Nintendo Conference (5.00pm - 5th June)

[Agent Gibbs]

 

Just out of interest, and this goes out to everyone, not just you Hogge, but how many games do people typically buy at launch? Seriously, as stupid as this question may seem, but if Nintendo had their entire roster of franchises ready to go on day one (so 2D Mario, 3D Mario, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Kirby, F-Zero, Star Fox, Donkey Kong, Sin and Punishment, Punchout!! etc), how many of them would you actually buy? And that's before we talk about 3rd party games.

 

We know a good chunk of these games are coming and have probably been in some stage of development for some time.

 

Did Nintendo drop the ball at E3, maybe. But then I don't think we were ever attemping to play the same game with it. In their eyes the game was about dropping it. I shouldn't get angry because they did though. What I should be doing is appreciating why they did what they did, and understand it. /OddlyPhrasedMetaphor

 

 

At launch? two or three tops, then maybe another a month or so later

[Hogge]

Nintendo made have owned the licence but that has nothing to do with the game being good now does it - that's thanks to level design and gameplay ideas that resided in the talented folks at Rare. I'm sure Nintendo may have offered some guidance but it's a genre they had never touched and I'd imagine imput would have been limited to general ideas about what makes games fun rather than this is how to make a killer FPS.

Nintendo may not have the experience themselves, but they seem to at one point have realised the value of exclusive first person shooters.

 

I wasn't aware of any team movement concerning Perfect Dark. Yes, five influencial figures left during it's development but I think the rest of team remained. The fact is that the core GoldenEye team was tiny to begin with. As soon as they left, there were very few left from the original team.

That's why Perfect Dark ended so suddenly and a whole bunch of features were cut. Because the game had been in development for so long, the team that worked on it was replaced and the new one received the instruction "just finish it". I don't know if they were fired or just moved to another project, probably the latter.

 

As for the Wii U, I would like to think we are all smart enough than to write this thing off right now based on an E3 conference that was all about the next 6 months rather than the next 12 like the other companies' were.

Did Nintendo ever say it was about the next six months or launch? This E3 was a complete disaster on all levels. They started strong with Pikmin, Reggie talked about there not being time to talk about the Wii U's features or the 3DS because they were going to talk about GAMES. And then they didn't show any.

 

I watched E3 with friends and we all sat silently throughout every presentation (except when EA and Microsoft droaned on about sports and other c**p). Even though we had a particular interest in Nintendo, we just started talking on and on. One of us even left halfway through the presentation to buy an energy drink so he'd be able to stay awake.

 

Just out of interest, and this goes out to everyone, not just you Hogge, but how many games do people typically buy at launch? Seriously, as stupid as this question may seem, but if Nintendo had their entire roster of franchises ready to go on day one (so 2D Mario, 3D Mario, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Kirby, F-Zero, Star Fox, Donkey Kong, Sin and Punishment, Punchout!! etc), how many of them would you actually buy? And that's before we talk about 3rd party games.

Are you asking about how many launch games we buy or how many games we buy at launch? I usually buy two launch games, but I tend to buy a larger ammount of launch games during the following months.

I'm not expecting the whole roster at launch. But I most definitely want everything to at some point during the Wii U's lifespan. And right now it seems like that aint happening.

We know a good chunk of these games are coming and have probably been in some stage of development for some time.

No we don't.

We know Wii didn't get F-Zero, Starfox, Excitebike, 1080 or Waverace. We know that we got a Zelda less than a year ago. What we do know is that Nintendo are releasing both a sequel to Wii Fit and Wii Sports at launch. What we know is that Nintendo are giving us a cheap New Mario Bros game, which while being a fun distraction is no substitute for Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid F-Zero or anything else.

 

The games you mention have been in development for some time if we're lucky. But we have no confirmation of this. For all we know, Nintendo have treated Retro as badly as M$ have treated Rare, and they'll be doing Wii Play U or some other garbage.

Did Nintendo drop the ball at E3, maybe. But then I don't think we were ever attemping to play the same game with it. In their eyes the game was about dropping it. I shouldn't get angry because they did though. What I should be doing is appreciating why they did what they did, and understand it. /OddlyPhrasedMetaphor

The only conclusion you can draw from this is that Nintendo have fallen into the same trap as with the Wii, expecting third parties to release core content, while Nintendo continue to print money from games like Wii Fit. But like they said on todays Bonus Round: they don't seem to have realised that that market is GONE. They bought Wiis and don't see the point of buying a Wii U. They're playing Angry Birds on smartphones and tablets.

What Nintendo should've done was to convince everyone that it's a true next gen system. That if the core gamers want the best graphics and most advanced gameplay, they can either bancrupt themselves buying a gaming computer, or buy a Wii U.

But it;'s not that simple. That's the defence for Nintendo, they're never going to realise Fzero, Zelda, mario, star fox on day one!!!

 

WHO IS ASKING FOR THIS?!?!?!! We're just saying Pikmin isn't enough as the only game we've seen into the future. That is all. A video of a game coming out next year would be a MASSIVE improvement.

My point exactly.

If Reggie just SAID that those games are in the works, that would have been a vast improvement.

[Rowan]

Going into the conference I had very little expectation and was just hoping that there would be something that would make me want to get one. It didn't happen so I won't be getting on either for a while until we see some proper games. Another New Super Mario and these minigame collections are not really what I'm looking for. Nintendo also didn't show why it's better to buy the multiplatform games on Wii U like AC3 rather than on 360/PS3. First time I can remember I'm not interested in a Nintendo home console in a long long while, maybe the console just isn't aimed at me. They also didn't reveal any future games coming out long term outside the launch window that could have convinced me to get one.

 

As a quick comparision, I gave a quick scan over the E3 2006 Conference when the Wii was being given it's full reveal.

 

 

Some of the games either formally announced or you could see elements of in the trailers are: Wii Sports, Wii Music, Excite Truck, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3

Elements of Wii Sports Resort (Flying & table tennis), Wario Ware, Twilight Princess, Fire Emblem, Project Hammer (even if it did get cancelled). And those were just 1st party. It doesn't include 3rd party titles like Red Steel. Obviously back then E3 conferences were aimed at a different audience but it would have still been nice to see more of what the 1st party has to offer for Wii U.

[Mr-Paul]

Highlights:

 

1) Reggie acknowledging this:

 

 

2) This:

 

[Ganepark32]

But consider this: if they can't even show the equivalent of Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 or OOT 3D, how long is it going to take before something like that is actually on the shelves? Only then will I buy a Wii U.

 

This is what worries me. With the Wii at E3 2006, they showed the first Mario Galaxy, MP3, etc. and we knew what was going to come a year or so later without anyone being under the impression that they were launch titles.

 

Now, they're employing a "we're only talking about games coming out at launch" mentality. When you're trying to launch a console, showing people what they'll get at launch is fine and all but do they honestly believe people will throw down the (possibly) £300 for this new console without so much as a hint at what will come outside of that 3 month launch window (so roughly February/March beyond), especially several of the titles are/will be ports of titles that will have been available for awhile on other consoles prior to the launch of the Wii U. Even holding back titles which will be available in that period (like Game and Wario and P-100) and leaving it to websites to post screenshots and limited info on the games is not how you go about things.

 

I mean, they had the mind to announce Smash Bros for Wii U and 3DS last year before Sakurai and team had committed to anything as they were still making Kid Icarus. We all know those won't come for ages yet it gives us something to look forward to down the line. Even if their games weren't ready for a full unveil, they could have done something similar and said "These are titles coming from us and third parties you can expect to see during the first year of the consoles life cycle" or what have you. Instead, they've fumbled around claiming to be aiming for at the core market but saying things like they need to get the word out to families about the Wii U.

 

It was never going to be a Day 1 buy from me anyway. Fingers burnt after the 3DS debacle but the conference yesterday confounded this notion. May not be until a year after launch when I consider getting one because at the moment, Nintendo themselves look confused as hell as to who they're aiming the console at (having said core gamers previously but now having Iwata say to outlets like Reuters that they need to get the message out to the mothers and fathers who've come into gaming through the Wii).

[Lens of Truth]

And if you look beyond the names and 'sizzle' reels, the content was rich with spark and imagination: sharing ingenious word combinations in Scribblenauts over the internet using your GamePad and Miiverse; tracking a ghost by touch and communication in Luigi's Ghost Mansion; marshalling followers with touch controls in Pikmin 3; briefing speed-running friends in Mario Bros. U; or finding just the right touch for a perfect throwing star parabola in Takamaru's Ninja Castle. There was actually more originality buried in Nintendo's conference than the rest of E3 put together.

 

This part of Eurogamer's write-up is important and something that the hysterical reactions have concealed. The thinking behind this presentation, which I agree was misguided, was clearly to avoid repeating the 3DS scenario under any circumstances. In other words, stick to realistic launch window games and promises that can be kept in the immediate future.

 

The good feeling about the 3DS from its E3 showing soon vanished when it became clear that the games would trickle out over a much longer period; some still to see the light of day! Initial sales were slow and the media made up its mind that the 3DS was a failure. They turned this all around with the price drop, Mario, eshop etc, but it still left a bitter taste. One of the spikiest PR back and forths Nintendo have ever had!

 

Retro and the EADs haven't suddenly ceased to exist as the panic and doom-saying implies. Fans obviously wanted Nintendo to shoot their load here and now (myself included), but I think they're playing the long game.

 

Personally, I'm excited for more of these launch titles than I was for an undernourished Pilotwings and Street Fighter port.

[Agent Gibbs]

Lens of Truth makes a great point there, and one i tried badly to make in this thread or another (i loose track) they have tried to do the opposite of the 3DS reveal and concentrate on only lauch games and not be a prick tease with stuff we have to wait months and months for

 

They went polar opposite when somewhere between would have been better

 

They will realize people are confused and panic release information ASAP and suddenly we'll know about lots of future projects

[madeinbeats]

Nintendo will know the word on the viral street now, they would have known it instantly. I would expect some kind of reaction to it promptly - not to be confused with I'm expecting one !!!

[daftada]

They said they would have more opportunities to talk about upcoming games in the near future, so they've obviously got some more Nintendo Direct and Shareholder meetings coming up in which to talk about online, digital content, and release info.

 

I wouldn't panic about Nintendo not delivering great content over the life span of the console, it WILL come.

 

On the lack of big franchise news:

Nintendo have finite resources, despite bringing in teams like Monolith and Retro, and HD graphics take large resources. Mario and Zelda games take three to four years to craft and (most importantly) perfect in SD, yet alone HD so I'm not expecting Mario until next Christmas, and Zelda a year later. In fact, I don't want Nintendo to rush them just because some fanboys are impatient. We know Smash Bros is only just being worked on and is three years away. Metroid may not see a Prime game this gen if Retro have moved on. Christ they had to work on four Metroid Prime titles in a row before DKC Returns so let the team have a break from FPS/FPA for a while, they've earnt it. I'd like a return to 2D on 3DS anyway, but that's just my personal opinion. I am gutted Retro's new project wasn't on show but the conference is over now, I have to move on and carry on with my life. As for thinking Nintendo could possibly push Retro onto a Wii Play clone...seriously?

 

On fringe franchises:

Again, I'm disappointed Nintendo didn't announce an F-Zero, Starfox, Pilotwings, 1080 or Excitebike, but the truth is I'm not surprised as they DON'T SELL. Certainly not in the volumes needed to warrant big HD-heavy budgets. I do however expect/want some smaller digital releases for these franchises either on 3DS or Wii U. The digital platform is so important to Wii U. It's potentially a place where smaller teams can work on more titles simultaneously and give us two or three iterations of fringe franchises this generation (if they have the ideas to sustain that many). I've loved Nintendo's small eSHop titles so far, Pullblox is my favourite 3DS title by a mile, and one of my all-time fave puzzle games. It's not just the 3D graphics that made the game possible, it's also down to the digital platform.

 

This E3 conference was far from perfect, but not Nintendo's worst.

[Coolness Bears]

This didn't excite me in anyway but neither did the new supposedly "good" games to get excited for on the other consoles.

 

The industry as a whole isn't going in a direction that I enjoy.

[Beverage]

Not a Day 1 for me.

 

I genuinely don't understand what would make anyone buy it on Day 1, unless you're a huge Pikmin fan (in which case fair enough). Then again, I don't know why people bought the Wii when it was released as it didn't have Mario Galaxy or Metroid Prime 3. Sadly, I realise a lot of people wanted Twilight Princess, which Nintendo sneakily held back a week on GameCube.

 

I bought the 3DS on Day 1 because it's fantastic tech and I'd seen 5-10 games I really wanted. But consider this: if they can't even show the equivalent of Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 or OOT 3D, how long is it going to take before something like that is actually on the shelves? Only then will I buy a Wii U.

 

As like with the 3DS, nothing about the Wiiu made me go all like "DAYWUN!" but unlike with the 3DS I'm sure that I'll jump on board with Wiiu, likely before E3 2013 at that.

[Dante]

EA Not Ignoring Wii U

There will be a Madden game on Wii U this year, EA confirmed today at E3. The company also announced that more details about this game and the recently announced FIFA game for Wii U will be coming later this summer.

 

The Madden demo EA showed off in their press conference earlier this week focused on deeper storylines in the game's career modes, focusing on reaching the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It is unknown at this time whether the Wii U version will incorporate these features or who is developing the game.

 

So why is Nintendo is being very restrictive on announcements, it is because want to show them off near the launch of the Wii U?

 

Very good post over at Neogaf:

 

E3 isn't what you think it is anymore, at least not for Nintendo. This isn't to say it's for casuals or hardcores or time travelers or whatever. It's a show, in the middle of the year, in an industry that no longer needs to depend on shows in the middle of the year. Ubisoft did the best this year because they happened to have a new IP ready, the timing was right after the AC3 reveal, the the Wii U NDAs let them reveal that game here this year. Not because E3 is Christmas.

 

Sony is pretty much the only one who still treats E3 like the event you guys want it to be and they are hilariously incompetent at it.

 

Look at all the games and publishers who pulled out this year. Their was more worth to spending time working on the games than taking a week out of your schedule and however many weeks before to getting a playable version of your game set up for E3. Even Capcom couldn't be bothered to really have a presence for their 2013 titles this year.

 

E3 is about the next six months. It is about the year it is in. In a world with high-speed connections and a site exclusively dedicated to show trailers of video games, E3 pressers are ways to build up hype for the games you can sell this year.

[daftada]

Going back to the very early days of E3 it was ALWAYS about showing off the games you were selling by Xmas - it's come full circle for most companies. Nintendo has at least one smaller conference every quarter anyway, and always have one just before Xmas that shows off the Q1 titles for the next year.

[dazzybee]

Utter bollocks, so many games in the show were for next year?! It is a MEDIA BRIEFING, so why not get the media excited about what you're offering?! Nintendo aren't sudden;y going to announce loads of new games and such. It's just NIntendo fanboys clutching at straws!

 

And Sony inept at it?! They probably have the most exciting line up of games coming.

[Agent Gibbs]

EA Not Ignoring Wii U

 

 

So why is Nintendo is being very restrictive on announcements, it is because want to show them off near the launch of the Wii U?

 

Very good post over at Neogaf:

 

Very good point on NeoGaf, and one i've been badly trying to make, the e3 we expect is gone, what we have now is just a high profile press release for the upcoming months, its no longer essential and for big reveals

 

In the next few weeks Rockstar will announce infor on GTAV, Nintendo will drop something epic via a nintendo direct, etc etc

 

RIP e3

[Captain Falcon]

Nintendo may not have the experience themselves, but they seem to at one point have realised the value of exclusive first person shooters.

 

Yes they did. And it was before Rare turned the Super FX rail shooter into the 64 bit classic. Nintendo poured a quite a bit of techincal resource into Iguana Entertainment's Turok game. They saw them demoing and approached them about getting it on the system. They also told them to make it more violent. Then they kept an eye on all the key team members and gave them a crap ton of money when they became Retro Studios and the rest is history. But they did that because they knew they didn't specialise in making them games - games with more western appeal.

 

That's why Perfect Dark ended so suddenly and a whole bunch of features were cut. Because the game had been in development for so long, the team that worked on it was replaced and the new one received the instruction "just finish it". I don't know if they were fired or just moved to another project, probably the latter.

 

The GoldenEye team started working on PD after they finished their first game. Then they staffed up with new members. After 14 months, so the end of 1998, Hollis et al, were annoyed at being under appreciated for their efforts - they'd just made an 8 million selling game yet their was no reflection in of the contribution in terms of renumeration. Nintendo were already annoyed at Rare taking so long with games anyway and the pressure they put on them that they said, "f' it" and they left. The remaining members of the team, who were mostly drafted in to at the start of the game did redo a big chunk of it but it wasn't a new team. The fact is, the credit sequence for PD is populated by all the old names who worked on GE and who left the company. But most of that talent has since gone and Rare have no ties to Nintendo. So I stand by my point that I don't necessarily expect Nintendo themselves to fill that void since they had to get someone to make the gap in the first place. The other time they got someone in to do an FPS was with n-Space's Geist and I don't recall it getting rave reviews or sales.

 

Did Nintendo ever say it was about the next six months or launch? This E3 was a complete disaster on all levels. They started strong with Pikmin, Reggie talked about there not being time to talk about the Wii U's features or the 3DS because they were going to talk about GAMES. And then they didn't show any.

 

I'm not expecting the whole roster at launch. But I most definitely want everything to at some point during the Wii U's lifespan. And right now it seems like that aint happening.

 

So you think that if Nintendo intend to keep this machine alive for the next 5-6 years, they aren't going to release any games from their core franchises? I'll bet you'll be furious if they release a 50 entirely new IPs but no classics. Just how will they fill the gap between now and the release of Smash Bros in 3 years time. The thumb twiddling over at Nintendo must be at an all time high...

 

No we don't.

We know Wii didn't get F-Zero, Starfox, Excitebike, 1080 or Waverace. We know that we got a Zelda less than a year ago. What we do know is that Nintendo are releasing both a sequel to Wii Fit and Wii Sports at launch. What we know is that Nintendo are giving us a cheap New Mario Bros game, which while being a fun distraction is no substitute for Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid F-Zero or anything else.

 

No they aren't effective substitues for you and I but NSMBU will sell 3 times (probably more) of a Galaxy game. Let them rake in the money with that sucker to fund further development of the "proper" game. There were a whole host of ideas from the galaxy games that could be expanded on for either a direct sequel or brand new game. Besides, Rayman Legends should take care of all you're 2D platforming needs and it amazes me how often that game gets over looked when talking about the launch line up. This is Nintendo - if you don't think there will be a 3D Mario or Zelda, I question how well you know the company. And as I've said, if Metroid and F-Zero sell in the quantities as before, they will lose money for the company so they have to be certain. That F-Zero has a game in NintendoLand is a good indication they are looking at reintroducing the brand. Metroid being there also is a good sign.

 

The games you mention have been in development for some time if we're lucky. But we have no confirmation of this. For all we know, Nintendo have treated Retro as badly as M$ have treated Rare, and they'll be doing Wii Play U or some other garbage.

 

The difference between Retro and Rare is that Retro is Nintendo's to do with what they please - Rare wasn't. Rare always remained in control of their company but I get the feeling Nintendo weren't quite as happy to afford an outside company their "it's done when it's done" mentality. Once you're inside the circle though, it becomes a lot easier. Also, Rare made Nintendo like games for the most part with their platformers and racers. Nintendo wanted Retro to do things they wouldn't normally do. When I say development, I don't necessarily mean a team busy coding away. It could be two guys in a room testing ideas from a programming perspective. Artists knocking up concept art. Game designers trying to flesh out ideas based on a half thought into somehting that could carry an entire game. Storyboards trying to come up with interesting scenarios, etc...

 

 

For me, Nintendo's E3 shows were poor. The Nintendo Direct didn't do anything for me, the main press conference didn't help and the 3DS showcase barely felt any more fleshed out than the 5 min segment from Tuesday. But it's hardly the end of the world. They could have said a new 3D Super Mario was coming next August and then I'd buy the thing come August or they can do a Nintendo Direct next April and Still saying it's coming in August and then I'll buy it then.

 

If people don't like the launch software, don't buy the thing - it's that simple. Wait until they release a game you do want and then buy it. Isn't that the rule for every piece of hardware? I bet you'd be more pissed if they showed a demo reel of games and none of them saw the light of day. Thinking back, almost all the games that appeared on the GC demo reel never got released in that form. Zelda got gimped, Mario got gimped, Mario Kart got gimped. At least you haven't been promised anything that you can't be certain about getting. Most of the Wii games were running off previous GC or PS2 engines too - it's hardly surprising they had more games to show closer to launch but most of them still took their time getting released. They talked about trying to get Mario and Metroid ready for launch and yet Metroid came out the following August(Oct over here) and Mario also came out worldwide in October.

 

It's just NIntendo fanboys clutching at straws!

 

It sounds more like it's Nintendo fanboys doom mongering again to me.

[Grazza]

At the end of the day, however mainstream E3 becomes, however much it changes, there is one thing that doesn't change: it's every 12 months.

 

It's the biggest gaming show and it's every 12 months. Therefore all this talk of "it's for the next six months" doesn't make sense to me. If what they've shown is all they've got between the Wii U's launch and June 2013... my word. And let's not forget that what's shown at E3 2013 won't be out anytime soon either.

[Captain Falcon]

And in less than 12 months, the 3DS went from being the darling of innovative gaming and the hotest new thing in town to a device publishers were waring of touching with fast waning public support. They showed a host of games at the next E3 but none were ready to launch. We still haven't got Paper Mario or Luigi and they would have been nicer susprises this E3 for coming out this year. I'll forigive Paper Mario because IS happened to knockout a brand new Fire Emblem with robust post release content - a first for Nintendo and just because it wasn't gloryfied at E3, it shouldn't be forgotten.

 

12 months is a long time in the current market - just ask GAME. E3 has changed, the market has changed, the whole damn business model has changed and people are making comparisions to how things were 5 or 6 years ago. If Nintendo showed the general public a game not coming for the next 12 months today, they will have forgotten about it long before it's release so why bother showing some rough cut that means very little in the here and now. And as I said, the end result could be very different from what is shown today.

 

And Nintendo have gotten better at not showing games until they are closer to launch. Galaxy 2 went from less than year for reveal to release. DKCR was less than half a year. Zelda is the major exception. If a Zelda game isn't quite ready for the holiday time, they don't release it in the Spring like other companies, they wait an entire year and give it more polish - but it's not 12 months hard labour - and it's why they tend to appear to take so long. TP and SS could have come out a year eariler than what they did had Nintendo really wanted them too - they have these "asks" and interviews and it's obvious they hold them back to maximise sales. Mario turns up when he's ready or when he's needed - whichever comes first.

[Grazza]

I don't understand how showing the first two year's worth of 3DS games at E3 2010 was a bad thing. None of them looked like a rough cut. None of them were shown too early; some of them are taking a long time but that's not the same thing. It was a statement of intent, and a very good one at that. Ironically, the main game that did look like a rough cut was Super Mario 3D Land (shown at GDC 2011) and that was faster to release than any of the others.

 

With the 3DS, they simply overestimated how much people would pay for a handheld, I'm sure it really is as simple as that.

[Lens of Truth]

Just to be clear, I thought this year's E3 was a huge let-down on almost all fronts. In the case of Nintendo I always find myself wondering what the hell they're doing with their approach to announcements, scheduling etc. The 3DS showing in 2010 with all those great games is exactly how I wish they'd do it - upfront, assertive and proud of their gaming content. The Nintendo direct shows have been a good step too.

 

What's really puzzling is that after saying explicitly that they wouldn't save everything on WiiU for E3, but "reveal information throughout the year" (a much more sensible strategy than leaving everyone in the dark to simultaneously speculate the worst and build enormous expectations) they didn't. Now after E3 we're only a little the wiser. It feels like WiiU is releasing in 2013 rather than a few months from now.

 

Nintendo have an awfully conservative, cautious streak, which unfortunately frustrates their loyal fans the most. They looked like they were going all guns blazing with the 3DS, but when it came to it the launch was tepid, some good titles to be sure, but no real system sellers, and no eshop for months. There was article after article, forum rant after forum rant. Denying it put a lot of people off sounds like selective amnesia to me. I know 3 people who specifically waited until Christmas to get one despite being hyped beforehand because there were "no games".

 

The even bigger mystery this year was no new announcements for the 3DS last night. Really odd. It does show consistency with the way they treated the WiiU though, so again, I think the panic is premature.

 

Why did they have a separate conference for 3DS at all when they covered most of the same games in the so-rushed-for-time-Wiiu one? The whole thing smacked of last minute rethinks and poor organisation. And please, give Scott Moffit a coffee or preferably something stronger before he's brought on again.

 

I'm not in any way saying the conferences were fantastic and no criticism is valid, simply trying to temper some of the frankly shrill reactions that have been flying about. For me, Pikmin, Mario and P-100 looked fab. I do hope we hear more soon enough.

[darkjak]

I don't understand how showing the first two year's worth of 3DS games at E3 2010 was a bad thing. None of them looked like a rough cut. None of them were shown too early; some of them are taking a long time but that's not the same thing. It was a statement of intent, and a very good one at that. Ironically, the main game that did look like a rough cut was Super Mario 3D Land (shown at GDC 2011) and that was faster to release than any of the others.

 

With the 3DS, they simply overestimated how much people would pay for a handheld, I'm sure it really is as simple as that.

 

Yes.

The promise of those awesome 3DS games made me buy a 3DS. If I didn't know of anything more than OoT 3D and Pilotwings Resort, I probably would've never bought it.

[ReZourceman]

That neogaf post is simply over-thinking it in my eyes.