The 'Other' Wii U Thread

[Sheikah]

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

 

Now that the topic has been dumbed down to this level, can the name of the thread be officiated?

[Ashley]

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.

 

I'd say Nintendo's games on Wii U (Donkey Kong, Mario Kart, Mario World etc) are just graphical improvements based on what I've played of them. They barely even use the GamePad.

[Clownferret]

I'd say Nintendo's games on Wii U (Donkey Kong, Mario Kart, Mario World etc) are just graphical improvements based on what I've played of them. They barely even use the GamePad.

 

granted, not every game uses the gamepad to it's full potential, just as not every Wii game used tie wiimote to it's full potential. But we have seen glimpses of how the gamepad can be used to create a new innovative style of play. The wiimote was a game changer with sports games and made them much more immersive and realisitic. The gamepad seems to be gaining marmite like status, personally the off screen function alone makes it a no brainer over a conventional controller, it's not like the wiimote where you were forced to play games differently, it has all the same buttons and layout of a regular controller but with a 7" screen. I can play games whilst the missus is watching tv, whereas before I could only play when she went to bed and that alone is worth the price of entry.

[Cube]

I don't think it's that people hate the Gamepad, it's just that the off-TV play is useless for a load of people and not many games are making full use of it in conjunction with a TV.

[Daft]

I hear words like 'immersive', 'more realistic' (with regards to control methods) and 'potential'. In reality, I find these words meaningless - unfulfilled promises, marketing bullshit even.

[dazzybee]

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.

 

Well if that's what he meant i's still as ridiculous.

 

The social aspects are great, but I others have done similar for years and it's standard now so nothing sony are pioneering. But I did say hardware too not services; this is bout nintendo dropping out of the hardware market (though they are intertwined); and nintendo are having a huge indie push too; but I forget they don't count because they're just a sideshow... The selective logic and reasoning is just bizarre.

 

I don't think it's that people hate the Gamepad, it's just that the off-TV play is useless for a load of people and not many games are making full use of it in conjunction with a TV.

 

But just because not everyone loves it, or every game takes advantage of it, it doesn't make it meaningless. I don't understand (and this isn' aimed at you cube) the constant implication that because it isn't for them, or everyone loves it, then it's not important or worthy have its place.

 

I hear words like 'immersive', 'more realistic' (with regards to control methods) and 'potential'. In reality, I find these words meaningless - unfulfilled promises, marketing bullshit even.

 

I agree; it needs to be a combination of the two. Control and game design. But everyone is guilty of this, in fact the worst example of this speak was probably ps4 reveal.

[Daft]

I agree; it needs to be a combination of the two. Control and game design. But everyone is guilty of this, in fact the worst example of this speak was probably ps4 reveal.

 

No, it needs to be a discourse between control, game design and hardware. You should probably watch the PS4 reveal again; their rhetoric revolved around their mission statement, not hyperbole -and they were definitely nowhere near the worst offended considering Microsoft's pedalling of 'Cloud' technology. Microsoft is easily the worst when it comes to this.

[Cube]

But just because not everyone loves it, or every game takes advantage of it, it doesn't make it meaningless. I don't understand (and this isn' aimed at you cube) the constant implication that because it isn't for them, or everyone loves it, then it's not important or worthy have its place.

 

The way I see it, Off-TV play is a very easy marketing tick for developers. If the Gamepad was exactly the same, but without the off-TV play feature, I think developers (including Nintendo) would be putting much greater effort into the Gamepad's other features.

 

Right now it feels like they may as well sell the Wii U cheaper with the Pro pad and have the Gamepad as an optional extra.

[Ashley]

Well if that's what he meant i's still as ridiculous.

 

The social aspects are great, but I others have done similar for years and it's standard now so nothing sony are pioneering. But I did say hardware too not services; this is bout nintendo dropping out of the hardware market (though they are intertwined); and nintendo are having a huge indie push too; but I forget they don't count because they're just a sideshow... The selective logic and reasoning is just bizarre.

 

I didn't say Sony were pioneering the social aspects, but rather doing them well.

 

Of Nintendo's recently announced ~18 Wii U indie titles, only 1 was new to the Wii U. It's great for both fans and devs that they are coming to the Wii U, don't get me wrong, but it's not an indie push, its an indie catchup.

 

granted, not every game uses the gamepad to it's full potential, just as not every Wii game used tie wiimote to it's full potential. But we have seen glimpses of how the gamepad can be used to create a new innovative style of play. The wiimote was a game changer with sports games and made them much more immersive and realisitic. The gamepad seems to be gaining marmite like status, personally the off screen function alone makes it a no brainer over a conventional controller, it's not like the wiimote where you were forced to play games differently, it has all the same buttons and layout of a regular controller but with a 7" screen. I can play games whilst the missus is watching tv, whereas before I could only play when she went to bed and that alone is worth the price of entry.

 

But it's still all promise. If Nintendo themselves are playing it safe with the GamePad why would 3rd parties bother taking the risk? If you take away off-tv play then all of Nintendo's upcoming games are just prettier sequels. And I'm sure they'll be fun, but the point that was raised is "games on the new Sony/MS consoles are just graphical improvements", well so are Nintendo's games this generation.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just not sold on the appeal of off-screen play as an USP as I've only ever used it once. Just never found a need for it personally.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Ashley
Automerged Doublepost

[Clownferret]

I didn't say Sony were pioneering the social aspects, but rather doing them well.

 

Of Nintendo's recently announced ~18 Wii U indie titles, only 1 was new to the Wii U. It's great for both fans and devs that they are coming to the Wii U, don't get me wrong, but it's not an indie push, its an indie catchup.

 

 

 

But it's still all promise. If Nintendo themselves are playing it safe with the GamePad why would 3rd parties bother taking the risk? If you take away off-tv play then all of Nintendo's upcoming games are just prettier sequels. And I'm sure they'll be fun, but the point that was raised is "games on the new Sony/MS consoles are just graphical improvements", well so are Nintendo's games this generation.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just not sold on the appeal of off-screen play as an USP as I've only ever used it once. Just never found a need for it personally.

 

totally agreed that the off screen capability is horses for courses. If you're a teenager that lives with his parents and plays in his bedroom, then this is a function you are not going to appreciate, but at least the option is there.

 

Just because software has not made the best use of the gamepad does not make it bad hardware, which it what we are talking about. You could argue what is the point of buying a Ferrari as you're never going to drive it at 200mph. The bottom line is Nintendo has created a piece of hardware that allows games to be played in new and innovative ways. Sony and Microsoft have not done this, so where I'm standing we should be applauding Nintendo for trying, once again, to push the industry in new directions.

[Cube]

The bottom line is Nintendo has created a piece of hardware that allows games to be played in new and innovative ways. Sony and Microsoft have not done this

 

You should check out the Xbox One and PS4. They both have new/innovative control features. While the touchpad on the PS4 is a small addition, it's still new (and you have the optional pointer from the controller if you buy the camera - as well as the options via the Vita). And the Xbox One has the whole Kinect thing.

 

They also both have some long-distance tablet features.

[Agent Gibbs]

totally agreed that the off screen capability is horses for courses. If you're a teenager that lives with his parents and plays in his bedroom, then this is a function you are not going to appreciate, but at least the option is there.

 

Personally i'd say its as much use for the teen in this example or rather the teens family, as it means they can still be with the family and game.

I don't know about you guys but my parents always used to say can't you sit with us, do you have to play that game? with the WiiU i could have done both

 

The way I see it, Off-TV play is a very easy marketing tick for developers. If the Gamepad was exactly the same, but without the off-TV play feature, I think developers (including Nintendo) would be putting much greater effort into the Gamepad's other features.

 

Right now it feels like they may as well sell the Wii U cheaper with the Pro pad and have the Gamepad as an optional extra.

 

I don't know why they don't Multi-Market? Inseption-Market for this....

how to explain

For example

Batman, show a WiiU advert playing the game, do the pan out to show the game pad second screen, then advertise the off screen play using the same panned out shot showing the TV in the back ground, and on said TV show a TV show, allow companies to advertise within the WiiU advert! or have it so if the advert is broad cast during the break of X-factor-walking dead-agents of shield etc etc that that show displays on the TV while showing off screen play.

 

 

Generally i think people are misconstruding meanings of works like pioneering, innovative, sideshow etc, we all need to remember context and multiple meanings.

 

Generally i agree with some points, the DS1-3 was a snes pad with sticks, the Playstations have always just been an incramental update in power. Microsoft have been exactly the same only the 360 pad was an improved gamecube pad, and their original console was a further upgrade to the Ps2/Gamecube. Theres nothing much innovative there its all incramental updates to exisitng objects

but thats a basic view, each generation of consoles has brought innovation and something new to the market! the pioneering generations brought home gaming to the masses, all the subsequent generations to the last/current gen were incramental updates but they were also innovative/new in that the leaps between generations were very noticable.

The last generations also brought in other innovations, motion gaming, reliable home console online multiplayer, a secondary innovtation if you will

 

The innovation is dulled between the PS360Wii Gen and the PS4/Xbone/WiiU because the visual jump is so tiny and less noticable, this is the point where innovation relies soley on the secondary "innovations" consoles have, the controllers,eyetoys,social aspects etc

 

You can also argue none of them have innovated, all they have all done is emulate sucess from the Personal computer market (which was fairly niche) and brought it to the home entertainment market (which was more mainstream).

 

This current gen....i'm going to be controversial.........I'd argue nobody not even nintendo are being innovative!

 

This generation the home console market has reached a point where its so similar to the PC hardware market and in the WiiU's case similar to the handheld market, that nothing is really innovative.

the PC market thanks to tablets and Androids has much greater mass appeal, and since consoles have become more complex and PC like in their opperation/UI its at a point where the similarities in them to even the average user is more noticable, its a bit of blurred lines, to me making the lack of innovation more noticable.

 

Mice, multi button imputs, better graphics, web cams, motion controls, second screens, portable screens all were around on PC before consoles but as it was more niche, and without the internet the knowledge of projects was harder to come by, so the perception of innovation on consoles when they trickeled to them seemed greater, now everyone looks a little less innovative because its easy

 

Were moving towards a point where there one day won't be a console and PC market, it will be combined

 

Now i'm not knocking anyone because i'm totally okay with this percieved lack of innovation, as long as the games come for all consoles it will not matter to gamers.

 

TL: DR Its all about Perception and everythings been done on PC long before consoles

 

does that all make sense? i rambled on a bit there so my point may be a bit lost

 

EDIT nobody quote the full post because wow does this look a long post

Edited October 17, 2013 by Agent Gibbs

[dwarf]

Clownferret, like other Nintendo apologists (lol) you conflate hardware innovation and gameplay innovation. Innovating hardware doesn't guarantee gameplay innovation. New hardware functions are used within pre-existing frameworks of game-design. That is to say, by and large, new controllers act as substitutes to standard game controllers, their inputs are basically the same - new controllers don't actually challenge the restrictions imposed by standard controllers. New controllers might lend games a veneer of immersion, but that rapidly wears off and soon you don't care what you're holding or doing 'COS YOU IN DA GAME, YO. You're focusing on what's happening within the confines of the four walls of the screen (or eight walls for two screens if that's your bag). The attention should be on the story, the action, THE GAME.

 

[Perhaps Oculus Rift is a real game-changer in that regard, because it interferes your interaction with the screen itself]

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Wii remote FPS', golf games, and racers and stuff like that, but I don't feel like returning to non-motion controls afterwards is a regression. The WiiU pad is sort of Nintendo's admission of this.

 

Nintendo's controllers still have to conform to age-old standards while providing specialist features. So this bet-hedging, coupled with a 5 year window for the controller to realise its full potential, means that you will only ever see 'glimpses' of what that technology is capable of. If you don't tweak the controller and make new iterations of it, the market moves on and the device gets ditched. At the same time, if you do something more radical with the controller, you end up with something along the lines of a flight simulator setup, which only suits one type of experience. Then again, it does make that experience completely unique. It's no wonder why the core of the controllers have remained the same for so long. Nintedo can't claim a monopoly on innovation because they took a risk with their controller, or because they caught a craze.

 

///

 

And I've said this heaps of times, but you have to be ignorant and reductionist to claim that Sony and Microsoft's hardware advances only equate to graphical advances. It's just wrong. Ambitious designers and artists want to use the most sophisticated physics engines/programming tools and whatnot available to them. Among other things that grants you scale and more 'dynamic' worlds (without wanting to sound too markety). You can also make gritty, realistic, believable dramas like The Last of Us, which actually do need modern engines to make them powerful on an emotional level. You'd be a square to sniff at that.

[Jonnas]

You can also make gritty, realistic, believable dramas like The Last of Us, which actually do need modern engines to make them powerful on an emotional level. You'd be a square to sniff at that.

 

I'd argue that writing is what makes any fictional work powerful on an emotional level, though, not how well-rendered or well-drawn the faces and movements are.

 

You should've mentioned stuff like Skyrim and GTA, games whose concept (large sandbox worlds) really depend on the machine's abilities.

[dwarf]

I'd argue that writing is what makes any fictional work powerful on an emotional level, though, not how well-rendered or well-drawn the faces and movements are.

 

You should've mentioned stuff like Skyrim and GTA, games whose concept (large sandbox worlds) really depend on the machine's abilities.

 

Those games exploit the scale afforded them by the hardware, yes. I've referred to Fallout 3 beforehand as one example of a game that requires a powerful engine to be realised.

 

I was also trying to make the point that raw graphical leaps come with their own meaningful advantages. Graphics are often shunned as being like glitter - cosmetic, supplemental, not wholly important. But if games are to be judged as art, whatever art might be (something that provokes a response from an audience, to simplify it in one way) then surely it is moronic to dismiss graphical improvements when they evidently expand the possibilities of art in the medium, when they give creators the freedom to express their ideas in more authentic ways.

 

Sure, great stories are founded on great writing, and you can have emotional stories with very primitive graphics (hell, some people got attached to rectangles in Thomas Was Alone), but if you want something with a gritty, filmic quality to it, something that could be mentioned in the same conversation as realistic TV shows and movies, then you can have that on new hardware. The Last of Us was not doable on the Wii. It might've been effective as a cel-shaded Walking Dead style of game, but that wasn't what NaughtyDog wanted to make, and why should they have to compromise? They envisioned a cinematic game that had a serious, detailed style, and they were able to make it, and they gave us one of the best games of the generation. You can see the progression in their own games over the years, from Crash, to Jak, to Uncharted, each representing an ambitious leap in multiple things, including graphics. On the gaming spectrum there is enough space to support both geometry fetishes and post-apocalyptic survival horrors, and that should be celebrated. We can have it all, and more. Why would you not want to push boundaries?

 

I'd go further than all that and say graphics matter to games that aren't supported by good writing or dialogue as well. Tell me with a straight face that the graphics weren't key to making Journey what it is.

 

An argument against better graphics is an argument against the expansion and diversification of art. When Nintendo blithely disregarded the importance of graphical power in the run-up to the Wii's launch, they were being slightly devious and hypocritical. Smart too, I don't deny. They found a market, and they positioned the console perfectly - they didn't need graphics to succeed financially this generation. What irritates me about it more than anything else though is that the company got gamers to engage in this reductionist innovation vs graphics debate as if it wasn't part of an agenda. Nintendo constructed that debate, and it can only be fought on their terms because it is rigged.

 

Innovation = Nintendo. A noble, glamorous enterprise, and Nintendo has a monopoly on it.

 

Graphics = everyone else i.e. Sony and Microsoft. A largely pointless, empty enterprise that shows a lack of imagination.

 

And everyone gobbles it up.

[Jonnas]

Sure, great stories are founded on great writing, and you can have emotional stories with very primitive graphics (hell, some people got attached to rectangles in Thomas Was Alone), but if you want something with a gritty, filmic quality to it, something that could be mentioned in the same conversation as realistic TV shows and movies, then you can have that on new hardware. The Last of Us was not doable on the Wii. It might've been effective as a cel-shaded Walking Dead style of game, but that wasn't what NaughtyDog wanted to make, and why should they have to compromise? They envisioned a cinematic game that had a serious, detailed style, and they were able to make it, and they gave us one of the best games of the generation. You can see the progression in their own games over the years, from Crash, to Jak, to Uncharted, each representing an ambitious leap in multiple things, including graphics. On the gaming spectrum there is enough space to support both geometry fetishes and post-apocalyptic survival horrors, and that should be celebrated. We can have it all, and more. Why would you not want to push boundaries?

 

But the machine's capabilities only really mattered in the presentation and graphical style, then, not the writing itself. I get what you're saying (presentation is pretty important), I just felt like your original comment was rather open to misinterpretation.

 

I'd go further than all that and say graphics matter to games that aren't supported by good writing or dialogue as well. Tell me with a straight face that the graphics weren't key to making Journey what it is.

 

While I haven't played Journey, I thought that what made Journey was its simplicity in both game design and dialogue-less story, at least from what I've heard.

 

An argument against better graphics is an argument against the expansion and diversification of art. When Nintendo blithely disregarded the importance of graphical power in the run-up to the Wii's launch, they were being slightly devious and hypocritical. Smart too, I don't deny. They found a market, and they positioned the console perfectly - they didn't need graphics to succeed financially this generation. What irritates me about it more than anything else though is that the company got gamers to engage in this reductionist innovation vs graphics debate as if it wasn't part of an agenda. Nintendo constructed that debate, and it can only be fought on their terms because it is rigged.

 

Innovation = Nintendo. A noble, glamorous enterprise, and Nintendo has a monopoly on it.

 

Graphics = everyone else i.e. Sony and Microsoft. A largely pointless, empty enterprise that shows a lack of imagination.

 

And everyone gobbles it up.

 

The argument already existed back in the days of the Gamecube and PS2, actually. Nintendo wasn't the one that came up with it, but their fans did. It wasn't hard to reach this conclusion at the time, mind you. At that time, Nintendo was the one coming up with Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker (where a different art style was prioritized over detailed realism), that's where "graphics" first entered the debate, as cel-shading was dismissed as "bad".

 

The Wii may have intensified the debate, but it sure didn't start it.

[Sheikah]

Doesn't really make sense either, given PS2 had Okami.

 

Fanboys be stupid.

[Jonnas]

Doesn't really make sense either, given PS2 had Okami.

 

Fanboys be stupid.

 

Super Mario Sunshine was released in 2002. Wind Waker was released in 2003. Other cel-shaded games such as XIII, Viewtiful Joe and Tales of Symphonia released in 2003-2004.

 

Okami was released in 2006. That's at the end of that generation (the Wii and PS3 were released in the same year), and well after cel-shading was more accepted by players and developers alike. Context is important.

 

Maybe Jak, Ratchet or Sly Cooper would be better examples (those are the only PS2 exclusives of the time I can think of, that followed such a stylized look), but they never were considered the brand's main strength, either (as opposed to Gran Turismo, GTA or Final Fantasy).

 

In the end, the graphics debate started because Nintendo wasn't really trying to strive for detailed realism (bar Metroid Prime), but Sony were. This much is hard to deny.

[Sheikah]

We could just say the graphics debate started because of moronic fanboys.

 

Seriously, the PS2 had some really amazing/exciting/inventive titles. Ninty fanboys were bound to fall back on something to try explain why the GC had worse sales (but ultimately tried to argue were more 'artistic'). In actual fact I don't think it had anything to do with the visual style, nor did the visual style confer creativity. It's a poor argument.

[dazzybee]

This whole conversation has straw man written all over it. We're not talking about what the whole thing started as, the same people shifting the conversation to suit their agenda and end up discussing something different to prove a point about the first thing. I'm out. Slowly realising debate isn't quite possible on this forum.

[Jonnas]

We could just say the graphics debate started because of moronic fanboys.

 

Seriously, the PS2 had some really amazing/exciting/inventive titles. Ninty fanboys were bound to fall back on something to try explain why the GC had worse sales (but ultimately tried to argue were more 'artistic'). In actual fact I don't think it had anything to do with the visual style, nor did the visual style confer creativity. It's a poor argument.

 

The PS2 had some amazing games, but remember that Nintendo mainly pushed one image while Sony pushed another (hence why I mentioned GTA and FF, games that were part of the "PS2 Image" that Sony was maintaining).

 

And from personal experience, Nintendo fans weren't trying to justify bad sales, they were justifying their preference the Gamecube, a console that was being called "kiddy" because of the type of games and visual styles it encouraged. It was countering an immature accusation with an empty defence.

 

My point is, both sides were being childish, and still are.

 

This whole conversation has straw man written all over it. We're not talking about what the whole thing started as, the same people shifting the conversation to suit their agenda and end up discussing something different to prove a point about the first thing. I'm out. Slowly realising debate isn't quite possible on this forum.

 

I know I'm responsible for shifting the focus in the first place, so sorry 'bout that.

[dazzybee]

I know I'm responsible for shifting the focus in the first place, so sorry 'bout that.

 

No, I don't think so. Debates shifting is fine, that's what happens. I have issue with people using a different debate to argue the other debate; it's a common trick people do to prove they're right. Strawman argument.

[Jamba]

I would go so far as to say that this entire upcoming generation (Wii U included) has far stretch promise written all over it. The PS4 and XB1 launches both looked pretty uninspired and I think companies are asking a lot of consumers to invest so much in hardware without really being able to deliver on a lot of things at or even near launch.

 

For the me the big selling point is trust in those companies to follow through, which is an entirely personal thing:

For me personally, my opinion on Nintendo's rhetoric has massively changed. If I'm honest with myself, they very rarely deliver on their promises and with the release of the 3DS and the Wii U, I wouldn't say that I automatically read everything they print/present and lies but definitely "only true from a Nintendo perspective". By comparison I think that in the past both MS and Sony have been more forthcoming and transparent, with Sony having a big fumble in that department with the start of the PS3. However with the XB1 I think it has become clear that MS is willing to lie through it's teeth consistently nowadays.

 

In short, I've become someone that will only invest in something that is either proven to be achieving what it's claiming to be valuable for or has an extremely safe cost/risk balance. A new console is neither.

[Hero-of-Time]

I figured I would post this video in here because quite frankly I can't be bothered with the backlash that said video will probably be met with on the Nintendo side of the forum.

 

 

For me, Jim has it spot on. Star Fox, much like the Wii U, is trying to fix a problem that wasn't there in the first place. Raising the level of entry, splitting reviewers and the fan base, all in the name of adding a control scheme that simply doesn't suit many people.

 

It's not just SF that needed a new hook to get made. Last year Miyamoto said this about F-Zero.

 

We see a lot of other designers who are kind of making more traditional racing-style games, so we try to focus on something that feels a little bit more gamey. So maybe if we create a new type of controller interface and we find that controller interface is particularly suited for F-Zero, then maybe we’ll do something again with it in the future.

 

Why the hell does it need a new control scheme/controller? The GameCube pad was perfect and the game played brilliantly on the thing.

 

The fact that Nintendo are obsessed with trying to reinvent the wheel is very annoying. This conversation also cropped up the other week when people on here were discussing the NX. Jim was spot on in saying that certain things are standard because they work.

 

Yesterday I was reading through the SF topic on Neogaf and the amount of people having trouble with the controls of the game was staggering. Of course there were those who had gotten used to them or just didn't mind them but there were a hell of a lot you felt let down and disappointed by what they had played.

 

I'm fairly confident that the game would have been much better received had it just been what SF used to be about in the SNES and N64 eras. A straight, arcade shooting game that could be enjoyed by everyone, rather than a confusing mess that has people finishing then shelving, selling or giving up on the game altogether.

[drahkon]

I don't mind Nintendo doing new things. What I will never ever understand is why they just can't give us an option.

 

Make these gamepad controls and a setup that doesn't use motion controls or a second screen available.