For the past couple of years there have been constant rumors and analyst predictions that a high-definition Wii (Wii HD) was on the way; rumors Nintendo has repeatedly squashed, saying the Wii does not need to be replaced. Well, I'm happy to report the Wii HD is coming to your home September 2010. It's called the Playstation 3 + Move. Really, that's all Sony has done is turn their flagship system into the Wii with HD graphics (and, oh yeah, regular controllers too, which is a big deal).

What’s really remarkable about this is the scorn being ladled on Sony for aping Nintendo. It’s as though the past two years when every gaming press Web site and countless gamers were begging for a Wii HD existed only in some alternate universe. Now that we have a Wii HD, it’s just a “gimmick.” Well, motion control as a whole is just a gimmick—a gimmick which has helped propel the Wii to the top of the home console heap. (Which, apparently, Nintendo seeks to abandon as they push all their energy into a battle with Apple over handhelds where their new 3D on a tiny screen really is a gimmick.)

Reggie Fils-Aime, in the Nintendo conference, talked about “bridge” games—games that would take a casual gamer and move them toward hardcore gaming. The problem with this is twofold: first, moving into hardcore gaming requires hardcore hardware, which the Wii does not have; second, it requires hardcore games, which the Wii is desperately short of. The PS3 + Move is that bridge hardware and the PS3 has loads of hardcore games. (Too many, in fact. Hopefully the Move will spawn more family-friendly fare.)

Nintendo is nothing if not a company that shamelessly exploits its properties. The show opened with a new Zelda, though, by now, the Link adventures are hardly new. And it performed poorly. Miyamoto blamed wireless interference from all the electronics in the crowd. Err...yeah. The Wii works on Bluetooh, Miyamoto-san; trying to ape Steve Jobs doesn't cover the fact your precious Wiimote with Wii Motion Plus attachment couldn't even figure out whether you were waving your sword sideways or up-and-down. It's not that it wasn't responding, it just wasn't responding in the correct direction.

UPDATE: Well, we now know exactly why Jobs was experiencing signal loss during his iPhone 4 presenation and it wasn't interference from the audience. Also, I recently hosted a party where we had six Wiis all running at the same time and people--many with smartphones on their person--were all playing with no interference problems. The new Zelda has some serious, serious flaws in its control scheme and one hopes they are fixed before the game is released.

Is there nothing Ninty won't remake for a fast buck? The crowd went nuts over a Goldeneye remake. Here's an idea...everyone loves the N64 Goldeneye so much, just put it on the Virtual Console and then MAKE A NEW GAME! And, much as I love Donkey Kong Country, isn't the formula a little old now? Can they think of nothing new? OK, the Kirby Epic Yarn game does look new with an interesting way of interacting with the game world; but, that's it.

I wonder if Microsoft really predicted audience response to its press conference would be so lukewarm. That would explain why they spent somewhere in the low six figures to give everyone in the room a free, new Xbox 360. Talk about buying the press! In spite of that, early previews on MS’s showstopper—Kinect—are mediocre; as can be easily seen watching all the demos given by Microsoft.

To be fair, none of the technologies heavily previewed at E3 this year (Kinect, 3DS and Move) translate well to watching. They have to be experienced; but, the experience of Kinect doesn’t look good. There are two big problems with Kinect that are obvious even just watching other people play and it all revolves around the lack of any kind of controller.

Yes, I know Sony has been pushing the “there are no buttons” meme hard; they have a point. The big problem with Kinect is that you are not, in fact, connected. Microsoft has actually removed an essential element of gameplay, the element of touch, thus making Kinect less immersive rather than more.

I've been playing fantasy football this year and it's brought to mind two things. One, it's hard to play games where I don't have any control over the outcome. More about that another time. The second problem is that I can lose (and, in fact, have lost a number of times). Our gaming tradition is founded on competitive play where there is a winner and there are losers. Video games, especially single-player games, introduce a new dynamic. The competition is the game itself; and, with a little effort and dedication, the player can always "win."

I was playing Dragon Age: Origins the other day and I reached an especially difficult battle. I failed several times. Eventually, I was forced to dial down the difficulty, beat the bad guys, and continue on my way. Failure did not result in me losing, it was just a temporary setback on my way toward eventually winning by beating the game. I like this model much better than competitive gaming. I don't usually play online because there are winners and losers and I don't much like losing. Online co-operative play (as in Burnout Paradise or Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2) is a lot of fun. Even when I'm playing with my kids, I'd rather play LEGO Batman than Super Smash Bros.

I don't know if there's any deeper meaning to this. I just don't like to lose.

I've long maintained video games are a good entertainment value. Compare the average video game to the average movie. A movie costs $20 on DVD and provides about 2 hours of entertainment ($10 per hour). A game costs $50 or $60 and provides at least 10 hours of entertainment ($5 to $6 per hour) and frequently provides more. The new BioWare RPG, Dragon Age: Origins, is a great value. There's at least 40 or 50 hours of gameplay (without the mandatory replays for earning trophies/achievements). At $60 for the console version of the game, that's about $1.50 per hour of entertainment.

DLC (downloadable content) is another matter entirely. The "Stone Prisoner" DLC is included free with new copies of the game, so that's a wash. If you buy a used copy of the game, however, it will cost you $15 to download about an hour's worth of additional content. The $7 "Warden's Keep" takes about 30 minutes to play (if that). That's half again as expensive per hour of entertainment as a movie! No wonder publishers love DLC.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 recently released a character pack that gives you five new characters to play with (that don't actually add any playtime) and four missions that take about 20 to 30 minutes of extra playtime. All for $10--a rate of $20 per hour for the extra entertainment!

DLC makes sense for online competitive games where extra characters or items can change and freshen online play. Burnout Paradise made extra cars that added great value to online play and some extra playtime to offline single-player. It's hard to measure extra online play; but, generally that will be a good value. It seems, though, as if DLC intended for offline, single-player games is extremely over-priced.

With the cost of game development spiralling ever higher, it's only natural for publishers to seek to recoup costs through other avenues than just upping the cost of the game itself (which they can't do because the console manufacturers want to keep game prices low to increase attach rates). Still, the price-gouging that takes place with DLC seems a bit excessive. Surely they could sell-through more DLC if they reduced the cost to put the value at least closer to the $10 per hour of entertainment provided by a movie.

This is about games, just not video games (well, games relate tangenitally to the topic). Rather, it's about the NFL games played yesterday (Nov 15). Two of them, anyway. In one game, the coach made a good decision that didn't work and he is now being excoriated by fans and sports "experts." In the other game, the coach made a bad decision that did work out and he and the player who executed the play are being hailed as geniuses.

In Indianapolis, Bill Belichik decided to attempt to get a first down on 4th-and-2 with 2:08 remaining on New England's own 28-yard line and ahead by 6. The play failed, Indianapolis got the ball back and scored to win the game. Everyone thinks Belichik should have punted and forced the Colts to drive 70 or 80 yards for the win. But, Belichik played for the win. He had just watched his defense get carved up by Manning for 2 quick TD drives and he had no reason to think they could hold after a punt. (There are many who say the coach dissed his defense. Of course he did! They were great for 3 quarters and then rolled over and played dead.) Had the 4th-down play worked, Belichik would be hailed as a genius and a courageous coach who played for the win. Punting is playing not to lose. Belichik played the percentages (the Patriots convert 4th-and-short over 60% of the time) and it failed. That doesn't make his decision "bad," just the result.

(What was a bad decision was trying to stop Indianapolis. New England should have let the Colts score quickly and then driven down for a winning field goal.)

In New York, Maurice Jones-Drew was heading into the end zone with the Jags down by 1 and only 1:00 left on the clock. Instead, under his coach's direction, he went down at the 1 yard line and the Jags ran down the clock and then kicked a winning field goal. Del Rio and MoJo are considered to be very smart; but, what he did was stupid. You're behind, you take the points! A figgie, even from the 3, is not automatic. You're going in for a TD, take it! Then challenge your defense to hold since the Jets will need to drive the length of the field with no timeouts in less than a minute. But, the field goal was good, the Jags won and everyone thinks it was a smart play. The decision wasn't "good;" but, the result was.

This is a lot like real life. We don't really know whether a decision is "good" or "bad" until we make it and play out the result. One of the things I really like about Dragon Age thus far is the fact all the decisions in the game are not "good" or "bad". There's no "karma meter" or "axis of evil". All you have are decisions and the results of playing out those decisions.

Oh, and I've read The Blind Side by Michael Lewis. If the movie that opens this week is half as good as the book, it will be worth seeing. (And you should also read the book.)

I had an interesting discussion a couple of days ago. I was chatting with a relative and the conversation turned to video games. We discussed Fallout 3, Halo, Oblivion, and various other games. We compared playing styles and talked about what we liked and didn't like in games.

So, what's interesting about that?

Well, I'm 42 and the relative was my wife's uncle who is in his 60s. A conversation about the merits of FO3's VATS system would not be out of place between a couple of young adults. But, two men with gray in their beards? Not as unusual as you might think.