behind a guard to attack from behind. But the characters are so pixellated, you can't even see which way they are facing! On a HD console, you'd potentially even be able to show facial expressions to see if the guard is awake, or dozy, or alert.
So when you say graphical performance doesn't matter, you're wrong. Not inaccurate, not biased or partial. Not even left-of-centre. Wrong. 2 + 2 = 9.9E-10 wrong. Bad, bad raggedjimmi!
