No, the problem is some people are trying to blame one or the other. It's a simple fact of life that the game is more technically advanced than the Wii is capable of.

As noted elsewhere, this does not make the Wii bad. Nor does it necessarily mean that the developer (not the publisher unless they are one and the same) is bad. It's possible for a developer to be too lazy to do the work necessary to scale the game to work on the Wii, but just because they don't doesn't mean that they are being lazy. Let's look at the example cited in the brief above.

"number of polygons in the characters" - in most cases it's quite possible to reduce the number of polygons in a model. Sometimes it makes them look like crap and no developer (or publisher for that matter) is going to want to release a game knowing that they're going to get criticised for the horrible graphics on the Wii version - because if there's one thing you can guarantee it's the they will get criticised for it despite the fact that everyone wanted them to do it.

"the world size and dynamic loading" - large open worlds do require re/loading of data as the player moves around and the less memory you have to store the world data, the more loading you have to do - and load times on the Wii generally suck, although that can be the case for almost any platform. Sometimes you can make some optimisations but you're limited by the speed of the hardware.

"draw distance" - for Prince Of Peria, that's a biggy. If your graphics hardware can't handle the necessary amount of detail at a reasonable speed, then trying to draw in the distance can slow the machine horrendously. Lodding (Level Of Detail scaling) can improve this and so can simplifying your building/world models but as with simplified character models, sometimes the results look awful. Which is precisely why the prettier games on PC have higher graphics hardware requirements. That's not an option on the Wii.

Sometimes it is possible to scale a game designed for higher spec machines to a lower spec machine and have the results turn out just fine and some games can probably be done on nearly anything, such as 2D platformers (I'm thinking Braid could probably done on nearly anything although the smaller screens of the handhelds might present problems).

There are good, even great, games for the Wii but sometimes it's just not possible to make a game on a specific platform. Don't you think the developers and the publishers would want to do it if they could? It's not happening, get over it.

This isn't really a bug but was a similar timing issue.

When playing Castle Wolfenstein on the Apple II the game saved state when you quit, died or got caught. This meant that if it was game over, you had to start all over again. That is unless you opened the disk drive door in the brief pause while it told you what had happened ("You were caught!") and before it started the drive, then wait for the drive to activate and eventually time out. Then you closed the door, pressed space and got taken back to the menu with the option "Resume where you left off" available.

One of the oldest cheats I can remember.

Sadly, so do many of the posters here.

3D *can* improve a game, but if that's what you're relying on to make a better game, your design needs a whole truck load of work. KB:TL is a better looking game and better than the older HOMM games but, IMO, that's because there's more detail all round. 3D makes it look prettier, it does not alter the base game. I recently played through Rick Dangerous via WinUAE and I can't imagine a 3D version that I would prefer more. Indie developers that make 2D platformers and adventures in "the old style" are proving that you don't need flashy graphics to make a good game. Look at Spelunky, Cave Story, Seiklus and Iji. All fantastic games and would be right at home on an old 16 or even 8 bit machine. I fail to see how any of these require 3D to make them fun.