Wii U General Discussion

[Serebii]

I guess we can now cross Warner Bros. off the list of developers who will support the Wii U. The new Batman game got announced for XBOne/PS4/PC. It looks like outside of Lego games, or any other game that can be easily ported from a 360/PS3 version of a game, they aren't going to bother.

To be fair, that game isn't coming out on 360/PS3, to which the Wii U is closer in terms of specs so you can see the reasoning, no matter how much it sucks

[Hero-of-Time]

To be fair, that game isn't coming out on 360/PS3, to which the Wii U is closer in terms of specs so you can see the reasoning, no matter how much it sucks

 

Indeed. I imagine we can pretty much expect the same from every 3rd party then going forward. As I said, if there isn't a last gen edition then most developers won't bother downgrading.

[Serebii]

Indeed. I imagine we can pretty much expect the same from every 3rd party then going forward. As I said, if there isn't a last gen edition then most developers won't bother downgrading.

Ah well. Nintendo will never have sufficient third party support, anyway. I'm 100% certain that, even if they did everything right, and it sold well, third parties would find excuses not to do it.

 

Third party games seldom excite me, anyway. Got bored of Arkham Origins half way through, even though I loved Arkham City. Indie games are my current love at the moment. Have to get a hard drive for my Wii U soon. Starting to run out of space.

[Cube]

Third party games seldom excite me, anyway. Got bored of Arkham Origins half way through, even though I loved Arkham City.

 

That's because Origins was made by a secondary developer while Rocksteady (who made Asylum and City) worked on their next one.

[Serebii]

That's because Origins was made by a secondary developer while Rocksteady (who made Asylum and City) worked on their next one.

Yeah, I know. However, it has soured me on it somewhat. If the gameplay is much the same, I'm out.

[Sheikah]

Ah well. Nintendo will never have sufficient third party support, anyway. I'm 100% certain that, even if they did everything right, and it sold well, third parties would find excuses not to do it.

 

It's not third parties finding excuses, it's that Nintendo made a pretty tragic console and marketed it terribly. It's a real shame.

[Serebii]

It's not third parties finding excuses, it's that Nintendo made a pretty tragic console and marketed it terribly. It's a real shame.

Did you not see that my post was referring to a hypothetical scenario, not the current one?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Serebii

[Sheikah]

Well Nintendo have done much wrong with their past few consoles and their third party relations, so your hypothetical scenario based belief is pretty much fantasy, you know. :p

[liger05]

Indeed. I imagine we can pretty much expect the same from every 3rd party then going forward. As I said, if there isn't a last gen edition then most developers won't bother downgrading.

 

Really begs the question on why they didnt they produce a console which was future proof so it could get next gen games. 360/PS3 was near the end and they went with a console with similar specs.

[Dcubed]

I bet that the PS3 and 360 could handle it just fine and that the decisions to make it "next gen" only is for marketing reasons. It legitimises it by virtue of appearing to be something that only the "next gen" consoles can handle and thus is not being "held back" by those old busted machines; even if it ends up looking almost the same as the past Arkham games, just running in a higher resolution.

 

The PS4/Xbone userbase will be big enough by the end of the year for major publishers to feel comfortable in making exclusives for them.

[Josh64]

I'm enjoying DK so much at the moment, I've just waited so long for big, HD Nintendo games. If the Wii U continues to do really poorly and has to end early, as some have suggested in the gaming sales thread, I will be incredibly disappointed.

 

This time last year the Wii U was still iffy to me, but right now it's such a good console. Breaks my heart to watch it go down in flames but obviously, I can totally see why it has.

 

Has anything had such a dramatic down-turn as the Wii to Wii U? Back in 2010, I really wouldn't have ever guessed the successor to Wii could have performed so badly as Nintendo were so on form with both the Wii and DS in terms of games (at least until late 2011) and marketing.

[RedShell]

Really begs the question on why they didnt they produce a console which was future proof so it could get next gen games. 360/PS3 was near the end and they went with a console with similar specs.

Because for them it is future proof.

This is the formula Nintendo now follow, in keeping with what I mentioned on the previous page, it's about striking a balance between function and cost, being as efficient as possible. But even more importantly, it's because Nintendo are well aware that for their own games (and for any dev that's willing to put the effort in, which is apparently not many at all ) the Wii U hardware is more than capable to get the job done.

 

I mean just look at ZombiU, Lego City, Pikmin 3, Wonderful 101, Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, upcoming games like Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros., Bayonetta 2, X... they all clearly show that the Wii U is a fantastic system which can produce magnificent results, in the right hands.

 

The problem for Nintendo is that 99% of devs (especially western studios) don't share their ideology, and instead just want more and more powerful hardware to make their job easier. The way they see it, why spend the extra effort in optimizing, or have to find creative solutions to development hurdles when you can just take the easiest most straightforward route to producing a game?

There's additional challenge in developing for Wii U, which now combined with lackluster performance of the system at retail means these developers simply don't want to know.

 

But at the end of the day limitation breeds creativity, and that's an absolute fact. Take games from the early generations for example. Developers couldn't just come up with something and run with it, they had to constantly workaround the hardware to make their ideas a reality. Same goes for the music back then too, it's no accident that there are so many memorable tunes from games of the 80's and early 90's. Musicians also had to go the extra mile in order to make compositions that could surpass the severe audio limitations.

 

Another example is indie games. Why do so many unique and highly creative concepts come from small development teams? I believe it's because they don't have the "luxury" of hundreds of staff, loads of money, the best equipment etc... They're facing substantial limitations, meaning that they need to be even more creative and come up with unusual ideas that will make their product stand out.

 

But anyway, despite the best intentions of Nintendo, they clearly aren't going to change many developers minds and get them on the same wavelength. So it's now up to them (and a handful of 2nd/3rd party devs) to support the Wii U for the rest of its lifespan.

 

And we all just need to...

[liger05]

The problem for Nintendo is that 99% of devs (especially western studios) don't share their ideology, and instead just want more and more powerful hardware to make their job easier. The way they see it, why spend the extra effort in optimizing, or have to find creative solutions to development hurdles when you can just take the easiest most straightforward route to producing a game?

There's additional challenge in developing for Wii U, which now combined with lackluster performance of the system at retail means these developers simply don't want to know.

 

Makes you wonder we we didnt just stop at the snes/megadrive. I mean who wants new technology. Too pull a blanket over 99% of the development community claiming they just want more power to make there job easier is simply insulting.

 

Because for them it is future proof.

This is the formula Nintendo now follow, in keeping with what I mentioned on the previous page, it's about striking a balance between function and cost, being as efficient as possible. But even more importantly, it's because Nintendo are well aware that for their own games (and for any dev that's willing to put the effort in, which is apparently not many at all ) the Wii U hardware is more than capable to get the job done.

 

One could argue the Wii U has actually not typical Nintendo route at all. The high cost of production resulting in a high price for the consumer (and still selling at a loss) is something historically Nintendo avoided.

 

 

Has anything had such a dramatic down-turn as the Wii to Wii U? Back in 2010, I really wouldn't have ever guessed the successor to Wii could have performed so badly as Nintendo were so on form with both the Wii and DS in terms of games (at least until late 2011) and marketing.

 

Probably not. PSP to Vita has seen a huge drop as well.

Edited March 4, 2014 by liger05

[Ashley]

With all due respect, developers don't want more powerful hardware to make it easier. Yes, new consoles should make the process easier, but it's not because there's greater CPU etc under the hood. One just has to look at Nintendo's struggles with HD to see that greater power doesn't make things easier.

 

Developers want greater power to explore new possibilities, create new experiences and I think suggesting that they simply don't want to put the effort in is a gross misrepresentation of what is happening. Usually it comes down to business and history so far has shown that there is little business sense in trying to make a game that works across all next (current?) gen consoles given their varying architecture and demographics.

[drahkon]

The problem for Nintendo is that 99% of devs (especially western studios) don't share their ideology, and instead just want more and more powerful hardware to make their job easier.

 

You make it sound like it's the devs fault (not sure if you want to )

 

The way they see it, why spend the extra effort in optimizing, or have to find creative solutions to development hurdles when you can just take the easiest most straightforward route to producing a game?

 

Well, if that's the choice...spend/waste resources on optimizing and all that or take the simple route and easily produce products of respectable/good quality. I can see why developers opt to go for the latter.

[Wii]

@RedShell Paying nearly €400 for a console that's barely more powerful than PS3/XBOX360 is hardly a great balance between function and cost. Made all the worse now that PS4 has launched with far better tech for a similar price. They got away with it last generation because of the remote and Nintendo have become fat and lazy thinking they could just repeat the same process this gen.

[Serebii]

@RedShell Paying nearly €400 for a console that's barely more powerful than PS3/XBOX360 is hardly a great balance between function and cost. Made all the worse now that PS4 has launched with far better tech for a similar price. They got away with it last generation because of the remote and Nintendo have become fat and lazy thinking they could just repeat the same process this gen.

It may be "barely more powerful", but there's a lot more tech in the overall package and it's disingenuous, and insulting to Nintendo to claim it's not balanced. You may not like the GamePad, but there's some decent tech in there and that has increased the cost. Nintendo clearly felt the cost was justified for the GamePad experience. Personally, I agree that it was justfied. The GamePad has revolutionised gaming for me and I struggle to go back to standard controllers and their cumbersome menu systems.

 

Besides, it is technically worth it, hence how come it is being sold at a loss. If they were gaining a big profit with the Wii U at this price, then yeah you'd have a point, but nope. They got the balance and it's damaging the company a little in doing so.

 

Unfortunately, it's just not the balance that many consumers and developers were hoping.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Serebii

[Sheikah]

How has the Gamepad revolutionised gaming? Most games aren't even using it for much more than a second screen, which was already done before Wii U.

 

What was that about you saying you're not taking in by PR fluff?

[Wii]

It may be "barely more powerful", but there's a lot more tech in the overall package and it's disingenuous, and insulting to Nintendo to claim it's not balanced. You may not like the GamePad, but there's some decent tech in there and that has increased the cost. Nintendo clearly felt the cost was justified for the GamePad experience. Personally, I agree that it was justfied. The GamePad has revolutionised gaming for me and I struggle to go back to standard controllers and their cumbersome menu systems.

 

Besides, it is technically worth it, hence how come it is being sold at a loss. If they were gaining a big profit with the Wii U at this price, then yeah you'd have a point, but nope. They got the balance and it's damaging the company a little in doing so.

 

I'm fairly sure Nintendo could shoot you point blank in the face, set you on fire and you'd probably say Nintendo were right to do so, thank them and ask for more.

 

I enjoy the gamepad for browsing, but it's hardly revolutionised gaming. DKCR:TF doesn't even use it. Still waiting for Nintendo to truly utilise it. Tell me how it's revolutionised gaming? ZombiU was the best use of the gamepad, a 3rd party launch game. "Damaging the company a little"? That's an understatement. A lot of people prefer using the pro controller over the gamepad. The Wii U is practically dead, that's hardly balanced or successful.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Wii

[liger05]

Besides, it is technically worth it, hence how come it is being sold at a loss. If they were gaining a big profit with the Wii U at this price, then yeah you'd have a point, but nope. They got the balance and it's damaging the company a little in doing so.

 

I dont see how if a product is sold at loss that means it must be offering value or is technically worth it.

 

I would say Nintendo went wrong with there suppliers and custom parts used as well as going ahead with the gamepad idea which inflated the price of the console which meant they had to sell it at a loss even though it was priced at £300.

Edited March 5, 2014 by liger05

[Serebii]

How has the Gamepad revolutionised gaming? Most games aren't even using it for much more than a second screen, which was already done before Wii U.

 

What was that about you saying you're not taking in by PR fluff?

Second screen map & inventory has really been revolutionary for me. It has changed the entire way games are played and increased immersion for me. It's just awesome. Going back to having to navigate shoddy menus which have a short period from pressing the button and seeing the map (such as Assassin's Creed, GTA V etc.) just feels so unintuitive

 

I'm fairly sure Nintendo could shoot you point blank in the face, set you on fire and you'd probably say Nintendo were right to do so, thank them and ask for more.

 

That really isn't true. I wasn't happy that they were shutting WFC down, even though I completely understand why they are doing it.

 

I'm fairly sure Nintendo could shoot you point blank in the face, set you on fire and you'd probably say Nintendo were right to do so, thank them and ask for more.

 

I enjoy the gamepad for browsing, but it's hardly revolutionised gaming. DKCR:TF doesn't even use it. Still waiting for Nintendo to truly utilise it. Tell me how it's revolutionised gaming? ZombiU was the best use of the gamepad, a 3rd party launch game. "Damaging the company a little"? That's an understatement. A lot of people prefer using the pro controller over the gamepad. The Wii U is practically dead, that's hardly balanced or successful.

 

Doing something amazingly new and unique is not necessarily the perfect embodiment of the GamePad. As explained above, the minor things are where the GamePad excels, not features shoehorned in just because the GamePad exists.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Wii]

Second screen map & inventory has really been revolutionary for me.

 

Each to their own but I would not call that revolutionary and I'm sure I'm not alone in that thinking. Here's somebody else that has a problem with the gamepad but you'll run this down as well. He's a Wii U developer but what does he know, right?

 

NICALIS FOUNDER HITS BACK AT THE WII U GAMEPAD

 

Tyrone Rodriguez @tyronerodriguez

Follow

Right about now, I'd sure regret wasting $100+ on a second-screen that no one uses instead offering something more substantial...

7:08 PM - 4 Mar 2014

3 RETWEETS 5 FAVORITES Reply Retweet

 

Nicalis founder Tyrone Rodriguez has criticised the Wii U GamePad on Twitter. Rodriguez says that the controller is vastly underused by developers and is therefore a waste of money when looking at the total cost of the Wii U to consumers.

 

http://mynintendonews.com/2014/03/04/nicalis-founder-hits-back-at-the-wii-u-gamepad/

 

How do you insert a tweet correctly?

[Serebii]

Each to their own but I would not call that revolutionary and I'm sure I'm not alone in that thinking. Here's somebody else that has a problem with the gamepad but you'll run this down as well. He's a Wii U developer but what does he know, right?

 

 

 

http://mynintendonews.com/2014/03/04/nicalis-founder-hits-back-at-the-wii-u-gamepad/

 

How do you insert a tweet correctly?

I never said people weren't entitled to their opinions. Please do not paint me as someone like that.

 

Though, I do disagree with his use of the term nobody in his tweets. It happens here a lot. Just because a person does not like something or does not see the worth, does not mean everyone has the same view.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Serebii

[Wii]

I'm not saying everyone has the same opinion. I'm saying it's not been used greatly so far. I would love to see it used properly. I think I've great ideas on how to use the gamepad and I'm only a gamer. It's Nintendo's job to sell it and implement it's functions and they've failed. If you're not going to use it then why bother put it in? The same goes for the camera and NFC. It's probably too late now, it's fate is sealed.

[Ashley]

I'd have happily paid £100 less to press a button to see a menu

 

But hopefully at some point the tide will turn and the GamePad will be used as more than a glorified start button and the cost will begin to be justified.