well i had my wii day one,,, so i now have alot of games over 50 to be some what exact ,,,, and id go galaxy or zelda if it werent this waymariokart64fan

50 Wii games...poor guy. You own a lot of bad games and a few good ones.

Anyway, I'd pick TP probably. I put about 72 hours in it, which is more than I can say for any other Wii game. I also enjoyed it and felt that it got better as the game went on, but with SMG I thought it started strong and then went down hill.

I've yet to see developers do anything decent with microphones (unless we're talking rock band...but you don't want to use your wiimote for that).

As for Sony, I'd say they need to revert their controller to the PS2 version. I hate the fact that they made L2 and R2 trigger buttons instead of regular shoulder buttons like they used to be.

Fire Emblem uses the NES position and so will SSBB (optional for both games).

I disagree strongly with Head_of_games. The controller you suggest would be way too cluttered. I also hate microphones (such as the one on the DS), because they inspire game developers to have you scream into them or some such crap. Anytime that I have to use the microphone in a DS game it ends up being an annoying experience. I could definitely do without whatever dumb ideas they would come up with for the next Zelda if the Wiimote had a mic.

Trauma Center doesn't look very good to me either, but I never played the DS version or anything. I hope you rented it instead of buying it.

I'd say the most overrated is SMG. It's fun, but it's not what it's cracked up to be.

First, I have to say that I loved both games.

You guys don't seem to understand the graphics arguement though. OoT had better graphics for its time than TP does for its time. That is how you compare graphics of games that are from two different eras. OoT's graphics may be bad now, but it's unfair to condemn it for that. The developers were not making it with the intention of wowing viewers with their spectacular graphics in 2007.

The only thing that I can say TP had that OoT didn't is the hero factor that weazur mentioned. I definitely felt more heroic playing TP.

Everything else goes to OoT. The main story may have been shorter, but I spent much more time playing OoT than I did on TP. There were so many fun things to do outside of going through temples and beating bosses. All of the collections and mini-games were really fun, and although I enjoyed them in TP they weren't nearly as strong as in OoT.

Also, I've played through OoT three times. Each time was incredibly fun all the way through. Atleast for me, the game didn't have any parts where I felt like I was playing it simply to get to the next part. I can't say this for TP. Each time that I had to collect the tears of light in TP I was just trying to complete it as soon as possible so I could go back to enjoying the game.

I have to say, if OoT had never been released and instead they released OoT and TP now with both games having the graphics of TP, very few people would prefer TP. Just as very few people have prefered TP on this thread.

If you've never played Guitar Hero get GH3. Outside of being outrageously difficult at times, it's the best in the series. This is especially true for someone who has never played any of the others. As someone who played through the first two the series has jumped the shark for me, and I just couldn't enjoy GH3. The first Guitar Hero that you play will probably be your favorite.

If you can, get Rock Band.

I can't say I agree with you, TC. I'm not even close to collecting every star, so perhaps when I get a little closer, the game will become a trifle repetitive and maybe the "novelty" will wear off a bit. But I must ask, how many games have you played lately that have had any semblance of "novelty" to begin with? The gaming industry is experiencing an absolute dearth of originality as of late, and if Galaxy can't quite hold your complete interest up until the very last mission, it may just be because the game's first 20 hours set the bar so ridiculously high, not just for every other game on the market, but also for itself.

I could be wrong, of course, and like I said, I may get a little bored myself toward the end, but even that won't erase my appreciation for this game as a brilliantly conceived and executed work of art.

creepy_mike

Actually, God of War was a game for me that was nothing more than novelty. At first I marveled at how cool it was to kill things in all the different extremely violent ways. The deaths of the bosses were even more awesome to me. This wore off after a few hours though and I was left with a button mashing hack and slash type thing with nothing special to offer (not to mention some terrible flaws that I'm sure we're all familiar with).

SMG was basically the same way with me, and the lack of a storyline really didn't help matters. Sure it had a story, but we all recognize that as nothing more than a glue stick that was used to hold the game together. After playing games as they are today a good story is almost a necessity for me. I think this may have surgically removed the part of me that could enjoy the platformer genre.

I still recognize its innovation and all around creativity, but that just isn't enough for me if it doesn't remain fun throughout. Fortunately, the game has enjoyed a lot of success. This should, in a perfect world, cause more developers to think outside the box and deliver us creative hits, but I fear it could also have a different effect. These developers are notorious for thinking they can cash in on the success of something else without much effort. I'm currently unsure how they would go about this, but they have proven to be most devious in the past.