Why Does Wii = Innovation?

The question of innovation in the gaming industry has been at the forefront of people's minds since the release of the Nintendo Wii. With its motion sensing technology and new control scheme, people thought that the system would change the way people approached video games. Almost a year later, and the verdict is still out. Wii has the largest market share with 13.49 million units worldwide. Xbox 360 is second with 12.34 million units, and PS3 is third with 5.23 million units. The success of Nintendo's hardware is undeniable, but the software sales have lagged behind.

Consider the following statistic:
Since November 2006, third party partners have seen their titles hit the top ten 27 times for Xbox 360, compared to 2 for PS3 and 1 for Wii. (Microsoft September Report)

With a system that is considered so innovative, why is there no rush in the industry to make games suited for the motion sensing technology? Especially since they have the majority of the market. No one has been able to justify this other than to say that it is still the first year for the Wii and that quality software will come as the system matures. Sure, this makes sense, especially if you think back to the 360's first year - outside of Medal of Honor and Gears of War, quality software was virtually non existent. So, if the Wii has done that poorly with regards to 3rd party software its 1st party development should be outstanding, right?

This theory does not really hold true. The top two pieces of software for the Wii are Wii Sports and Wii Play. Wii Sports has sold about 5.5 million units and Wii Play has sold roughly 2.5 million units in the US. The problem with these numbers is that Wii Sports is included with the system and Wii Play is part of a package that includes a controller for $49.99. It's tough to consider these as software sales along the same line as $50-$60 games. (Video Game Charts)

The only titles that have sold substantial copies for the Wii are Mario Party 8 and Zelda: Twilight Princess. Having played both of these games, the motion technology does not seem that innovative (except for the fishing mini-game in Zelda). The motions you make in these games are merely a replacement for the push of a button. Why is it that swinging my hand around recklessly in Zelda to use my sword is any different than tapping A? Or why is shaking the Wii-mote in a Mario Party mini-game considered so different from rotating an analogue stick? Having played these games, I find it more cumbersome than 'innovative.' For example, try SSX Blurry, there's nothing less innovative than drawing random shapes in the air in order to perform your tricks. It's no different than playing with a normal controller and performing tricks with random movements of the analog stick.

I'll wrap up this rant with saying that I do hope that someone releases a title for the Wii that can truly be seen as innovative. It's silly to try to say that any game for the Wii thus far has utilized its 'innovative' controls better than Wii sports, which in and of itself is a title lacking true gameplay depth. It's great that Nintendo has tapped the casual gaming, but in reality it has done nothing impress the true gamer. Metroid and Resident Evil should have been the equivalent of BioShock and Halo, but neither one of them has performed that well, having only sold about 450,000 copies each. At the moment, the Wii is nothing other than a very affordable gimmick in an atmosphere of HD/high-performance gaming. It's motion sensing controls do not feel very accurate within most games, and it has yet to be utilized in a way that can actually be seen as innovative. Let's stop giving Nintendo so much credit until they finally release a worthy game (hopefully Mario Galaxy) because the titles so far are anything but 'innovative.'