I think hardcore game developers have given up on the Wii. The Wii is now for soccer moms and their little kids. I've always defended Nintendo against the notion that it is kiddy, but no longer. Gamers are no longer Nintendo's target audience.
I can understand why hardcore game developers would rather develop games for the 360/PS3/PC, but I do think we're going to start seeing some AAA hardcore games in the next year or two. Don't forget it takes 2 to 3 years to make a AAA hardcore game, and by 2007 and 2008 developers were realizing the Wii wasn't a fad.
As for Nintendo I'm sure they have plenty of hardcore games in development, they have just changed their marketing strategy so that they don't announce most games until a few months before they come out. Personally I think it's a bad idea and you don't build up hype among hardcore gamers, but I guess they think it's a good idea.
The problem is that the Wii's hardware was outdated when it first hit the market. After analysis, the statement that it has roughly the power of the first Xbox is only true when taking into account the additional computing power required for the motion-detection hardware. Its hardware has already been stretched to the extent of its capabilities. Outside of this "Wii Motion Plus" thing, about which Nintendo is strangely quiet, the Wii's biggest breakthroughs have already come and gone.
However, because of its utterly insane
sales numbers, I fear the Wii is the harbinger of a dark generation for gaming ... a time when a control gimmick is the prime mover, as opposed to game quality. Robbie Bach, of Microsoft, says that a jump in graphics, sound and gameplay quality won't be enough to succeed in the next generation (a likely indicator that Microsoft is building motion-sensing capability into its next console). He's wrong
. But the Wii's success is teaching the entirely wrong lessons for the next generation of consoles.
Having lower end hardware isn't a huge problem for me personally. In the future Super Mario Galaxy is still going to look great when 99% of 360 and PS3 games look horrible compared to what is being released.
It's also pretty sad when I look at games on the 360 and see things like texture pop in, frame rate drops, and long loading times while Nintendo games basically little to no load times, and silky smooth frame rates on inferior hardware. Honestly smooth frame rates, no texture pop in (I'm looking at you Unreal Engine) and short load times are more important to me then super pretty graphics. It seems like most 360 developers don't share my opinion (I guess you can't see those things in screenshots).
I honestly don't believe that the huge hardware leaps we usually see between consoles is still sustanable, especially when the manufactures loose hundreds of dollars per console. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Microsoft and Sony systems are only small leaps and they loose little to nothing on each console sold on launch day. Besides, we're getting to the point where graphics can't get that much better, and it's getting prohibility expensive to make AAA quality realistic visuals.
While traditional controllers will always have their place (as will Keyboard and Mice of course) there's nothing wrong with also having motion controls, especially when they are 1:1 motion like Wii Motion Plus. Infrared pointers are also great, the controls in the Wii version of Resident Evil 4 are far superior to the Gamecube/PS2 controls. They're so good I'm not looking forward to having to use a 360 controller to play Resident Evil 5 this Friday.