Wii U: Yes its the name [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

TheArsenal

2011-06-07, 03:03 PM

Wee-oo instead of Wii-yoo? :smallconfused:

It just sounds silly thats all. Sounds like a Police Siren.:smallsmile:

2013 it'll be brutally curb stomped & violated by MS/Sony's new offerings.

The thing is: How much more can you curbstomp? I understand that in 5 years il probably regret this but: If it has the capacity to reach PS3 graphics then it all depends on the developers. The other consoles (PS3/ 360) have HD yet MANY, MANY games look like thier graphics are for thier previous systems. It just depends on the developers and the tech cap. The tech cap is a limiter of the max juice you can sqeeze out of a system, and most developers will simply squeeze half the lemon and then give up. How much better can the graphics realy get? I mean if it can pull off portal 2- Uncharted territory then im fine. Beyond that I simply won't get dazzled.

Again: It depends on the developers, the controls and the hardware . THOSE are the things that will define the Wii U.

I am optimistic because the older control scheme will attract more developers (While allowing those that like the waggle to also get a try).

I do like the control system it gives SO much options:

A shooter with the screen as a mouse pad, or using the pointer at the back to aim.

Just looks pretty splendid in my terms.

They use cheap components and spray paint with "innovation".
While I agree with this partialy you are pushing too hard. Nintendo does have a history of trying out new things even if the tech has not caught on. Yet the ARE the innovaters in the room. They made the Wii (Knetic and move soon followed). When they forget about the hardware THATS when things get problomatic.

Geno9999

2011-06-07, 03:22 PM

Guys, you do realize that with the new controller, the Wii U could theoretically emulate the 3DS/DS?:smallamused: Someone is going make a homebrew emulator for this thing right off the bat. I'm betting it'll take a week. Tops.

As for other news, I'm excited for the next Smash Bros, since it be available for both the 3DS and Wii U and cross platform compatible. (cite (http://kotaku.com/5809501/smash-bros-returns-with-versions-for-wii-u-and-3ds))

Zevox

2011-06-07, 03:33 PM

As for other news, I'm excited for the next Smash Bros, since it be available for both the 3DS and Wii U and cross platform compatible. (cite (http://kotaku.com/5809501/smash-bros-returns-with-versions-for-wii-u-and-3ds))
I'm curious whether it's going to be the same game on both platforms, or two different games that just connect somehow. Either way, definitely excited.

Zevox

Terazul

2011-06-07, 03:36 PM

in 2013 it'll be brutally curb stomped & violated by MS/Sony's new offerings.

The funniest part? Every year, someone says this.

And every year, it never happens.

Lord Seth

2011-06-07, 03:40 PM

Well, it means The Wiiviewer (http://www.youtube.com/user/wiiviewr) won't have to worry about possibly changing his name. I was actually wondering what he'd do if Nintendo had a completely different console name.

shiram

2011-06-07, 03:43 PM

For all we know as of now, I am unimpressed.
They focus on the controller, and we have basically no info on the console itself.
The controller has some neat concepts, but it seems to me it will not fair well with extended use, it looks downright uncomfortable.
So they can apparently do ps3 quality graphics? A little late to that dance, but better late than never. Does it use bluray, or DVD?

It seems to me that new controller could have just been a new add-on, but since the Wii was already lacking in power, they just brought it back to current levels, or 7th generation level if you will.

Holammer

2011-06-07, 04:42 PM

And where's your info that the next gen consoles are coming out in/around 2013 coming from? Neither Microsoft or Sony are rushing to get their next ones working, both saying their system is meant to last for a longer period of time than previous generations.

Lets file that under educated guess. I'd be surprised if neither of them show or hint at new hardware for E3 next year. With late 2103 or early 2014 releases. Game developers are the ones actually asking for new machines, because they're getting limited by the hardware.
Heck, by 2013 mobile devices will thoroughly outperform current generation consoles and Kal-El is already close enough.

And for the third party games now coming out, since it can handle games the 360 and PS3 can.

Third party titles that'll be available and perfectly playable on your existing 360/PS3 consoles, no new hardware required unless you're really sold on the Wii U pad. Tho, I'll grant you that Wii U versions might actually have the edge on the multi format titles due to more memory. I can't imagine N going with less than 1GB.

Reverent-One

2011-06-07, 04:50 PM

Lets file that under educated guess. I'd be surprised if neither of them show or hint at new hardware for E3 next year. With late 2103 or early 2014 releases. Game developers are the ones actually asking for new machines, because they're getting limited by the hardware.
Heck, by 2013 mobile devices will thoroughly outperform current generation consoles and Kal-El is already close enough.

Again, that doesn't fit with what the companies are saying. The dates most often thrown around now for the next gen, for microsoft at least, is 2015.

Third party titles that'll be available and perfectly playable on your existing 360/PS3 consoles, no new hardware required unless you're really sold on the Wii U pad. Tho, I'll grant you that Wii U versions might actually have the edge on the multi format titles due to more memory. I can't imagine N going with less than 1GB.

The thing is, if you can get the games you'd like on the 360/PS3 on the Wii U, along with the newest Nintendo games and you care about the Nintendo games at all, then getting the Wii U lets you have the best of both worlds.

GloatingSwine

2011-06-07, 05:27 PM

The other consoles (PS3/ 360) have HD yet MANY, MANY games look like thier graphics are for thier previous systems.

That's so totally wrong I don't even know where to start.

Unless you're talking about maybe Nippon Ichi, just about every other company produces games which would be utterly and completely impossible to render on even the original Xbox at SD.

Holammer

2011-06-07, 05:54 PM

Again, that doesn't fit with what the companies are saying. The dates most often thrown around now for the next gen, for microsoft at least, is 2015.

I'm not really buying the story that Kinect gives 360 another 5 years, you could even say that I won't accept whatever their marketing says as gospel.

Of course MS and Sony want to suck on this jawbreaker for as long as possible but they're going to have to give in to the developers and customers soon enough. Titles such as BF3 that have been developed for the PC will illustrate how necessary a generation shift becomes when players realize how crippled their versions are compared with medium and high-end PCs. Even the Wii U could end up forcing them to push forward.

Well, this is all speculation so lets see next year. If they don't talk about new hardware and try to convince us how awesome gaming is because of Kinect and Move, you get to do the Nelson.
My money is on Sony showing off PS4 in 2012. :smallbiggrin:

GloatingSwine

2011-06-07, 06:24 PM

The thing is, if you can get the games you'd like on the 360/PS3 on the Wii U, along with the newest Nintendo games and you care about the Nintendo games at all, then getting the Wii U lets you have the best of both worlds.

If you can get a proper controller for it.

The Wii U controller is simply not going to be suitable for long play core games. It'll be too heavy, the physical controls are all cramped up at the edges and it doesn't have proper analog sticks it has 3DS style analog nubs.

Touchscreens don't have the kind of haptic feedback you get from sticks and buttons either, so that won't help much either.

As it stands, if there's a proper controller for it it'll get very slightly prettier versions of exactly the same games as the 360 and PS3 that have a slightly more consistent framerate, the spec is too close for anyone to bother making special snowflake versions of games for it, meaning that it has no competitive advantage to the core gamer.

Hell, the fact that the Wii U is so close hardware wise to their existing product has probably just allowed MS and Sony a year or so of breathing room.

Hunter Noventa

2011-06-07, 06:32 PM

Yeah, I saw the ridiculous controller for this thing and immediately said. "Oh hell no."

Seriously, what were they thinking? It's impossible to use the touch screen without letting go of a heavy, awkward controller on one side, all the while playing 'hardcore' games? Not gonna work.

Dumbledore lives

2011-06-07, 06:49 PM

The controller looks extremely different, but I don't believe on passing judgement until I've actually held the thing. The first impressions that people have been giving however has been extremely good, and some of the features behind it sound really cool, like the fact that it can essentially become a console itself.

The only real issue now is the price, which Nintendo is not talking about. The best thing for Nintendo about this console though, it the third party support that they already have lined up, getting big companies like Ubisoft and EA on board a year before, allowing for an actually good launch lineup, something the 3DS and Wii noticeably lacked.

By working with the third parties it means the console will have a better variety of games, and less pressure will be put on Nintendo to produce their own Triple A titles.

Reverent-One

2011-06-07, 07:05 PM

If you can get a proper controller for it.

The Wii U controller is simply not going to be suitable for long play core games. It'll be too heavy, the physical controls are all cramped up at the edges and it doesn't have proper analog sticks it has 3DS style analog nubs.

As Dumbledore lives said, first impressions I've heard have been good. Or have you held one yourself?

As it stands, if there's a proper controller for it it'll get very slightly prettier versions of exactly the same games as the 360 and PS3 that have a slightly more consistent framerate, the spec is too close for anyone to bother making special snowflake versions of games for it, meaning that it has no competitive advantage to the core gamer.

Hell, the fact that the Wii U is so close hardware wise to their existing product has probably just allowed MS and Sony a year or so of breathing room.

You've seen the specs for it? That would be impressive.

Triscuitable

2011-06-07, 07:10 PM

I just want the "Nintendo Nintendo", so when my 30+ year old relatives come over, they don't say "Are you playing Nintendo?" and sound like a moron. Now they'll have to say it twice.

I do like what the controller could be used for. If you saw the "Zelda" video, the controller has the item menu. In an FPS, this could be used for showing ammo, fast weapon swaps, etc. Dead Space can officially go entirely HUD free. THAT would be awesome.

And don't even get me started on playing it while you watch TV.

I also foresee the Japanese getting a smaller controller, and Nintendo releasing that model here in the Americas, a la Original Xbox.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-06-07, 07:17 PM

Triscuitable

2011-06-07, 07:30 PM

People are worried about price? Really? This is Nintendo. I don't think they would even bother making something more then $300. Nintendo's generally about getting families and younger kids. What would be the point if people couldn't afford it?

I'm sure that they'll be reasonable. We won't have another "Four-hundred-ninety-nine U.S. dollars" situation again. If you were at E3 2005, you know what I'm talking about. Nintendo sure "flipped [Sony & Microsoft] on it's back to attack [their] weak point for massive damage." Now they have to play catch up AGAIN to get back on track. Sony may very well die because of the copycat known as the 'Move'.

Psyren

2011-06-07, 09:33 PM

Why do people say its hard to pronounce? It's easy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPU-Ud48evc)

TheSummoner

2011-06-07, 10:38 PM

It looks as if they're building a console using cheap off the shelf components. Its capacity will probably match that of 360/PS3 (six year old consoles) and when the true next generation consoles come around in 2013 it'll be brutally curb stomped & violated by MS/Sony's new offerings.

Kinda like the Xbawks 360 and PS3 did to the Wii, right? Seriously... Do we need another system that offers nothing more than dull gray, dirty green, and boring brown? Atleast Nintendo has been trying to come up with something new and innovative instead of rehashing the same thing thats been done since the mid-90s, wrapped in slightly better graphics each time.

Ok. About the system itself... Yeah, the name is dumb. The name Wii was dumb. People made jokes about it for a while and then got over it. If the system is any good (which, knowing Nintendo, I believe it will be), then no one will care how stupid the name is after a few months.

The weird... controller thing... Looks like something that might take some getting used to... Like the Wiimote. Also looks like something that will be optional for most games, allowing you to play with a more standard style controler... Like the Wiimore... It seems like the kind of thing that could be fun for certain types of games and unnecessary for others. Maybe you could play games on it without taking up the TV thanks to the screen on it... (the Wii would have to be on, but it doesn't mean you couldn't have some other channel going on the TV)

I'm probably not going to get it right away (unless theres some damn good release games), but I'll almost certainly have one within a year of it being released unless it somehow is a massive flop.

Suichimo

2011-06-07, 10:44 PM

It looks as if they're building a console using cheap off the shelf components. Its capacity will probably match that of 360/PS3 (six year old consoles) and when the true next generation consoles come around in 2013 it'll be brutally curb stomped & violated by MS/Sony's new offerings.

This is well in line with Nintendo's hardware design philosophy. They use cheap components and spray paint with "innovation". This is basically doing a NDS on a larger scale, but the pad looks like an atrocity and I can't imagine using it for extended periods.

Get one? While I'm grossly disappointed, but not unexpectedly so. Maybe for the usual triple A Nintendo titles?

The guys behind Darksiders are saying it is stronger than the 360/PS3. Ubisoft has Ghost Recon Online for the WiiU and PC only. I think it'll be a good bit better than what you're estimating.

Sony and Microsoft are also looking into reducing costs for their next gen machines after the huge losses they took this time around.

As for their design philosophy? Yeah, they do do that, but with the exception of the Wii they have always had a competitive, if not the strongest, system during that generation. Want to see a good example? Look no further than the Gamecube. Half the price of the Xbox, much smaller than it, and it was pretty much on par with it powerwise.

Chess435

2011-06-07, 10:55 PM

Personally, I'm excited about the new Smash Bros. title. That alone is worth whatever the system will cost to me.

Flickerdart

2011-06-07, 10:58 PM

AtlanteanTroll

2011-06-07, 11:06 PM

Personally, I'm excited about the new Smash Bros. title. That alone is worth whatever the system will cost to me.
This. This so, so, so, so, so much.

And has anyon else heard that the controller can work as an independent system?

Suichimo

2011-06-07, 11:11 PM

This. This so, so, so, so, so much.

And has anyon else heard that the controller can work as an independent system?

Close, but not completely right. Basically, if the TV, or whatever you have your WiiU plugged into, is currently in use, the controller is a screen by itself. So you could have absolutely no screen, of any kind, in your house and still play this.

Its still dependent on the actual console to do everything, the video just gets streamed over to the controller.

Zevox

2011-06-07, 11:16 PM

Personally, I'm excited about the new Smash Bros. title. That alone is worth whatever the system will cost to me.
Oh yes. New Smash Brothers makes me very, very happy.

On the controller, I could see it being awkward, uncomfortable, or too heavy, but I'll reserve judgment for when I see it and try it in person. If reports of those who got to try it today liking it are right, that first impression may well be wrong. Besides, even if it were heavy, you could also rest it in your lap, not unlike I've seen fighting gamers do with arcade sticks.

I am a tad disappointed that they went back to a more standard controller style rather than sticking with the wiimote + nunchuk two-part style, as I found that very comfortable, but with the Wii U being fully compatible with Wii controllers and peripherals perhaps some games will continue to use the wiimote + nunchuk.

Zevox

TheSummoner

2011-06-07, 11:23 PM

with the Wii U being fully compatible with Wii controllers and peripherals perhaps some games will continue to use the wiimote + nunchuk.

Zevox

Seems likely. Seems just as likely to me that some games will go for a more standard Gamecube/Classic controler setup.

Xondoure

2011-06-07, 11:29 PM

What with backwards compatibility regarding controllers (which should reasonably go all the way back to Gamecube seeing as the Wii could use it) there will be so many different options for developers that the new one isn't even much of an issue. They only have to use it if they want to.

New SSB, better hardware, backwards compatibility... so excited! :smallbiggrin:

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 12:45 AM

I do like what the controller could be used for. If you saw the "Zelda" video, the controller has the item menu. In an FPS, this could be used for showing ammo, fast weapon swaps, etc. Dead Space can officially go entirely HUD free. THAT would be awesome.

I play a lot of FPSs, and the last thing I want to do in the middle of shooting a bunch of dudes is to either look away from the action or else move one of my hands from the primary movement and aiming controls. Doing so is just asking for getting a bunch of bullets all up in my face.

I'm not trying to be a hater here, for inventory management or other things that can go on while the game is paused or nobody is trying to murder you this moment it looks like it could be quite handy and a lot of fun. Hell, I'd love a solution like that for inventory juggling in most RPGs. For something that needs to be as fast as weapon management in an FPS I'm just not seeing it working as well, let alone better, than just tapping a single, easy to reach button that can be identified by touch.

Except, you know, the CPU running on the same technology as Watson. You can't just walk into Best Buy and grab a handful of that.

Unlike Deep Blue, which ran on a pile of processors designed to play Chess well and not a hell of a lot else, Watson runs on (a lot) of very powerful but not terribly unique or heavily specialized Power7 computers. You can't walk into most stores and buy one, but they're hardly difficult to come by (http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/750/specs.html) if you've got a lot of money.

The interesting thing here is that architecture like that is built for parallelization, and graphics are of course relatively easy to parallelize. The fact that at the high end the same architecture can win Jeopardy isn't particularly meaningful.

Zevox

2011-06-08, 12:54 AM

Oooh, apparently another new game for the Wii U has been announced at a round table discussion: Pikmin 3. Which Miyamoto said was almost complete already.

That could make for a very appealing launch title right there.

Zevox

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 01:43 AM

Pikmin 3 is the kind of thing that WOULD make me buy this at launch...

Drascin

2011-06-08, 02:00 AM

The thing is, if you can get the games you'd like on the 360/PS3 on the Wii U, along with the newest Nintendo games and you care about the Nintendo games at all, then getting the Wii U lets you have the best of both worlds.

That's the thing, yeah. Most people only buy one console, because they're not made of money. If WiiU manages to get all the multiplatform hits on top of the inevitable Nintendo greatness, it'll just be more economically smart to get the WiiU.

That sid, still not sold on the controller, at all. I'd have to hold it and see how it goes, because as is, it looks every bit as amazingly uncomfortable as the first Xbox pad.

Triaxx

2011-06-08, 06:38 AM

Inventory on the controller? No. MAP on the controller? Yes, absolutely. Imagine sitting up in a snipers nest, waiting on a target, and you look down to see the view through an overflying drone, giving you a look at the surroundings and a chance to plan your escape route while you wait. So instead of sitting and just staring down the scope you're doing something.

And perhaps it's just different playstyles, but I don't spend my entire game running and gunning. I'll park up under cover and pick apart the enemy. So being able to tap on the map on the controller and call for support, an air, or artillery strike. Or even just directing mortars. Or say GRAW, being able to tap and drag to give orders for flanking manuevers. Perhaps even taking direct control of support units like tanks or aircraft.

Heck, how often have you stepped around a corner and suddenly been staring at a tank? Being able to dive back around the corner, and call up artillery and then step out and blow up the tank.

Or with a screen on your controller, you can use the 'Future Warrior' style of sticking just the gun around the corner to shoot, using the screen on the controller.

Sounds a lot better than peeking out of cover to get gunned down by a heavy machine gun that head shots you on full auto from a mile away.

Just_Ice

2011-06-08, 08:45 AM

Sipex

2011-06-08, 09:17 AM

I'm just hoping they'll improve their online service with this iteration.

I'm iffy about the system but it's Nintendo, and aside from the Virtual Boy (oh god) they've put quality consoles out each iteration. So I'm willing to reserve judgement until I hear scathing reviews from sources I trust or I try it myself.

Probably both.

dsmiles

2011-06-08, 09:24 AM

I suppose it has to be said:

NINTENDO WII U NO PICK NAME WE CAN SAY!?!?

:smalltongue:

Sorry, I have little love for Nintendo, almost all the good RPG titles go to the Playstation.

Eldan

2011-06-08, 09:26 AM

Sipex

2011-06-08, 09:27 AM

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 09:37 AM

Hmm. I think the name is a good choice, really. Like "Wii", it's pronounceable in pretty much every language I know. As opposed to "X-Box" or "Playstation".

So, is it backwards compatible? And is it backwards compatible to the Gamecube?

And in English it's phonetically the same as whee-you, the sound a person makes when they smell something foul. Now you can't tell if somebody's talking about gaming or the dog, who has yet again rolled in a festering raccoon corpse!

Yeah, that does seem a stupid name to me, but then I'm still baffled people will pay for a product called the "Wii". Besides it uses the letter "U" as a stand alone word, which irritates me no end.

Alchemistmerlin

2011-06-08, 09:42 AM

And in English it's phonetically the same as whee-you, the sound a person makes when they smell something foul. Now you can't tell if somebody's talking about gaming or the dog, who has yet again rolled in a festering raccoon corpse!

Yeah, that does seem a stupid name to me, but then I'm still baffled people will pay for a product called the "Wii". Besides it uses the letter "U" as a stand alone word, which irritates me no end.

Really? I thought it sounded like "Weeeeeeeoooooooo weeeeeeeeeeooooooo"
which is the sound cartoon police cars make.

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 09:47 AM

Really? I thought it sounded like "Weeeeeeeoooooooo weeeeeeeeeeooooooo"
which is the sound cartoon police cars make.

Generally when the letter U appears in isolation anymore, it's pronounced 'you,' not 'oo.' Otherwise all those text messages would look even stupider. Besides which, pronouncing it as oo here makes no sense. We're owls now?

Alchemistmerlin

2011-06-08, 09:52 AM

Generally when the letter U appears in isolation anymore, it's pronounced 'you,' not 'oo.' Otherwise all those text messages would look even stupider. Besides which, pronouncing it as oo here makes no sense. We're owls now?

Okay...

So its "weeeeeeeyooooou weeeeeeeeeeeeyooooooooou"

Which is the sound a pedantic cartoon police car makes.

ObadiahtheSlim

2011-06-08, 09:54 AM

I'm calling it now. The next gen Wii after this one will be the Wii U Boo. Nintendo is setting up for the greatest troll console ever.

shiram

2011-06-08, 10:00 AM

Nintendo was using footage from Ps3/xbox360 when demoing games..

http://gizmodo.com/5809844/nintendo-used-360-ps3--pc-game-footage-in-its-wii-u-demo-reel

Alot of speculation right now, as they did not give out alot of information.
Hard not to feel that this is not just a Wii 2.0.

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 10:00 AM

Okay...

So its "weeeeeeeyooooou weeeeeeeeeeeeyooooooooou"

Which is the sound a pedantic cartoon police car makes.

Except the name's Wii U, not Wii U Wii U. And going wheeyou is usually one of the sounds I hear people make when smelling something unrelentingly bad. Like say that bag full of fermented chicken blood that had been left in the not particularly cold basement overnight which myself and a coworker happened upon at work on Sunday. At the time I thought we were merely expressing the opinion that its odor could probably lift paint, little did I know I was being prophetic.

Unlike now, when I'm just being pedantic.

Just_Ice

2011-06-08, 10:36 AM

I'm just going to call it the Woo (as in, John Woo). Enough of this nonsense.

Drascin

2011-06-08, 10:50 AM

I see people in forums calling it the Wu, and the new controller the Umote.

Athaniar

2011-06-08, 10:58 AM

I am certainly positive to this new console (even though I'm still not entirely sure about the name, but then again, I got used to the Wii), and as it looks now I will get it as soon as possible. Especially if they can get us some good games at launch. Especially Super Smash Bros. I am so looking forward to that. Wonder when the Dojo will start up again?

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 11:16 AM

The controller is horrid, the launch titles are mostly mediocre (and not very nintendo-esque), and every time the Wii attempted to do "non-nintendo-y" games it generally suffered for it. There's a pretty good precedent for the Wii U to suck.

Where did you see a list of launch titles? They haven't revealed what the line up will be yet. If you're talking about the series of clips from third party games, those are examples of games that will be on the Wii U, showing the expansion of third party support for it, but they are not all guaranteed to be available for launch, or to be the only games available at launch.

EDIT: To be totally accurate, Darksiders II was confirmed as being a launch title AFAIK, but that's about the only game that was.

Nintendo's online is becoming more competent, but they're always at least a generation behind. They didn't say "no friend codes", either... they wouldn't need to expand on anything if they said that, so the fact that they didn't is confusing. The manner in which they presented the Wii U made me quite confused on whether it was just a new Wii controller or a system (I saw the keynote without sound), but as mentioned before the controller is pretty hokey, and comparable to the iPad.

They didn't reveal their new online setup in the presentation yesterday either. Reggie Fils-Aime said that they would reveal it by the end of E3 though.

RPharazon

2011-06-08, 11:34 AM

I don't see what there really is to complain about. Yes it's a poor name, but honestly none of the console names have been very good for generations anyway. I mean, the X-Box is just a lame reference to the original system's shape with an "X" thrown on the front in a "poor literacy is kewl!" manner. Adding "360" to its successor doesn't make any real sense, and I can only guess they just wanted to use a bigger number than "2." Wii has of course long since been joked about. Playstation is a little better, but not much, and all Sony has been doing is adding a number to it since the first one.

The original Xbox was so named because it used DirectX, being the DirectXBox. DirectXBox doesn't sound as nice, though. The box bit, though, yeah, that's a bit unoriginal.
The 360 bit is officially explained away by 360 degrees being a single revolution. Think of it as the "Xbox Revolution" except they couldn't use that name since the Wii was originally named the Revolution during development. It still uses DirectX, though, and it's still a box.

Anyways, here's to hoping that Nintendo's new console doesn't use friend codes, and has a decent online service. It's not exactly a new concept.

Just_Ice

2011-06-08, 11:47 AM

Stuff about online tba

They'd better have something pretty good. They're latecomers to the party and have an abysmal track record. The fact that the 3DS launched without the e-shop (and that it was delayed) is not out of line with their previous bungles on this front.

If those are the "big third-party titles" rather than third-party launch titles, they've got even more to worry about than I thought.

I could be wrong, but after some serious disappointment from the Wii, I think there's pretty good reason to be skeptical.

Xondoure

2011-06-08, 11:58 AM

They'd better have something pretty good. They're latecomers to the party and have an abysmal track record. The fact that the 3DS launched without the e-shop (and that it was delayed) is not out of line with their previous bungles on this front.

If those are the "big third-party titles" rather than third-party launch titles, they've got even more to worry about than I thought.

I could be wrong, but after some serious disappointment from the Wii, I think there's pretty good reason to be skeptical.

The Wii was all about grabbing the casual market. Which they did spectacularly. The Wii U seems to be about keeping the casual market and bringing back in the hardcore gamers. With that in mind I wouldn't be surprised if it got a lot of third party support.

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 12:06 PM

They'd better have something pretty good. They're latecomers to the party and have an abysmal track record. The fact that the 3DS launched without the e-shop (and that it was delayed) is not out of line with their previous bungles on this front.

Well, EA's apparently happy with their online capabilities for multiplayer, so that's promising.

If those are the "big third-party titles" rather than third-party launch titles, they've got even more to worry about than I thought.

Where did they (or I) say those were the "big" third party titles? They are third party titles that show (along with all the clips of third party developers talking about how much they're impressed by the system and the guy from EA coming on stage to talk up EA's support) of the expansion of third party support. That said, Arkham City and Battlefield 3 at least are pretty big deals, as is Mass Effect 3, which was hinted at, though not explicitly stated.

TheArsenal

2011-06-08, 12:20 PM

Hey wait a minute? Did nintendo EVER have up to bleading edge desighn?

NES Vs Genisis

SNES VS Sega CD

Nintendo64 VS PS1 (Bad move)

Gamecube Vs PS2 VS XBox (Hmmm.)

Wii Vs PS4 Vs 360

Wii U VS ? VS ?

Sipex

2011-06-08, 12:25 PM

Bleeding edge design? Graphics wise you mean?

...

N64 should have but never utilised it's graphics properly (plus bad hardware setup).

Sooooo....no.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 12:28 PM

If you want to go by how successful a given system was

NES
SNES
PS1 (But fairly close)
PS2 (By a wider margin)
Wii (By an almost comically large margin considering the hardware is essentially two Gamecubes taped together).

And a clean sweep, destroying everyone else in handhelds.

You can also lump in the Wii U with the Wii as part of the current generation of games. Theres only so much you can do with a game's graphics... Unless Sony and Microsoft decide to actually try to come up with something new or make some decent first party games of their own, they've really got nothing right now.

shiram

2011-06-08, 12:32 PM

NES
SNES
PS1 (But fairly close)
PS2 (By a wider margin)
Wii (By an almost comically large margin considering the hardware is essentially two Gamecubes taped together).

PS1 was leader of that generation by a very wide margin, about 70 million consoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28fifth_generation %29#Console_wars

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 12:40 PM

It's all relative. 70 million is a much closer margin than the 125 million PS2 won by. I won't deny that the difference is larger than I thought though.

shiram

2011-06-08, 12:45 PM

It puts in perspective the margin of the Wii compared to the other systems in the 7th generation though, and they are not leading by as much as the PS1 was.
The Wii leads the PS3 and Xbox by about 30-35 millions system sold, and it's been selling less and less. So I would not say the Wii leads by a comically large margin, seeing as it's not selling as much anymore, and the Ps3/xbox360 still have alot of sales going on.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 12:50 PM

Comically large considering the technology. Without that last bit, you'd be right (well... as right as someone can be on something purely opinion based anyways).

If it was just about the technology, Wii would be a joke. I own one and love the damn thing, but if it was just about the technology in the machine, it wouldn't be able to compete.

The fact that it is beating the Xbawks 360 and PS3 and their millions of glorious shades of dirty gray, dull green, and boring brown realism... Well, I find that amusing. And oddly satisfying.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 12:53 PM

http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=160181

1 controller per console?

What the hell Nintendo?

You are so good at local multiplayer! Now at best we can use the 3 button+2 unreachable button for multiplayer (The 4 button+single pair of shoulder button possessing classic controller if we are lucky) *thud* *thud* *thud* *thud*.

Local multiplayer is key for casual and core gameplay. How do you screw that up so blatantly?

I don't even buy the "processing power" argument. Sure playing the full game on 2 screens may be too hard, but just allowing the controller part and or a simple play selection screen doesn't seem out of reach.

Eldan

2011-06-08, 12:57 PM

What? **** that, then. Not buying it. I mean, why should I even want a Smash Bros. game, then?

Sipex

2011-06-08, 12:58 PM

I can't read the article so I'm just taking a stab based on your comments. But I'm thinking something might be lost in translation. Nintendo sticks to having multiple players on a console, it's one of those things they just do.

Plus it's backwards compatible with the wii which means the console has the ability to identify multiple controllers at once already.

Maybe they mean it can only support one 'screen' controller at a time? What's the wording say?

edit: Basically I'm saying I'd be very surprised if 1 controller means 1 player. It would be strange for Nintendo to pull a complete 180 like that.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 01:01 PM

The article says one of the Ucontroller things per system. They still support multiplayer with normal Wiimotes (and I'm sure other controllers as well.

I suppose how much this matters depends on the games... You might not NEED more than one controller with a screen on it for most games. Hell, you might not need even that one for some games.

I can't imagine this sticking though... Even if the games don't support more than one Ucontroller, what if someone breaks theirs... They have to be able to get a replacement... So Nintendo will have to sell them separately.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 01:01 PM

That's just the point. Limiting the other players to the button deficient Wii Remote kills off an insane number of titles for multiplayer. Even first party multiplayer franchises can't work (Say good bye to a new Custom Robo)

shiram

2011-06-08, 01:02 PM

I think once we are firmly in the 8th generation we will be better suited to assess the success of the Wii.
Also software sales are an area where the Wii is not doing so good compared to Sony and Microsoft.

For now, I'll agree that the Wii made Nintendo alot of money, but them coming out with a new system, and one of their selling points being that they can do ps3 graphics, well it tells me Nintendo was getting flack from 3rd party devs, who we're limited by the Wii's power.

And once Sony/Microsoft comes out with a new console, what becomes of the Wii u, will it have only a life of 3 years?

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 01:18 PM

The controller is horrid, the launch titles are mostly mediocre (and not very nintendo-esque), and every time the Wii attempted to do "non-nintendo-y" games it generally suffered for it. There's a pretty good precedent for the Wii U to suck.

Nintendo's online is becoming more competent, but they're always at least a generation behind. They didn't say "no friend codes", either... they wouldn't need to expand on anything if they said that, so the fact that they didn't is confusing. The manner in which they presented the Wii U made me quite confused on whether it was just a new Wii controller or a system (I saw the keynote without sound), but as mentioned before the controller is pretty hokey, and comparable to the iPad.

Pikmin 3 is a good point, but not good enough to make me buy a system.

I think the controller is pretty good, then again I actually liked the original Xbox controller. Also, I'm willing to bet its quite a bit smaller than it seems. Before the 3DS came out, all of the media for it made it look pretty big when its actually only around the same size as a DS Lite.

Non-nintendoy games weren't really done by Nintendo. They were done by the third parties and they suffered because the third parties were setting them up for failure. The failed to nurture any kind of positive 3rd party environment in the beginning of the Wii's life and then, when they realized the Wii was a hit, they started pulling crap like "test" games. Now we have all the third parties saying that non-Nintendo games just don't sell, when its their fault that they don't sell in the first place.

Were you also confused when it came to the 3DS reveal? Did you believe to be nothing beyond a DS revision? I honestly can't understand why people think something is an addon when they're told, well beforehand, that its a completely new system.

I suppose it has to be said:

NINTENDO WII U NO PICK NAME WE CAN SAY!?!?

:smalltongue:

Sorry, I have little love for Nintendo, almost all the good RPG titles go to the Playstation.

Did you not have a DS? Plenty of great RPGs on it.

And in English it's phonetically the same as whee-you, the sound a person makes when they smell something foul. Now you can't tell if somebody's talking about gaming or the dog, who has yet again rolled in a festering raccoon corpse!

Yeah, that does seem a stupid name to me, but then I'm still baffled people will pay for a product called the "Wii". Besides it uses the letter "U" as a stand alone word, which irritates me no end.

Perhaps because a name isn't a barrier to entry.

Nintendo was using footage from Ps3/xbox360 when demoing games..

http://gizmodo.com/5809844/nintendo-used-360-ps3--pc-game-footage-in-its-wii-u-demo-reel

Alot of speculation right now, as they did not give out alot of information.
Hard not to feel that this is not just a Wii 2.0.

Yes, and that demo reel made it glorious because of all kinds of people saying it still looked like Wii graphics, wasn't anywhere close to PS3/360, etc.

Here is some footage of stuff actually running on the console:

Ghost Recon Online(Offscreen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN7vwti5RyA

Legend of Zelda Tech Demo(Offscreen):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hte5f8PyatE

Garden Tech Demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKGkTu5ATY

As for that controller issue, I don't trust Reggie enough to take his word at face value. I'm not trusting a Rep. Even if this is true now, it may be perfectly possible that this is just a temporary thing. Oh well, good thing the old controllers still work.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 01:26 PM

Terazul

2011-06-08, 01:33 PM

I'm pretty sure if they announced that they were designing games based around having 4 U Controllers, people would be freaking out just as badly.

"Oh it's going to be so expensive!"
"So now everyone's got to lug around this monster of a controller?"
"Oh so it's backwards compatible but I can't actually use my wiimote? Thanks Nintendo."

It's impossible to please everybody 100% of the time, and we don't even have the system in question to see what the impact of this "change" is.

Now if they let you use a 3DS as a U Controller, that would be pretty boss.

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 01:33 PM

If "temporary" that's almost as bad! They claim we will have lots of games because devs have had dev kits so long, this means we won't have local multiplayer in any serious amount during the launch window. Ughh.

I buy Nintendo consoles for the local multiplayer and first party exclusives (I have my PC for single player multiplatform games)! Nintendo announcing local multiplayer is gimped at best and only giving us 1 exclusive (Pikmin 3), which is moved from the Wii, is likely the easiest way to make me uninterested in the Wii U. Refusing to announce many titles for existing systems (which I would buy quickly) to avoid "stealing the thunder" of the Wii U makes this E3 a failure for everyone (Microsoft was poorly preforming Kinect and Halo, Sony was games we know of and a hand held we know of, Nintendo was a system with obvious faults that won't launch for a year and no games).

Temporary in the sense that there is at least a year to go until its launched. If the one Wii U controller is right, they still have plenty of time to change that.

Also, 1 Wii U controller =/= No local multiplayer. You're still able to use every Wii Accessory with the game which includes the Nunchuk and Classic Controller. Hell, some of the games they had as prototypes used 5 players locally, Chase Mii for instance.

You can safely put your fear of no local multiplayer away.

Terazul

2011-06-08, 01:34 PM

The post, it doubles.

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 01:36 PM

Why are you assuming that if only 1 Umote can be connected that they'll be no local multiplayer? It would just mean games wouldn't be designed to need multiple Umotes. And if you really don't like using the normal Wiimotes, there's still the Wii Classic Controller and likely the gamecube controller.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 01:48 PM

For the reasons I have alreddy said. I said gimped local MP because you have to stick the other players with, at best, the classic controller and its single shoulder buttons.

Zevox

2011-06-08, 01:52 PM

For the reasons I have alreddy said. I said gimped local MP.
According to the link you provided, multiplayer games for the console are being designed to use only one Wii U controller while other players use Wiimotes. That's not "there will be no/gimped local multiplayer," that's "the new controller isn't designed as a multiplayer tool, so you'll still be using the old ones for that." Since we know the system will be compatible with all Wii controllers and peripherals, I do not see a problem here.

Zevox

Sipex

2011-06-08, 01:52 PM

I would bet they'll release a Umote without a screen soon enough.

That said, doesn't the classic controller have the same number of buttons as the UMote anyways? I only recall seeing single shoulder buttons on the Umote as well but I might've missed a second set.

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 01:59 PM

For the reasons I have alreddy said. I said gimped local MP because you have to stick the other players with, at best, the classic controller and its single shoulder buttons.

I would bet they'll release a Umote without a screen soon enough.

That said, doesn't the classic controller have the same number of buttons as the UMote anyways? I only recall seeing single shoulder buttons on the Umote as well but I might've missed a second set.

The Classic Controller has two sets of shoulder buttons, and so does the Umote. They both have L/R and ZL/ZR. The original Classic Controller has them in a slightly odd position, in a line, but the Classic Controller Pro has them in the normal setup that the Playstation controllers have.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 02:01 PM

According to the link you provided, multiplayer games for the console are being designed to use only one Wii U controller while other players use Wiimotes. That's not "there will be no/gimped local multiplayer," that's "the new controller isn't designed as a multiplayer tool, so you'll still be using the old ones for that." Since we know the system will be compatible with all Wii controllers and peripherals, I do not see a problem here.

Zevox

EXACTLY. At best the others get the classic controler and its 6 buttons. Do you know how impossible that makes fighting games (one of the few genres not on the PC and normally very good for local MP)? GCN virtual console (no Z button or pressure sensitivity)?

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:01 PM

I honestly don't see the issue then.

In fact, I can't remember the last nintendo game which required easy use, multiple shoulder buttons anyways.

edit: Okay, fighting games I could see.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 02:02 PM

Oh hai Custom Robo! Hai Smash Bros!

If we aren't talking exclusively about mutliplayer, I'm pretty sure Wind Waker and GCN!Twilight Princess use them as well.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:04 PM

I still need to play that.

Still, you've got the same number of buttons on each.

Also, would you really want to use a Umote for a fighting game? Seems kind of bulky for that sort of thing. If a decent fighting game (that isn't Smash Bros, since the bros games typically require less buttons) releases for the WiiU it'll have a custom controller anyways.

edit: Smash bros is moot, Brawl prooved you can play the game with a variety of different controllers. Wiimote + Nunchuck is one of the best ways to play.

edit2: Augh, multiple edits to answer edits! Twilight Princess and Wind Waker both existed for a console with only TWO shoulder buttons and a single Z button which didn't need to be accessed quickly and easily. Plus they'd simply use the UMote since the more complex zeldas have been traditionally single player.

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 02:05 PM

Mando Knight

2011-06-08, 02:06 PM

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 02:08 PM

It does? I didn't recall it having them *wikipedias*. So it does.

Still, not utilizing the controller for MP (I can buy it can't do the "show the game on screen for 2" thing, I can't buy it can't do hidden move selection.) is a huge turn off.

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 02:09 PM

EXACTLY. At best the others get the classic controler and its 6 buttons. Do you know how impossible that makes fighting games (one of the few genres not on the PC and normally very good for local MP)? GCN virtual console (no Z button or pressure sensitivity)?

I take it that the PS3 and 360 are gimped too, then? Unless L3/R3 are so vastly important, they have the same amount of buttons as the Classic Controller:

Dpad
Two analog sticks
ABXY or Triangle/Circle/Square/X
Start/Select/Home
L/R/ZL/ZR, L1/R1/L2/R2, LT/RT/LB/RB

Pretty sure I'm not missing anything.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:11 PM

We lived without move selection on any controllers for 25 years before this, I think we'll be fine.

Zevox

2011-06-08, 02:16 PM

EXACTLY. At best the others get the classic controler and its 6 buttons. Do you know how impossible that makes fighting games (one of the few genres not on the PC and normally very good for local MP)? GCN virtual console (no Z button or pressure sensitivity)?
The classic controller has eight buttons - four face, four shoulder.

Fighting games should work perfectly fine. Those I play on my 360 always have an excess of buttons, and that has the same number of buttons on its controller as the Wii classic controller. Certainly if we're talking about ones with four-button attacks like BlazBlue, Marvel vs Capcom 3, or Mortal Kombat instead of the excessive six-button attacks like Street Fighter 4 there's no issue whatsoever. And besides, most big fighting game players use arcade stick peripherals for those anyway.

GCN virtual console? Unless I missed that announcement, we don't even know if such a thing exists. If it does, the classic controller certainly has more than enough buttons to accommodate a Z-button equivalent, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii U controller does as well. Don't know what you're taking about with pressure sensitivity. Besides, if the system is backwards-compatible with all Wii controllers, why wouldn't it also work with Gamecube controllers anyway?

Zevox

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 02:17 PM

Exactly. If such a thing isn't possible for the controller (no controller BC, so no pressure sensitivity), they likely won't bother software wise.

CoffeeIncluded

2011-06-08, 02:23 PM

Maybe you could play games on it without taking up the TV thanks to the screen on it... (the Wii would have to be on, but it doesn't mean you couldn't have some other channel going on the TV)

Oh my god if this is the case...

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 02:24 PM

Besides, if the system is backwards-compatible with all Wii controllers, why wouldn't it also work with Gamecube controllers anyway?

Zevox

I thought the same thing, looking it up though, it seems they've said that GC controllers are not going to work with the Wii U.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:24 PM

Oh my god if this is the case...

You guys didn't see the video, did you? This is EXACTLY what the controller screen allows you to do.

CoffeeIncluded

2011-06-08, 02:27 PM

You guys didn't see the video, did you? This is EXACTLY what the controller screen allows you to do.

...No. No I didn't. This is amazing.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:34 PM

Agreed. It is pretty awesome.

Exactly. If such a thing isn't possible for the controller (no controller BC, so no pressure sensitivity), they likely won't bother software wise.

Not sure what you mean here.

shiram

2011-06-08, 02:37 PM

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 02:51 PM

Even with the 1 controler a system reveal, Nintendo couldn't possible make it equal or worse than a current gen system.

Psyren

2011-06-08, 02:52 PM

The fact that it is beating the Xbawks 360 and PS3 and their millions of glorious shades of dirty gray, dull green, and boring brown realism... Well, I find that amusing. And oddly satisfying.

Brown is bad? I guess Call of Duty didn't get the memo. :smalltongue:

The Wii rocked sales because its controls were so accessible to new gamers. I'm definitely not sure the new controller will have the same appeal, nor am I sure the wii-chuck will work with the newer titles. And if it doesn't, why would a casual gamer get the WiiU over a much cheaper Wii?

Starwulf

2011-06-08, 02:55 PM

Finally got a chance to watch this episode of E3, had to DVR it. All I can say is...I won't be buying the new Nintendo Console :-(. I've been a supporter for Nintendo for many, many years(Since the Original NES, and have owned every console and handheld since with the exception of the Gameboy Advance, and the 3ds, which I'll likely get this year, likely for my 30th birthday), but with this new Controller, I'm just not interested. I mean, who in the hell wants to have to constantly stare back and forth between controller and TV? If I wanted to stare my controller to play a game, I'd just play my DS or PSP. It not only seems incredibly un-intuitive, it sounds like a pain in the neck(literally) waiting to happen.

I'm sorry Nintendo, but you've lost me on this Console. Hopefully your next offering 6-9 years from now will be less retarded and I can buy it. Until then, I guess I"ll be sticking with Xbox and Playstation.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 02:55 PM

That's a good point Psy. Thinking about it now the casual gamers I know would be very reluctant to change up to a WiiU after paying for a wii (even those who only paid $150). To a casual gamer, $150 is a lot of money for an electronic device that isn't a computer.

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 03:00 PM

Gizmodo has a decent faq up on the Wii u.
Maybe it can clarify some information for some :
http://gizmodo.com/5809984/nintendo-wii-u-faq

Possible 8 gig internal storage, but it seems you can use external hard drive.
That's one way to deal with storage, and better than Microsoft 160$ 250gig hard drive for sure.
Controller features a 6.2 inch touchscreen, no multitouch. This screams to me that the controller is huge, 6.2 inch plus the frame and space for buttons.
As of now it seems only one wiimote U can be used per system.
System is rumoured to be as powerfuly or just a bit less powerful than an xbox360.
Disc format hold 25 gig.

The 8 gig internal storage is not confirmed. All Nintendo has said on that matter is that it will have internal flash memory.

As for being a bit less powerful than a 360? Thats complete bull****. Nintendo would actually have to go out of their way to do that. All estimates I've seen have generally said about 3-5x more powerful than the PS3.

@Starwulf

Seriously? You're going to completely drop them simply because of the screen in the controller because you MIGHT have to look between the two screens? Keep in mind, that the one game we've actually seen running on the Wii U hardware, Ghost Recon Online, doesn't do this and this could actually be useful in less frantic games such as RPGs. Also, I guess just being able to play the game on the controller itself isn't enough of a pro to outweigh looking between the two screens, as well.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 03:00 PM

Brown is bad? I guess Call of Duty didn't get the memo. :smalltongue:

Eh, in general I'm sick of the whole "Real is Brown" thing. I'd much rather play a vibrant, colorful, and most importantly, FUN game than one that looks like someone smeared mud on my TV and sells itself on how realistic the graphics are over the actual quality of the gameplay experience. Good graphics do not by themself make a good game and the general assumption that they do is one of the biggest problems with the game industry.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 03:05 PM

It's an interesting problem. Usually with good graphics comes good gameplay simply because good graphics typically means a bigger budget. More money means better resources and minds to put towards the development of the actual project.

Starwulf

2011-06-08, 03:07 PM

@Starwulf

Seriously? You're going to completely drop them simply because of the screen in the controller because you MIGHT have to look between the two screens? Keep in mind, that the one game we've actually seen running on the Wii U hardware, Ghost Recon Online, doesn't do this and this could actually be useful in less frantic games such as RPGs. Also, I guess just being able to play the game on the controller itself isn't enough of a pro to outweigh looking between the two screens, as well.

As I already said, If I wanted to play a game on a tiny freaking screen, I'd PLAY ON MY DS OR PSP!. So that "Pro" isn't a "pro" to me at all. I play console games so I can play them on a screen larger then 4-6 inches in size. And yes, I am going to drop them because of a controller that is the size of a freaking BOOK, that is likely going to require me to switch back and forth on games between looking at the TV and looking at the remote. It's just not my thing. Really, the only thing I"ll be missing out on is the new Zelda and mario games that inevitably make for it. The rest of the games aren't ones I'll probably miss to terribly much. I've never enjoyed Pikmin or anything like that, and most of the other games are likely to be released for the 360 or PS3, so, really, it's not a terrible loss in the end. I will be sad that I"ll miss a generation of Zelda and Mario, but ehhh, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

shiram

2011-06-08, 03:08 PM

The 8 gig internal storage is not confirmed. All Nintendo has said on that matter is that it will have internal flash memory.

As for being a bit less powerful than a 360? Thats complete bull****. Nintendo would actually have to go out of their way to do that. All estimates I've seen have generally said about 3-5x more powerful than the PS3.

Was just quoting the article to make it easier for people.
I've seen nowhere mention it would be more powerful than a ps3, much less 5 times.

As for graphics, they are not as important to me as art style...

Suichimo

2011-06-08, 03:23 PM

As I already said, If I wanted to play a game on a tiny freaking screen, I'd PLAY ON MY DS OR PSP!. So that "Pro" isn't a "pro" to me at all. I play console games so I can play them on a screen larger then 4-6 inches in size. And yes, I am going to drop them because of a controller that is the size of a freaking BOOK, that is likely going to require me to switch back and forth on games between looking at the TV and looking at the remote. It's just not my thing. Really, the only thing I"ll be missing out on is the new Zelda and mario games that inevitably make for it. The rest of the games aren't ones I'll probably miss to terribly much. I've never enjoyed Pikmin or anything like that, and most of the other games are likely to be released for the 360 or PS3, so, really, it's not a terrible loss in the end. I will be sad that I"ll miss a generation of Zelda and Mario, but ehhh, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I mentioned it earlier, but the controller is likely smaller than it looks, screen size is measured diagonally. People thought the 3DS looked massive when images started coming out for it. In reality, its no larger than a DS Lite. If the size of it still bothers you, you can still use your old controllers. Switching back and forth probably won't even be as prevalent as you think.

Was just quoting the article to make it easier for people.
I've seen nowhere mention it would be more powerful than a ps3, much less 5 times.

As for graphics, they are not as important to me as art style...

I know you were just quoting.

The techies over at NeoGAF are who I'm going by.

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 03:25 PM

Eh, in general I'm sick of the whole "Real is Brown" thing. I'd much rather play a vibrant, colorful, and most importantly, FUN game than one that looks like someone smeared mud on my TV and sells itself on how realistic the graphics are over the actual quality of the gameplay experience. Good graphics do not by themself make a good game and the general assumption that they do is one of the biggest problems with the game industry.

Personally I'm getting more annoyed with people complaining about brownness than I am the actual color. My experience is that most of the games people describe as overly brown tend to have a lot more color in them than it initially appears. It might not be primary school shades of orange and green everywhere, but it's there. To date there's exactly one game I found offensively dirt colored, and that's Fallout 3.

It's also pretty disengenuous to insinuate, as you certainly seem to, that people only buy games like Call of Duty because of how realistic they look. Such games do go for realism in the graphics department yes, because cartoony graphics would be wildly offputting and inappropriate for their stories and context. My honest guess is that people play CoD because it's fun for them.

Horrifying and difficult to believe I agree, being the long-running CoD disliker I am, but there it is. Now maybe the graphics are part of that fun for them, so what? You certainly seem to express the opinion that graphics can make a game less fun. I don't see anything wrong with the converse position. It's clearly not the only thing CoD games have going for them with people, as there's lots of other shooters that look pretty much exactly the same and don't sell nearly as well.

Sipex

2011-06-08, 03:26 PM

Well, it sounds like this is going the same trend of the Wii. We're going to argue about it for two years until finally everyone gets bored of it and we begrudgingly truce.

Garland

2011-06-08, 03:29 PM

Wait did you say new smash brothers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ)

Oh no... no, I can't fall for it this time. I got a wii only for SSBB (admittely I got more games latter and really don't regret owning one, and still play SSBB sometimes).. But.. I can't really get another console because of Smash Brothers. I hope.

Reverent-One

2011-06-08, 03:43 PM

We've had a lot of talk about the Wii U in the thread so far, but I think it's time to have some Wii U actual content in here. Like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OHUwDShrD4) A tech demo done in an early version of the dev kit. Looks pretty awesome, and that's even watching a recording done an iPhone.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 03:51 PM

It's also pretty disengenuous to insinuate, as you certainly seem to, that people only buy games like Call of Duty because of how realistic they look. Such games do go for realism in the graphics department yes, because cartoony graphics would be wildly offputting and inappropriate for their stories and context. My honest guess is that people play CoD because it's fun for them.

Horrifying and difficult to believe I agree, being the long-running CoD disliker I am, but there it is. Now maybe the graphics are part of that fun for them, so what? You certainly seem to express the opinion that graphics can make a game less fun. I don't see anything wrong with the converse position. It's clearly not the only thing CoD games have going for them with people, as there's lots of other shooters that look pretty much exactly the same and don't sell nearly as well.

Ahem, Psyren was the one who brought up Call of Duty. I was talking about games affected by Real is Brown in general (though CoD is certainly one of them). I'm not a fan of CoD (not a fan of most FPS) but that is beside the point.

My opinion is not that "graphics can make a game less fun," that would just be idiotic. My opinion is "graphics beyond what it takes to recognize what is in the game world are irrelevent to how fun a game is and should be secondary to things that do make a game more fun."

The problem comes in when developers focus on graphics at the expense of more important gameplay factors. I'm sure everyone out here has played (or at the very least is aware of) a game that may look good, but is outstandingly generic and rather boring. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The problem also comes in when consumers make the assumption that a game can't be good without ultrarealistic (or worse, ultrabrown) graphics. Of course... The second issue is much more common than the first, but I attribute this to the fact that there are MANY more game players than game developers.

As for Real is Brown specifically... Well, this is more of a style issue than a quality one, but it is one that I'm personally sick of and one that can have the same problems attached to it as if it were a quality issue.

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 04:28 PM

As Dumbledore lives said, first impressions I've heard have been good. Or have you held one yourself?

First impressions have probably not been based on using it to play a game for 5 hours straight. Because that's what it'll need to be comfortable for in order to win over the core gamer crowd.

Psyren

2011-06-08, 04:31 PM

TheArsenal

2011-06-08, 04:34 PM

Well good graphics DO look good.... But thier sort of like frosting. I like frosting. But I love the innards more.

Anybody thought that this could be possibly the best remote for shooters? Using the pointer for shots and moving using the pads?

Or am i the only One that REALY liked the controler layout For Metroid Prime Hunters? Cause it emulated the mouse realy well in my opinion. Could work as well for the Wii U.

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 04:38 PM

My opinion is not that "graphics can make a game less fun," that would just be idiotic. My opinion is "graphics beyond what it takes to recognize what is in the game world are irrelevent to how fun a game is and should be secondary to things that do make a game more fun."

Y'know, it seems obvious that games are all about being All Fun All The Time, but that's actually not really true.

There are a lot of games that are actually not fun most of the time, and that are specifically designed to be like that and bought because they are like that. Some games, for instance, can be really frustrating and infuriating for the vast majority of the time if the payoff for solving that incredibly hard puzzle, or completing that fiendish action sequence, is good enough.

If you declare that anything that isn't about Increased Fun is irrelevant to a game you're committing just as grave an error as anyone who ignores the rest of design in favour of graphical achievement.

TheSummoner

2011-06-08, 04:42 PM

Well good graphics DO look good.... But thier sort of like frosting. I like frosting. But I love the innards more.

This. This is a delicious way of wording my point.

Edit:

Y'know, it seems obvious that games are all about being All Fun All The Time, but that's actually not really true.

There are a lot of games that are actually not fun most of the time, and that are specifically designed to be like that and bought because they are like that. Some games, for instance, can be really frustrating and infuriating for the vast majority of the time if the payoff for solving that incredibly hard puzzle, or completing that fiendish action sequence, is good enough.

If you declare that anything that isn't about Increased Fun is irrelevant to a game you're committing just as grave an error as anyone who ignores the rest of design in favour of graphical achievement.

Some people find insane challenges fun. Games designed to be frustrating and infuriating, but incredibly satisfying when you finally succeed cater to that type of person. I Wanna Be The Guy is a fine example.

You cannot say the same about graphics, however. Provided that you can tell well enough what everything in the game world is, the graphics do not have any effect on the gameplay. Let's look at the original 8-Bit Super Mario Bros. It had a 16-Bit remake which was part of a the Super Mario All-Stars collection. The two looked different, but you can't say that one was more fun than the other because they were the same game. If Nintendo released a remake in the style of NSMBWii, with everything else identical (levels, game physics, etc), it would still be the same game. No more or less fun than it was back in 1985. It would LOOK better, but it wouldn't be a better game.

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 04:46 PM

Anybody thought that this could be possibly the best remote for shooters? Using the pointer for shots and moving using the pads?

And getting wtfpwnt by someone who didn't have to let go of his controller to aim at you.

The advantage of twinstick or mouse and keyboard for shooters is that you [i]don't[i] have to move your hands off the controls to do anything important, or if you do it's a very small movement as between analogue sticks and face buttons.

And even that isn't going to be great with this controller, because the movement is vertical. The movement between dpad and stick or face buttons and stick on a PS or Xbox pad is completely encompassed by the natural arc of the thumb joint. The PS Vita has it's analogue sticks slightly further inset into the unit for just this reason.

warty goblin

2011-06-08, 04:57 PM

Ahem, Psyren was the one who brought up Call of Duty. I was talking about games affected by Real is Brown in general (though CoD is certainly one of them). I'm not a fan of CoD (not a fan of most FPS) but that is beside the point.

Sorry, my bad.

My opinion is not that "graphics can make a game less fun," that would just be idiotic. My opinion is "graphics beyond what it takes to recognize what is in the game world are irrelevent to how fun a game is and should be secondary to things that do make a game more fun."
Ah, see this I disagree with. I've had a lot of good times in games admiring how well the developers have rendered their creation. Just the other day in Bulletstorm I paused while fighting my way across the top of a hydro-electric dam, and remarked to myself how absolutely fantastic the water splashing through the turbines looked, and how it made the scene feel wonderfully kinetic and active. Then I kicked a guy into said turbine for a nice 500 point bonus, but that's beside the point.

I've had similar moments in Just Cause, all the Crysis games, Far Cry 2, both Witchers, hell lots of games. I realize other people don't have this value, that's great for them and I wish them nothing but joy. I however do value graphical excellence, and get a little tired of other people viewing this as deeply wrong somehow. I have nothing against whatever you find enjoyable in games - I may not find it fun personally, but you go right ahead. Kindly allow others to do the same.

The problem comes in when developers focus on graphics at the expense of more important gameplay factors. I'm sure everyone out here has played (or at the very least is aware of) a game that may look good, but is outstandingly generic and rather boring.
Nope, can't say I have. I've played good looking games that weren't very good, but I've played at least as many mediocre looking bad games. At the global level I'd be hard pressed to find a positive correlation between graphical quality and enjoyability, at the level of individual games I simply don't know enough about their development to meaningfully speculate on whether allocating time and money differently would have produced a superior product. Maybe it would have, or maybe the idea was terribly flawed to begin with, or maybe the design team simply didn't have the talent.
[/QUOTE]This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The problem also comes in when consumers make the assumption that a game can't be good without ultrarealistic (or worse, ultrabrown) graphics. Of course... The second issue is much more common than the first, but I attribute this to the fact that there are MANY more game players than game developers.
[/QUOTE]
Realism is a valid graphical style. I don't see any problem with people deciding or realizing they enjoy games with realistic graphics over those without, and therefore ignore the latter for the former, just like there's no problem with somebody being bored of realism and preferring stylized graphics, or really not caring that much about art style. All three are completely valid. They're only invalid when personal preference is held up as some sort of fundamental universal truth.

As for Real is Brown specifically... Well, this is more of a style issue than a quality one, but it is one that I'm personally sick of and one that can have the same problems attached to it as if it were a quality issue.

Reality isn't generally brown. If the bit of it you're looking at happens to be a bombed out battlefield, yeah, it's probably gonna tend towards the brown. There's a lot of games set in battlefields seeing as a lot of people tend to enjoy them, it's hardly surprising they're often brown.

TheArsenal

2011-06-08, 05:08 PM

And getting wtfpwnt by someone who didn't have to let go of his controller to aim at you.

Its in built. So yeah, all of the accuracy of twinsticks with the eas of learning of the pointer.

Dihan

2011-06-08, 05:33 PM

First hands-on impressions for the controller are that it's just as light as a standard DS and that it's quite ergonomic. The slidepads are apparently more robust than the 3DS ones. They did manage to get it to balance on top of the Light Gun in the trailer, after all. It's light because it's just a screen; the console does all the hard work.

IBM has said that it uses a POWER7 4-core processor running at 3 Ghz per core. It uses internal flash memory. It also has four USB 2.0 ports that can be used to boost the memory (multiple external hard drives anyone?). It outputs in 1080p. The controller screen streams the data (with no latency) from the console so it looks exactly the same even though it's not HD.

However, Nintendo only revealed this because of all the rumours that were going around. The realtime Zelda and 'bird in cherry blossom garden' tech demos were built off very early dev kits. All of the third party trailers were from PS3 or 360 versions. Sakurai hasn't even started on SSB4 yet (he's waiting for Kid Icarus Uprising to be out the door).

The console is pretty much just a prototype so a lot could change between now and next E3, let alone the release date.

Drascin

2011-06-08, 05:39 PM

My opinion is not that "graphics can make a game less fun," that would just be idiotic. My opinion is "graphics beyond what it takes to recognize what is in the game world are irrelevent to how fun a game is and should be secondary to things that do make a game more fun."

I don't know if idiotic, because it is certainly mine. I have been finding, as years go by, that the more supposedly "better" graphics become, the less, on average, I can actually distinguish enemies from the background before they shoot at me, and the more I am forced to reload because of it. Which is rather bothersome, because while I am normally not one to care about graphics much, my one request of a game's graphics is that it is very clear and lets me know precisely what's going on.

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 05:51 PM

Its in built. So yeah, all of the accuracy of twinsticks with the eas of learning of the pointer.

It's "inbuilt" into a controller that's 10.5" across. You simply will not be able to use the touchscreen without letting go of one side of the controller or the other and that means you're taking your fingers off the buttons, or the buttons are unusable to the game designer (like in MP: Hunters, which mirrored the dpad onto the face buttons).

Bearing in mind that it would be a pain in the ass to try and use the shoulder buttons and triggers at the same time as well (you'd have to use the triggers with your middle fingers), which limits the control options even more.

Also, since the controller has those ****ty little analogue sliders like the 3DS you don't get all the accuracy of sticks, you don't get the same quality of haptic feedback that you would if you were using real sticks and it's harder to make small precise movements when you have no leverage to do so.

Triaxx

2011-06-08, 05:55 PM

Hmm... looking at the controller, two circle pads (joysticks), four face buttons, face d-pad, four shoulder buttons.

So... we don't need GC pads, because the WiiU pad has enough buttons to play as it.

And Wiimote aiming lolpwnz stick aiming.

deuxhero

2011-06-08, 05:59 PM

^ Except the one upad thing...

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 06:02 PM

IBM has said that it uses a POWER7 4-core processor running at 3 Ghz per core.

No, IBM said it's a 45nm part. That doesn't mean it's a Power7. It's much more likely to be a 45nm Power5 derivative the same as the current Xbox 360 CPU.

I'd be very surprised if they've gotten Power7 down to the type of costs, power draw, and heat production that it would have to hit to be a living room product, especially in a box with the Wii U's form factor.

Dihan

2011-06-08, 06:09 PM

IBM tells us that within the Wii U there's a 45nm custom chip with "a lot" of embedded DRAM (shown above). It's a silicon on insulator design and packs the same processor technology found in Watson, the supercomputer that bested a couple of meatbags on Jeopardy awhile back.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/07/ibm-puts-watsons-brains-in-nintendo-wii-u/

Xondoure

2011-06-08, 06:14 PM

It's "inbuilt" into a controller that's 10.5" across. You simply will not be able to use the touchscreen without letting go of one side of the controller or the other and that means you're taking your fingers off the buttons, or the buttons are unusable to the game designer (like in MP: Hunters, which mirrored the dpad onto the face buttons).

Bearing in mind that it would be a pain in the ass to try and use the shoulder buttons and triggers at the same time as well (you'd have to use the triggers with your middle fingers), which limits the control options even more.

Also, since the controller has those ****ty little analogue sliders like the 3DS you don't get all the accuracy of sticks, you don't get the same quality of haptic feedback that you would if you were using real sticks and it's harder to make small precise movements when you have no leverage to do so.

Where'd you get 10.5" across? I'm just going off this thread but earlier someone put up 6.2 diagonally, which is a lot less...

GloatingSwine

2011-06-08, 06:19 PM

Where'd you get 10.5" across? I'm just going off this thread but earlier someone put up 6.2 diagonally, which is a lot less...

6.2 diagonal is the screen. The whole controller is 10.5"x7"x0.9"

Xondoure

2011-06-08, 06:36 PM

6.2 diagonal is the screen. The whole controller is 10.5"x7"x0.9"

Ah got it. Well as long as its comfortable and not terribly heavy to hold I don't mind. When it comes down to it my elbows don't care terribly if its five or ten inches long.

Psyren

2011-06-08, 06:55 PM

Kotaku has the console up close. (http://kotaku.com/5810084/this-is-the-wii-u-console-in-my-ink+stained-hands)

I'm loving the unit itself (HDMI, woo) but geez that controller. Either that guy has small hands or that thing is massive.

I still can't think of anything I would want to have on a second screen that would make it worthwhile to bob my head back and forth either.

Triaxx

2011-06-09, 05:32 AM

I really love this. "Nintendo has no HD, we hateses it!"

Nintendo: Now with HD.

"We still hateses you, but now for no good reason."

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 05:36 AM

I really love this. "Nintendo has no HD, we hateses it!"

Nintendo: Now with HD.

"We still hateses you, but now for no good reason."

Apparently people are worried that neft consoles will have AD (avatar definition). Seriously people, lets give it a chance, THEN bash it.

Edit:

For those that want to know how it could function as a mousepad let me explain:

When you play a shooter with twinsticks you shoot with your upper buttons and stuff and use the sticks to move. If you need to change weapon or something you commonly have to release your finger off of the stick (Or you use the upper buttons I guess.

The PC control is wsad with nearby button configuration and the mouse (With clicking doing most of the functions).

When I played Prime hunters it was done like this:

One hand (Left if your a righty) grasped one side of the controler and could use the L button and the D-Pad. The other hand held the stylus.

You used L to shoot, the D-Pad to move and you used the Stylus to turn and aim. In addition there was a few tap buttons on the stylus.

So your stylus (The majority of the time) remained in contact with the screen and it was pretty accurate I must say. The part where you touched the screen also functioned as a mini map. And you changed weapons by releasing the aim and tapping the weapon you wanted.

And I must say...It was pretty dam good.

The Drawbacks included a slightly cluttered lower screen so sometimes (But You get used to it very fast.) you would accidentily press weapon change. And that it took half a second to change weapons while looking at the bottom screen.

But beyond that the controls where SUPERB. Im not kidding! The Stylus movements helped me aim as accuratly as on a mouse (And where adjustable), and the mini map on the bottom screen helped allot and sort of balanced out the problem when it came to changing weapons (Since you saw your enemies), and wasn't disorienting to look at. I have to say I was very satisfied with the controls

A similar style thing can be done with the WU. But it will be better because (A larger lower screen=more space with stylus) and you could probably change weapons with the D-Pad instead.

Generaly im not that worried about looking at two different screens because the DS worked great in my opinion. It could possibly be a disorienting adjusting to a bigger screen from looking at you screen from a distance. I tested out looking at a paper and at the TV. Was OK.

And if you dont like this control method? Well you could always play the original method. And the lower screen could Add/Remove buttons if you needed to. The only thing that annoys me is joysticks on the upper hand. That was very stupid nintendo.

But another suggestion for FPS controls is based on Wii mote.

I think pionting and shooting worked very (Better than even with two joysticks I might add) well but turning around took time, and wasn't that good.

So you could just take the "Point to aim" function the Wii U seams to have and use them to shoot.

Any way there is no denying the Wii U will be a very Vertisile console.

Psyren

2011-06-09, 10:13 AM

I really love this. "Nintendo has no HD, we hateses it!"

Nintendo: Now with HD.

"We still hateses you, but now for no good reason."

Don't oversimplify. First, I haven't seen anyone say they "hate it" yet; second, the graphics aren't all they changed. That controller really gives me pause, both from my own perspective and that of the casuals on whom Nintendo built their empire.

Sipex

2011-06-09, 10:21 AM

Erloas

2011-06-09, 10:49 AM

I don't know if idiotic, because it is certainly mine. I have been finding, as years go by, that the more supposedly "better" graphics become, the less, on average, I can actually distinguish enemies from the background before they shoot at me, and the more I am forced to reload because of it. Which is rather bothersome, because while I am normally not one to care about graphics much, my one request of a game's graphics is that it is very clear and lets me know precisely what's going on.

But isn't blending into the background and trying to hide a very basic, and almost mandatory skill for anyone in a combat situation? Enemies that stand out in the open and/or wear easily picked out clothing just doesn't make any sense.
Considering that improving the AI and making NPCs behave more like humans has been a big goal for a while now and something asked for by players.
It is also very much a design decision. It makes things like "run into a room and just start blasting away" much less likely to work. It purposefully forces people to slow down and be more observant of an area.

Which isn't to say that is the best way to design a game. But it does give developers the option to do that sort of thing and it is done for specific gameplay related reasons. Its not a problem with increased graphics, it just means what you want out of a game and what the developers wanted to do isn't the same.

[quote=Triaxx]I really love this. "Nintendo has no HD, we hateses it!"

Nintendo: Now with HD.

"We still hateses you, but now for no good reason." [/spoiler]
I think it mostly has to do with a too little too late sort of thing. At this point anyone that was turned off of the Wii based on the crappy graphics has already picked another system, and while they might be interested in a new system it should at least advance things a bit. And from what we've heard so far (almost nothing, and chances are if they had anything good they would have mentioned it) its going to just be on par with systems that are already 5+ years old. It doesn't seem like they are opening up any new options, they aren't advancing things much, they aren't really giving anyone any reason to get excited. It seems to me like this is the system that the Wii should have been in the first place. Maybe if its at least prices reasonable low that will make it reasonable, but I kind of doubt they'll release a new product with prices in line with the other consoles that have been out a while, even though their new console isn't likely to be any more powerful.

Psyren

2011-06-09, 11:40 AM

Triaxx does raise a good indirect point though.

Simply, no matter what Nintendo does someone is going to whine about it. Someone always does. Someone is going to dislike it and someone else is going to disagree.

It's the same with everything really. Can't please everyone.

Which is why you bring reasoning to the table backing up your point of view.

For instance: I see little value in having a second screen in the controller. It moves the system away from the innovative remote-design that made the Wii so naturally appealing to non-gamers; it's so large that it takes up valuable real estate (making the actual buttons much smaller) while simultaneously making the WiiU controller larger than that of both other consoles;

Then we get to what you can actually use the screen for. If you put essential information on the other display, you force players to head-bob back and forth, something users of no other system have to do. If you put non-essential information down there, why bother having it in the first place? Which leaves us to the game-streaming idea; I can't see parents being happy with that. If they switch the TV over for family time, will they really want little Timmy wearing his headphones and still absorbed in getting Mario to the next level? How well will PS3-quality game translate to such a tiny screen? When you're streaming not just commands, but sound and visuals wirelessly to the controller too, how will latency/interference factor in?

I'm not being a doomsayer for the heck of it - I'm genuinely worried about the wisdom behind this console. I'm willing to be convinced though - sell me on a WiiU.

tonberrian

2011-06-09, 11:44 AM

I adapted enough to switching between screens to play TWEWY. I'm sure I can do it for the Wii U.

Also, the ability to play this while somebody else is watching the screen is very good for me.

Sipex

2011-06-09, 11:47 AM

Which is why you bring reasoning to the table backing up your point of view.

For instance: I see little value in having a second screen in the controller. It moves the system away from the innovative remote-design that made the Wii so naturally appealing to non-gamers; it's so large that it takes up valuable real estate (making the actual buttons much smaller) while simultaneously making the WiiU controller larger than that of both other consoles;

Then we get to what you can actually use the screen for. If you put essential information on the other display, you force players to head-bob back and forth, something users of no other system have to do. If you put non-essential information down there, why bother having it in the first place? Which leaves us to the game-streaming idea; I can't see parents being happy with that. If they switch the TV over for family time, will they really want little Timmy wearing his headphones and still absorbed in getting Mario to the next level? How well will PS3-quality game translate to such a tiny screen? When you're streaming not just commands, but sound and visuals wirelessly to the controller too, how will latency/interference factor in?

I'm not being a doomsayer for the heck of it - I'm genuinely worried about the wisdom behind this console. I'm willing to be convinced though - sell me on a WiiU.

I can't, you know as much as I do and all I have are mild sources which can be handwaved away.

I'm not trying to, to be honest. I'm trying to show both sides that this arguement is fruitless (although I have been involved, call it enlightenment on the field). Nothing we say will effectively change how this console turns out and there's too little information available to successfully convince either side to change at the current time.

I'll wait until next E3 to get a better idea.

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 11:50 AM

The DS and 3ds have duel screens.

Geno9999

2011-06-09, 12:10 PM

Just another thought about the controller; It would be reasonable that there won't be that many games that require multiple Wii U controllers. On Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5809706/nintendo-looking-into-games-that-support-two-new-controllers) implies that developers see that 1) the cost would be too much for consumers, and 2) Wii U might not be able to multitask with four Wii U controllers running. This Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5809572/seven-different-ways-to-play-the-wii-u/gallery/1) gallery supports this, as the multiplayer shown will be using the 1-4 Wiimotes + 1 Wii U pad. So controller cost shouldn't be that much of a concern for me, or anyone who owns a Wii for that matter.

Related, I think there's potential for a Pokemon Stadium spiritual successor with this, since you could have the Wii U Pad display Pokemon stats, moves, etc. without it getting in the way of watching the Pokemon duke it out in HD on the TV.

Erloas

2011-06-09, 12:22 PM

The DS and 3ds have duel screens.

Yes, but there is a big difference between looking at two adjacent screens and two screens that are staggeringly different. There has been no issue with spreading information out on multiple screens on the computer, but they effectively function as one larger screen, and the little bit I've used the DS has been like that as well. Focusing one one screen maybe 2 feet away and small then switching to focusing on a very large screen 10-15 feet away is not going to flow smoothly.

Across almost all industries user input devices are designed to be used with as little active attention as possible. And controllers are designed to be used by feel from one standard grip without requiring the hands to be moved. Obviously hand held devices are different, but I don't think people are wanting a console to get a game that feels and controls like a game on a phone. People put up with that on a phone because its the only real option.

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 12:28 PM

And controllers are designed to be used by feel from one standard grip without requiring the hands to be moved.

Thats a lie. I realy liked the game controls for the wii, just it was half baked and the wiimote was generaly a bad idea. This seams like everything I wanted from the wii and more. Plus I already mentioned that I personaly prefered stylus based FPS controls (and mentioned why). There, one costomer already.

Obviously hand held devices are different, but I don't think people are wanting a console to get a game that feels and controls like a game on a phone.

How is it like a phone? Again im just being optimistic with the limited info given. Wait until you play a game of the system then say whether its good or bad.

And I checked by looking at a papr and at my TV. It isnt that bad. And you don't realy know how its going to be employed much anyway.

Psyren

2011-06-09, 12:37 PM

The DS and 3ds have duel screens.

The games designed for those systems are handheld games. I can see playing Golden Sun on two screens, but not Bayonetta.

The two screens are also where you would be looking anyway with a handheld. Unless you have a habit of holding your controllers at eye-level, the WiiU will involve lots of head movement. (Unless, again, there's nothing on the second screen you need to look at - which again begs the reason for its existence.)

tonberrian

2011-06-09, 12:45 PM

The games designed for those systems are handheld games. I can see playing Golden Sun on two screens, but not Bayonetta.

The two screens are also where you would be looking anyway with a handheld. Unless you have a habit of holding your controllers at eye-level, the WiiU will involve lots of head movement. (Unless, again, there's nothing on the second screen you need to look at - which again begs the reason for its existence.)

Nah. Just a flick of the eyes.

Thiyr

2011-06-09, 12:55 PM

So I'd like to point out something I noticed. The WiiU controller seems to me to be pretty much just a tablet with some buttons tacked on. This actually seems like a very good thing in terms of weight. So long as the designers actually think out their control schemes a bit, though (or allow for customization of important aspects of the screen-control end of things), I can see that working out just fine. Treat the touch screen as a useful tool, not something that needs to be used constantly, and it'll be fine.

Heck, just looking at the controller, it seems like it would be easier to use it for dual-stick shooters in terms of button layout. the placement ofthe face buttons means you can palm them decently, and while far from ideal, that's better (imo) than taking the thumb off the stick to use the face buttons, and their placement means you would be able to -do that as well-. And then considering the screen is close enough to the sticks that you can do the same sort of stick-to-button thumb-jump to get access to two more screen-buttons. For the fps crowd, toss non-essential stuff on the second screen (leaderboard, killcam), or stuff that would realistically require you to look away from combat (someone else pointed out the whole "shooting from behind cover" thing. It's non-intrusive realism, not unlike graphics providing camouflage that works), and I think we've got the start of something good.

Erloas

2011-06-09, 12:59 PM

Thats a lie. I realy liked the game controls for the wii, just it was half baked and the wiimote was generaly a bad idea. This seams like everything I wanted from the wii and more. Plus I already mentioned that I personaly prefered stylus based FPS controls (and mentioned why). There, one costomer already.
But the wii-mote doesn't require looking at the controller to function. If anything its more of the "by feel" and without looking type of controls compared to anything else. And by not requiring the hands to move, I was referring to their position on the controller, the same with a mouse, you move your hand but relative to the device you don't. Where as this is going to require moving the hand from the buttons to the screen and back if a game is going to use most of the parts of the controller.

As for stylus control, I'm sure there are some people that prefer it, but it seems to be a very small part of the market. PCs have a lot of options for style or touch pad like controls and very few people choose the option. And touch pads are the default mouse control of laptops but everyone I know still uses a separate mouse on their laptop most of the time anyway.

How is it like a phone? Again im just being optimistic with the limited info given. Wait until you play a game of the system then say whether its good or bad.

And I checked by looking at a papr and at my TV. It isnt that bad. And you don't realy know how its going to be employed much anyway.
Phones are about the only thing with touch screen based inputs at this point. And as far as I have heard no one thinks of it as a superior control method, just the best option on that small of a form factor. And that is also essentially what you would be left with if you were playing many games in the "controller only mode." I don't see it as being a step above normal hand-helds, and I don't see too many people that want a hand-held to just use at home, and everyone that wants to use one somewhere else will already have one and not need the additional feature of the console when at home and not able to use the big TV.

Try doing something a bit more interactive when you switch around. Try playing even a moderately actiony game and periodically looking down to read even a couple words and see how things go.

tonberrian

2011-06-09, 01:04 PM

Try doing something a bit more interactive when you switch around. Try playing even a moderately actiony game and periodically looking down to read even a couple words and see how things go.

TWEWY. Seriously.

Drascin

2011-06-09, 01:10 PM

But isn't blending into the background and trying to hide a very basic, and almost mandatory skill for anyone in a combat situation? Enemies that stand out in the open and/or wear easily picked out clothing just doesn't make any sense.
Considering that improving the AI and making NPCs behave more like humans has been a big goal for a while now and something asked for by players.
It is also very much a design decision. It makes things like "run into a room and just start blasting away" much less likely to work. It purposefully forces people to slow down and be more observant of an area.

Which isn't to say that is the best way to design a game. But it does give developers the option to do that sort of thing and it is done for specific gameplay related reasons. Its not a problem with increased graphics, it just means what you want out of a game and what the developers wanted to do isn't the same.

I imagined the answer would be something like this. And to be honest, no. That's not it. Unless it has been a design decision in nearly every game lately, which would be rather dumb. This is not just about FPSs (which to be honest I barely even play), it's about what happens to me in nearly every game that tries to go for the "realistic" look. It ends up getting to the point I'll turn half the graphic options off and cranking gamma up just to see where in blazes I'm going.

(It's particularly annoying because in real life, I am perceptive enough that trying to sneak on me was considered a pastime at my highschool class with the scoreboard grossly in my favor, so when in recent games, I stand six foot away from a guy standing wide open in a shadowed room and am unable to differentiate him from the shadows until he rushes to stab me, it's extra disconcerting).

Suichimo

2011-06-09, 01:11 PM

Don't oversimplify. First, I haven't seen anyone say they "hate it" yet; second, the graphics aren't all they changed. That controller really gives me pause, both from my own perspective and that of the casuals on whom Nintendo built their empire.

Not really oversimplifying when that is pretty much what consumers, and even developers, do regarding Nintendo.

Consumers will deride Nintendo because it doesn't have the power it needs for certain games. When the system does have the power it needs for those games they'll find something else to attack like the controls, GCN got a lot of flak for this. If all else fails, its a kiddy system.

Its really sad that even developers do it. They whine when they don't have the power they need rather than just coming up with a way around it. When it does have the power they need they then claim that they can't compete with Nintendo's first party offerings, though they can certainly do it with Microsoft and Sony. All else fail, the demographic isn't there when largely its probably their fault that its not there in the first place.

Moving goal posts is the name of the game with Nintendo.

The games designed for those systems are handheld games. I can see playing Golden Sun on two screens, but not Bayonetta.

The two screens are also where you would be looking anyway with a handheld. Unless you have a habit of holding your controllers at eye-level, the WiiU will involve lots of head movement. (Unless, again, there's nothing on the second screen you need to look at - which again begs the reason for its existence.)

I'd imagine unless its a segment of a game that goes to your controller, think Four Swords Adventure, the controller screen will be seldomly used by developers. A good image in my head, for shooters at least, is finding a spot to hide and then releasing a spy bot. The view point of the spybot comes up on the controller screen and you can start piloting it around. Your normal view is still up on the tv so you can get out of the spybot view quickly incase anyone comes up to you and finds you.

Ghost Recon Online is using it as an aerial drone and actually giving you a full top down aerial view of the stage that you're in.

RPGs have the obvious use of inventory/menus/health/etc.

Ubisoft has another game coming out, Killer Freaks from Outer Space, with a mode called Real-time Enemy Director which turns the Wii U controller into an RTS for that person while the other players are playing a Third Person Shooter to fight you.

There are some really good ideas coming out and we aren't even anywhere near launch.

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 01:17 PM

But the wii-mote doesn't require looking at the controller to function.

Look, does it hurt to be optimistic? I have no idea how this will turn out. Its been out for like...2 days yet there already is a swarm of hate....And nobody has even played a single game! Lets just hope it works, cause thats all we can do at the end.

[QUOTE]PCs have a lot of options for style or touch pad like controls and very few people choose the option.

Im talking Twinstick Vs Stylus, not mouse. Have you played Metroid Prime hunters before?

Phones are about the only thing with touch screen based inputs at this point.

DS.

Try doing something a bit more interactive when you switch around. Try playing even a moderately actiony game and periodically looking down to read even a couple words and see how things go.

Yes. Metroid Prime Hunters. A FPS. It worked splendid.

Terazul

2011-06-09, 01:21 PM

TWEWY. Seriously.

Or Knights in the Nightmare. Turn based tactical RPG bullet hell with phase changes in the middle of combat? Yeah I can manage looking at two screens just fine.

MoelVermillion

2011-06-09, 01:27 PM

So apparently investors don't like this thing or something (http://www.t3.com/news/nintendo-wii-u-fails-to-impress-investors-as-stock-prices-drop?=57385) :smallconfused:? Its a shame, I was actually cautiously optimistic about what I saw of this thing at E3 so it sucks a little to see this be the response to it.

Erloas

2011-06-09, 02:18 PM

I imagined the answer would be something like this. And to be honest, no. That's not it. Unless it has been a design decision in nearly every game lately, which would be rather dumb. This is not just about FPSs (which to be honest I barely even play), it's about what happens to me in nearly every game that tries to go for the "realistic" look. It ends up getting to the point I'll turn half the graphic options off and cranking gamma up just to see where in blazes I'm going.
Obviously I can't speak for what was intended in any given game and I don't know what specific games you are talking about, but in a lot of cases I think it is a very common design decision. Especially when you don't want enemies to just appear then you have to have some place for them to blend in. Also making it harder to snipe a map and to force players to be in more risk and having things jump out at them is a good way to up the feel of the action in a game. Its also possible your monitor/TV is just poorly calibrated, which is a very common problem, and can make some things like that harder to see.

Its really sad that even developers do it. They whine when they don't have the power they need rather than just coming up with a way around it. When it does have the power they need they then claim that they can't compete with Nintendo's first party offerings, though they can certainly do it with Microsoft and Sony. All else fail, the demographic isn't there when largely its probably their fault that its not there in the first place. At least on the developers side of things, do you think its more likely that all of those developers are making up exactly the same issues, or that they are real issues that all developers have to work with?
Its not a small amount of work needed to scale down a game to run well on a weaker system. In some cases it might simply be lower quality textures and skins, but in a lot of cases it would also mean redesigning levels and changing a lot of different things to get it to work. Who is going to add 40% to their development time (and associated costs) to redesign their game to run on a system that doesn't guarantee great returns.
And demographics is huge, its what makes and breaks a lot of consumer based projects. And the Wii has made its mark on this generation of console specifically for targeting a non-traditional gaming demographic of people. And from the games that I remember hearing about that were "going to prove everyone wrong and show that the right type of gamers are on the Wii" didn't do very well.

I'd imagine unless its a segment of a game that goes to your controller, think Four Swords Adventure, the controller screen will be seldomly used by developers. A good image in my head, for shooters at least, is finding a spot to hide and then releasing a spy bot. The view point of the spybot comes up on the controller screen and you can start piloting it around. Your normal view is still up on the tv so you can get out of the spybot view quickly incase anyone comes up to you and finds you.

Ghost Recon Online is using it as an aerial drone and actually giving you a full top down aerial view of the stage that you're in.

RPGs have the obvious use of inventory/menus/health/etc.

Ubisoft has another game coming out, Killer Freaks from Outer Space, with a mode called Real-time Enemy Director which turns the Wii U controller into an RTS for that person while the other players are playing a Third Person Shooter to fight you.

There are some really good ideas coming out and we aren't even anywhere near launch.
Some of those do sound like good ideas. The main question is, does it do something that can't be done otherwise? Current RPG inventory/menu/stat pages work fine, and while it might be more convenient, is it a "must have" sort of feature?
Then it comes back to development costs, is the added features, that are only available to players on one of the 4 possible systems (considering many 3rd party developers will release for all 3 consoles and PC), worth the extra development time? And how is it going to effect the game for the other 3 systems if they have to leave out features that will only work on the Wii-U. In development especially having standards is a big plus. Its one of the reasons PhysX hasn't really done anything, because the software implementation is too slow to do anything really complex and the market of people with sufficiently powerful Nvidia cards is too low to make it worth the time and effort to do anything really amazing with it.

Its also why you don't see a whole lot of 3rd party development for anything using the Move or Kinect either, the individual markets are too small to make an AAA game viable that relies on that one thing.

The director thing is also something that can be done easily enough across a networked game, and something that I think has been done before (not any games I've played, but I remember something to that effect being mentioned on Penny Arcade before). And while thats not playing with people on the same couch as you, it seems the vast majority of people are playing games online anyway, and its sort of a given for most PS3, 360 and PC gamers.

Look, does it hurt to be optimistic? I have no idea how this will turn out. Its been out for like...2 days yet there already is a swarm of hate....And nobody has even played a single game! Lets just hope it works, cause thats all we can do at the end.
I'm just being realistic... which tends to lean towards pessimistic. I think there are some interesting options, I don't think most of them are really game-changers or "must have" sorts of things though.
And you always run into that whole issue with having a feature that is implemented in different ways but is the same (meaning its not going to help drive Wii-U adoption and not really going to stand out as impressive), or limiting your game to a much smaller audience by having it only work on the Wii-U.

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 02:40 PM

I'm just being realistic... which tends to lean towards pessimistic.

Ignorance is bliss. And Nah nah nah nah nah: I get to experience bliss for an entire year and either feel even better if it works, or I feal bad if It doesn't.

Its like hating a movie based soleley on the trailer. You can say "Well this isn't for me" but you cannot automaticaly start bashing.

Most of your complaints have been

"This will hurt my Eyes/ Neck" Which im not very sure about. It may, it may not. It will depend on the games (Which you havent even played yet)
"This will be pointless" (So what?)
"This will fall behind" Which is a valid complaint but im honestly confused. Haters say "Graphics are en par with 360" while people that like it say "That was amazing, as good as the best graphics on PS3/ 360. Im not sure. So lets give it a try before bashing.

What do you loose if you have optimism based on scraps of information?

limiting your game to a much smaller audience by having it only work on the Wii-U.

So If I have an option that nobody else has then my audience doesn't want to buy it? Doesn't that work the other way around?

And have you ever played Metroid Prime hunters?

GungHo

2011-06-09, 02:53 PM

I would bet they'll release a Umote without a screen soon enough.
What do you plan on putting in the middle? Picture of your kids? Fish bowl?

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 02:56 PM

What do you plan on putting in the middle? Picture of your kids? Fish bowl?

This is an example of linear thinking:

"remove center: Free space"

Or It would mean a more standard control arrey or simply put; THE CLASSIC CONTROLER.

Suichimo

2011-06-09, 03:04 PM

At least on the developers side of things, do you think its more likely that all of those developers are making up exactly the same issues, or that they are real issues that all developers have to work with?
Its not a small amount of work needed to scale down a game to run well on a weaker system. In some cases it might simply be lower quality textures and skins, but in a lot of cases it would also mean redesigning levels and changing a lot of different things to get it to work. Who is going to add 40% to their development time (and associated costs) to redesign their game to run on a system that doesn't guarantee great returns.
And demographics is huge, its what makes and breaks a lot of consumer based projects. And the Wii has made its mark on this generation of console specifically for targeting a non-traditional gaming demographic of people. And from the games that I remember hearing about that were "going to prove everyone wrong and show that the right type of gamers are on the Wii" didn't do very well.

Yep, because its what developers have been doing since, at least, the Gamecube days. Go look at the SNES days, it may have just been due to the relative lack of the internet but, it didn't seem like third parties bitched about the quality of Nintendo's games then, and they were pretty much some of Nintendo's best games ever.

The only excuse out of any of those that even seems legitimate to me is the power issue because, as you mentioned, it definitely does have an impact on what you can do.

Yeah, demographics are huge. Thats why you don't crap all over them in the beginning like third parties did with the Wii. As much as I love Capcom, and they did bounce back with some of their recent offerings, they were pretty horrible about this. They gave us Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition. Wii owners ate that up and what did Capcom give us for that? A rail shooter and a shoe horned port of Dead Rising. Other companies have done that as well, EA gave us Dead Space Extraction as a "test". It was a rail shooter prequel to a game that you probably didn't know of if you didn't follow Sony/Microsoft that much, and on top of all of that they didn't bother to even give any kind of advertisement. Wii owners constantly got treated like crap by the third parties and the environment definitely reflected that.

Hell, Wii owners have even given chances when the situation called for it. Monster Hunter Tri, an incredibly niche game from Capcom, has hit ~2 million worldwide and has become the best selling console Monster Hunter. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom has sold above Capcom's expectations and half the cast is pretty much unknown outside of Japan. Suda51 has said that No More Heroes is his best received game yet and he was very happy with how it did, and its definitely one of the games that Wii owners hold in high regard. The two Treyarch Call of Dutys on the Wii have sold more than a million each. Hell, as bad as the FIRST Red Steel was it still sold over 1.5 million.

The market was and is there, you just can't **** all over them and expect them to buy your games. Most third parties basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some of those do sound like good ideas. The main question is, does it do something that can't be done otherwise? Current RPG inventory/menu/stat pages work fine, and while it might be more convenient, is it a "must have" sort of feature?
Then it comes back to development costs, is the added features, that are only available to players on one of the 4 possible systems (considering many 3rd party developers will release for all 3 consoles and PC), worth the extra development time? And how is it going to effect the game for the other 3 systems if they have to leave out features that will only work on the Wii-U. In development especially having standards is a big plus. Its one of the reasons PhysX hasn't really done anything, because the software implementation is too slow to do anything really complex and the market of people with sufficiently powerful Nvidia cards is too low to make it worth the time and effort to do anything really amazing with it.

Its also why you don't see a whole lot of 3rd party development for anything using the Move or Kinect either, the individual markets are too small to make an AAA game viable that relies on that one thing.

The director thing is also something that can be done easily enough across a networked game, and something that I think has been done before (not any games I've played, but I remember something to that effect being mentioned on Penny Arcade before). And while thats not playing with people on the same couch as you, it seems the vast majority of people are playing games online anyway, and its sort of a given for most PS3, 360 and PC gamers.

Its something that they can do to differentiate their title though, and that is increasingly becoming a need in the video game industry. Multiplatform is pretty much the new exclusive so you do need something to show that your game is different from the rest, and this is a great way to go about it.

Sure it may not do something that couldn't be done before, but how about making something more convenient to do? One of the big improvements I'm hearing from fans of Ocarina of Time about the 3DS remake is that the Iron Boots will be on the touch screen. Those are pretty much the two big categories I can see the screen falling under, convenience and new ideas.

I'd say that there is a bit of room for artistic flair in there as well. If an RPG doesn't have menus and whatnot obscuring the scene, the game is then free to show more detailed animations of attacks and whatnot.

Sipex

2011-06-09, 03:06 PM

This is an example of linear thinking:

"remove center: Free space"

Or It would mean a more standard control arrey or simply put; THE CLASSIC CONTROLER.

Eh? No, I was planning on leaving the space empty. The idea of making sense didn't occur to me.

TheSummoner

2011-06-09, 03:21 PM

Its really sad that even developers do it. They whine when they don't have the power they need rather than just coming up with a way around it.

See... This I'm willing to buy. Now... The smart thing would be to have designed the games with this in mind in the first place... But you shouldn't fault them for not wanting to pour more resources into a finished project.

When it does have the power they need they then claim that they can't compete with Nintendo's first party offerings, though they can certainly do it with Microsoft and Sony.

This on the other hand. This is a steaming pile of crap. This is essentially developers crying that their games aren't good enough. Well, if your game isn't good enough, how the hell is that Nintendo's fault? Make a better game if you think it's an issue.

I'd also call this a beautiful illustration of how graphics and raw machine power do not make a great game in and of themselves. Nintendo's first party stuff beats most despite being exclusive to a weaker machine.

Erloas

2011-06-09, 03:26 PM

"This will fall behind" Which is a valid complaint but im honestly confused. Haters say "Graphics are en par with 360" while people that like it say "That was amazing, as good as the best graphics on PS3/ 360. Im not sure. So lets give it a try before bashing.As good as the PS3 and 360 is already not very good from a PC perspective. Its hard to get excited about something when their "big step up" is already behind what you are used to. And its hard to justify spending the money on a new console when its an equivalent purchase to what you already have instead of an improvement.

So If I have an option that nobody else has then my audience doesn't want to buy it? Doesn't that work the other way around?That was from a developers perspective. Its not that hard to justify taking a chance as a consumer on a $50 game, its harder when you have to justify a $400 console before that. And its something else entirely when you are betting a $50 million budget and likely your job on creating a game for a small market. From a development perspective its hard to justify creating something that will cost a lot of money and greatly cut down on your potential audience at the same time. Not that developing for the Wii-U will be more, but its going to be a similar cost to develop for 1 system as it is to develop for 4 when you aren't doing uniquely different things on each of the 4 systems. And knowing that as a consumer I can bet that the majority of 3rd party games, especially the big releases, are going to be released on other systems as well so I may as well stay with what I have, or even if I don't have a console, buy the one thats been out a while and is equally as powerful but no longer has the new release price tag.

And have you ever played Metroid Prime hunters?I haven't, I don't own a DS. (I don't do any mobile gaming) If the point is in the dual screen thing, as I've already said, switching between screens like that is not the issue it would be switching between vastly different screens (which I've also done having my laptop connected to my TV, but not something I do a lot because its annoying). If its for the style controls, well then I think it would have a lot to do with the sort of precision needed. And a quick look at the wikipedia page for it shows that the reticule is a fairly large part of the screen, which would make precision and movement resolution much less important then I would expect from most shooters. And I'm still of the belief that mouse+keyboard is the way to go for any FPS, and thats where I'll be playing them. The sort of games I'm likely to play on a console also seem to be the ones that have the least use for this new controller type.

edit:

Its something that they can do to differentiate their title though, and that is increasingly becoming a need in the video game industry. Multiplatform is pretty much the new exclusive so you do need something to show that your game is different from the rest, and this is a great way to go about it.
But the question is: how does using this new screen on the controller differentiate your game on the other 3 systems you are releasing it for at the same time. And the obvious answer is that it doesn't. You can't do anything with your game to make it really stand out using the Wii-U screen-controller if you are going to release it for other systems. Any new and interesting mechanic that can only be done with the controller is going to be lost on the other 3 systems. And if its simply a UI change... well I can't see that being a must-have sort of thing.

TheArsenal

2011-06-09, 03:42 PM

If its for the style controls, well then I think it would have a lot to do with the sort of precision needed.

And my point is that youve been igoring for the third time is that I believe its MORE precice than the duel sticks. Not the mouse (which reighns supreme).

The sort of games I'm likely to play on a console also seem to be the ones that have the least use for this new controller type.

So if you don't like playing that type of game on the console that makes every other game you dislike bad?

We still have too limited information to make a valid judgement. If you want I also can be pessemistic about other consoles simply because they aren't the game style I like.

Psyren

2011-06-09, 04:07 PM

Nah. Just a flick of the eyes.

TWEWY. Seriously.

The DS screens are much closer together in your field of view than this thing will be to a TV.

I don't typically play with my controller at eye-level, or looking down at it. That's a handheld convention. For a console, I never look at the controller at all. Even newcomers to the Wii don't spend much time glancing at the remote since it's... a remote, and thus very familiar to them.

I'd imagine unless its a segment of a game that goes to your controller, think Four Swords Adventure, the controller screen will be seldomly used by developers.

I read this as "third-party devs will almost never use it" since they're not going to create an entirely separate game UI for WiiU. Which once again begs the question of why this thing exists.

A good image in my head, for shooters at least, is finding a spot to hide and then releasing a spy bot. The view point of the spybot comes up on the controller screen and you can start piloting it around. Your normal view is still up on the tv so you can get out of the spybot view quickly incase anyone comes up to you and finds you.

You can accomplish this far more intuitively via picture-in-picture. I'll never be able to control myself and the spybot simultaneously anyway, so having the spycam switch to the controller is worse than useless, it's distracting.

Ghost Recon Online is using it as an aerial drone and actually giving you a full top down aerial view of the stage that you're in.

Why not use a minimap like everyone else though?

RPGs have the obvious use of inventory/menus/health/etc.

All of which you have to pause the game to navigate through anyway. Having it on a different screen doesn't accomplish anything except let you stare at your frozen avatar while you do.

Ubisoft has another game coming out, Killer Freaks from Outer Space, with a mode called Real-time Enemy Director which turns the Wii U controller into an RTS for that person while the other players are playing a Third Person Shooter to fight you.

Here is where I actually agree with you - a console RTS could make great use of the touchscreen by letting you draw a box around units etc. But honestly, so could a Wiimote or Move, assuming 1:1 motion. And I doubt an RTS is going to draw in casuals much anyway, who are Nintendo's core audience.

Erloas

2011-06-09, 04:16 PM

And my point is that youve been igoring for the third time is that I believe its MORE precice than the duel sticks. Not the mouse (which reighns supreme).
I could see it being noticeable better then the thumb stick for aiming, especially for people that aren't used to the sticks. One thing though is that a stylus takes up the whole hand, so it limits the number of buttons you have access to at any given time to just what you can reach with the left hand.
Which sort of begs the question of how it would work for someone that is left handed. Though I suppose that is an issue with all controllers and not something I have to deal with.

tonberrian

2011-06-09, 06:11 PM

Geno9999

2011-06-09, 07:48 PM

The DS screens are much closer together in your field of view than this thing will be to a TV.

I don't typically play with my controller at eye-level, or looking down at it. That's a handheld convention. For a console, I never look at the controller at all. Even newcomers to the Wii don't spend much time glancing at the remote since it's... a remote, and thus very familiar to them.

Currently, I'm sitting on the family couch watching people play Halo while I'm using the laptop. The gap distance between looking at my screen and the TV isn't much, so switching between typing and watching is only a split second. Although you could say that I have the advantage of my lap supporting the computer, I don't think that advantage would really matter if/when I'm playing on the Wii U while I'm sitting on the couch.

Is it just me, or does this atmosphere around the Wii U like when the DS was first announced? Because I could take most of the arguments against the Wii U and apply them to the DS. For example, DS had graphics that looked similar to N64, while PSP has capacity of (I think) PS2, while here we have Nintendo just now catch up to the previous generation in terms of graphics power. DS and Wii U have touchscreen that people might have to shift focus toward for some games. Everyone is panicking about cost (though I have never seen Nintendo consoles hit the $400 or even the $300 range.)
Yeah, these gripes don't seem to hold water when we saw Nintendo do practically the same thing years ago.:smallannoyed:

Mr. Scaly

2011-06-09, 09:15 PM

I'm going to come right out and say that I feel very hopeful for this. It sounds like Nintendo is trying to address old problems while staying the course, as it were. And since it's so early yet there's still time for them to figure out how things will work, like more of the tablets.

Zevox

2011-06-09, 09:17 PM

This is an example of linear thinking:

"remove center: Free space"

Or It would mean a more standard control arrey or simply put; THE CLASSIC CONTROLER.
The classic controller doesn't have all of the motion control stuff the Wii U controller does. I don't know how much space they'd need for that, but a Wii U controller sans the screen would definitely be different from a classic controller in that respect.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-06-09, 09:55 PM

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to adjust.

Umm, you don't know how easy it's going to be to adjust, as I'm pretty sure the Wii U isn't out yet, and you don't have one, right? lol. It's going to be an entirely different experience then playing on the DS, where you can actually view both screens at once if you focus just right, not to mention the screens are less then a few inches apart from each other. On the other hand, the Umote is going to be held in your hands, and your TV is likely going to be 10-15 feet away, and either lower or higher in your field of vision then the Umote will be in your hands.

Trazoi

2011-06-09, 11:08 PM

Judging from the images I've seen my main concern is that the Wii U controller looks too large to be an ergonomical controller. It looks larger and bulkier than my DSi XL, and that can strain my hand if I'm gripping it by the corner with one hand and using the stylus with my other. The idea of a built-in touch screen could have merit but I'd have thought something with a screen the size of an iPhone or smaller would make more sense than what looks like could work as a full scale portable system.

Admittedly I haven't read more than a couple of articles so far so I don't know much. But I'm more sceptical about the practicality of the Wii U controller than I was when the WiiMote was announced last generation. I'll need some more convincing before I get too excited about what this could bring to video gaming.

Edit: Also I'll need to find out if the Virtual Console titles will transfer across. I've been playing those roughly as often as the Wii titles.

TheSummoner

2011-06-09, 11:28 PM

Edit: Also I'll need to find out if the Virtual Console titles will transfer across. I've been playing those roughly as often as the Wii titles.

After beating Megaman 9 and 10 without taking any damage (ESPECIALLY 9!!!) and getting the Mr. Perfect challenge in each, I would be very disappointed (AND PISSED!!!) if Nintendo didn't have a way of transferring VC games.

Seems like an obvious thing though, so I doubt it'll be an issue. And... Well... If it is, there goes another month of my life...

Trazoi

2011-06-09, 11:38 PM

Seems like an obvious thing though, so I doubt it'll be an issue. And... Well... If it is, there goes another month of my life...
I'd expect it to be an option and for them to anounce it soon, as I'm sure many people will be holding off buying VC titles if they aren't sure they'll transfer across. It sounds like a no-brainer, but I don't know if there's some technical or legal issues that could throw a spanner in the works.

I've still got to finish Secret of Mana. :smallsmile:

Suichimo

2011-06-10, 01:01 AM

But the question is: how does using this new screen on the controller differentiate your game on the other 3 systems you are releasing it for at the same time. And the obvious answer is that it doesn't. You can't do anything with your game to make it really stand out using the Wii-U screen-controller if you are going to release it for other systems. Any new and interesting mechanic that can only be done with the controller is going to be lost on the other 3 systems. And if its simply a UI change... well I can't see that being a must-have sort of thing.

Honestly, I don't know yet but there are plenty of enterprising developers out there who probably have plenty of ideas cooking in their head for it. This is why, honestly, Ubisoft, who has pretty much decided that Nintendo just needs Gamez, surprised me with Killer Freaks from Outer Space's FPS vs. RTS mode. I'm almost certain that that is a completely new concept for consoles, and I have no clue about the PC arena, and you just don't see that often.

As for not being able to do anything if you are developing for all 3? We're not going to see any kind of cross platform play between the Big 3 anytime soon, so why make each version of the game completely the same. Namco did this pretty well back with Soul Calibur 2. Each version of the game had its own exclusive character that, even though it was small, managed to make you want it.

I read this as "third-party devs will almost never use it" since they're not going to create an entirely separate game UI for WiiU. Which once again begs the question of why this thing exists.

Sadly, that'll probably be very common. However, you will get the times when people actually try and get something good going, go with the former example of TWEWY on the DS.

You can accomplish this far more intuitively via picture-in-picture. I'll never be able to control myself and the spybot simultaneously anyway, so having the spycam switch to the controller is worse than useless, it's distracting.

Why wouldn't you be able to control yourself? That is part of what the Wii U Controller is trying to sell itself on, asynchronous gaming. The ability to have one screen do one thing while the other does something different. How was the RC car explosive done in MW2, I think?

Why not use a minimap like everyone else though?

Who knows. It certainly is a neat thing for Ubisoft to do though.

All of which you have to pause the game to navigate through anyway. Having it on a different screen doesn't accomplish anything except let you stare at your frozen avatar while you do.

Not necessarily, a game could easily be designed so that you never once have to pause to go into the menu. Its all right there on the controller screen for you as you keep on with the game.

Here is where I actually agree with you - a console RTS could make great use of the touchscreen by letting you draw a box around units etc. But honestly, so could a Wiimote or Move, assuming 1:1 motion. And I doubt an RTS is going to draw in casuals much anyway, who are Nintendo's core audience.

You do need more than casuals, hate the term by the way, though. An RTS from one of the big developers would probably do pretty well, and if you foster an environment enough it will grow.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 04:05 AM

Currently, I'm sitting on the family couch watching people play Halo while I'm using the laptop.

Not nearly the same. There's nothing on the Halo screen that could affect you on the laptop, and vice-versa. You only ever have to be aware of one at a time.

Is it just me, or does this atmosphere around the Wii U like when the DS was first announced? Because I could take most of the arguments against the Wii U and apply them to the DS.

I wasn't paying attention when the DS was announced, so I couldn't tell you. But I wouldn't have the same objections for the DS as for the WiiU, because obviously two small screens is not an issue for a hand-held. The games that are made for the DS were meant to play on small screens from the outset, holding the device up doesn't cause one screen to block the other etc.

Why wouldn't you be able to control yourself? That is part of what the Wii U Controller is trying to sell itself on, asynchronous gaming. The ability to have one screen do one thing while the other does something different. How was the RC car explosive done in MW2, I think?

Exactly. Your control (and viewpoint) shifts to the car while your character stands immobile and helpless. Since you only have one set of controls even with an extra screen, there is no way around this. Since your primary character is just standing there, the second screen showing his viewpoint adds nothing to the game that a PiP couldn't do just as well (and with less dev time, since a PiP would work for all three consoles.)

Not necessarily, a game could easily be designed so that you never once have to pause to go into the menu. Its all right there on the controller screen for you as you keep on with the game.

Perhaps I should have said "you'll still WANT to pause the game." Nobody wants their mage(s) being slaughtered while they adjust the controls, brightness settings, or look through their pack for a potion. Real-time menus don't offer much benefit to RPGs.

You do need more than casuals, hate the term by the way, though. An RTS from one of the big developers would probably do pretty well, and if you foster an environment enough it will grow.

I was just using "Casuals" as shorthand for "the subset of the Wii userbase that is unfamiliar with console gaming and was attracted to the Wii by its accessible game offerings and more familiar remote-style control."

And I just don't see the type of people who primarily play games like Mario Party or Wii Fit transitioning to Starcraft.

Triaxx

2011-06-10, 05:48 AM

The problem with defining casual gaming/hardcore gaming is that you're separating and polarizing the fanbase. I am a gamer. I play casual games, and hardcore games. The difference is how involved I feel like getting.

Playing X3:Terran Conflict is an involved, heavy weight game. It takes a couple of minutes to start up the game and another couple to shut it down.

Freecell is a quick, interesting game that takes perhaps 30 seconds to start, and 5 to shut down. (Laptop mouse pad.)

Am I a casual gamer? Or a Hardcore gamer?

Exactly. Your control (and viewpoint) shifts to the car while your character stands immobile and helpless. Since you only have one set of controls even with an extra screen, there is no way around this. Since your primary character is just standing there, the second screen showing his viewpoint adds nothing to the game that a PiP couldn't do just as well (and with less dev time, since a PiP would work for all three consoles.)

You're thinking about it backwards. This is the sort of thing where you'd develop Picture in Picture on PS3 and XboX, and then move it to the controller for the WiiU version.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 07:45 AM

Am I a casual gamer? Or a Hardcore gamer?

In this context, I am not dealing with the larger debate of those who enjoy Farmville and simultaneously enjoy Civilization etc. By "casual" I am merely referring to those people - and there are many - whose introduction to gaming as a medium entirely was the Wii system, but who are old enough to have been aware of consoles and PC gaming since before then. In other words, the ones who looked at a button-encrusted 360 or PS3 controller and decided that gaming wasn't for them, then hefted the little white wand in Best Buy and decided to give console gaming a try as a result.

If those people "graduate" to a pad-style controller - even one as lacking in ergonomics as the WiiU's - I will rejoice along with every other gamer. But I just don't see it happening.

You're thinking about it backwards. This is the sort of thing where you'd develop Picture in Picture on PS3 and XboX, and then move it to the controller for the WiiU version.

That is additional dev time for a feature that amounts to a gimmick. I call it a gimmick because there is no tangible benefit to having the two displays split across screens.

In fact, it could even be detriment. Take the CoD example - the benefit to seeing your character's viewpoint and that of the RC car simultaneously, is that you can see if anyone crosses your character's field of view and know if you are in imminent danger, hopefully before you start taking fire. With the WiiU, chances are you won't even be looking at what your character sees unless you hold the controller up to eye-level and occasionally glance behind it. It would be like reading a book where the text wraps over to the other page before a line break, forcing you to flip back and forth to keep reading, instead of taking up one page at a time. Or a racing game where you have no rearview mirror, and so must physically turn around in the driver's seat whenever you want to see what's going on behind you.

GungHo

2011-06-10, 07:46 AM

This is an example of linear thinking:

"remove center: Free space"

Or It would mean a more standard control arrey or simply put; THE CLASSIC CONTROLER.

I cannot tell if you didn't understand I was making a joke and you're trying to be mean or if you're being sarcastic in turn.

This does make the "linear thinking" quip pretty damn funny in either case.

Alchemistmerlin

2011-06-10, 07:48 AM

even one as lacking in ergonomics as the WiiU's

You've held it? Are you from the future?

shiram

2011-06-10, 08:26 AM

The Wii U controller is about 26-27 centimenters long btw.

http://kotaku.com/5810272/fun-facts-about-the-wii-u-controllers-size

Sipex

2011-06-10, 08:28 AM

The classic controller doesn't have all of the motion control stuff the Wii U controller does. I don't know how much space they'd need for that, but a Wii U controller sans the screen would definitely be different from a classic controller in that respect.

Zevox

This is why I think a new WiiU controller will be released. Like a WiiU Mote Lite or something.

edit: Everyone is right, it's far too early to argue about the WiiU. We don't know what it's like, we can't accurately say anything either way unless one of us has a relevant degree in the field of ergonomics and console design.

TheArsenal

2011-06-10, 08:38 AM

edit: Everyone is right, it's far too early to argue about the WiiU. We don't know what it's like, we can't accurately say anything either way unless one of us has a relevant degree in the field of ergonomics and console design.

All i can suggest is wii keep a positive outlook (How about thinking about what kinds of controls you think would work, I came up with a ton of stuff) until it is released. If it looks like something you do not wan't to buy, don't. If it does but ends up sucking then we can bash.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 08:40 AM

You've held it? Are you from the future?

I've held a rectangle once or twice in my life. My Delorean broke down though sadly.

Alchemistmerlin

2011-06-10, 09:24 AM

All i can suggest is wii keep a positive outlook (How about thinking about what kinds of controls you think would work, I came up with a ton of stuff) until it is released. If it looks like something you do not wan't to buy, don't. If it does but ends up sucking then we can bash.

There is no logical reason why you should stay positive and then get negative later instead of staying negative and be positive later. Your position is just as wrong as those who are "bash"ing.

TheArsenal

2011-06-10, 09:37 AM

There is no logical reason why you should stay positive and then get negative later

Because being positive clears your mind (As when you are positive you start THINKING about all the possible options and stuff, wheras negativity clogs your head as all you say is "Useless") , and it helps make you feal good. Sure be catious, but be optimistic, who can it hurt? Nobody. Its important im saying "Be optimistic" not "Be ignorant".

instead of staying negative and be positive later.

This can result in a good surprise but it just makes you sort of like eyor I guess. Staying negative just because it may turn out wrong is generaly the reason to be deprresed and pessimistic about everything. Especialy with so little info. In addition it hurts yourself more than it hurts others I guess. So why not. I noticed that being disapointed at the end works better than being disapointed at the begining. When it releases, check out a demo. If your disapointed, you loose no money and felt positive all this time. If not, you felt negative all the time.

Your position is just as wrong as those who are "bash"ing.

Because it clogs your head when you only look at the negative.

Alchemistmerlin

2011-06-10, 09:40 AM

Because being positive clears your mind (As when you are positive you start THINKING about all the possible options and stuff, wheras negativity clogs your head as all you say is "Useless") , and it helps make you feal good. Sure be catious, but be optimistic, who can it hurt? Nobody. Its important im saying "Be optimistic" not "Be ignorant".

This can result in a good surprise but it just makes you sort of like eyor I guess. Staying negative just because it may turn out wrong is generaly the reason to be deprresed and pessimistic about everything. Especialy with so little info. In addition it hurts yourself more than it hurts others I guess. So why not. I noticed that being disapointed at the end works better than being disapointed at the begining. When it releases, check out a demo. If your disapointed, you loose no money and felt positive all this time. If not, you felt negative all the time.

Because it clogs your head when you only look at the negative.

It would be very simple and trollish of me to simply change the words around in your post to make the things you said apply to the inverse thoughts. What you are saying has no meaning. Thinking positively does not "Clear your mind", that's not a thing.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 09:47 AM

I'm with alchemist on this one. Just being vaguely hopeful for the future is pointless; you need to focus on elements of the actual design that you truly think are good ideas and base your arguments around those.

As an example - if it turns out that the WiiU truly is perfectly backwards compatible, that will be a huge selling-point in its favor. Now, the same was promised of the Wii and PS3; yet the Wii largely delivered on this promise. However, you still needed GC memory cards to save your progress and online play was not possible. With the WiiU graphically and processor-wise so far ahead of the GC it may not be wise for them to try and go back that far in terms of compatibility, but being able to run Wii games should be good enough.

TheArsenal

2011-06-10, 09:51 AM

It would be very simple and trollish of me to simply change the words around in your post to make the things you said apply to the inverse thoughts.

In simple words: Your being a buzzkill. If im to be buzzkilled later it will happen. Killing my buzz beforehand does nothing but kill my buzz beforehand.

What you are saying has no meaning. Thinking positively does not "Clear your mind", that's not a thing.

How many Ideas have you tried to come up with before saying "this is useless".

There are things that can be debateable about the wiiu but your not even trying.

edit:

As an example - if it turns out that the WiiU truly is perfectly backwards compatible, that will be a huge selling-point in its favor. Now, the same was promised of the Wii and PS3; yet the Wii largely delivered on this promise. However, you still needed GC memory cards to save your progress and online play was not possible. With the WiiU graphically and processor-wise so far ahead of the GC it may not be wise for them to try and go back that far in terms of compatibility, but being able to run Wii games should be good enough.

And you are being positive. Im not saying we should ignore all its problems but don't give up before you start.

Erloas

2011-06-10, 09:56 AM

From Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/nintendo-wii-u-wii-u-wii-e3,news-11463.html)

One of the very first things we noticed is the level of attention that our eyes were having with the U Controller and the TV screen. Unlike the Nintendo DS systems, our eyes were either glued and immersed in the small screen within our hands or the large TV screen in front of us, in some cases quickly jolting back and forth between the two. Some may find this back and forth distracting
but they also said

Although one of the initial concerns with the U Controller was its relatively large size and potentially heavy weight, we were pleasantly surprised with the controller's comfort. First of all, the button placement, trigger placement and overall feel was spot on. Holding the device was like holding an XXXL DS, that wasn't too heavy but at the same time not too light.

One of the more disappointing aspects of the U was its surprisingly mediocre touch screen. Compared with the touch screen of any modern smart phone, the U's screen is definitely overrated. Maybe it was the lighting of Nintendo's booth but the screen was definitely lacking in brightness, and it got a little bit of a glare.

So some good and some bad.

After thinking about it some more, I can't really see this thing being less then $350, probably closer to $400. If we assume it has a similar level of hardware to the 360 and PS3, and neither of them are making much money on their consoles and they can't sell them for less $200, then I doubt Nintendo can source the same relative level of parts for cheaper. And the controller is essentially a tablet, just without a processor, and with the camera, touch screen (noticeable more expensive then a standard screen), and fairly powerful wireless transmission, I couldn't see it being less then $100, probably more like $150 (at least to replace, production costs are obviously lower) and then another $50 for the basic wii-mote plus (with nunchuk).

I didn't see any gameplay from the Killer Freaks from Outer Space, or anything other then a couple proof of concept demos they showed. It looks like it adds a bit to the gaming experience but not really a lot. Most of the "more then just an extended UI" sorts of things I saw seemed to be clearly focused away from "traditional" gamers.

And maybe that is a better term to use then "casual" and "hardcore" because those have their own already muddled definitions. But traditional and non-traditional gamers seems to mostly fit with what we see with the Wii and the gap they are trying to fix with the Wii-U.

One thing that I think they are still missing for the traditional gamer is a more standard controller. Everything they've shown so far is either single player (or switching) with the new controller or using the wii-mote. The wii-mote doesn't seem to be a very good design for many traditional game designs. And the Wii-U controller may or may not work well for them, but the biggest issue with it is that at least currently there is only one controller per console meaning if its a preferred controller method for a game then that game can't really be multi-player (on the same system).

The other hardware question is... will it be able to run most games at 1080P, or will it run most games at 720P, which is what the majority of 360 games run at and at least a decent portion of the PS3 games run at (at least that I've seen, I don't have any sort of master list on the resolution many games use). Meaning that even 360 and PS3 level hardware doesn't run all that well at 1080P, and the Wii-U is also going to have to render what is displayed on the controller. If we assume the controller uses the same 16:9 ratio as a standard HD TV, then the next lowest common resolution of that ratio is 854x480. Though a lot of 7" tablets use 800x480 which is a slightly skewed aspect ratio but its close. Then that means if the Wii-U is rendering both at the same time then its going to have to be noticeable more powerful then the 360 or PS3 to run the same game at the same resolution on the TV plus the controller. That size screen would be a 30% increase in resolution over normal 720P and about an 18% increase over normal 1080P.

Obviously some games can render a lot less on the controller, like basic UI components, though some of the demos seem to be using a full secondary scene on the controller. Then of course there is a decent amount of overhead (in CPU and GPU) in rendering two completely difference scenes as opposed to rending a single scene in higher resolution.

Sipex

2011-06-10, 10:00 AM

To be fair, Arsenal has a point.

Take any subject you like.

Do you want to talk to the guy who hasn't experienced the subject but bashes it based on preconceptions? No. You'll awkwardly tolerate said person until they go away then everyone goes "What's up with that guy, really? Has he actually done X?"

You don't like the idea, that's fine, but remaining here stating it over and over isn't going to do you any favours. You can't be convinced right now due to lack of evidence so we're just going in circles and meanwhile it's killing any potential conversation about the WiiU.

Speaking of actual conversation on the topic:

I definitely know I'm going to enjoy the two screen thing. My wife loves watching her shows (Bones, House) but I'm none too interested in them. Being able to play a console game I'm working on would be grand.

I wonder if that feature will be available to all games though?

TheArsenal

2011-06-10, 10:10 AM

From Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/nintendo-wii-u-wii-u-wii-e3,news-11463.html)

Hmm Can happen. It also will depend if the desighners will notice this instead of ignoring it.

If they make it so that you look sometimes then this could work out fine. But if they try to ignore it pretending the jolt doesn't exist then thats terrible. Thats what happened to allot of games on the Wii.

One thing that I think they are still missing for the traditional gamer is a more standard controller.

My suggestion would be a direct controler with motion control. Like the Classic controler only with bars, motion control and direct connection.

And the Wii-U controller may or may not work well for them, but the biggest issue with it is that at least currently there is only one controller per console meaning if its a preferred controller method for a game then that game can't really be multi-player (on the same system).

It can be, but it will have to be on a non main Wii-U controler. So a kinda sucky compramise.

Mostly I hope they develop multiple game control variations (That doesn't take much effort to do...right?) so that making a Wii-U version of the game will give more options rather than taking them away.

Sipex

2011-06-10, 10:26 AM

Mostly I hope they develop multiple game control variations (That doesn't take much effort to do...right?) so that making a Wii-U version of the game will give more options rather than taking them away.

More effort than you'd think.

While mapping the buttons wouldn't take that long to code into the game extensive testing would need to be done to make sure the controls work well in the default setup and that all options can be effectively taken care of with the desired control schemes.

But with the trend, Nintendo seems to be making multiple control schemes on about half of their games already so we'll probably still see it.

Erloas

2011-06-10, 11:07 AM

Take any subject you like.

Do you want to talk to the guy who hasn't experienced the subject but bashes it based on preconceptions? Well there is a big difference between being negative about something you know nothing about and being skeptical about a new product that has a lot of things relative to something you do know about.
Its like some 14 year old complaining about a new vehicle that is being released, obviously they have nothing to go on. However, even never having seen a new truck, I can know that a V6 isn't going to be enough to pull a decent sized camper, or that a 6000lb vehicle isn't going to get great gas mileage, or that the cab height is too high to get in and out of comfortably.

Seeing as how everyone here has their own preferences in gaming, and have played enough games and used enough different systems to know the sort of things they'll likely enjoy and what they likely won't. Just like you can have a fair idea of what games you will and will not want to play without having to play a demo of them. Even a revolutionary FPS isn't going to sell to someone that doesn't like FPSs. And I don't need to play SC2 to know that I don't like the type of micromanagement in RTSs that is the trademark of the franchise.

I definitely know I'm going to enjoy the two screen thing. My wife loves watching her shows (Bones, House) but I'm none too interested in them. Being able to play a console game I'm working on would be grand.

I wonder if that feature will be available to all games though?I would imagine that a basic screen swap function will be essentially built into the system. However it begs the question of how you can play any of the new and innovative games that need the Wii-U controller screen to work when you transfer everything to that screen. It would also mean creating the game in such a way that the functionality of the second screen can be seamlessly merged into the primary display when the controller becomes the primary display.

However, I think the more practical solution is to simply get another TV... no matter what the Wii-U costs, its going to be a lot more then a new TV if you don't insist on the TV being large, which would be a bit of an odd complaint when your comparative option is a 6" screen. And considering that virtually all computer monitors now have HDMI inputs, you can multi-task that monitor to the game console when the big TV is in use (since you obviously aren't using the computer since you are using the console). And statistically speaking there are more TVs then people in the average household.
It sort of seems like a feature thats fixing something that isn't really broken, because the new fix to the problem seems more expensive and less practical then the already existing solution that is available to everyone.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 11:54 AM

And you are being positive. Im not saying we should ignore all its problems but don't give up before you start.

The point of that was that I was being positive about a positive feature. I was not just being vaguely hopeful for the console's welfare without actually discussing the information we have.

And back to the controller - a touchscreen is a structural weakness. I wouldn't let an 8-year old anywhere near an iPad; will the WiiU fare any better? Will households with tiny gamers bother making the switch?

TheArsenal

2011-06-10, 12:02 PM

Will households with tiny gamers bother making the switch?

I dunno. Guess my family is wierd if my 5 year old sister beat cut the rope on her own. Its actualy a good way to entertian her.

Sipex

2011-06-10, 12:39 PM

However it begs the question of how you can play any of the new and innovative games that need the Wii-U controller screen to work when you transfer everything to that screen.

I was wondering the same thing about the games with the innovative gameplay. Mario? No problem.

That ninja star game? Different.

Also, the ability for a child to handle a touch pad varies from child to child.

Typically though I've seen my cousins' (8 and 10) DSes and they are not fairing well.

TheSummoner

2011-06-10, 12:43 PM

You know... Just because the system CAN do something (in this case, using the Wii U Controller screen), doesn't mean every game on the system WILL do it.

For example... Any game that was originally left off the Wii because the of power issues... Any of these that get ported to the Wii U because power is no longer an issue... Chances are these aren't going to bother with it.

New games... Well, they have the option if they can think of a good use for it and if they choose not to, nothing is forcing them to.

Erloas

2011-06-10, 02:54 PM

You know... Just because the system CAN do something (in this case, using the Wii U Controller screen), doesn't mean every game on the system WILL do it.
While that is true then you come up again to the question of to whom is this targeted?

The Wii owners I know (and seems to be the general trend according to "the internet" as well) fall into two basic groups. Traditional gamers, who own a Wii but also own some combination of PS3, 360 and gaming PC, they tend to play the Wii some, but not as much as the other systems. And everyone else, that own a Wii but don't follow games very closely, they bought it almost exclusively for the motion controls, and don't spend a lot of time playing, and aren't sitting around waiting for the ability to play those more powerful games on the other systems that they probably don't even know about anyway.

Of course the traditional gamers (that currently own a Wii or not) don't need a more powerful Wii-U to play the games not available on the Wii because they have other systems to play them on. They are probably also the least likely to be swayed by the new controller, as it was the same group that wasn't overly impressed with the motion controllers in the first place and the type of gamer Nintendo has explicitly stated they are trying to get back because they weren't draw in by the Wii in the first place. Of course it will sell to those traditional gamers that can't get enough of Zelda, Mario, and Metroid.

The non-traditional gamers may or may not be impressed by the controller (its much harder to tell and of course something a lot of the tech industry was not able to predict with the Wii in the first place). They are more likely to be purchasing the games that weren't originally possible on the Wii, except they are less likely to know about the games, they probably don't use the Wii enough to justify buying the upgraded version, and as the statistics show, they buy a lot fewer games for a system compared to traditional gamers.

I think with the Nintendo name they are going to move a decent number of units no matter what. I think its too soon to have another run like the Wii did (the previous generation it was the PS2 that everyone bought even if they didn't play much, this generation it was the Wii) by getting a lot of the casual purchase console gamers. I don't think it will fail, I'm just not sure if it will really be considered a success either. I could see the sales be more like the GameCube then the Wii. I think whether or not it even approaches the total sales numbers of the 360/PS3 will come down to how long before we start hearing more about MS and Sony's next offerings.

Spartacus

2011-06-10, 03:27 PM

With regards to switching which screen you are looking at, not only do you have to move your eyes at a larger angle (assuming you hold the controller in your lap), but your eyes will have to adjust to a new focus distance. This would be especially annoying if your eyes aren't what they used to be.

Triaxx

2011-06-10, 04:53 PM

I guess it depends on how you sit. When I play, I tend to do so in a reclined, relaxed position, thus I've got the controller up near the screen in a relative sense. So it's an eye flick to move from one to the other.

Of course, we can't know until the system arrives.

Starwulf

2011-06-10, 05:39 PM

The point of that was that I was being positive about a positive feature. I was not just being vaguely hopeful for the console's welfare without actually discussing the information we have.

And back to the controller - a touchscreen is a structural weakness. I wouldn't let an 8-year old anywhere near an iPad; will the WiiU fare any better? Will households with tiny gamers bother making the switch?

Ya know, as much as I'm criticizing nintendo for this Touch screen controller for the Wii U, it's durability is the one thing I'm NOT worried about. If it is anywhere NEAR as strong/durable as a Nintendo DS touch screen is, any kid handling it will be just fine. Both of my daughters have their own DS, my oldest(almost 8) has had hers since she was 3, it still works perfectly, and we just gave our youngest(just turned 3) a DS, and she's as rough as can be with it, and it's functioning perfectly and I expect it will last just as long as my oldest daughters DS did. That is literally the least of anyone's worries with this new controller format.

Psyren

2011-06-10, 06:24 PM

Ya know, as much as I'm criticizing nintendo for this Touch screen controller for the Wii U, it's durability is the one thing I'm NOT worried about. If it is anywhere NEAR as strong/durable as a Nintendo DS touch screen is, any kid handling it will be just fine. Both of my daughters have their own DS, my oldest(almost 8) has had hers since she was 3, it still works perfectly, and we just gave our youngest(just turned 3) a DS, and she's as rough as can be with it, and it's functioning perfectly and I expect it will last just as long as my oldest daughters DS did. That is literally the least of anyone's worries with this new controller format.

Is it? The DS is durable, sure - but it's also much more expensive than a PS3 or 360 controller. That durability requires craftsmanship, and even the DS Lite is running for around $90 right now, down from close to $200 at launch. How much then will these things cost, I wonder? And if they're able to lower the price, will that quality/durability suffer?

Dr.Epic

2011-06-10, 06:34 PM

Oh snap! A new console from Nintendo? Maybe this will drive the price of a Wii down and I can finally buy one. Think it'll drop to prices less than or equal to $3.50?

Yhynens

2011-06-10, 06:44 PM

Is it? The DS is durable, sure - but it's also much more expensive than a PS3 or 360 controller. That durability requires craftsmanship, and even the DS Lite is running for around $90 right now, down from close to $200 at launch. How much then will these things cost, I wonder? And if they're able to lower the price, will that quality/durability suffer?

To be fair, no small amount of the DS Lite's price is devoted to the actual hardware in it, as well as two separate screens, while the Wii U controller's just an empty shell with a receiver and transmitter. And in my experience, Nintendo makes the most durable hardware around: My PSX dual shock (which is like, 12 years old?) crapped out recently, but the N64 controller from launch still works pretty well (comparable amounts of play between the two.) I'm not particularly worried about the controller breaking, and I'm definitely not worried about the controller being prohibitively expensive, since there shouldn't be any hardware inside it except what's explicitly related to controls and displaying an image streamed from the central console.
Even if the controller IS expensive, one will come with the console, and apparently only one is needed per console which, while I don't like the sound of it from a developer's standpoint, does solve the cost problem.

EDIT: From Amazon, all prices USD and before sales: DS Lite: $100, 360 Controller: $50, PS3 Controller: $55. I think 45-50 dollars is probably actually less than the cost of the hardware in the DS Lite. And, yes, it launched at a higher price, but so did the controllers.

Linkavitch

2011-06-10, 06:56 PM

So, Zelda: Skyward Sword is being released on Wii, right? And they're making another Zelda for Wii-U, right? Am I missing something, or is that about right?

TheSummoner

2011-06-10, 06:58 PM

Yhynens

2011-06-10, 07:00 PM

So, Zelda: Skyward Sword is being released on Wii, right? And they're making another Zelda for Wii-U, right? Am I missing something, or is that about right?

They didn't announce another Zelda, but I would say there is around a 100% chance that another Zelda will come out on Wii U, probably within one or two years of its release. There was some sort of TP "Tech Demo" on Wii U hardware, as well as some sort of mockup of what a Zelda menu screen would look like on the controller, but I don't think there was anything playable. I might be wrong, it wasn't exactly clear.

But yes, Skyward Sword is gonna come out on Wii for definitely. I don't think it would even work on the Wii U based on the controls, except where backwards compatibility is concerned.

Starwulf

2011-06-10, 07:25 PM

The DS is a system in and of itself. Comparing it to a controller isn't an even comparison. The DS being more expensive than a controller isn't because of its durability. If you want a more even comparison, compare the prices to that of a Wiimote or Gamecube controllers (when that was the current gen) or something...

Nintendo makes durable stuff. They always have. Hit it with a hammer, drop it from a building, blow a bomb up on it... Chances are it'll still work.

You got that last part right. I was actually going to edit my earlier post, but I see there are multiple posts. I once put cracks into an older computer monitor(the BIG ones) with a pen because I got so pissed at it and stabbed it with the pen. On the other hand, I've stabbed at my DS touch screen with the same amount of force with the Stylus pen, and there isn't even a single mark on it. And I've read accounts online of people running over a DS and it still working, and even one of a 4 year old having taken to the touch screen with a freaking hammer, and yes, it still worked afterwards.

So yeah, of all things to worry about, durability, ain't one of them. Nintendo knows that it's primary market is for the younger generation(with the exception of the Wii, which is where they targeted more casual gamers, and families in general), so they make their products more durable because of that.