The 'Other' Wii U Thread

[S.C.G]

Nintendo will never go third party, there is room for three consoles in the market, personally if I had to lose one console developer it would be Microsoft.

 

Wii U still has a bright future ahead of it, there are more games coming out on it that I want than for any other platform, the PS4 will do well - by the end of the year I'll own both consoles - but who am I kidding? Currently I only really want it for inFamous Second Son which isn't out for a while yet.

 

Yes perhaps Nintendo could do with modernising to an extent - unified account system for the love of gods please! - but ultimately they have amazing games that can't be bought on any other platform, nor would it benefit them to pander to the masses by porting Mario games to the iPhone just because people 'think' that's what they want; the results would be disastrous.

 

I'm completely at peace playing Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware, anything else would seem wrong, for all the frustrating circumstances they still seem to do pretty well for a 'stubborn' company... though I would say that it's more to do with tradition than anything else.

[bryanee]

I'd be ok with them going third party for home consoles but a world with out Nintendo Handhelds must never happen. So yeah keep doing handhelds but ditch the home consoles.

[Sheikah]

They don't really need their own home console hardware, especially when for the last 2 generations they have put out some really low spec devices (comparably). Everything they're trying to do with their games can be done on other consoles (even off screen play on the PS4, which I've never really seen as a game changer anyway). It's more of a presence thing really. Wanting to be important.

[dazzybee]

What a loads of utter drivel. Nintendo absolutely exploded the industry last gen, if they were third party it wouldn't have happened and the industry would stagnate much quicker. whether you like them or not, I find it staggering how any fan of video games would want them gone, they do more and always have than any other company when it comes to hardware. Every single gen bar GameCube. But everyone creams over Sony who have had the same glorified snes pad since the beginning. Weird "fans" would want the bravest hardware company company gone. Having identical machines is a great thing is isn't.........

[Daft]

Apple did more to 'explode' the industry in any meaningful and lasting way than Nintendo did. People still buy games like Angry Birds and that Crush Candy game is gold vomiting quasar.

 

Seriously, what lasting effect has the Wii had?

[RedShell]

Seriously, what lasting effect has the Wii had?

You moaning about it.

[Jonnas]

People still buy games like New Super Mario Bros and that Pokeymans game is gold vomiting quasar.

 

I completely agree.

 

...

 

On a more serious note, I'd say that Facebook and Angry Birds had more to do with what you're talking about than Apple.

 

On an even more serious note, I should point out that the smartphone market is not much of a viable market at all (it is very singularly dominated by a couple of free games), while the Wii was still profitable with traditional game developers (such as Sega and Capcom).

 

Ultimately, I'd argue that the impact of the Wii on the industry is still greater than smartphones', since it bridged the whole shallow concepts of "core" and "casual" gaming in the first place. Without it, none of us would even be talking about Angry Birds as being gaming (I mean, what makes it so different from Minesweeper and Zuma?)

[Sheikah]

The setting has changed. No longer are Nintendo seemingly able to keep up spec-wise with the competition regarding home console and this no doubt has a negative impact on third party support and their overall image. Becoming a third party would eliminate that worry.

 

It's also incredibly unfair to bring in the Wii. The Wii was an unexpected craze and it's highly unlikely any of the home console 'innovations' Nintendo are currently doing will have anywhere near the same effect.

 

 

Seriously, what lasting effect has the Wii had?

 

It told Nintendo that there was a different market for gamers and that they could get away with (what are effectively) last gen consoles with some tacked on gimmick. The Wii had quite a harmful legacy for Nintendo and its fans.

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

.

 

It's also incredibly unfair to bring in the Wii. The Wii was an unexpected craze and it's highly unlikely any of the home console 'innovations' Nintendo are currently doing will have anywhere near the same effect.

 

 

 

If I could be so bold as to point you in the direction of this quote...

 

They don't really need their own home console hardware, especially when for the last 2 generations they have put out some really low spec devices (comparably). Everything they're trying to do with their games can be done on other consoles (even off screen play on the PS4, which I've never really seen as a game changer anyway). It's more of a presence thing really. Wanting to be important.

 

It would seem you brought the Wii into discussion! Not by name, but I presume that's one of the consoles you refer to

 

The Wii was lightning in a bottle, it transcended the games market and became popular culture, I don't believe there is anything harmful about that at all. Many seem to forget that, for those who like to count these things, Nintendo won the last console generation. In fact I distinctly remember both Sony and Microsoft trying to position themselves to be the 'other console' to compliment the Wii.

 

What it did seem to do was give Nintendo a ridiculous level of arrogance. Although in public they've always sounded very humble etc, with the way Wii U has gone it almost feels like the board meeting on Wii U must have gone "when we release it these dumb asses will buy it whatever, it's got the Wii name for christs sake, and it's like a DS!" And now they are massively trying to play catch up and any sort of head start they may have had on Xbox One and PS4 is non existent.

But then do Nintendo even care about that, going along in their own bubble?

Going 3rd party serves them no purpose either, what benefit would Nintendo see from it? They would become the next SEGA most likely, or it would be like Rare going to Microsoft with a view to closing down (might as well have) 3DS proves that Nintendo games will sell consoles, so if they can say release a Zelda game which sells one copy and one console with it, Nintendo double dip and get the rewards!

[Sheikah]

The Wii was popular but damaging to Nintendo's general appeal towards the latter half of its life. It was cheap and started a craze, which no doubt helped it become universally popular in its early life.

 

However...the choices they made when making the console really screwed it later. A low power non-HD console that couldn't run most modern exclusives without a separate version meant it couldn't really get most exclusives even if devs wanted to put them on. No decent in-built or replaceable hard drive for game downloads and a pisspoor online service at a time when the other companies were introducing theirs. It was bad.

 

This kind of way of thinking carried over. Except they handled it really badly with the Wii U. Now it was not only a generation behind technically like the Wii (so bound to be automatically denied exclusives by default) but it was also priced not much cheaper than the alternatives, this time round.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. The Wii was the start of Nintendo's hunger for the average Joe. And the point when their units stopped being technically impressive.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Sheikah

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

The Wii was popular but damaging to Nintendo's general appeal towards the latter half of its life. It was cheap and started a craze, which no doubt helped it become universally popular in its early life.

 

However...the choices they made when making the console really screwed it later. A low power non-HD console that couldn't run most modern exclusives without a separate version meant it couldn't really get most exclusives even if devs wanted to put them on. No decent in-built or replaceable hard drive for game downloads and a pisspoor online service at a time when the other companies were introducing theirs. It was bad.

 

This kind of way of thinking carried over. Except they handled it really badly with the Wii U. Now it was not only a generation behind technically like the Wii (so bound to be automatically denied exclusives by default) but it was also priced not much cheaper than the alternatives, this time round.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. The Wii was the start of Nintendo's hunger for the average Joe. And the point when their units stopped being technically impressive.

 

I personally disagree about the specs issue, yes it was under powered but then that's what made it so lucrative to consumers, seemed great value for money and came with a game, and certainly at the start it seemed catered to casual and hardcore gamers, an epic Zelda launch title? I was in heaven! Could play Wii Sports with mates to 'show off' the console, then tuck into Zelda in my own time.

 

However I think that's where our disagreement ends they abandoned the console ridiculously towards the end, an 100 million selling console and Skyward Sword sold roughly 3 million?! That's not right surely!

 

They don't seem to have learned with Wii U, only this time they are sort of in no mans land with it. If you're a Nintendo gamer like me, well I love my Wii U and recommend it to any friends who enquire about it, then you've probably got one already. If you're a hard core gamer, then what's the reason to buy it? If you're a casual gamer, what the reason to but it? Ironically the inclusion of online leader boards and stuff on the Wii Sports remake is probably detrimental to the audience of that game, things like that can scare people off, especially with such a simple concept game.

 

Sounds like I am disillusioned with Nintendo, but I'm really not! Just frustrated that they often don't seem to do themselves any favours and they haven't maintained the initial Wii momentum, they could have strangled the life out of the console market and dominated it if they really wanted to. I think Wii remote was a big enough idea to sell consoles at £250/£300, with more horse power as well, effectively ruling out the 'Wii AND Xbox/PS' situation. They could have had it all themselves!

 

Anyway, late night ramble over

[dazzybee]

Apple did more to 'explode' the industry in any meaningful and lasting way than Nintendo did. People still buy games like Angry Birds and that Crush Candy game is gold vomiting quasar.

 

Seriously, what lasting effect has the Wii had?

 

Angry birds and candy crush isn't apple. Facebook was more influential in providing a platform for those types of games if that's what you meant.

 

But how you can say they're more influential and is staggering. Them being successful doesn't necessarily change things. And they didn't "create" those new gamers if that's what you meant either, not in meaningful way - words with friends, farmville and bejewled were more successful at this.

 

What is nintendo's legacy? pioneering motion control which everyone copied, and motion, maybe not to that level, is now a part of gaming for ever. And do you mean just last gen? Because historically it's even more clear. But even this gen, really going for two screen gaming (and NO it isn't just like DS) is a bold move; will it work, who knows, but at least they're trying something different, we need companies doing stuff like this, rather than having pretty much the same controller for nearly 20 years; whether we like it or not, whether it's successful or not, doesn't matter; we need companies trying new things and offering new ways to play.

[Daft]

I've already made these points before. I might go copy and paste my old post if I can be bothered. In short, Nintendo are a sideshow to the whole tech industry. The trend toward a multiscreen has been happening for some years now and I'd say its biggest push has been from the marketing industry, although facilitated by the proliferation of smartphones and tablets.

 

As for companies trying new things, they all do. You'd be daft to say otherwise.

 

As for pioneering motion control? Well what's left of that vision? Not much, if you ask me. Camera based tech is the direction of choice and that still isn't up to scratch.

 

I can happily say Facebook have been more influential (you're right that's what I mean't, I just clumsily lump it into the whole Apple/app store label) because over one billion users dwarfs a measly 100 million Wiis that have been sold.

[Sheikah]

Sony already did off screen gaming before Nintendo (Vita/PS3).

 

And motion controls aren't anywhere near as popular as they used to be when the Wii was knocking about. It's just Kinect really doing much of it these days and most core players don't care about it.

[Daft]

Except Zelda Four Swords was out before that. But I'd hardly say any of them were groundbreaking (EyeToy was out before Kinect, and webcams out before that - they're all incremental steps). Every new attempt was another incremental step. There was no watershed moment. Who did it first isn't a useful argument.

[Sheikah]

Touch screen gaming left a far more lasting impression than motion controls, surprised he never touched on that.

[dazzybee]

Yeah i was going to bring up Gamecube off screen gameplay. Again, nintendo lead the way.

 

You say sideshow, but again, only in terms of success and the more traditional gamer, he wii sold more than the others, so how is that sideshow; the 3ds has sold more than the vita so how are nintendo sideshow? The wii u is still the best selling current gen system But EVEN IF THEY WERE just sideshow, so what? Why does that devalue what they do? Do indie films no one really sees not have any worth either for what they offer? Same with music and any medium?

 

Companies do try new things, but we are specifically talking about hardware (with everyone desire for them to go third party), and no one does what nintendo do. For hardware what is the xbox and ps4 doing? Bigger better faster. Fine, but they're not doing anything with the hardware; MS are if anything with kinect (and also kinect IS EXACTLY a legacy of the wii, who cares if it's camera, it's still motion based); but to have so much hatred and dismissal for a company trying to do something different (which WILL inspire the games on the ps4 and xbox with additional tablet apps and such) is baffling; surely as game lovers we should be thankful for nintendo to keep something different, whether we like it or not, we need that fresh approach. Well obviously not, but I guess it just really surprises me people desire for such a stale future.

 

Touch screen gaming left a far more lasting impression than motion controls, surprised he never touched on that.

 

Just because I'm saying in broad terms Nintendo have innovated more than anyone else eery single generation (bar gamecube, and even then they did the wave bird), and Daft mentioned the wii specifically so the motion controls came in.

[Sheikah]

I wouldn't say that's true. Online gameplay in its current form on the 360/PS3 has been designed to be something far better than anything Nintendo have ever put out.

 

Remember, it's not all about gimmicks like motion controls. I'd much rather have solid features that Nintendo doesn't put forward.

[Clownferret]

I've already made these points before. I might go copy and paste my old post if I can be bothered. In short, Nintendo are a sideshow to the whole tech industry. The trend toward a multiscreen has been happening for some years now and I'd say its biggest push has been from the marketing industry, although facilitated by the proliferation of smartphones and tablets.

 

As for companies trying new things, they all do. You'd be daft to say otherwise.

 

As for pioneering motion control? Well what's left of that vision? Not much, if you ask me. Camera based tech is the direction of choice and that still isn't up to scratch.

 

I can happily say Facebook have been more influential (you're right that's what I mean't, I just clumsily lump it into the whole Apple/app store label) because over one billion users dwarfs a measly 100 million Wiis that have been sold.

 

They really don't. Dazzybee is spot on. Sony just release a new console with better graphics every generation. Their controller is a SNES pad, move is a wiimote. Their disc drive lasers wear out quickly, the PS2 only has 2 controller ports! Microsoft are exactly the same... kinect was only created on the back of the wii and the reason it's not up to scratch is because it's just a bad idea badly implemented. The only game where kinect is any good is Just Dance. As for specs, the wii didn't need then because motion gaming was so innovative. Yes it would have been nice if thw Wii was as powerfull as PS3 or 360, but games like Tiger Woods were so much better on Wii it proved beyond doubt that great gameplay will always be more important than great graphics. It's such a stupid train of thought to suggest Nintendo should quit the hardware business because their games don't look as good. Why don't Microsoft quit because their games don't play as good and more importantly their fucking hardware does not even work properly.

[Rowan]

and the Oculus Rift was made on the back of the Virtual Boy!!!

[Sheikah]

They really don't. Dazzybee is spot on. Sony just release a new console with better graphics every generation. Their controller is a SNES pad, move is a wiimote. Their disc drive lasers wear out quickly, the PS2 only has 2 controller ports! Microsoft are exactly the same... kinect was only created on the back of the wii and the reason it's not up to scratch is because it's just a bad idea badly implemented. The only game where kinect is any good is Just Dance. As for specs, the wii didn't need then because motion gaming was so innovative. Yes it would have been nice if thw Wii was as powerfull as PS3 or 360, but games like Tiger Woods were so much better on Wii it proved beyond doubt that great gameplay will always be more important than great graphics. It's such a stupid train of thought to suggest Nintendo should quit the hardware business because their games don't look as good. Why don't Microsoft quit because their games don't play as good and more importantly their fucking hardware does not even work properly.

 

Please tell me you don't actually believe most of this shit.

[Ashley]

I don't think Daft meant 'lesser' when he said "sideshow", but rather flashy tricks used to woo and distract. Essentially, it's like a circus show. But maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

 

Anyway to say Sony just increases graphics between consoles is extremely small minded. Look at the PS4; the social aspects (watch others playing (hugely popular videos of this type exist on YouTube), share videos easily, social integration etc), the huge indie push (which often don't even use the fancy graphics that apparently all the PS4 can do) etc.

[Clownferret]

Please tell me you don't actually believe most of this shit.

 

so you think Tiger Woods was better on Xbox because it had better graphics? or perhaps you believe the red ring of death was just a myth?

if you can't actually make a constructive argument why bother making a pointless, churlish comment. Honestly! How do you want me to respond to this?

Yes I believe that both Microsoft and Sony don't make innovations with their hardware.

[Happenstance]

I always enjoy reading Clownferret's posts in conversations like this

[Clownferret]

I don't think Daft meant 'lesser' when he said "sideshow", but rather flashy tricks used to woo and distract. Essentially, it's like a circus show. But maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

 

Anyway to say Sony just increases graphics between consoles is extremely small minded. Look at the PS4; the social aspects (watch others playing (hugely popular videos of this type exist on YouTube), share videos easily, social integration etc), the huge indie push (which often don't even use the fancy graphics that apparently all the PS4 can do) etc.

 

i was talking about hardware. I have owned playstations and xboxes and just feel like i'm playing the same game with better graphics from generation to generation. This is mainly because their respective controllers hardly change. The console just sits under the tv, it's the controller that we as the player interact with and Nintendo always make the best, most innovative controllers.