Happenstance Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Keep it civil, fellas. Thats a perfectly civil comment, not my fault if you read it the wrong way :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero-of-Time Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Thing is, Nintendo quickly clarified and said that they're still doing two devices. The merging is just so that the two consoles have similar architecture to allow for cross play of say Virtual Console games, ports of games across both consoles etc. perhaps with a unified account system Nintendo, like any other company, say a lot of things. Whether they are telling the truth is another matter. I mean they said they had learned the lessons from the 3DS launch and that there wouldn't be any software droughts for the Wii U. They also said that there was no new DS on the cards then like a week later a new model is announced. This is why find brand loyalty hilarious. At the end of the day these companies are out to get your money and will spin truths and lie when they can to get your cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Nintendo, like any other company, say a lot of things. Whether they are telling the truth is another matter. I mean they said they had learned the lessons from the 3DS launch and that there wouldn't be any software droughts for the Wii U. They also said that there was no new DS on the cards then like a week later a new model is announced. This is why find brand loyalty hilarious. At the end of the day these companies are out to get your money and will spin truths and lie when they can to get your cash. True enough, but I see two devices, one console one handheld, with similar base architecture to be far more likely than a hybrid anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero-of-Time Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 True enough, but I see two devices, one console one handheld, with similar base architecture to be far more likely than a hybrid anyway. Correct me if i'm wrong here but you're saying that both console and handheld would be the same in power and the games easily ported between the two? It could work but I think the console would bomb, especially in Japan as they are a handheld nation. I mean why would they buy the console when could have the handheld with the same games on it instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Correct me if i'm wrong here but you're saying that both console and handheld would be the same in power and the games easily ported between the two? It could work but I think the console would bomb, especially in Japan as they are a handheld nation. I mean why would they buy the console when could have the handheld with the same games on it instead? No, not similar in power, but similar in build. I'm not saying all games would be on both consoles. I'm saying that the development structure would be the same for both, just with weaker hardware on the handheld. This means software engineers only have to use say one engine and so forth. Think of power similar in comparison of i3 and i7 Intel processors. Same architecture, different power. Plus the whole Virtual Console thing Edited July 22, 2013 by Serebii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Correct me if i'm wrong here but you're saying that both console and handheld would be the same in power and the games easily ported between the two? It could work but I think the console would bomb, especially in Japan as they are a handheld nation. I mean why would they buy the console when could have the handheld with the same games on it instead? When I look for a handheld/home console, I'm looking for something that is different to the other. I don't buy a handheld because it's like the home console, I buy it because it can do things that the home console can't. For example, Pokèmon at the time. These days, Animal Crossing works a lot better on the handheld than the home console. Hotel Dusk is another one, for me. Sure, you might have some similar features and link-up in some way. Maybe the eShops are linked, maybe there's connectivity because MiiVerses on the home and handheld. Maybe you can trade between the two on the likes of Monster Hunter. But, it would be to the detriment of both if both were identical and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Despite whether it could or will happen, its something I would prefer anyway. As I explained when I got rid of my Wii U, I am a lot less interested in Nintendo than I used to be but I'm sure eventually there will still be titles that I want to play but I'm not getting a console on hope or faith anymore (not that I really have faith in Nintendo these days). Plus I have to wonder if it would actually free them up to get more inventive again, just making games instead of every title needing to be that one that turns the Wii U's fortunes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero-of-Time Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 When I look for a handheld/home console, I'm looking for something that is different to the other. I don't buy a handheld because it's like the home console, I buy it because it can do things that the home console can't. For example, Pokèmon at the time. These days, Animal Crossing works a lot better on the handheld than the home console. Hotel Dusk is another one, for me. I think this is one the issues the Vita and PSP has/had. At the start both of these handhelds were essentially a PS2/3 in your pocket. Vita has now come away from that though with the indie scene providing some very unique games for it. Personally I don't mind playing blockbuster games on a handheld. I recently snapped up a Vita and playing Uncharted on it was fantastic BUT i'm the kinda guy you just sits at home playing on the handheld rather than taking it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I think this is one the issues the Vita and PSP has/had. At the start both of these handhelds were essentially a PS2/3 in your pocket. Vita has now come away from that though with the indie scene providing some very unique games for it. Personally I don't mind playing blockbuster games on a handheld. I recently snapped up a Vita and playing Uncharted on it was fantastic BUT i'm the kinda guy you just sits at home playing on the handheld rather than taking it out. Yeah, definitely agree with you on that first point. I remember the first few months of the PSP for me being, "what's the point?" Surely if you're going to just use it at home, you can just use the home console anyway? Previously, handheld gaming felt a bit like a gimped home console experience. That's why I think the games and experiences need to be different and it's vital that the handhelds do things that you can't experience on the home console. Otherwise, I don't see the point. For instance, this weekend in Manchester, Ine got quite a lot of streetpass hits. It's an incentive to take it out. Plus, long car journeys, perfect for a handheld. The handhelds undoubtedly have the advantage there. I'm loving what I'm seeing of Smash Bros for the 3DS, with its own unique art style. It's not going to be a scaled-down home console game on a handheld. It's going to be Smash Bros. in its own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The thing is that Nintendo focus their handheld and console games differently. Their handheld games are ones that can be picked up and played for a few minutes, then stop. There may be an overarching narrative to them, but they're much more condensed and focused. This can be seen with Luigi's Mansion 2 a bit, too. Rather than a huge game where you explore a mansion, you have missions. Yeah, definitely agree with you on that first point. I remember the first few months of the PSP for me being, "what's the point?" Surely if you're going to just use it at home, you can just use the home console anyway? Previously, handheld gaming felt a bit like a gimped home console experience. That's why I think the games and experiences need to be different and it's vital that the handhelds do things that you can't experience on the home console. Otherwise, I don't see the point. For instance, this weekend in Manchester, Ine got quite a lot of streetpass hits. It's an incentive to take it out. Plus, long car journeys, perfect for a handheld. The handhelds undoubtedly have the advantage there. I'm loving what I'm seeing of Smash Bros for the 3DS, with its own unique art style. It's not going to be a scaled-down home console game on a handheld. It's going to be Smash Bros. in its own right. The play at home bit is part of the angle of Off-TV Play, which was the initial idea for the Wii U. When people play portables at home, it's typically as other people are watching TV and other similar situations. Nintendo's idea was to bring this to people with home console capabilities and games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedShell Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Thing is, Nintendo quickly clarified and said that they're still doing two devices. The merging is just so that the two consoles have similar architecture to allow for cross play of say Virtual Console games, ports of games across both consoles etc. perhaps with a unified account systemYeah but like Hero mentioned, just because Nintendo say that, doesn't mean that's the case. But what about all the money they'd be losing from the people that usually buy both the handheld and the home console? Also, if the console was primarily a handheld, surely the "home console" type of games wouldn't be powerful enough to run on the system. Imagine it right now if you were trying to run something like Watch Dogs on the 3DS...surely you'd have that situation repeated over on the next situation, which would ultimately mean Nintendo would lose those 3rd party games anyway.Good point. I suppose it'd have to be more like a situation where 3rd party devs would be happier to create games from the ground up, or do ports, rather than the "console" getting exact multiplatform releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Based on them saying so? Source? I think that'd be a strange decision, would love to hear their reasoning behind it. Seriously, can I get that source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Plus the whole Virtual Console thing There are zero reasons why the Virtual Console thing can't be achieved already. It's a business decision, just like how they charge for you to "upgrade" them for the Wii U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 There are zero reasons why the Virtual Console thing can't be achieved already. It's a business decision, just like how they charge for you to "upgrade" them for the Wii U. Actually, there is. Each game has an emulator designed specifically for it. Each emulator has to be redone for each console so the game can be perfect on the console. They could have gone for a one emulator fits all, but it just wouldn't have provided a perfect experience for each game. The 3DS and Wii U have very different architectures so for them to share a Virtual Console library each would have had to have been recoded twice. It's a programming thing. Seriously, can I get that source? Trying to hunt down the interview. All I can find atm is the search engines spouting Iwata talking about third party woes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liger05 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Survive yes but would it be best for the company. Sega & Atari haven’t exactly thrived going 3rd party only. Nintendo don’t need to go 3rd party. The market isn’t saying they don’t want a Nintendo console, they are saying they don’t want a poorly designed wii u but that doesn’t mean they are saying no to Nintendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Actually, there is. Each game has an emulator designed specifically for it. Each emulator has to be redone for each console so the game can be perfect on the console. They could have gone for a one emulator fits all, but it just wouldn't have provided a perfect experience for each game. The 3DS and Wii U have very different architectures so for them to share a Virtual Console library each would have had to have been recoded twice. It's a programming thing. I didn't actually know they put that much effort into it. From my less than perfect experience with the Virtual Console (which was a bizarre situation where the option to fix it existed, but it was a hidden button combination rather than a visible option) I though it was a batch thing. But even with a emulator built into the console firmware, it still requires a ton of work to port games to different systems. I suppose it's different company policies about it. It costs both of them money, but one of them releases them in the hope that new sales will pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Actually, there is. Each game has an emulator designed specifically for it. Each emulator has to be redone for each console so the game can be perfect on the console. They could have gone for a one emulator fits all, but it just wouldn't have provided a perfect experience for each game. The 3DS and Wii U have very different architectures so for them to share a Virtual Console library each would have had to have been recoded twice. It's a programming thing. Trying to hunt down the interview. All I can find atm is the search engines spouting Iwata talking about third party woes Not true at all for the most part. True for the N64 games, but read on. Like many others I had the homebrew channel on my Wii. I downloaded a several thousand SNES, NES and Genesis pack along with the relevant emulators. Games ran flawlessly. Probably better than on the original systems, in fact. Early Nintendo/Sega consoles have been emulated pretty much perfectly. (Also, regarding their release schedule - there is no way in hell they couldn't have tweaked a massive bunch of games and released them all at once. Their staggered release is most definitely a marketing ploy). Edited July 22, 2013 by Sheikah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Not true at all for the most part. True for the N64 games, but read on. Like many others I had the homebrew channel on my Wii. I downloaded a several thousand SNES, NES and Genesis pack along with the relevant emulators. Games ran flawlessly. Probably better than on the original systems, in fact. Early Nintendo/Sega consoles have been emulated pretty much perfectly. (Also, regarding their release schedule - there is no way in hell they couldn't have tweaked a massive bunch of games and released them all at once. Their staggered release is most definitely a marketing ploy). Just because they worked fine with those emulators doesn't mean they work to Nintendo's standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 Then Nintendo should hire the people who make the superior third party emulators and sack their staff. It's been done perfectly already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liger05 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I understand Nintendo have standards however there is no exuse for they way they treat the VC. The whole drip by drip policy is simply nintendo being nintendo - Incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I understand Nintendo have standards however there is no exuse for they way they treat the VC. The whole drip by drip policy is simply nintendo being nintendo - Incompetent. It's also marketing. If they somehow managed to unleashd the entire load at launch, while would be good for some, most Virtual Console games would be ignored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liger05 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It's also marketing. If they somehow managed to unleashd the entire load at launch, while would be good for some, most Virtual Console games would be ignored They dont need to unleash everything at launch just give us more than 1, 2 games a week or sometimes no games. The library is huge and we should be getting 4 games a week minimum. The fact the VC wasnt even ready @ launch should of meant that once it did go live it would of been stacked with loads of games but no. Not forgetting the 3DS still having no snes games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 They dont need to unleash everything at launch just give us more than 1, 2 games a week or sometimes no games. The library is huge and we should be getting 4 games a week minimum. The fact the VC wasnt even ready @ launch should of meant that once it did go live it would of been stacked with loads of games but no. Not forgetting the 3DS still having no snes games. Or it meant that they had only perfected the base emulation by then and were going at the fastest rate they can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Nintendo should maybe just release the VC as a subscription. £5.99 a month to play anything you want. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Nintendo should maybe just release the VC as a subscription. £5.99 a month to play anything you want. Or something like that. That won't speed up the finetuning of the emulators for each game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts