Fierce_LiNk

Where will the games come from? Right now, our best hope for exciting experiences for the Wii U are from Nintendo themselves, with the likes of Retro, etc. What are the likes of Konami, Capcom, Rockstar, Activision, Atlas, Bethesda, Ubisoft doing? Does it make sense for a developer or publisher to create something for the Wii U where the audience is limited or go with one of the other two? What's the Wii U like to develop for, is it easy? Do developers mind that much if the Wii U is weaker? (I'm guessing yes?) Do we currently know of any huge third party exclusives coming our way? Based on what we currently know, and if you examine the current third party situation, it doesn't look particularly great. I think it was myself and Dazzy who had a discussion about this recently and we both agreed that the third parties won't be coming. So, in my mind anyway, it's up to Nintendo to keep the system afloat with games now.

I think we have a very different definition over what trolling is. The Wii U line up now is and should be better than what the PS4/One have. It's had more time in the market, developers should have been spending that time making games, Nintendo should have got to grips with the console/controller, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the PS4/One have good futures ahead of them when you look at the current trends and compare it with the previous generation. The Wii was a great machine for me and my favourite console (figure that one out) but I also admit that there were a shit ton of games that simply didn't come because the Wii couldn't handle it. It's going to be the exact same situation this time around, but at least the Nintendo games will be in HD. (which is a good thing in itself, since games like 3D World look lovely) :p The third party situation is something that haunts every Nintendo console after the SNES. I can't tell if it's getting worse or better, but it's certainly not good. Even if you can get by without these games, there will be tons of gamers who can't. If there's alternatives to these games, then that's ok. For example, if we had a Goldeneye-style shooter for the Wii U instead of a regular Call of Duty game, that might help. Whether these will come or not is another matter.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The future potential for any console is a selling point. I bought the Wii U because of Nintendo and their history of creating good games. So, I'm using the potential library as a reason to buy the console. So, it is a selling point. The potential library for the PS4/One is a massive selling point. Even for the general third party games, many of which may not or will not be coming to the Wii U. EA have seemingly abandoned the console. So, looking at the current library and situation, you have to ask yourself "is the situation going to get better?" Are third parties going to come back (because they have left, there's no argument there) and create games for the Wii U? If the answer is no, then what? What Nintendo does have and what the competition will never have are Nintendo's own games. That's their strength and that will determine how long they will keep going with the Wii U. That's one draw that will continue to bring certain gamers in (the lifelong Nintendo fans) as long as they're interested. They have that in their favour.

I may be wrong, but would it be fair to say that retailers, developers et all were still burned by the SEGA Saturn by the time the Dreamcast came around? It never had a chance once the Playstation brand had dominated during the previous cycle of consoles. I'd kill for a SEGA console right now.

Gah, I had a massive post/reply lined up yesterday and N-Europe crashed on me. Haven't got the energy to type type type all that again. I agree with these points about the "generation" thing. Kav's point is excellent. "It's new gen hardware, just not new gen technology." It clearly is murky, and whilst I get that it's part of the new generation of consoles, it won't be getting a lot of the new generation of games because it can't handle them technically. We already know this with the likes of Batman: Arkham Knight. This happened last gen, so I imagine it'll be the same, if not worse this gen. I don't really care what we call it; new gen or next gen or current. What matters to me is that the games come. E3 for me will have to be the defining point in the Wii U's life and it'll tell us the direction it is headed. It's clear now that it won't be as successful as the Wii, which most of us assumed beforehand anyway. It can still be a success, however. The part that interests me is what Nintendo decides to do after the Wii U, because I feel that the Wii brand has died, so they'll have to reinvent themselves again. It's a good thing, imo.

I'll echo this sentiment, let's keep the discussion civil, people. It's been going ok so far, I think. Let's keep it that way.

I've been under the impression that if you can get the Wii U GamePad to work in another room, you lucked out. I don't know a single other person (bar Serebii) that has been able to use it in a separate room. It's clearly not made for that purpose. Let's take an everyday problem: Two people who want to watch two different tv shows. Solution 1 means you get two televisions. Solution 2 means you record one, watch it later. Solution 3 means one of you misses out. The Game/TV isn't isn't THAT much of a widespread issue that you need to spend potentially 250 to sort it out. If you already have the system, then it's a nice little feature. But, if you haven't got one, you won't rush out to get one because your Mum wants to watch Eastenders and you want to play a game. It's a solution to a problem that has a few other solutions already. What do other households do when there is a clash between people who game and people who watch tv? I've never really heard a PS3/360/One/PS4 owner complain about having to choose between tv and games. Not being tethered to the tv screen is fine IF you are able to have complete freedom of movement and take the controller/screen into the other room and play. With the Wii U, you cannot do this, which means one of its main features isn't actually all that much of a feature. I'm sure there's a Nintendo exec somewhere who is delighted that you used this feature. :p So, you had the console, and the feature came in handy. If you were going around your mate's house on Friday and neither one of you had a Wii U, would you go out to buy a Wii U because you could use that feature? The answer for the majority of people is no. This is evident in the sales of the system which are generally very poor. The public don't want this feature. Gamers don't have THAT much of a need for it. Or a desire. You mean last generation, right? The 360 and PS3 are cheaper.

Off-tv play certainly shouldn't be the main focus for the GamePad. I'm a little shocked to hear that. It's such a minuscule problem solver... You say dodgy EA port, I say the only football game on the system. A massive third party title to boot. I'm saying that FIFA highlighted a potential problem with the pad. It's very disorientating having to constantly look up and down, it's not really efficient having to take your hands off the controller to use the screen, especially if the gameplay is quick like it is in FIFA. The controls didn't work. This doesn't pave the way for future football titles. Although, the Wii U won't have that issue where FIFA is concerned. No Pro Evolution either. I would ask you to prove it, but we can't as Nintendo don't show games off or market them months before release. A strategy I'm not fond of. Well, I can safely say that it doesn't work in my ground floor flat. I live with my partner and we have a big tv in the living room. You're right, you can also "just play the game later" which is a way of solving the problem that many gamers have opted for. For quite some time now. Why would I play 3D World on a smaller screen now when I can just wait a bit and play it on a much better screen, in HD later on? Have you tried playing Arkham City on the screen? You lose so much, especially when flying around the City as Batman. Plus, all those maps and inventories that you like on the gamepad screen, you lose that. It's not really worth it. I'm all for subtle and not hand-holding. Nintendo have shown that in much better ways in the past. Want an example? How about Super Fucking Metroid where the entire game is subtle and it doesn't hold your hand whatsoever. But in terms on 3D World, I'm looking at the TV screen, and there isn't really a need for me to look at the second screen. In ZombiU there is, I need to look there to check my map or see how much ammo I have, or to crack a puzzle. That's nice and subtle, not too in your face. There's no incentive for me to look at the gamepad screen for Mario because I'm already looking at an amazing screen where everything I possibly need is already there. I'm not sure I get what you're saying here or what point you're trying to make. From what I gather, the controls in Metroid are identical to the controls in pretty much every Wii shooter. I wouldn't say they are subtle and not forced because...how are you meant to look left, for example? You HAVE to use the pointer. The controls for shooters on the Wii are godly, though. Perfection. I meant Nintendo more than you. Is that list meant to be impressive? The only games I'd even consider touching are Lego City and Wonderful 101. The rest, with the exception of Nintendoland I guess, look ghastly. Fuck that. None of those are essentials. You missed the point with the first bit. You don't buy a system specifically for Call of Duty, Fifa or Assassins Creed, but they need to be there. We shouldn't be asking ourselves "hmm, do I want Zelda or Fifa?" BOTH should be on Nintendo's system. Like I said in my post, if the games are great, the gamers will buy into it. Regardless of if they use the controls well or not. Nintendo had great controls and a great game with ExciteTruck, and even Brawl controlled well just the "regular" way. My point is that you can sometimes get away with risks if the software can back you up. Nintendo could have got away with the risk at the start of the Wii U's life if they had more in the pipeline. Showing off New Super Marios Bros U and NintendoLand wasn't fooling anybody.

I believe Retro said it best there, Dazzybee. Taking risks is fine, but there has to be a line somewhere. The Wii was a huge risk and that paid off. The Wii U is fucking insanity. If you're going to be that gung-ho, you need to have something to back you up. In the Wii's case, they had the likes of ExciteTruck, Red Steel, Mario Galaxy, Brawl, Wii Sports. The games spoke for themselves. Gamers lapped it up at the time. Personally, I think the Wii U was one risk they didn't need to take, especially as how the Wii tailed off towards the end. Nintendo have seriously damaged their image. Goron mentioned this perfectly earlier, they are now seen as "that gimmicky company who have weaker systems". Calculated risks are all well and good. This is gung-ho. Sorry brah, you got ripped off. There was such a wide audience out there who were burned by the launch of the Wii, especially as there were deals going for 199 not toooo far afterwards. Clearly people haven't been impulse buying because people haven't been buying it. It's a failing system. The Wii price point at the time was perfect and they probably could have charged another 20 quid extra and got away with it because the tech was exciting. The public don't give a shit about the GamePad. There is no buzz. The PS4 WILL be getting, at the very least, third party games. Even if you're a FIFA brah or Call of Duty brah, you can get those on the PS4/One. You won't be getting FIFA, because it's not there. Like Need for Speed? Tough shit. GTA? Tomb Raider? Battlefield? As soon as developers shift their focus firmly from the PS3/360 to PS4/One, where are the third party games going to come from? This is before the exclusives for the other systems. It may not be worth picking up a PS4/One right this second, but it will be. For what you are getting, it isn't worth it. As a long term investment, it's not a particularly great deal. I bit at 199 because I had an inclination that the system wouldn't get cheaper than that (it was a deal at ASDA). A year on, and it looks like I got that one right. Edit: Fucking LOL at the fuck a duck bit. My Mum says that all the time.

It's useful, but I don't see that as a game changer. It's nice, but it's not "pay an extra £70+" nice. It's used well in Arkham City, but the time that you spend looking at the screen and not paying attention to the TV screen almost negates its purpose. The screen is damn near un-usable in FIFA13. You can't use the screen to pass the ball accurately enough and it's too fiddly to take your hands off the buttons to swipe the screen and then look back at the tv. Pro Evo on the Wii had it right with the Wiimote. ...because we are paying extra money for this exact feature. If the GamePad weren't included, we wouldn't need to pay for it, so it's not fair at all to expect some decent use of it. Wonderful101 makes excellent use of the pad/screen, yes. But, there needs to be more of it. Tempted to call bullshit on this one. Can't use the GamePad even one room over, with brick walls. Even then, even if it does work for one person, it doesn't for the next, so it's inconsistent. Meaning that dream of playing Zelda on the GamePad screen in bed whilst the console is in the living room isn't achievable. Even the off-tv feature is almost redundant. In an age where so many people have a means to record television, it's almost pointless. Didn't know about some of those, but doesn't the fact that I've made it this far into the game without knowing that tell you something? I'm looking at the tv screen and admiring the beauty of the game. It's wonderful. I don't need to look down at another screen, especially one where the game won't look so pretty anyway. Doesn't Metroid Prime have motion controls? Anyway, again, I disagree. Best and most memorable uses for the Wiimote for me: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Skyward Sword. Both were games that revolved around the controller. All I hear there is excuses. It's no good if developers react positively and then show NOTHING because we as gamers receive NOTHING. No gamer here gives two fucks what somebody at Capcom thinks. What we want are games. The games speak for themselves. Surely the fact that publishers only cared about power and Nintendo weren't going with that should have caused somebody to think, "hold on, are we doing the right thing here?" In my mind, Nintendo like to be different, perhaps for the sake of just being different. Why? Being different for the sake of it is pointless. Different doesn't always mean best. No, they're showing us at E3. They have "useful" ideas. We shall see, but I have to admit that I'm going into this E3 not optimistic. I wasn't sold on the Wii U before buying it and I'm even less sold on it now that I have one. As a fan, I've been disappointed. Exactly. It'll take a lot more than that to satisfy gamers, though. But, a good start it would be. I would have been satisfied had Nintendo just kept the Wiimote (motionplus as standard), packed in the Pro Controller and built off that for the next system. Give us something closer to what the PS4/One can do and give us more games. We're going to miss out on so many third party titles because the gap is simply too big. We think the third party situation is bad now, it's going to be even worse in a further two years when development has firmly moved over to the new systems.

A Wii U, MarioKart, NintendoLand at 199 isn't too bad a deal. I'd be more inclined going for that than the 249 nonsense.

Would you go out tomorrow and get a Wii U at that price? Would the first mother you plucked off the street pay that much for a Wii U and Mario Kart for her kid? Would teenagers go for it at that price? Would you get students in 2014 going for this? Who is this system aimed at? Do Nintendo even know? I certainly wouldn't even look at it at 249. No sane parent would and teenagers/students have moved onto the Playstation/Xbox/potentially PC combo and aren't looking back. If you were 12 when the GameCube came out, that would make you 24 now. Most people my age (if they are into gaming) wouldn't snap at a Wii U with this price.

I'll give you credit where it's due; you argue your points valiantly and your strong in your beliefs. But, I disagree with almost everything you said that second paragraph. Sure, Nintendo take risks. But, there's a fine line between "risk" and "gimmick". They pushed that to the absolute limit with the Wii and they got away with it for the most part. It was something new, different, exciting. The GamePad is most definitely not a game changer. I still maintain the one of the only titles that truly used it innovatively was a third party launch title, ZombiU. There haven't been enough inventive uses for it. Furthermore, it's limited. You can't pick up the GamePad and go into the bedroom or the other side of the house and keep gaming. You are limited to using it in the same room. There may be exceptions where people have unusually thin walls where it might work in the next room, but on the whole it's limited. I'm up to about World 4/5 in Super Mario 3D World. This is what is meant to be Nintendo's flagship title for the Wii U. So far, I have encountered two uses where I've had to use the GamePad:

£249 is far too high. Normally we don't disagree on things, but I have to disagree with you on this. There isn't a great deal of difference between Wii U games graphically and PS3/360. If it isn't on par, then it's very, very, very, very close to those systems, far closer to them than the current generation. Mario Kart looks gorgeous, but we also know that there's not going to be many games that will top it. The third party games aren't coming, and even the ones that are aren't going to be heavily optimised for the Wii U. The price is a total rip-off for what we're getting. I just can't justify it. Clearly their strategy isn't working as the consoles aren't being picked up. From the public/average person on the street's view: 1. They don't know the consoles exists. 2. If they do know it exists, they think it's the Wii or some sort of new version of it (DSlite to DS) 3. If they do know what it is, they're priced out. Somewhere at £170 with Nintendoland, Mario Kart, 32GB model. That's it. Possibly push it to 180, but anything beyond that isn't a good deal. Certainly not 240 territory.

You're on the right track, but I still think that's far too high. Think of what you're paying for. You're paying for a machine that is on par with the last generation of consoles (PS3/360) with a controller that isn't getting used by anyone...not even Nintendo. Why should we be paying ANYTHING close to the prices for this generation's system? A PS3 with 500GB (500fuckinggigabytes...That's more than 10 times the hard drive size of the Wii U Premium) will cost you around £180-190 on Amazon. Plus, that's your blu-ray player, too. It doesn't make sense for the Wii U to be around 50 quid more expensive, no sense at all.

That pack looks great. It would probably shift a few units...until you get to that price. Complete bollocks. Not sure how it would convert into pounds, but the sticking point for a Wii U right now should be at £170 (WITH Mario Kart), in my opinion. Some of the prices on Amazon are just fucking insane. Amazon Link £269 for Premium Wii U Zelda Pack £239 for Premium Lego City and Rayman Pack £288 (!!!) for Premium New Super Mario Bros Wii U + New Super Luigi Pack £249 for the 8GB basic pack... For a hundred quid more, you're talking PS4/One territory. A hundred quid will get you a decent Bluray player, so a Wii U + Bluray player can potentially be the cost of a PS4...the value for money just isn't good enough for a Wii U. There's no way Nintendo or anyone should be charging anywhere near these prices. Amazon was the first link I went to, but you're not going to find a great deal better than this. I bit in the end and purchased a Wii U for £199 or something with Nintendoland. Still too expensive, in my opinion.

I think I only played part of Echoes because a mate brought it around. I didn't own the game because I couldn't find a good deal on it at the time, and I was drained from having played Prime 1, so wasn't in a rush to play the sequel. Just like how I wouldn't play two Zelda games in quick succession. Then, I didn't play Prime 3 because I hadn't played Prime 2. Theeen, I got The Trilogy as a Christmas gift, but didn't play Prime 2 because I wanted to play Prime 1 again, and didn't play Prime 1 because I had Xenoblade. Aaahhhhhhh.

I'm going to do the Trilogy during the summer. I'm waiting for that right time where I can play all three games back to back and experience them as a whole. I've only ever played the first game and part of the second. Such a great series, though.

That's the issue mine has. Trying turning the machine upside down, as that does work sometimes a quick fix. It seems like it's a very common problem, though.

It's the latter, it acts as if the disc has become faulty or if there's no disk in there. I think it probably is to do with the drive/laser. Needs a good looking at by the sounds of it. It's a shame, it didn't have this problem before, but it's been years since I've turned it on, so I imagine that there's quite a build up of dust and what not.

This is the problem that mine has got right now, I think. It'll load up a game and then take me back to the boot menu. I read that a potential fix is placing the Dreamcast upside down. So...that's what I've been doing. It's been working ok so far. But, I'll give this a try.

Awesome offer, brah. Buuuuut, I'm going to have to decline, unless you particularly want your cartridge to be of a different colour by the time it got back to you. TO EBAY.

I knew very little about this game before it came out. All I really knew was that Link was in it (and Pikachu) and being a massive Zelda fanboy at the time, I took the plunge. Not gonna lie, brahs, this terrified the shit out of me the first time I tried this. I've never taken cocaine, but I imagine taking it is very, veeeeery similar to the first time I ever tried this on multiplayer. Shit. It was so quick. I had no idea what I was doing, couldn't keep up. Dat bunnyhood. I grew to love this very quickly and spent a STUPID amount of time on this. We're talking hundreds of hours. At that time, for me to do that with a single game was insane. True, I probably spent that much time on certain games over their lifespan, Super Mario All Stars, for example. But, we're talking weeks here. In a few weeks, I played this for every waking hour that I wasn't in school. Beautiful game. The amount of content in this is insane. I wanted to collect all of the trophies. I made a huge mistake and put the GameCube memory card in my Wave Race: Blue Storm box and gave it to a friend. The game came back...the memory card didn't. All of my trophies after months of collecting; gone. Close to tears, brah. God tier game, seriously. 10/10. I love it 5EVA. (dat mean moar dan 4eva)

Yaya Toure's weakest foot is his middle one.

The double battles part was pretty good, actually. Didn't mind that at all. But, everything else sucked balls. For some reason, the game felt really empty to me. It didn't feel like the world was populated with Pokemon. The original GameBoy games get this across really well, the world seems more alive. Despite Colosseum having supposedly better visuals, the world seemed boring to me. A shame, a huge missed opportunity. I think that's the time where I put the series down and never picked it up again.