Should Nintendo have stuck with the Wiimote? (Th'rip)

[Retro_Link]

Maybe Nintendo should have re-thought exactly what they wanted to offer with their console.

 

IMO moving the focus away from the Wiimote and on to yet another controller has been a bit of a mistake.

 

Who knows, if they'd stuck with their control scheme the Wii U may have received Tomb Raider and other such games that apparently are not on the console because devs feel they need to implement the GamePad into the experience.

 

I also think ports like RE: Revelation would have come with RE4 style Wiimote controls.

 

The GamePad seems to be providing devs with reasons to not do a lot of things, where as I think Nintendo showing faith in and building upon Wiimote controls could have done more for the console.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Ike]

I also think ports like RE: Revelation would have come with RE4 style Wiimote controls.

 

They didn't implement Move or Kinect controls on the other versions so I'd say it's more to do with Capcom being lazy rather than issues with the console on that one.

[liger05]

Who knows, if they'd stuck with their control scheme the Wii U may have received Tomb Raider and other such games that apparently are not on the console because devs feel they need to implement the GamePad into the experience.

 

Thats speculation. No evidence to say thats the reason the games havent come.

[Lens of Truth]

Well maybe Nintendo should have re-thought exactly what they wanted to offer with their console.

 

IMO moving the focus away from the Wiimote and on to yet another controller has been a bit of a mistake.

 

Who knows, if they'd stuck with their control scheme the Wii U may have received Tomb Raider and other such games that apparently are not on the console because devs feel they need to implement the GamePad into the experience.

 

I also think ports like RE: Revelation would have come with RE4 style Wiimote controls.

 

The GamePad seems to be providing devs with reasons to not do a lot of things, where as I think Nintendo showing faith in and building upon Wiimote controls could have done more for the console.

 

Of all the theories and what-ifs about the Wii U I've seen this has to be one of the least convincing!

 

So if Nintendo had stuck with the Wiimote (which of course they have as an option) and not put a more traditional controller at the forefront (sorry folks, that's what the gamepad is!), then the Wii U would have got ports of Tomb Raider et al... hmmm.

 

I love how people like to think up 1001 weird and wonderful reasons why third parties are dragging their heels with a new Nintendo console that's not selling like hot cakes. This goes back to the N64 and is a simple matter of sales viability + long-established Nintendo paranoia.

 

The Wii Remote as the main control scheme again wouldn't have shifted an iota of the stigma. You know the comments/news items would be "we really hoped Nintendo would go back to a more conventional control layout this time", "our games just don't fit with that", "Nintendo shuns hardcore gamer, choses last gen waggle".

 

They've made sure that implementing the gamepad (in a tokenistic way if you like) is the easiest thing in the world. And if of course they're so enamoured of the Wiimote, it's there!

[Retro_Link]

Thats speculation. No evidence to say thats the reason the games havent come.

 

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/why-tomb-raider-skipped-wii-u-6403002

 

Why Tomb Raider skipped Wii U

 

January 28, 2013 8:27AM PST

 

Creative director says upcoming action game not coming to Nintendo system due to ambition to deliver same experience across platforms.

 

Crystal Dynamics has explained why Tomb Raider is not coming to the Wii U. Creative director Noah Hughes told TrueGaming that the system's unique interface did not align with the company's goal to deliver the same experience across all versions.

 

"I'm always a fan of the Nintendo systems, in particular they really push interface design, and from a game design perspective it's fun to play with new interfaces," Hughes said. "Having said that, it's something that I think we would want to tailor the experience to if we were going to do it."

 

"All three [other console and PC versions] are really trying to deliver roughly the same experience, but delivered best on each platform, and I think something like the Wii U often asks you to do something unique based on a unique interface," Hughes added. "That's something as a gamer I love, but it's something you don't want to do half-heartedly as a developer."

 

---

 

So if Nintendo had stuck with the Wiimote (which of course they have as an option) and not put a more traditional controller at the forefront (sorry folks, that's what the gamepad is!), then the Wii U would have got ports of Tomb Raider et al... hmmm.

That's what the Pro Controller offers, there wasn't need for another controller still.

 

---

 

But anyway, I'm just expressing an opinion.

 

I think Nintendo were really on to something with the Wiimote, it was unique and fantastic for FPS (Goldeneye/COD/Dead Space), brilliant for sports games (Wii Sports/Tiger Woods), for puzzle (Boom Blox/Zack&Wiki), party games, for 'strategy' games like Pikmin/Little Kings Story, and brought an extra dimension to games that otherwise might have controlled in a more traditional way like Mario, Resi4, Metroid etc...

 

Nintendo could have refined the controller and maybe added a trigger button on to the Wiimote and Nunchuck who knows...

 

I just think constantly shifting focus isn't necessarily the best thing for them to do. I'd personally rather they'd refined the Wiimote and delivered a more powerful console with the Wii U.

[Lens of Truth]

Crystal Dynamics has explained why Tomb Raider is not coming to the Wii U. Creative director Noah Hughes told TrueGaming that the system's unique interface did not align with the company's goal to deliver the same experience across all versions.

 

Personally I think that's a flimsy excuse and nothing more than an excuse. If they wanted they could have no gamepad support other than off TV play (which from what we know is as simple to implement in development as the flick of a switch!). The same experience is possible. That tale washes better with internet fans though than "the Wii U isn't selling and we haven't got the money to finance a port with potentially little return".

 

There's no reason whatever why games like Zack & Wiki couldn't be done on the Wii U. I don't see why we should treat having the option as almost like it doesn't exist (don't we always complain that Nintendo don't offer enough options?). I liked the Wii Remote too and hope some games other than Nintendo Land use it - maybe even in conjunction with the gamepad screen, like Pikmin!

[Captain Falcon]

I just think constantly shifting focus isn't necessarily the best thin for them to do. I'd personally rather they'd refined the Wiimote and delivered a more powerful console with the Wii U.

 

I agree that they shouldn't have shifted focus away from the Wii remote like them have done so quickly. Even after 7 years, the Wii Remote feels heavily under utilised by all developers and that includes Nintendo. The touch screen on the DS/3DS never sees much use and it still seems like developers first thought is always either a Map screen or a Menu screen. I'm not saying they is anything wrong with that as they can be handy but I wouldn't say it justifies the existance of the screen either.

 

If they were to keep the remote, I think they would need to change the design. The problem for developers is that the see the Wii Remote as completely seperate from a traditional controller even though they share 90% of the same functionality. The trick is to make sure the Wii Remote/Nunchuk has all the advantages of a controller and then the seperate benefit of the Wii Remote. To that end, I really think a splitable controller would have been the best option. The Wii Remote and Nunchuk combine into what is essentially a traditional dual analog controller but can also be seperated to focus on using the pointer mechanics.

 

The DS4 is smart to include the Move sensor light on the top of the pad but you just can't move and point the controller around with two hands - not with the kind fluidty and grace required for precision control. It's there so you don't have to buy a move controller but it certainly isn't the optimal way to play unless games are built around it but for those ones that are, I suspect the gyro controls would suffice (if they still remain inside) since they would end up being a bit simple.

 

So a device that could split would also eliminate the need for a second controller "pro" controller.

 

For all the good things it did, apart from with FPSs, I wouldn't feel regret if the Wii Remote was benched for good. That's not because I don't think there is potential, but because I don't feel devs have come close to scratching it and I don't believe they will any time soon so I'd rather them get on with just making the games they want to make.

 

And I do worry that in 6/7 years, when the question of "can we survive without a second screen?" gets asked, the answer could well once again be yes because no one really stepped up to the plate.

[Retro_Link]

@Captain Falcon, yeah a split able controller was something I was thinking about too. The Wiimote/Nunchuck is funny in that when you use it you pretty much hold them in the exact position/space a normal controller would take up anyway, just separated by an inch or two!... and then you have the option to lift the pointer when required. I think Nintendo could have looked down this route more.

 

Personally I think that's a flimsy excuse and nothing more than an excuse. If they wanted they could have no gamepad support other than off TV play (which from what we know is as simple to implement in development as the flick of a switch!). The same experience is possible. That tale washes better with internet fans though than "the Wii U isn't selling and we haven't got the money to finance a port with potentially little return".

 

There's no reason whatever why games like Zack & Wiki couldn't be done on the Wii U. I don't see why we should treat having the option as almost like it doesn't exist (don't we always complain that Nintendo don't offer enough options?). I liked the Wii Remote too and hope some games other than Nintendo Land use it - maybe even in conjunction with the gamepad screen, like Pikmin!

Oh it's a total bullshit excuse, no two ways about it... but one that the Gamepad/Nintendo allowed for... and I can't remember them exactly, but I think there have been a couple of other cases where developers have said, if they were going to bring their game on Wii U they'd want to tailor the experience, but they don't have the resources to do so.

 

And yeah Zack & Wiki could be done on the Wii U, but I just think Nintendo have shifted the spotlight off of the Wiimote now...

 

It's now probably the third control scheme for the console developers would consider; behind classic controls, or doing something with the Gamepad. And that's a real shame.

 

Developers don't seem to think rationally like everyone else and see all options; they just seem to look at what's presented to them!... in this case the Gamepad.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Zechs Merquise]

@Serebii Publisher or not, I think most people agree WiiU is too expensive. Way too expensive.

 

The Wii U is too expensive. I've been saying this for pages and pages! The fact is people don't want to drop £300 on a console. One of the big attractions of the Wii was £175 with a game that everyone wanted. The PS3 and 360 only really took off in sales terms later in their lives when they dropped in price.

 

And all of the above was set to a back drop of economic affluence. People are now watching their pennies and dropping £300 on a console is certainly a harder decision to make now than it would have been in 2007, regardless of the software available.

 

So? It's not our place to dictate the price. For what it is, it's underpriced hence why Nintendo are at a loss with each sale

 

The Wii U may be making a loss, but it doesn't mean people will think it's under priced. Under priced and over priced are as much a function of what people can afford to pay - or what people think something is worth - than the actual cost of the product to produce.

 

I remember when the PS3 came out to snail like sales and people said 'but it's not over priced for all the tech in the box'. Well to the average consumer £399 for a console is well over priced.

 

IMO moving the focus away from the Wiimote and on to yet another controller has been a bit of a mistake.

 

I also think ports like RE: Revelation would have come with RE4 style Wiimote controls.

 

The GamePad seems to be providing devs with reasons to not do a lot of things, where as I think Nintendo showing faith in and building upon Wiimote controls could have done more for the console.

 

Don't get me started on this one... especially the Resident Evil Revelations fiasco. RE4 was the best version by a mile due to superior controls and silky smooth aiming.

 

Having all that dropped and forgotten is a problem in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, I do like the gamepad and think it has already provided a lot of interesting new experiences. But it's not as intuitive as the Wii Remote and the fact that certain companies are forgetting the Wii Remote when it has some wonderful uses is rather irritating!

[Captain Falcon]

@Captain Falcon, yeah a split able controller was something I was thinking about too. The Wiimote/Nunchuck is funny in that when you use it you pretty much hold them in the exact position/space a normal controller would take up anyway, just separated by an inch or two!... and then you have the option to lift the pointer when required. I think Nintendo could have looked down this route more.

 

I'm sure it sounds a lot easier on paper than to actually produce something that's usable but a splitable controller that acts as an all in one solution to pointer and classic control ideals, to me at least, would have seemed the better way to proceed and made it very easy for developers too as they wouldn't even have to think about all the different control schemes and whether the gamers have the right controller.

 

Admittedly, it's probably not something that a super casual player (Wii Sports only crowd) could look at and think "that looks easy and friendly to use" but then seeing the wealth of gadgets on the Wii U Gamepad would strike me as almost as intimidating for the first timer.

[Debug Mode]

Now that's a very interesting thought. I don't think that Nintendo should have never bothered with the Wii U pad, but maybe if it wasn't a necessary thing we might have seen a decent enough reduction in price to justify the move? Or would that have further confused the casual audiences? Who knows..

 

Of course this is all hypothetical, but maybe the Wii U would have been more popular if it was released like this:

 

Wii U Basic

Console, 30gb HDD and Wii Mote, but no Wii U pad. £180.

 

Wii U Premium

Console, 30gb HDD and Wii U pad. Maybe around £230.

 

As good as Nintendo Land looks, I don't think it's the game the Wii U needed for launch. It really needed the familiar face of Wii Sports to get the casuals excited and looking back at how fun the original was.

[Serebii]

Considering the Wiimotes are still the standard controllers away from the GamePad...no

[Daft]

The whole multiple controller situation feels really messy.

[liger05]

Give me the pro controller as standard and I would of been happy.

 

I like the wiimote but I remember at times wishing I could just play with a standard pad.

 

Wii U Basic

Console, 30gb HDD and Wii Mote, but no Wii U pad. £180.

 

Wii U Premium

Console, 30gb HDD and Wii U pad. Maybe around £230.

 

If this time next year sales are still sluggish I would ditch the pad and have it as an optional add on for people.

[Retro_Link]

Considering the Wiimotes are still the standard controllers away from the GamePad...no

Only for multiplayer games. For everything else the focus is very much on supporting the Gamepad with the Wii U.

 

To me it feels like the focus on the Wii U is... GamePad > Classic Controls > Wiimote

Edited March 6, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Serebii]

Give me the pro controller as standard and I would of been happy.

 

I like the wiimote but I remember at times wishing I could just play with a standard pad.

 

 

 

If this time next year sales are still sluggish I would ditch the pad and have it as an optional add on for people.

And thus remove one of the major sell points for the console. Without it, it's just a slightly more powerful 360/PS3, and with the PS4/Durango out then, it'd be a death warrant.

 

The GamePad gets support because it's bundled in and everyone has it.

[Debug Mode]

And thus remove one of the major sell points for the console. Without it, it's just a slightly more powerful 360/PS3, and with the PS4/Durango out then, it'd be a death warrant.

 

But the Wii was a slightly more powerful Gamecube. Although I can see where you're coming from in regards to innovation being the main selling factor, you can't keep it up forever without hitting a rough spot with something people might not necessarily want.

[Retro_Link]

Yeah tbh if the Gamepad wasn't standard, there would be no point including it, as it's use with developers would become even less as not all Wii U owners would have one. It would just be like the Balance Board.

[Grazza]

I'm glad they didn't stick with the actual Wii Remote. I can't stand that thing! Always having to take it out of its rubber sleeve, remove Motion Plus, change the batteries, reattach Motion Plus etc...

 

That said, I wouldn't have minded if they'd built upon it. I was saying this in the Skyward Sword thread - I didn't particularly want them to stick with motion control, but if they did, I thought it should be an enhanced version. The biggest problem with the Wii Remote and Nunchuck is that, even between them, they just didn't have enough buttons. I still believe that something like Wind Waker would be completely impossible to play on it. My ideal "enhanced" version would be like this:

 

Left hand

Gyroscope

Analogue stick

D-pad

L trigger (analogue)

 

Right hand

Gyroscope

Analogue stick (C-stick)

A, B, X and Y buttons

R trigger (analogue)

Z button (if it didn't have L2 and R2)

 

...And rechargeable, of course.

 

If they had done that, every Nintendo game would have worked on it. I don't even think it needs to join together - your hands being apart isn't a huge problem, in my opinion (although I can see the point being made). Every console owner would have the same controller, and it'd be able to play every game (maybe put an extra L and R on, instead of a Z button). What's more, I think that could have been done much cheaper than the GamePad.

 

At the end of the day, I am glad they went back to traditional controls, but I think it could have been done more efficiently.

[liger05]

And thus remove one of the major sell points for the console. Without it, it's just a slightly more powerful 360/PS3, and with the PS4/Durango out then, it'd be a death warrant.

 

The GamePad gets support because it's bundled in and everyone has it.

 

If sales are still sluggish this time next year I would say the gamepad isn't a major selling point or the consumers don't want it.

[Aneres11]

Simple answer to the question - no they should not have stuck with the Wii Remote.

 

I think this is cropping up now because we are so far yet to see the game pad being properly utilised for anything other than off tv play.

A lot of people seem to be getting confused that this is the only purpose for the game pad in the first place, when in actual fact, it's simply a choice the developers make.

 

The game pad, in time, will open up new ways to play games whilst sitting in fornt of a TV. Zombi U did it very well I thought, with the pad being an integral part of your survival, and it really immersed the player into the whole experience. That isn't something you'd get if you were sat in front of the TV pointing the Wii remote at the screen.

 

The game pad is the unique and main feature of this console and so far Nintendo have shown us very little of what it can do. At E3 when the Wii U was announced the game pad was the star of the show with lots of videos showing how it would be used effectively. The situation we find ourselves in at the minute is one where we're just seeing developers lazily use the pad as a glorified handheld device.

I can't see it staying that way forever though, especially when we start to get games that are built from the ground up for the Wii U. Developers will find ways to use the pad effectively. Sometimes it just takes one game to nail it, and the rest will follow.

[Serebii]

If sales are still sluggish this time next year I would say the gamepad isn't a major selling point or the consumers don't want it.

That's specious reasoning and you know it.

[liger05]

Simple answer to the question - no they should not have stuck with the Wii Remote.

 

I think this is cropping up now because we are so far yet to see the game pad being properly utilised for anything other than off tv play.

A lot of people seem to be getting confused that this is the only purpose for the game pad in the first place, when in actual fact, it's simply a choice the developers make.

 

The game pad, in time, will open up new ways to play games whilst sitting in fornt of a TV. Zombi U did it very well I thought, with the pad being an integral part of your survival, and it really immersed the player into the whole experience. That isn't something you'd get if you were sat in front of the TV pointing the Wii remote at the screen.

 

The game pad is the unique and main feature of this console and so far Nintendo have shown us very little of what it can do. At E3 when the Wii U was announced the game pad was the star of the show with lots of videos showing how it would be used effectively. The situation we find ourselves in at the minute is one where we're just seeing developers lazily use the pad as a glorified handheld device.

I can't see it staying that way forever though, especially when we start to get games that are built from the ground up for the Wii U. Developers will find ways to use the pad effectively. Sometimes it just takes one game to nail it, and the rest will follow.

 

Nintendo will. No doubt about it, nintendo will do some amazing things with it. Not sure about everyone else though.

[Lens of Truth]

Only for multiplayer games. For everything else the focus is very much on supporting the Gamepad with the Wii U.

 

To me it feels like the focus on the Wii U is... GamePad > Classic Controls > Wiimote

Given that Nintendo Land is the flagship demonstration so far of "How it should be done" I'd say it was Gamepad > Wiimote >>> Classic Controls.

 

Playing Virtual Console games like F-Zero on the pad screen feels so 'right' I wouldn't be without it. It's also massively improved local multiplayer from something I didn't give a toss about to one of the aspects I enjoy most!

 

We also have to remember how little enthusiasm the Wii Remote got on the Wii from third parties, even with great sales, buzz etc. I really think Nintendo had to offer a third way with the Wii U, while remaining inclusive. Getting my head round the differing control schemes in Nintendo Land did take a while at first though, so I do agree it's notionally a bit of a 'mess'.

[madeinbeats]

We'll have to see how the Miiverse 'Where is WiiMote support, Capcom?' demonstrations go. If Nintendo and Co need reminding how much people love Wiimote for certain games, I'm sure they will be.

 

I think Wiimote + GamePad open the system to more games and play options than just one or the other. DA on its own is just boring and dated; Wiimote on its own is frustrating when shoehorned on to games it doesn't suit.

 

I don't think Nintendo is forgetting the Wiimote any time soon though - Pikmin 3 - but folk like Capcom might need a kick up the arse on Miiverse.