Is the Wii U Dying Before its Begun?

[jamewages]

Right, first of all, this is not a Nintendo Bashing thread, I own a Wii U and its great, but with the recent news that Rayman Legends has gone multiplatform and Nintendo have lost exclusivity and activision openly slamming the console, is this a sign that third party developers are abandoning the console this early in its lifespan? We have the launch of two powerhouse consoles over the next 12-18 months which will almost certainly overshadow Nintendo's latest offering- I can definately see shades of the Dreamcast in the Wii U launch but what do you guys think, can Nintendo claw it back?

{Scrubbed}

[Seerow]

Right, first of all, this is not a Nintendo Bashing thread, I own a Wii U and its great, but with the recent news that Rayman Legends has gone multiplatform and Nintendo have lost exclusivity and activision openly slamming the console, is this a sign that third party developers are abandoning the console this early in its lifespan? We have the launch of two powerhouse consoles over the next 12-18 months which will almost certainly overshadow Nintendo's latest offering- I can definately see shades of the Dreamcast in the Wii U launch but what do you guys think, can Nintendo claw it back?



Any citation on this? Rayman going cross platform isn't anything unexpected (I'm pretty sure the last few games were all cross platform. I distinctly remember playing one on the 360 at least), and the only thing I was able to find about Activision bashing the WiiU was a story about some 'developer' claiming Black Ops sales were weak and saying the Nintendo fan base was all talk. Since that article was published, the blog it was referencing has been deleted and it's been exposed as a fake.

[Morph Bark]

If it's great, I doubt it's dying. Nintendo consoles have always done well, and more recently even better than ever. The Wii U is still in its infancy though, and as far as I know there weren't any big launch titles to go with it, which is probably why it isn't as quickly-spread as other consoles have been so far.

[The Succubus]

It's kind of having the same issues as the 3DS. Neat ideas but not much third party support.

[Jimorian]

The topic itself might work, but be aware the OP is a spambot, so engaging it won't go anywhere.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

A spambot with legitimate content? What is this world coming to?

[factotum]

A spambot with legitimate content? What is this world coming to?

You've never seen the spambot who posts an exact copy of an earlier post in a thread, but with the spam payload in the signature? Those used to be pretty common...

[Domochevsky]

Hum, i was wondering about the sig, but the post content and title seemed legit enough. They're getting craftier. :smallconfused:

[Scowling Dragon]

It's kind of having the same issues as the 3DS. Neat ideas but not much third party support.

And not much third party support because of little third party support. Its a killer cycle.

The less support there is, the less support its going to get.

[INoKnowNames]

can definately see shades of the Dreamcast in the Wii U launch but what do you guys think, can Nintendo claw it back?

The biggest issue with the Wii U and 3DS were lack of decent games at launch. But the second, and I mean the -very- second Super Smash Bros WiiU / 3DS gets released, Nintendo will certainly make up for their losses. Heck, Pokemon 3DS will make up for the recent issues with the 3DS this year alone, I'll bet.

[Mando Knight]

The biggest issue with the Wii U and 3DS were lack of decent games at launch. But the second, and I mean the -very- second Super Smash Bros WiiU / 3DS gets released, Nintendo will certainly make up for their losses. Heck, Pokemon 3DS will make up for the recent issues with the 3DS this year alone, I'll bet.

Fire Emblem: Awakening would be the killer app for the 3DS... if Pokémon didn't exist.

Nintendo has the materials they need to make basically any platform sell, they just need time to develop.

[Seerow]

Fire Emblem: Awakening would be the killer app for the 3DS... if Pokémon didn't exist.

Nintendo has the materials they need to make basically any platform sell, they just need time to develop.

Fire Emblem's always been a pretty niche game. There's a fair number of people who absolutely love it, but as a killer app it just doesn't cut it. The appeal just isn't wide enough.

[INoKnowNames]

Fire Emblem: Awakening would be the killer app for the 3DS... if Pokémon didn't exist.

Kid Icarus has a few words for you.

Seriously, until I broke my arm, I played that game every single -day-. It somehow -NEVER- got old, and still isn't old.

It's certainly a "must try", if not "must buy".

[Emmerask]

A spambot with legitimate content? What is this world coming to?

at one point or another we will have entire conversations carried out by spambots in forums :smallbiggrin:

As for the wiiu give it time, nintendo mostly has not super awesome launch titles.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I can't believe I'm posting actual content in a spambot thread.

I vaguely remember seeing a poster that Nintendo made that tried to show how different the wii U and the wii were, and how terrible and desperate it seemed... Yeah, HERE (http://www.geek.com/games/nintendos-why-wii-u-poster-does-more-harm-than-good-1543886/)it is!

[deuterio12]

The biggest issue with the Wii U and 3DS were lack of decent games at launch. But the second, and I mean the -very- second Super Smash Bros WiiU / 3DS gets released, Nintendo will certainly make up for their losses. Heck, Pokemon 3DS will make up for the recent issues with the 3DS this year alone, I'll bet.

This. Right now the system just doesn't have that many games, but once Nintendo gets out some Zelda/3D Mario/SSB, sales will fire up. Actually sales have already seen good boosts from Monster Hunter 3 launch.

Also maybe this time they make a fully fledged pokemon for the big console.

[Zallera]

Problem with the Wii U is that it is about 6 years too late, minus the horrible controller its roughly what the Wii should have been.

[warty goblin]

At this particular point in time, why would anybody buy a Wii U?

I mean think about it. It's running like $300. The XBox 360 and PS3 are both around $200 - $250. Both have been around for a long time, and have absolutely enormous libraries. Both have some sort of motion controller available if that's your thing. The Wii U doesn't exceed them graphically, it has a tiny library, the tablet looks an awful like a gimmick, and there's a new batch of consoles right around the horizon. $300 is a lot to shell out for the promise of an eventual Zelda game when a person could just bank that cash for the PS4.

[Psyren]

What warty said. And the tablet controller isn't just a gimmick, it's not very well-designed either.


A spambot with legitimate content? What is this world coming to?

http://xkcd.com/810/

[Zevox]

At this particular point in time, why would anybody buy a Wii U?
Nintendo series (Zelda, Mario, Super Smash Brothers, Pikmin, Metroid, Yoshi, and Mario Kart are all confirmed, others can be safely assumed.)
HD remake of The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Shin Megami Tensei x Fire Emblem
Bayonetta 2
The Wonderful 101
Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate
Zombi U
Tekken Tag Tournament 2 with Nintendo character costumes.

That first alone will always sell me Nintendo systems - not gonna miss out on Zelda and Smash Brothers especially, and the others are mostly good too. Then you throw in Bayonetta 2 and Shin Megami Tensei x Fire Emblem, and well, if there had been any doubt in my mind whether I was getting the console, it would be long gone.

Now, I'm still waiting on most of those to actually come out mind you, and I do hope there'll be a price drop by the time I get it, but still, there's plenty of reason to do so in my mind.

[Reverent-One]

It's kind of having the same issues as the 3DS. Neat ideas but not much third party support.

You mean other than Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, Darksiders 2, Batman: Arkham City, Mass Effect 3,...

The Wii U is really lacking a good killer app, even a first party one. Still, a small library isn't uncommon this early in a console's life cycle, it was really only a when the Wii and PS3 were coming out that the 360's library was really shaping up, and that was a year after it's release.

As for the tablet, it's no more a gimmick than the motion controls were in the Wii. It's a useful addition and opens up new possiblities for game design.

[Seerow]

As for the tablet, it's no more a gimmick than the motion controls were in the Wii. It's a useful addition and opens up new possiblities for game design.

I personally really loved the tablet use in Mario WiiU, and a lot of the minigames in Nintendo Land were pretty fun. The other games I've tried just used the tablet screen as a HUD, but even that's not so bad. I mean how many people try to deride the DS and its iterations because it has the second touch screen, even if a lot of games don't take advantage of it? Also being able to have the game stream to the pad so you can play current gen games on a handheld equivalent in HD is a nice feature if you live in a household with other people (particularly useful if you have young children and want to play a game that may not be appropriate for them to watch).

I mean I can sort of understand people complaining about the specs, but the tablet integration I see as an actually good feature. I personally wonder how many of the people claiming its gimmicky or useless have not even attempted to play the system. Similarly I wonder how many also shun the DS(/dsi/3ds), or just have issues against Nintendo in general.

[Scowling Dragon]

Eh. Specs are mattering less and less these days. Unless you care about graphics that much.

Also I don't get the Pad complaints. Its going to be on your Lap 90% of the time anyway, and its MUCH lighter then it looks. The controls are solid, so whats the big deal?

You can just get the Pro controller for games with a more standard Gameplay thing.

[Triaxx]

The WiiU controller is a gimmick yet the iPad is the greatest thing ever invented... Seems like a bit of bias there.

On the other hand, there's nothing there to be played. The 'free' game? It's Wii Sports Resort all over again. The one title I was really excited for? Arkham City. Which is also a retread.

I still want one, because I have all of the Nintendo Consoles, because I'm a big fan. But I could buy one now, but I have nothing to play. Until Mario, or Zelda come out and give me something, I have no reason to get one. I'd even be happy with Metroid, as long as it's not another 'Other Masochism'.

[Seerow]

The WiiU controller is a gimmick yet the iPad is the greatest thing ever invented... Seems like a bit of bias there.

On the other hand, there's nothing there to be played. The 'free' game? It's Wii Sports Resort all over again. The one title I was really excited for? Arkham City. Which is also a retread.

I still want one, because I have all of the Nintendo Consoles, because I'm a big fan. But I could buy one now, but I have nothing to play. Until Mario, or Zelda come out and give me something, I have no reason to get one. I'd even be happy with Metroid, as long as it's not another 'Other Masochism'.

There was a Mario game out with the WiiU on launch day. Or was that a port of some other Mario game I am unaware of?

[Scowling Dragon]

Also the Mario game was pretty fun. Im having a blast playing it with my sister.

[satorian]

The WiiU seems to me to be for people who a) really love Nintendo-only titles; or b) collect all consoles in a given generation just because they can. Neither of these things are bad, necessarily. But they sure aren't me.

As to the controller: I do not want to play console games with a giant thing on my lap. I do not want to look down and back up, and down, and back up, to get whatever extra info is on the screen. The controller is for my hands; the TV is for my eyes. These things may not bother you, but they bother me enough to avoid it.

That said, I plan to wait 18 months after at least two great titles come out for whatever next gen system I get. That way I can get Ultimate Editions with all DLCs for cheap. I refuse to buy DLC on top of a full price game. So I won't be in the market at all for 2+ years.

[Psyren]

You mean other than Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, Darksiders 2, Batman: Arkham City, Mass Effect 3,...

None of those are reasons to buy the console though. If I want to play those titles, I can simply get a 360 for $149-$199 new (even less used), and blow the money I saved on 3-4 more games. Add the fact that the WiiU can't do DVD or Bluray playback and it's going to be less attractive to many households. With the PS3, many families were able to justify the steep price tag at launch by saying "at least we get a BluRay with it."

And while it's true that many families already have something they can play physical media on - they also have a 360 or a PS3, even a Wii already too. That $300 isn't going to be easy to justify for them.



As for the tablet, it's no more a gimmick than the motion controls were in the Wii. It's a useful addition and opens up new possiblities for game design.

The tablet has some nice ideas but the design is still terrible. Stretching your thumb from the buttons or thumbsticks to reach the touch-screen is arduous, and few people use their thumbs on a touch-screen anyway. So instead, you'll have to constantly switch your grip from "gamepad" to "tablet" and back again - moving your index fingers from behind it so you can touch it. Not to mention the problems of a second screen in the first place - to benefit from its information, you have to either switch your focus back and forth constantly, or unnaturally hold it at eye-level so you can see both screens at once. Neither of these sound very appealing to me.

[SiuiS]

It's kind of having the same issues as the 3DS. Neat ideas but not much third party support.

As I recall, Nintendo made the choice back with Wii to speciically NOT cater to what they were calling hard-core gamers, sticking with the casual market as a thing. So, those companies that make games that have a hefty following? Nintendo decided to let Microsoft and Sony duke out ownership, and instead focus on marketing Angry birds and the like.

So of course there is no third party support. Third party is almost exclusively mature, violent and often sexy, and Nintendo seems only grudgingly to allow those.


The topic itself might work, but be aware the OP is a spambot, so engaging it won't go anywhere.

Wow. It's more articulate than some actual posters I know!

[Darth Mario]

The tablet has some nice ideas but the design is still terrible. Stretching your thumb from the buttons or thumbsticks to reach the touch-screen is arduous, and few people use their thumbs on a touch-screen anyway. So instead, you'll have to constantly switch your grip from "gamepad" to "tablet" and back again - moving your index fingers from behind it so you can touch it. Not to mention the problems of a second screen in the first place - to benefit from its information, you have to either switch your focus back and forth constantly, or unnaturally hold it at eye-level so you can see both screens at once. Neither of these sound very appealing to me.

Forcing the user to need to quick-switch between touch screen and button layouts seems more like a game design issue to me, rather than a console design issue. I could say the same about the DS, but it never seems to come up there.

I'm also of the opinion that the real use of the WiiU controller isn't in single player games: it's to allow asymmetric multiplayer with limited player information on a console setting (without using networking), which is something no other console ever can actually offer. The minigame from Nintendoland that my friends have dubbed "Freaking Ghosts Man", the Luigi's Mansion game, is one of the most entertaining multiplayer games I have ever played.

[megahobbit]

I think a large problem with the Wii U is that its price is to high. I know it sounds weird but if you look at this article http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/16442/20130405/wii-u-sales-price-cut-drop-gamestop.htm a recent price cut doubled the sales. The Wii had a low enough price that most friends I know had both a Wii and another system. I also think that the market for people who like classic games like Mario is dying. This comes from the fact that other companies are competing for the family friendly niche, Little Big Planet is a great platformer, is certainly family friendly, and is just as appealing as Mario. The lack of third party support is also a big problem and that stems from the fact many game studios aren't willing to take a risk and when they do they aren't able to use the systems ideas to its proper effect. When I look at my Wii games the only third party game I have that I fully enjoyed is Red Steel 2 which is a game that used the Wii plus to pull off really cool sword fights. I think that Nintendo itself makes very good games for its systems but no one else can. All said and done I will buy a Wii U the second a New Super Smash Bros game is released.

[The Glyphstone]

Wow. It's more articulate than some actual posters I know!

This isn't the first time, either. There was a good-length discussion about linear vs. sandbox games in the Roleplaying forum started by a bot...I'm beginning to suspect that XKCD comic was right.

[Psyren]

Forcing the user to need to quick-switch between touch screen and button layouts seems more like a game design issue to me, rather than a console design issue. I could say the same about the DS, but it never seems to come up there.

The DS is different. You're already looking at your lap or holding it at eye-level - the screens are mere inches apart. There's also less real estate on the sides, so the touchscreen is easier to reach without changing your grip.



I'm also of the opinion that the real use of the WiiU controller isn't in single player games: it's to allow asymmetric multiplayer with limited player information on a console setting (without using networking), which is something no other console ever can actually offer.

The Xbox can do this too actually - the SmartGlass app lets them turn any tablet into another controller. Programming a game to take advantage of that, and transmit data to the app that the other players don't get, would simulate this functionality of the WiiU quite well. And you could use just about any existing tablet (even, or perhaps especially, a Windows Surface) rather than having to buy an expensive yet limited-use specialty controller.

I'm hoping the Xbox 720 takes more advantage of this - it could easily duplicate what the WiiU is trying to do. But rather than being a dedicated feature of the console, it would merely be an added bonus to the handful of games that can use it properly (like a D&D style DM-with-PCs setup.)

[huttj509]

The DS is different. You're already looking at your lap or holding it at eye-level - the screens are mere inches apart. There's also less real estate on the sides, so the touchscreen is easier to reach without changing your grip.



The Xbox can do this too actually - the SmartGlass app lets them turn any tablet into another controller. Programming a game to take advantage of that, and transmit data to the app that the other players don't get, would simulate this functionality of the WiiU quite well. And you could use just about any existing tablet (even, or perhaps especially, a Windows Surface) rather than having to buy an expensive yet limited-use specialty controller.

I'm hoping the Xbox 720 takes more advantage of this - it could easily duplicate what the WiiU is trying to do. But rather than being a dedicated feature of the console, it would merely be an added bonus to the handful of games that can use it properly (like a D&D style DM-with-PCs setup.)

The issue with that is from the dev side.

DS? Everyone has 2 screens, one with touch. You can design your game to use one, or both, and know that people have it.

WiiU? Everyone has the one tablet controller. You can design games to use it, and know people have it.

Xbox? Not everyone has a tablet. If you design to use a tablet, you limit your market. Ask the Gamecube GBA adapter how well that worked out (but if you had the systems, Crystal Chronicles was awesome).



Now the issue is designers not feeling like they HAVE to use every capability. I mean, there were DS games that really didn't need touchscreen gimmicks, but it was shoehorned in because devs felt they needed to justify the system.


As to the killer app...well, Rayman seemed like it'd be it, but then Ubisoft said "nope! We were just the featured playable demo on all the store systems, and for many people were a big reason they got the U when they did, but we changed our minds, and not even for programming reasons; the game's sitting in a warehouse waiting."

When you have the folks who programmed the game sitting outside their office holding a sign saying "please release Rayman," (ok, it didn't say that in quotes, because it was in French, because it was the Canadian dev studio) it's not good press.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, I'll just echo a bit. I played the WiiU a few times, don't own one. Whenever the game asks to switch to looking at the tablet it takes me out of the game. Just all momentum and fun is gone. Now, my favorite game series is Super Smash Bros, and I really want to play the next one. But I'm not willing to buy a whole new consul just for that when so far I haven't seen an implementation of its main schtick that I have actually enjoyed.

But then, I never bothered with the DS either, so what do I know.

[Psyren]

Xbox? Not everyone has a tablet. If you design to use a tablet, you limit your market. Ask the Gamecube GBA adapter how well that worked out (but if you had the systems, Crystal Chronicles was awesome).

But if you don't decide to use the tablet, what exactly does the WiiU bring to the table that the cheaper and greater-penetrated consoles don't?

What does it have to differentiate it besides the tablet? The PS3 is in a ton of households because it plays BluRays. The 360 was around longer, and has the best online play of them all. The WiiU has... Mario. Which is great for Nintendo, and not so great for 3rd party developers.

[Darth Mario]

But if you don't decide to use the tablet, what exactly does the WiiU bring to the table that the cheaper and greater-penetrated consoles don't?

I think this is an unfair question to Nintendo. Rather, if I want or need to use a tablet with my game, should I release it on a system where everyone is guaranteed to be able to play it, or on a system where they won't?


What does it have to differentiate it besides the tablet? The PS3 is in a ton of households because it plays BluRays. The 360 was around longer, and has the best online play of them all. The WiiU has... Mario. Which is great for Nintendo, and not so great for 3rd party developers.

Uneven comparison. You're looking at the newest console in a generation as compared to two of a previous generation. And that newest console doesn't even have it's core lineup of games out. Talk to me again when SSB, Zelda, and that Metroid/StarFox crossover game drop. As the first out to market, Nintendo gets to be a little slow with releases, as the XBox 360 demonstrated last generation, simply because whenever the other consoles do drop, Nintendo will already have some sort of base set up.

[Psyren]

I think this is an unfair question to Nintendo. Rather, if I want or need to use a tablet with my game, should I release it on a system where everyone is guaranteed to be able to play it, or on a system where they won't?

The better question is - what game would that be? It's possible something may come up that uses the tablet in a fun and innovative way rather than as a tacked-on gimmick. If so I would love to see it.



Uneven comparison. You're looking at the newest console in a generation as compared to two of a previous generation.

Shouldn't I? The specs are pretty similar, and one has a much higher price tag.



And that newest console doesn't even have it's core lineup of games out. Talk to me again when SSB, Zelda, and that Metroid/StarFox crossover game drop.

It's a safe bet that the people who care about Nintendo's first-party lineup will get a WiiU no matter how successful the tablet is. I am not one of those people, however, so for myself I can only look at the other things the console is supposedly bringing to the table. As it stands, Bayonetta 2 is probably the only reason I'd get one, and chances are that will go multiplatform at some point in the future (like Rayman did) if I just wait a while.



As the first out to market, Nintendo gets to be a little slow with releases, as the XBox 360 demonstrated last generation, simply because whenever the other consoles do drop, Nintendo will already have some sort of base set up.

The problem is that the "generational model" for consoles is itself going away. Graphics advancements, which defined every generation up to and including the last one, are finally beginning to plateau. Features like online play, force feedback and motion control are now baseline expectations rather than being differentiators. Digital distribution and DLC are on the rise, meaning that media storage capacity is less of a factor too.

Being first to market, with a poor launch stable and promises of more to come, was enough back when everyone was excited to see what kinds of titles could push the various systems' limits.

Besides, Nintendo's strength of previous generations is an Achilles' Heel here - their first-party product, in order to take advantage of the weaker hardware in the Wii and cartridge-based storage of yore, was designed with a cartoony aesthetic. Now that they have a truly powerful system though, how far can they really push it with stubby fat plumbers and omnivorous, beady-eyed pink balls?

[huttj509]

The problem is that the "generational model" for consoles is itself going away. Graphics advancements, which defined every generation up to and including the last one, are finally beginning to plateau. Features like online play, force feedback and motion control are now baseline expectations rather than being differentiators. Digital distribution and DLC are on the rise, meaning that media storage capacity is less of a factor too.

Being first to market, with a poor launch stable and promises of more to come, was enough back when everyone was excited to see what kinds of titles could push the various systems' limits.

Besides, Nintendo's strength of previous generations is an Achilles' Heel here - their first-party product, in order to take advantage of the weaker hardware in the Wii and cartridge-based storage of yore, was designed with a cartoony aesthetic. Now that they have a truly powerful system though, how far can they really push it with stubby fat plumbers and omnivorous, beady-eyed pink balls?

The tablet is "gimmicky" but force feedback is "a baseline expectation"?

We obviously look for different things as priorities in our games.

Personally, I like having the tablet as a "HUD in my hands." And watching my friend playing ZombiiU looking away from the screen to root through his inventory, while I made sure nothing was sneaking up on him, was pretty neat.

I've found no issues holding or using the tablet, but maybe that's just me having big hands that normally turn into twisted painful claws with many controllers and handhelds. I found it MUCH more comfortable than I was expecting from just looking at it.

I'm just dreading when games come out expecting you to be writing on the tablet or something, while using the left stick. More DS games need lefty mode...

Why is cartoony bad? It depends on the intended aesthetic of the game. Obviously TF2 (for example) is a horrible game that nobody plays because the characters are cartoony, right?

[Psyren]

The tablet is "gimmicky" but force feedback is "a baseline expectation"?

We obviously look for different things as priorities in our games.

Tactile feedback enhances immersion. There's a reason every single console since the N64 has included it, you know.

Dual screens... not so much.



Personally, I like having the tablet as a "HUD in my hands." And watching my friend playing ZombiiU looking away from the screen to root through his inventory, while I made sure nothing was sneaking up on him, was pretty neat.

You're only proving my point more. Do you honestly not see the obvious problem with this scenario? Or the fact that the second screen adds nothing vital or groundbreaking to this concept that a semi-transparent gui or PiP does not?



Why is cartoony bad? It depends on the intended aesthetic of the game. Obviously TF2 (for example) is a horrible game that nobody plays because the characters are cartoony, right?

I never said cartoony was inherently bad - but it's practically all Nintendo's 1PP has to offer, and their 1PP is what primarily moves their units. Unless there is a huge engagement by 3PP developers to this new console - which so far doesn't seem likely - that is not going to change, especially not when its competitors have such robust existing install-bases.

But back to cartoony; the reason it's a problem is that it doesn't take advantage of better hardware. Mario and Yoshi are not going to look significantly different in an HD environment than they do now. For a console that's looking to give people a reason to stop playing their Wii and get the next big thing, that doesn't bode well.

[huttj509]

Tactile feedback enhances immersion. There's a reason every single console since the N64 has included it, you know.

Dual screens... not so much.



Dual screens allow for core game functionality unavailable on other systems.

Tactile feedback... not so much.



You're only proving my point more. Do you honestly not see the obvious problem with this scenario? Or the fact that the second screen adds nothing vital or groundbreaking to this concept that a semi-transparent gui or PiP does not?



So, rumble adds immersion, but needing to look away from your surroundings, while physically looking up to keep an eye on your surroundings, does not?

The game could have paused while you accessed your inventory. It deliberately does not.



But back to cartoony; the reason it's a problem is that it doesn't take advantage of better hardware. Mario and Yoshi are not going to look significantly different in an HD environment than they do now. For a console that's looking to give people a reason to stop playing their Wii and get the next big thing, that doesn't bode well.

This is what I was getting at with looking for different things in games. My question with a new system is "what sort of games can this system do, that current ones cannot?"

If the answer is "the same thing, but HD," it doesn't grip me (with the exception of David Cage who deliberately focuses more on the emotional element and communicating that, as opposed to more explosions).

Will the higher processing power allow better AI? Probably not, as AI's generally less limited by processing, than by "writing good AI that's stupid in the right ways is HARD."

The WiiU tablet? THAT's interesting. Asymmetric multiplayer, immersive gameplay mechanics (Oh, you're a marine in Aliens carrying a motion tracker? If you're looking down at it you're not looking at your surroundings. Why does physically looking down at it not count as immersive?), heck, portable console gaming! That alone is AWESOME!

There have been some very creative games for the DS and 3DS that used the screens in interesting ways (The World Ends With You is the latest that jumped out at me), and when it came out I would have never guessed what some developers would have thought to do with it. THAT's what interests me.

Graphical console capabilities are at a point where, generally, if the effects look better? I don't care. I've played PC games on my monitor, and on my friend's big TV with his uber system with everything on high. Could I tell the difference? Yes. It was still the same freaking game and played the same.

For me, it's not just about different games, it's about different gameplay.

[warty goblin]

Dual screens allow for core game functionality unavailable on other systems.

Tactile feedback... not so much.


There's a lot of subtle things games can do with rumble that actually do provide useful information to the player. Item proximity, attack and block timing, etc. It's just as valid a method to communicate data to the player as a second screen.

And it's a lot more fun to put down your pants. :smallbiggrin:


So, rumble adds immersion, but needing to look away from your surroundings, while physically looking up to keep an eye on your surroundings, does not?

The game could have paused while you accessed your inventory. It deliberately does not.
Counting bullets on a per-magazine basis would also increase immersion for any game that involves guns. Pretty much no games do that because it's annoying as snot in the majority of cases. Ditto windage, supersonic rounds, location based wound effects, the effects of breathing on accuracy, and so on. There are games that account for these sorts of things, because for that particular design and audience they matter. For most people in most shooters they just wanna shoot dudes. Pausing or not during inventory management is gonna be pretty much the same. For some games and some audiences the ability to get your face eaten off while trying to find the prune juice will be a feature, but I can't really see it becoming the new norm.

More importantly for developers, developing a game around that functionality means they can't port it particularly well. In an environment with multiple consoles, unless over half your audience owns the Wii U, it's probably a smarter play to pretty much ignore those features so you can do a good job on the others. Which is to say even if the tablet doesn't have to be a gimmick, it'll probably end up being one for lots and lots of games. And once the next generation machines start to roll out, releasing for the Wii U will necessitate developing for a substantially less powerful machine, which increases costs significantly. That means new art assets, different engine code, in some cases differently designed levels, all for an uglier looking end product. Most developers take pride in their work; which doesn't really go hand in hand with making it worse.

In short it's not really surprising DICE isn't bothering with the Wii U for Battlefield 4.

[factotum]

I'd have to agree with the general argument that the tablet brings nothing to the table. Any developer who actually *did* come up with a really great and innovative way to use it would then be forced to make their game a WiiU exclusive, and cutting your potential market by two-thirds is not something you want to do unless somebody is paying you a lot of money to do so!

[Psyren]

Dual screens allow for core game functionality unavailable on other systems.

And when you find a good example of that functionality, let me know. (Hint: arbitrarily putting your inventory and sniper scopes on a separate screen, when gaming has functioned fine for decades without doing either one, isn't it.)

Asymmetric multiplayer could fill that niche. But until they actually have a title that makes good use of it, it's $300 for a promise, that may never be realized.



So, rumble adds immersion, but needing to look away from your surroundings, while physically looking up to keep an eye on your surroundings, does not?

If your friend was benefiting so much from this "feature," why didn't he ask you not to keep an eye on him while he rummaged through his inventory? Surely the authenticity of the experience would be improved if he requested, nay, demanded you not tell him when enemies were approaching his distracted avatar?

It's a solution in search of a problem. Where have you ever seen forums full of gamers lamenting "gosh, I love this game, but I really hate how convenient it is to access my inventory without my throat being ripped out by monsters I can't see coming. If only they would just force me to divide my attention in some completely unnecessary fashion, that would heighten my experience greatly!"

Yeah, me neither.



This is what I was getting at with looking for different things in games. My question with a new system is "what sort of games can this system do, that current ones cannot?"

If the answer is "the same thing, but HD," it doesn't grip me (with the exception of David Cage who deliberately focuses more on the emotional element and communicating that, as opposed to more explosions).

The WiiU tablet? THAT's interesting. Asymmetric multiplayer, immersive gameplay mechanics (Oh, you're a marine in Aliens carrying a motion tracker? If you're looking down at it you're not looking at your surroundings. Why does physically looking down at it not count as immersive?), heck, portable console gaming! That alone is AWESOME!
...
For me, it's not just about different games, it's about different gameplay.

Honestly I am fine with this. Asymmetric multiplayer has a lot of potential. Portable console play isn't a big draw (only certain games will support it and I'm not really fighting with anyone for my TV anyway) but I can see how it might appeal to some households. They need to do something about the tablet's abysmal battery life first to really make this feature take off though.

The "immersive gameplay features" so far are a complete bust - I don't need or want to take my eyes off my tv. I spent a lot of money on that tv for a reason, because I want to look at it, and gimmicky games that put my inventory or motion trackers or whatever other important information I needon another screen just because they can are not features. I'm not even complaining about the no-pause inventory so much, but translucency or PiP works fine - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But ultimately, the larger problem is that there is no title yet that really shows the potential of these attributes, particularly the asymmetrical multiplayer and the dual-screen UI aspects. When there is I'll be the first to hoist a flag in Nintendo's honor, but until then, I have a lot of other uses I can put that $300 to.

[DigoDragon]

If Nintendo would make a Mario Kart game where you can build your own tracks, then I'd totally buy a WiiU just for that game. Double points if they can start up a new "Mega Man-esque" and/or "Castlevania-esque" platformer series.

Those were the games I was looking forward to when I purchased past Nintendo consoles.


I'm surprised that with all this touch screen tech coming out, there hasn't been a new Mario Paint game. Sure it was gimicky, but I admit I spent many a quiet Sunday afternoon doodling with that game. It was relaxing.

[Jenfrag]

If Nintendo would make a Mario Kart game where you can build your own tracks

That would be very exciting, you're not alone in looking forward for that day to come. :smallbiggrin:

[deuterio12]

But ultimately, the larger problem is that there is no title yet that really shows the potential of these attributes, particularly the asymmetrical multiplayer and the dual-screen UI aspects. When there is I'll be the first to hoist a flag in Nintendo's honor, but until then, I have a lot of other uses I can put that $300 to.

Like I said earlier, the only real problem is lack of games, but that's to be expected from a still new console that the devs still didn't learn very well how to take advantage off.

However, if you're complaining about 300 bucks, at least the Wii U is backcompatible. PS4 has already been confirmed that it won't be able to play PS3 games, meaning you can't sell your old one for some extra cash, and if it breaks, you have to buy a new one. Ditto for Xbox. PSmove and kinect also both cost extra on top of the console.

Meanwhile PS4 will most certainly cost more than Wii U, and have what advantage exactly? "Shoot-blood 3490-The Shooting-Now with slightly shinier graphics! Gameplay still consists of pressing X not to die when it shows up on the screen.".:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Meanwhile PS4 will most certainly cost more than Wii U, and have what advantage exactly? "Shoot-blood 3490-The Shooting-Now with slightly shinier graphics! Gameplay still consists of pressing X not to die when it shows up on the screen.".:smalltongue:

That's fine since I'm not interested in the PS4 in the slightest :smalltongue:

I'll hold out for the 720, and make my judgments then. If none of them have what I want, I'll be glad to stick with Steam and the current-gen.

[INoKnowNames]

I'll hold out for the 720, and make my judgments then. If none of them have what I want, I'll be glad to stick with Steam and the current-gen.

On most gaming websites, the general consensus is that rumors have it the new Xbox system could only be worse if it were actually fueled by human babies. Granted, those are rumors, but still, it doesn't quite look good so far.

[Bucky]

However, if you're complaining about 300 bucks, at least the Wii U is backcompatible.


Last I checked, Wii U did not support Gamecube games. Since I am currently using my Wii as a Gamecube, I don't see myself moving to Wii U anytime soon.

[Komatik]

Problem with the Wii U is that it is about 6 years too late, minus the horrible controller its roughly what the Wii should have been.

Wii U 6 years ago would've died horribly. The Wii was almost exactly what needed to be done at that time. Nintendo just let it die after two years because they don't know what they're doing. Firstly, the controller is godawful. Second, graphics is just about the absolute last thing gaming needs to survive right now, or what it needed six years ago. Putting Wii U hardware out six years ago even without the retarded controller would've meant selling the hardware at a loss, which Nintendo simply can't afford and isn't smart business anyway. On top of being unnecessary, that is.

What is needed is:

1: A return to actual consoles. Simple, cheap, quick, standardized. Put a game in, boot, done type of deal, not a retarded PC like PS3/4, Xbox 360/Next/whatever, Wii U are.

2: A return to actual games. Enough with stupid QTE-fests, let us have actual games. And, moreover, let us have PC games and Console/Arcade games on their respective platforms. Playing Desperados on my PC and Sonic on the console is miles better than getting a retarded-for-console wannabe movie PC style game with extra QTEs made for the console on which it doesn't belong and then porting it to PC. That's just called "everyone loses". Console gamer, PC gamer, developer, publisher, the hobby all fall into ruin eventually from those kinds of things.

3: A return to sane proportions of game types. There is nothing wrong with graybrown shooters. Except the ridiculous budget and having to sell a million+ to break even to a limited audience (hardcore gamers) at a standard price. Those games are not good at building an audience, so the market steadily declines because people leave, no new blood comes in, and the budgets kill the devs/publishers. Contrast with 2d Mario games: They bring in a ton of people, are relatively cheap to develop (even if given the attention they deserve instead of being phoned in), while still selling at the standard price. They get people hooked. Then some of those eventually grab higher-end stuff or certain bridge titles.
A developer needs to know their place. See Atlus. Their customer base is small, but they know it and thus they don't spend absurd amounts of money making their games. They're profitable and healthy.



You know why the manufacturers care about attach rates so much? They won't make money otherwise. They have to licence N games/console or they're in the red. If the consoles and the games are all made at a profit, it's enough to just sell tons. It doesn't matter that Wii's attach rate is two. Why? Because it sells gangbusters, all at a profit. NSMB Wii and MK:Wii sell one and a half times what CoD does, which is the only hardcore game capable of putting up truly huge numbers. Three items to a happy customer, sold at a profit. RAD.

And just to reiterate: HD is not free. HD is ****ing expensive, and makes budgets go through the roof. Budgets are a part of reality, and a big reason for why things like Final Fantasy 13 happen. Making a game as huge as something like Xenoblade at topnotch visual fidelity is a sure recipe for bankruptcy. Folks at Square have already admitted as much re: FF7. No remake, because money doesn't grow on trees. Lower fidelity visuals very concretely enable more content.

Of course, the industry and their shader-ogling hype-drones don't care much. Graphics graphics graphics, they chant. Reality be damned. As long as the devs can make what they want instead of what the customers want (which is wannabe artsy bs, Michael Bay movie imitations and cutscenes. Gotta do it here 'cause they'd be laughed out of Hollywood or the printing press) and the drones can admire the technical splendor of their high-definition rock that just so happens to look like oiled plastic, while disparaging things like Conduit 2. On Wii, gotta suck. Desperately ignore those crude standard definition textures that still for some reason look more like stone than their HD plastic.

Praise graphics, praise gaming as an art form that can be taken seriously. Praise developers who want to evoke emotions in players. Praise the Quick-Time Event, and it's twin, the Achievement. Deliver us today from the perils of actual gameplay, and tough level design. Spare us from having to have an actual art direction for our games, and from having to make things in 2d, as we did in the dark days of yore. Spare us from seeing our family members play, for the girls can't even grow neckbeards, and dad is just embarassing. Let us vilify the simple, the easily grasped, the just plain fun, while forgetting it is what we grew up on. Let us ignore having to reflect the nature of man while vomiting onto disc and DLC whatever bull**** we come up with, and defend it from criticism with the cry of "But it's Art". Let us...

*SMASH*
http://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/woodworking/Elementary-Turning/images/Number-IV-Carpenter-s-Mallet-145.png

But enough of the drone-cultist's chanting and enough of my rant, back to Wii U vital signs. It's dead. Dead unless Nintendo pulls off a miracle, which they won't because they don't have the proper mindset for it and they wasted the goodwill they built up with the DS and the Wii. 3DS is likewise stupid, Vita I don't even want to think about. MS doesn't care about gaming. PS4, ehh. Most likely not. None of the console manufacturers are doing smart things atm. Nintendo doesn't have another revenue source and Sony is hemorrhaging money in all markets, so they can't subsidize idiocy like the PS3 anymore. So, uh. Yeah. Have fun videogaming until the market goes byebye.


EDIT: Forgot to mention: All this social media integration bs can go die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. Give us good, simple online with lobbies and chat, give us the couch and good ol' splitscreen. Facebook is cancerous enough already, I don't want it in my games. Sheesh.

[warty goblin]

1: A return to actual consoles. Simple, cheap, quick, standardized. Put a game in, boot, done type of deal, not a retarded PC like PS3/4, Xbox 360/Next/whatever, Wii U are.

2: A return to actual games. Enough with stupid QTE-fests, let us have actual games. And, moreover, let us have PC games and Console/Arcade games on their respective platforms. Playing Desperados on my PC and Sonic on the console is miles better than getting a retarded-for-console wannabe movie PC style game with extra QTEs made for the console on which it doesn't belong and then porting it to PC. That's just called "everyone loses". Console gamer, PC gamer, developer, publisher, the hobby all fall into ruin eventually from those kinds of things.

How exactly did I or anybody else lose when I played Tomb Raider on my PC using my XBox 360 controller, loved playing Tomb Raider on my PC with my XBox 360 controller, and then fired up PC exclusive Warlock: Master of the Arcane for desert? Because I had a great time, and I'm guessing none of the companies I bought stuff from to have that experience are complaining about me buying their stuff.

(And if for some reason you don't consider Tomb Raider a QTE-fest console port, feel free to substitute just about any other console port of your choice for the last couple years. Odds are high I played and enjoyed it. On the PC. With my 360 controller.)

[Triaxx]

Resident Evil 4?

[factotum]

(And if for some reason you don't consider Tomb Raider a QTE-fest console port, feel free to substitute just about any other console port of your choice for the last couple years. Odds are high I played and enjoyed it. On the PC. With my 360 controller.)

Agreed. I don't understand this mindset that says only certain types of game can come out on certain platforms, and I especially don't understand the mindset (sadly typical among PC gamers) that using a controller on the PC is somehow "not right". I remember the days when you could buy games on PC that couldn't be played without a controller*--OK, the controller in question was usually a joystick rather than a console-style controller, but the principle is the same.

* See TIE Fighter for a perfect example of this.

[warty goblin]

Agreed. I don't understand this mindset that says only certain types of game can come out on certain platforms, and I especially don't understand the mindset (sadly typical among PC gamers) that using a controller on the PC is somehow "not right". I remember the days when you could buy games on PC that couldn't be played without a controller*--OK, the controller in question was usually a joystick rather than a console-style controller, but the principle is the same.

* See TIE Fighter for a perfect example of this.

This attitude has always pretty much confused and annoyed me as well. I think it's another symptom of the strange notion that Gaming is a Cause or you can Game Wrong or related garbage thinking. So far as I can figure the only way a person can game wrong is if they spend a lot of time playing a game they don't enjoy, or let gaming interfere with actual real-world responsibilities and necessities.

Really, that's about it. What a person plays, and what shape of controller they use to play it is entirely a matter of personal taste. I find there are games that are more enjoyable for having QTEs, so I play them. If others don't, they shouldn't play those games. If you don't want to use a controller, don't use a controller. There's really nothing to be excited about here, it's just a way to press buttons after all.


The degree to which the You Are Gaming Wrong attitude has infected PC gaming is fairly depressing. I find PC Gamer completely unbearable anymore, and RockPaperShotgun is catching up - particularly if I make the mistake of reading the comments. Well, that and their insistence on padding out every single article with about five extraneous paragraphs of meaningless piffle.

[huttj509]

The degree to which the You Are Gaming Wrong attitude has infected PC gaming is fairly depressing. I find PC Gamer completely unbearable anymore, and RockPaperShotgun is catching up - particularly if I make the mistake of reading the comments. Well, that and their insistence on padding out every single article with about five extraneous paragraphs of meaningless piffle.

Not just PC. I was sneered at for buying Bioshock Infinite for PC at the midnight release.

Personally, I just can't stand modern FPS type games with a controller, my aim's all over the place, which is fine if the game style gives me time to adjust mid combat, but it often does not.

And really? Any gaming site I've been to the comments have been 95% sneering elitist @#$%ery. I've noticed no real difference between pc sites and console sites. Some specific games have been different, but not in general.

[Komatik]

This attitude has always pretty much confused and annoyed me as well. I think it's another symptom of the strange notion that Gaming is a Cause or you can Game Wrong or related garbage thinking.

My post was simply observations on the gaming market and what they should do if they want to stay afloat. The only proper thing for any individual customer to do is to see what interests him and buy that if he wants to. Doesn't mean I can't take a look at the market as a whole and think it's unhealthy.

[factotum]

Personally, I just can't stand modern FPS type games with a controller, my aim's all over the place

Well, I think mouse and keyboard is actually a better way to play that type of game--it's certainly easier to aim. That doesn't mean that people who prefer to play that sort of game with a controller are *wrong*, though! As Warty said, games are played for fun, so if you find it more fun (or more challenging) to play with a controller, go for it.

(Speaking personally, I tend to use whatever controller I think is best suited for the majority of the gameplay. If there's a lot of driving involved then a controller suits me better, even if it makes any shooty bits more difficult--this is why I played LA Noire and GTA4 with a controller).

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I don't buy a lot of the "you can't play xyz genre on consoles because of the controls". They said that about FPSes once. Said you couldn't do an FPS without a mouse and keyboard. Said it would never work. Well, they were proved wrong, you clearly can and it clearly works fine, I don't think anyone would deny that, personal preference set aside.
I don't know which way I prefer, the movement on a controller is much smoother and natural than the wasd only 8 directions to move in a straight line you have on a keyboard, but the aiming does tend to be a tad less accurate. I think I miiiight prefer the controller, but the keyboard opens more options for other actions within the game.

[Grif]

I don't buy a lot of the "you can't play xyz genre on consoles because of the controls". They said that about FPSes once. Said you couldn't do an FPS without a mouse and keyboard. Said it would never work. Well, they were proved wrong, you clearly can and it clearly works fine, I don't think anyone would deny that, personal preference set aside.
I don't know which way I prefer, the movement on a controller is much smoother and natural than the wasd only 8 directions to move in a straight line you have on a keyboard, but the aiming does tend to be a tad less accurate. I think I miiiight prefer the controller, but the keyboard opens more options for other actions within the game.

FPS-es still play much, much better with a mouse and keyboard than the clumsy controls of a gamepad or a joystick. The keyboard and mouse by its lonesome is really limited, but together they really shine as a sum that is greater than its part.

[Psyren]

RTS without a mouse... I've yet to see anyone truly get that right.

But it's certainly a lot easier to borrow, rent and buy games used on a console.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

FPS-es still play much, much better with a mouse and keyboard than the clumsy controls of a gamepad or a joystick. The keyboard and mouse by its lonesome is really limited, but together they really shine as a sum that is greater than its part.

In your opinion. I find personally keyboard controls clumsy, and find that the SPECTRUM of movement a gamepad or joystick offers is superior to the 4 basic directions of movement that a keyboard provides, 8 if you include combinations of 2 keys. In addition, I enjoy how gamepad or joystick controls offer a control of the SCALE of movement. If I want to just inch very slowly to the left, I can barely move the stick. Doing this on the keyboard I find very difficult if not impossible: the mere addition of a "walk" key pales in comparison, and repeatedly pounding the key instead of holding it down is a tiring workaround I'm now willing to do.

So yeah, you can't really make objective statements about the topic, it's all subjective. FPSes play much better on keyboard and mouse for YOU, but slightly better on controller for ME, and MUCH better on controller for, say, my sister, who struggles with keyboard and mouse controls.


RTS without a mouse... I've yet to see anyone truly get that right.

But it's certainly a lot easier to borrow, rent and buy games used on a console.

I think it's a matter of time. With RTSes it would probably require a large reimagining of how control works in the genre, and cross-platform support for the pioneering games would be limited if not non-existent, meaning it would be high cost and high risk. But I think just because a well-working one hasn't been made yet doesn't mean that it's impossible, it just means that people haven't figured out a good way to do it yet.

There are some simple RTS games I've seen on the Xbox. That Toy Soldiers one a few friends of mine play a lot. Similar to that, you'd have to remove almost all the UI from the game: have a resource counter and such things, but all actual gameplay related UI should be shown on the main portion of the screen: click a building and little circles pop up around it telling you what you can do with it, rather than opening a menu page at the bottom third of the screen or something that would happen on PC. Go over one of the circles for a type of unit, say the Spearman and more circles pop up around it, making all the other circles smaller and moving htem to the side. One of the circles says "buy", one says "upgrade to Pikeman", one says "See Unit Abilities", which would most likely bring up a PC style unit card with all of it's stats.

Eventually some brilliant person will come up with a way to do away with the cursor in an RTS, but I haven't figgered it out yet...

[Seerow]

Eventually some brilliant person will come up with a way to do away with the cursor in an RTS, but I haven't figgered it out yet...


I could see it being done with voice commands eventually. That was one of the things I actually liked in ME3, that you could command your squad mates with voice commands. The downside was it got a bit repetitive especially when the controls decided they didn't want to work for whatever reason, but I could definitely see the technology improving to the point where a well made game could take full advantage of it within the next generation.

Or (on topic) the Wii U could probably handle an RTS effectively with the addition of the pad/touch screen.

[Geno9999]

I think it's a matter of time. With RTSes it would probably require a large reimagining of how control works in the genre, and cross-platform support for the pioneering games would be limited if not non-existent, meaning it would be high cost and high risk. But I think just because a well-working one hasn't been made yet doesn't mean that it's impossible, it just means that people haven't figured out a good way to do it yet.

There are some simple RTS games I've seen on the Xbox. That Toy Soldiers one a few friends of mine play a lot. Similar to that, you'd have to remove almost all the UI from the game: have a resource counter and such things, but all actual gameplay related UI should be shown on the main portion of the screen: click a building and little circles pop up around it telling you what you can do with it, rather than opening a menu page at the bottom third of the screen or something that would happen on PC. Go over one of the circles for a type of unit, say the Spearman and more circles pop up around it, making all the other circles smaller and moving htem to the side. One of the circles says "buy", one says "upgrade to Pikeman", one says "See Unit Abilities", which would most likely bring up a PC style unit card with all of it's stats.

Eventually some brilliant person will come up with a way to do away with the cursor in an RTS, but I haven't figgered it out yet...
I think Dungeon Defenders does that if you use the controller, with some actions (Upgrade and Repair Towers, Build Towers, etc.) hotkeyed to the D-pad.

Maybe the Wii U will enable an RTS with the controller. Like the TV has the main map, while the controller has the minimap, details on resources and units, and can highlight units or upgrade things.

Though now that I think about it, isn't Pikmin considered an RTS?

[Sprinter]

Agreed. I don't understand this mindset that says only certain types of game can come out on certain platforms, and I especially don't understand the mindset (sadly typical among PC gamers) that using a controller on the PC is somehow "not right". I remember the days when you could buy games on PC that couldn't be played without a controller*--OK, the controller in question was usually a joystick rather than a console-style controller, but the principle is the same.

* See TIE Fighter for a perfect example of this.

Game you are quoting is actualy TIE Fighter vs X-Wing and to this day im puzzled why LUCASART decided to remove mouse + keyboard control from that game. It worked perfectly in X-Wing and TIE Fighter games. I finished both with just mouse and Keyboard. Mouse + Keyboard was good enough to do all optional mission objectives on medium difficulty in TIE Fighter.

[Dumbledore lives]

I think Dungeon Defenders does that if you use the controller, with some actions (Upgrade and Repair Towers, Build Towers, etc.) hotkeyed to the D-pad.

Maybe the Wii U will enable an RTS with the controller. Like the TV has the main map, while the controller has the minimap, details on resources and units, and can highlight units or upgrade things.

Though now that I think about it, isn't Pikmin considered an RTS?

Pikmin will use the screen to move around your little dudes, just like an RTS, so yes. I want a WiiU. I also want some actual games to go along with it, and right now there are two or three, which is just not good enough, especially when the Mario game is basically the same as the Wii version having played both extensively.

[factotum]

Game you are quoting is actualy TIE Fighter vs X-Wing

Actually, I've never played that game...I think I was actually confusing Freespace 2 with TIE Fighter.

[warty goblin]

Actually, I've never played that game...I think I was actually confusing Freespace 2 with TIE Fighter.

You can play Freespace 2 without a joystick. I've done it.

[factotum]

Darn it! What game am I thinking of, then? I *know* I've played a game on the PC which wouldn't even start up if you didn't have a joystick connected, and it must have been some time ago because they're not common peripherals these days... :smallfrown:

[Sprinter]

Darn it! What game am I thinking of, then? I *know* I've played a game on the PC which wouldn't even start up if you didn't have a joystick connected, and it must have been some time ago because they're not common peripherals these days... :smallfrown:

Well the only game i can think of is X-wing vs Tie Fighter sequel to both X-wing and Tie fighter. I had the demo and first thing it did was detecting if you have Joystick connected.