• 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

So I'm sort of bummed out by the focus on Wii U performance right now... I'm not religious about my games. I have invested heavily in almost every system on the market for the past decade. The general rule for me is that when a game shows up that I want to play, that's when I buy the system. For the XBOX it was Ninja Gaiden. PS2 it was GTA3. GameCube it was Metroid Prime, etc. I have no "loyalty" beyond the games. For instance I haven't picked up a Vita yet, simply because there isn't anything on there I want to play. Yet.

The same is true for the Wii U. To me, a system is not defined by its statistical potential, but by its gameplay reality. For instance, ZombiU (that name!) is what makes the Wii U desirable to me, NOT the prospect of "next gen". I think anyone who has been playing games on the PC for the past couple of years have been inhabiting the next gen for long enough to make that prospect pretty uninteresting.

I think the _actual_ issue with the Wii U is that while it's friendlier to ports than the Wii was, it's still unfriendly enough (again in terms of this nebulous "power") to mean by the next generation of PS3 and Xbox, the Wii U is again likely to receive substandard ports. If you're "into ports", or you only own one system and only ever plan to own one system, I suppose this is a real concern. Personally, I always thought the port game was the worst part of this generation. Nowhere near enough exclusives meant the PS3 and 360 were practically interchangeable, the only real reason my PS3 became my platform of choice was the horrendous noise on the 360. It's pretty sad to have a house with so many expensive bits of hardware and so much crossover the biggest difference is the shape of the case. I've really missed divergence.

As a gamer who doesn't play console games online, the single real issue with the Wii, to this day, remains rendering resolution. People like to slag on the Wii, but there are games on that system that are absolutely glorious, and would have been much, much nicer on an HD system. The gameplay was there, but the presentation was not. It's not even as if rendering at an HD resolution implies you need to spend more time on assets, as Dolphin emulator footage shows just how well Nintendo's original art holds up. So that was a real misstep on Nintendo's behalf. The Wii didn't have to be that shitty. While I understand why, it's pretty sad to hear all the "collecting dust" stories because they are so ungrateful. Donkey Kong Country Returns is the kind of game you simply do not see on competing platforms, and it's sad to see it so easily disregarded.

So with that out of the way, I'm simply excited about the Wii U just as I was excited about the Wii; It's something else. Watch dogs is most likely not going to see a Wii U release, and other ports built on legacy tech are equally unlikely to see Wii U ports worth our time. But when even Ubisoft can deliver a launch title like ZombiU that is weird enough and different enough to sell the system to skeptics, and Nintendo's dullard b-game (NSMBU) looks as ludicrously gorgeous at 60fps as it does, I just don't know how not to be at least interested in what the system is doing.

Nintendo are savants. They make the dumbest decisions in the business. There's a saying, "Nintendo always has to do one thing completely wrong". As far as I can see, their "one thing" this time was storage. The standard Wii U kit is the Xbox 360 Arcade of 2012; Why anyone would want what amounts to about 3 gigs of storage on their system is baffling. Even the deluxe kit at 32 gigs is, er, modest. Nintendo's claims that you can hook up an external HDD to augment this is just as false as their claim on the Wii that you could expand your memory with SD cards; External storage on Nintendo systems are hopeless third rate citizens. You'll have to copy stuff back and forth between your internal memory and external memory if you want to use it. It's incredible.

You'd almost think Nintendo users harbor a case of Stockholm syndrome now, with the amount of abuse they've seen from "Nofriendo". Nintendo's willingness to disappoint is uniquely brazen in today's consumer-oriented industry.

But the games are where it's at. Even the physically painful Metroid Other M was, at its core, pretty freaking sweet. I'm excited to see what the Wii U does the next couple of years. Simply because it's different.

#1 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

So I'm sort of bummed out by the focus on Wii U performance right now... I'm not religious about my games. I have invested heavily in almost every system on the market for the past decade. The general rule for me is that when a game shows up that I want to play, that's when I buy the system. For the XBOX it was Ninja Gaiden. PS2 it was GTA3. GameCube it was Metroid Prime, etc. I have no "loyalty" beyond the games. For instance I haven't picked up a Vita yet, simply because there isn't anything on there I want to play. Yet.

The same is true for the Wii U. To me, a system is not defined by its statistical potential, but by its gameplay reality. For instance, ZombiU (that name!) is what makes the Wii U desirable to me, NOT the prospect of "next gen". I think anyone who has been playing games on the PC for the past couple of years have been inhabiting the next gen for long enough to make that prospect pretty uninteresting.

I think the _actual_ issue with the Wii U is that while it's friendlier to ports than the Wii was, it's still unfriendly enough (again in terms of this nebulous "power") to mean by the next generation of PS3 and Xbox, the Wii U is again likely to receive substandard ports. If you're "into ports", or you only own one system and only ever plan to own one system, I suppose this is a real concern. Personally, I always thought the port game was the worst part of this generation. Nowhere near enough exclusives meant the PS3 and 360 were practically interchangeable, the only real reason my PS3 became my platform of choice was the horrendous noise on the 360. It's pretty sad to have a house with so many expensive bits of hardware and so much crossover the biggest difference is the shape of the case. I've really missed divergence.

As a gamer who doesn't play console games online, the single real issue with the Wii, to this day, remains rendering resolution. People like to slag on the Wii, but there are games on that system that are absolutely glorious, and would have been much, much nicer on an HD system. The gameplay was there, but the presentation was not. It's not even as if rendering at an HD resolution implies you need to spend more time on assets, as Dolphin emulator footage shows just how well Nintendo's original art holds up. So that was a real misstep on Nintendo's behalf. The Wii didn't have to be that shitty. While I understand why, it's pretty sad to hear all the "collecting dust" stories because they are so ungrateful. Donkey Kong Country Returns is the kind of game you simply do not see on competing platforms, and it's sad to see it so easily disregarded.

So with that out of the way, I'm simply excited about the Wii U just as I was excited about the Wii; It's something else. Watch dogs is most likely not going to see a Wii U release, and other ports built on legacy tech are equally unlikely to see Wii U ports worth our time. But when even Ubisoft can deliver a launch title like ZombiU that is weird enough and different enough to sell the system to skeptics, and Nintendo's dullard b-game (NSMBU) looks as ludicrously gorgeous at 60fps as it does, I just don't know how not to be at least interested in what the system is doing.

Nintendo are savants. They make the dumbest decisions in the business. There's a saying, "Nintendo always has to do one thing completely wrong". As far as I can see, their "one thing" this time was storage. The standard Wii U kit is the Xbox 360 Arcade of 2012; Why anyone would want what amounts to about 3 gigs of storage on their system is baffling. Even the deluxe kit at 32 gigs is, er, modest. Nintendo's claims that you can hook up an external HDD to augment this is just as false as their claim on the Wii that you could expand your memory with SD cards; External storage on Nintendo systems are hopeless third rate citizens. You'll have to copy stuff back and forth between your internal memory and external memory if you want to use it. It's incredible.

You'd almost think Nintendo users harbor a case of Stockholm syndrome now, with the amount of abuse they've seen from "Nofriendo". Nintendo's willingness to disappoint is uniquely brazen in today's consumer-oriented industry.

But the games are where it's at. Even the physically painful Metroid Other M was, at its core, pretty freaking sweet. I'm excited to see what the Wii U does the next couple of years. Simply because it's different.

#2 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

You and I are going to get along really well. Great post, I completely agree with everything you said. I play most of my games on PC, and the only consoles I bother buying are Nintendo ones. I just love their games too much.

#3 Posted by bigsmoke77 (788 posts) -

I see the Wii U dead in the water by the end of next year. Third party developers have to shock the world by coming out with some solid games because all the comments I see about Nintendo these days is I got the Wii U to buy Nintendo made/published games and by the look of NSMBU they are starting out by making the same old same old. ZombiU looks interesting but how many games can use a system where you look through your inventory on a second screen? The only other innovative use of the screen that I saw from launch games is having the game on the second screen with NSMBU and BLOPS2 multiplayer instead of split screen. Its up to developers to come up with innovative games for the WiiU, not create a system where you can use the touch screen to interact with the game or use the gamepad's buttons or in game menus which are faster/better than the touchscreen experience. And for the love of god don't make your ports run at 5 FPS when the core mechanic of the game is happening.

#4 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -

@bigsmoke77 said:

I see the Wii U dead in the water by the end of next year.

What he said. And by dead in the water I mean Nintendo games moving copies and third party games selling like garbage.

#5 Posted by GS_Dan (1403 posts) -

@msavo said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

I see the Wii U dead in the water by the end of next year.

What he said. And by dead in the water I mean Nintendo games moving copies and third party games selling like garbage.

That's the easiest prediction to make, ever. Its been true for the past decade.

#6 Posted by baldgye (756 posts) -

@GS_Dan said:

@msavo said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

I see the Wii U dead in the water by the end of next year.

What he said. And by dead in the water I mean Nintendo games moving copies and third party games selling like garbage.

That's the easiest prediction to make, ever. Its been true for the past decade.

..which is really a shame, you'd think after the Wii Nintendo would want to really address that issue with there next system, not, conitune it...

#7 Posted by optimusprime223 (397 posts) -

Good post. Personally I am getting a Wii U because I am interested in the systems from each of the big three and how the industry as a whole will develop. That, plus there is bound to be at least a few Wii U exclusives that I will want to play.

The power issues I honestly don't care, two of my favourite games of the this generation where Wii titles so power ain't everything.

#8 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

I suppose third parties will simply have to stop making garbage games for Nintendo systems then. For all the arguing against the Wii as a gimmick platform, it's almost uniquely third party software responsible for that image.

#9 Posted by baldgye (756 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

I suppose third parties will simply have to stop making garbage games for Nintendo systems then. For all the arguing against the Wii as a gimmick platform, it's almost uniquely third party software responsible for that image.

True, but unless the WiiU can grab a massive slice of the market why would publishers spend time/money making the most of the WiiU's exclusive features? I mean look at the DS, that's been crazy popular and made Nintendo so much money, yet a good solid chunk of games don't really take any advantage of that touch screen and just use it for a map/extra buttons...

The biggest problem with 'power' as your blog kinda points out is that it's not graphcis that are the problem with not having as much power as your competetors, its the processing power required for; better AI, bigger enviroments, better physics, more dynamic levels etc etc

#10 Posted by Gonmog (580 posts) -

@baldgye: They are. But people ignore it. It's a damned if you do, damned if you dont. It has good online support, and what do people say? The online stuff thats been on consoles for 5 odd years?

They have a good starting line up. Ports be damned. Some really solid 3rd party games. And yet people are saying they are just ports, like thats a bad word...they got the games on the damn system. 3rd party AAA titles, at launch. And that means nothing. And none of the titles coming out in the next year mean anything as well.

I want them to make it. They wont, but it is not cause of there system or how hard they are working, but due to the hate they get for trying to just be what they have always been. Always changing and trying new stuff. The only game company that does try new stuff with there hardware. Ah well....Hate Nintendo away. :D

#11 Posted by baldgye (756 posts) -

@Gonmog said:

@baldgye: They are. But people ignore it. It's a damned if you do, damned if you dont. It has good online support, and what do people say? The online stuff thats been on consoles for 5 odd years?

They have a good starting line up. Ports be damned. Some really solid 3rd party games. And yet people are saying they are just ports, like thats a bad word...they got the games on the damn system. 3rd party AAA titles, at launch. And that means nothing. And none of the titles coming out in the next year mean anything as well.

I want them to make it. They wont, but it is not cause of there system or how hard they are working, but due to the hate they get for trying to just be what they have always been. Always changing and trying new stuff. The only game company that does try new stuff with there hardware. Ah well....Hate Nintendo away. :D

No, I'm really not sure I agree with that at all. Nintendo have some of the most hardcore diehard fan's I've ever come accross, but its something they have totally failed to even reconise let alone caplitalise on.

I don't think people hate them at all I just think people got very distanced by Nintendo with the Wii and to some extent the DS's marketing and how Nintendo made them work, with gimmicy things like WiiFit etc that sold like crazy but didn't really do anything for the 'hardcore' (or as I call them, gamers).

And with the WiiU they just don't seem to have any good reason for non-Nintendo fans to invest... ZombiU looks good but can it really be a system seller to non Nintendo hardcore-fans?

#12 Posted by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

The other day I was going to stop into a local EB Games and pick one up just because I like new things, but the more I thought it over the more I realized how much I don't want it. The big factors for me not getting it were:

  • None of the games look fun enough to justify $500
  • As far as I know there's nothing coming down the line that looks good ether.
  • The super slow load times the guys kept talking about during every video really turn me off.
  • Nintnedo's crappy handling of online yet again.
  • The piss poor battery life on the main controller.
  • Every time I see or read comments about the thing from developers it's always them saying something negative about it or how they don't want to touch it.
  • I'm not a Nintendo fanboy so none of their "great" pillar games people are relying on to save the system appeal to me all that much. So even if they make that great mario/zelda/whatever game it probably won't appeal to me.

Unless I become rich and have the money to waste on stupid stuff I'm going to wait until E3 to see what the future holds. Nintendo's showing at E3, and seeing what the other guys will do, will make or Break me getting a WiiU anytime soon. I will probably end up just waiting till it's dead and picking it up for $100 and a bunch of games like I did with the Wii.

#13 Posted by Levio (1784 posts) -

What people really want is for Nintendo to just make games for other consoles. But Nintendo doesn't want to pay royalties on using other consoles' hardware. So really it comes down to money: will the consumers pay extra for an unnecessary console, or will Nintendo be forced into selling games with royalty fees?

So far, Nintendo is winning the battle.

#14 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

What really worries me is the Metro developer stating that Last Light wont be coming to the WiiU because the system has a "horrible, slow CPU". :(

#15 Posted by Zekhariah (697 posts) -

So far the indication is just a bit slower than x360, but that seems like something that is not to big of an issue (it mostly impacts games that are not going to be ported already).

I like mine so far, but the storage restriction is the craziest. There is a lot of talk from Nintendo about supporting indie developers and how the eShop will work. But the end result is that the system does not have enough built in storage to make that viable. And there is no official Nintendo external HDD, so the number of people who actually have enough storage on their systems to make eShop game purchases viable will be vanishingly small. All the while, this ignores that any hardware failure leads to a complete loss o fall purchases at the moment.

That is the one item where I think Nintendo managers will have awkward future meetings discussing the good/bad of the release. Because there stills seems to be a market for good gameplay without super high end graphics, and for some kinds of games the Wii U is good enough for it not to matter. Not that I still don't like the device a ton overall (second screen is surprisingly cool), but it seems like Nintendo did not build the system to support the full number of roles allowed by PS3/x360 even as it has added things over the features set of the previous consoles.

#16 Posted by cannonballBAM (602 posts) -

@bigsmoke77 said:

Its up to developers to come up with innovative games for the WiiU, not create a system where you can use the touch screen to interact with the game or use the gamepad's buttons or in game menus which are faster/better than the touchscreen experience.

So who's fault is that? Nintendo for giving the developers a platform to flex their creative genius or the developers for just lazily removing HUD iconography down to the touch pad?

#17 Posted by JZ (2125 posts) -

The real problem is the thing we've been saying for a year. As soon as the actual next gen hits, this thing is a paperweight. It's right back in the wii hole it crawled out of.

#18 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

I think anyone who has been playing games on the PC for the past couple of years have been inhabiting the next gen for long enough to make that prospect pretty uninteresting.

I agree with most of what you're saying. I myself am waiting for a pricedrop or two, before I finally pick up a Wii U and get into all the Wii classics I've missed, because thus far, I simply had no time or desire to invest into the basic Wii and its limited, but sweet catalogue of exclusives. The Wii U itself seems like an extremely enticing premise for original games to me, since dualscreen and touchscreen gaming is, on the one side a proven value on handhelds, and on the other side a total novelty on the core homeconsole gaming market. Cool shit will happen in the Wii U exclusives department.

However, your assessement that PC players are already inhabiting the 'next gen of gaming' is factually wrong. The highest production quality games are being produced with the 360 and the PS3 in mind, and hence gaming cannot really move forward yet. How many games take full advantage of DX11 trickery? Barely any, if any at all. Even Battlefield 3, which was one of the first big AAA games built for the PC first in many years, had to hold back most of its engine's bag of tricks, so that the experience could be retrofitted onto current consoles too.

The first Crysis is one of the only truely 'Next Gen' games on the market, and that happend in late 2007. Even Crytek themselves had to take two steps back, because being Next Gen just doesn't pay off yet. Crysis 3 won't offer a gameworld as densely interactive and believably simulated, neither will it be inhabited by as razor-sharp AI - as we've experienced in Crysis 1 in 2007 - because the market just ain't there yet, 5 years later, in 2012. A crying shame.

All of which is going to change, when and if Microsoft and Sony successfully launch the next standard in mass market consumer hardware processing power. Finally next gen ready engines, like Frostbite 2 and Cry Engine 3, will be unshackled. Unreal 4 will hit the market. Whatever Id's up to with their crazy megatextures concept might also begin to work as intended. A lot of cool shit will become economically feasible, that just isn't done right now, because the consumer market isn't there yet. It's up to Microsoft and Sony to get us there. Nintendo has proven yet again, that they don't give a fuck about that aspect of game development. I kinda resent them for it.

Technical innovation does drive game development innovation - and only a new and more powerful generation of consumer hardware creates a market for AAA next generation game experiences. That market does not yet exist yet, that's why we haven't seen any real AA next generation games yet - even on PC. That's why you should be excited for the next generation of consoles, even if you supposedly have been playing next generation games on your gaming PC since years.

#19 Posted by bigsmoke77 (788 posts) -

@cannonballBAM: The developers obviously have to come up with ways to use the gamepad but the only "good" ideas that have come out of Nintendo is put the game on the secondary screen i.e. NSMBU and use the gamepad as a way to give more "information" to the gamepad user over players with wiimotes which have less "information" i.e. Nintendo Land. If you boil it right down to it I don't think making the Gamepad the core thing of the console is smart, I personally think that Microsoft's approach of SmartGlass is better. SmartGlass is interesting because you have this 200 dollar console that works with devices that you already own, i.e. iPad/Tablets and Smartphones. Developers can create something for smartglass alongside their game or they don't have to, with the Wii U they are forced to hash in some gamepad system that is not great and instead of controller in your hands you have this larger screen that your not using, I know you can use a pro controller but the whole point of this system is the gamepad. Nintendo thought to themselves "Everybody loves tablets we should incorporate a tablet into a console", they forgot the fact that people already have tablets and don't want to buy another.

#20 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

Nintendo's Nintendo. They always will be. That's what makes them so great and sometimes so awful at the same time. When they ruled the roost with the NES and the SNES, it was a different era, and they were able to garner massive 3rd party support. I don't think it's ever going to happen again. They're just not in position to make a power grab for a slice of the "hardcore" pie; their brand is too fixed in gamers' minds after the last 15 years or so, and only so much more after the Wii.

They pulled off a neat stunt with the Wii, and it sold like crazy, but it was pretty much just that a--stunt. Don't take that to mean I dislike the Wii. I love it. I love Nintendo. I'm playing Xenoblade Chronicles right now. Great game. Lots of great games on the Wii. But the system has a ton of problems in a lot of areas, and none more apparent than in how it has come to represent Nintendo in gamers' minds--as a purveyor of schlocky, cheap-plastic-junk games with shitty controls and fruity dreamlands tailored for the 8 and under crowd. Some of that's true, but it's not the whole story. Nintendo still makes great games. They're not for everybody, but they're great games.

Nintendo can't be all things to all gamers. That's become apparent. They were able to fulfill that role in the 80s and early 90s, and they were able to fake it for a little while there with the Wii. It ain't coming back. I think the Wii U may signal their transition to a more focused approach. This whole 5-95 marketing approach is just watering things down.

#21 Posted by cannonballBAM (602 posts) -

@bigsmoke77: The same could be said for Nintendo games. They can offer secondary controls using the Pro Controller or Wii Remote + Nunchuck.

Smartglass is another tack on they are adding just like the Kinnect. They are secondary accessories that are marketed to expand your gaming experience but these are items that are a part of the Nintendo Wii U system. There are smart uses of the Wii U screen (such as ZombiU) but much like your point regarding Smartglass, it is up to the developers. When Microsoft unveiled the concept, there was literally nothing to offer for its use besides a map for Game of Thrones using HBO Go.

I don't think it would be an exceptional experience if i had to buy:

  • a $200 console
  • a $200 tablet device
  • a subscription to HBO
  • and a $60 xbox live gold membership

just to have a giant map for a television show. These are launch titles and it will take some time before someone unveils something useful with the Wii U gamepad. I am looking forward to what PlatinumGames has to offer using another interface besides the games HUD.

Cliff Bleszinski had a great interview with IGN just before Gears of War 3 launched. He talked about a co-op experience using something similar to what the Wii U has. (Link)

Just some food for thought.

#22 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

I wouldn't worry too much about CPU restrictions, tbh, though more would of course always be nicer. But a better GPU and more memory are much more interesting to me than another core of CPU. It's important to remember the Uncharted engine basically does most of its magic in software because the PS3 GPU is categorically shite.

It's interesting to see my claim that the PC inhabits the next gen go contested. I make the assumption games like Uncharted 3 and Assassins Creed 3 are thought to be the vanguard of console dev, but PC games have outlooked and outperformed those games for literally years, and claiming a "factual" counterargument to that is pretty weird. My old PC pissed all over the 360 and PS3, not to mention how ludicrously badass my current rig is.

It's important to note the distinction I'm making; Next gen is commonly defined as a significant technology milestone, not a gameplay one. If the argument is that the PC isn't next gen because the gameplay isn't the mothereffin' matrix, then sure, but then nothing is ever next gen.

For me, the whole "next gen" thing is a strawman anyway. What matters is the games, not the tech they run on. We'll all see where it goes with Nintendo. I'm pretty sure there's going to be fucking awesome games no matter where you turn.

#23 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

As a Wii owner, I too see the Wii U as DOA. It's the Wii with a poorly conceived controller layout. And like the Wii, what developer is going to bother putting in the time and effort for such a hyper-proprietary control scheme only to watch their product collect dust as they have to compete with Nintendo's IPs? I see nothing changing from last gen (except that Nintendo won't dominate marketshare like this passing gen), the Wii U will be this coming console gen's repository for quick buck third party trash.

#24 Edited by Begilerath (175 posts) -

I still find kind of funny that people assume as a fact that there is going to be a new console next year, its really possible but still not a fact. Its going to be extra funny if those rumors of a Xbox Tv device is what actually MS releases next year.

Anyway, even if there are new consoles next year publishers are not going to jump from a 100 million+ market to one with only 5 million user. They are going to try to make their games scaleable at least for a couple of years, so the WiiU power is not going to be a problem until 2015 probably.

Finally, if this year is any indication power and big budgets are not longer necessary to make great games. If Nintendo continues to implement Indie friendly policies, like it seems its doing, there is going to be plenty of good games available on that console.

#25 Posted by DeF (4863 posts) -

@Sunjammer: you do not need to copy stuff back and forth on Wii U if you use external storage. Just sayin'.

And btw, Watch Dogs has a very good chance of landing on the system as well. Not a sure thing but enough to be confident about it.

#26 Posted by Imsorrymsjackson (855 posts) -

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

#27 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

The problem isn't necessarily the power of the Wii U, it's the insanely horrible implementation of systems that have been done better for over half a decade.

#28 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@Sunjammer:

In short, what I was saying is, that the economic reality of the 'triple A' gaming market does effectively prevent developers from using next generation code in their PC versions, and hence all current 'triple A' games are limited by the de-facto hardware standard set by current gen consoles. Every big budget 'triple A' project has to be developed necessarily with these limitations in mind.

We have not gotten a single game like Crysis since Crysis. As far as I'm concerend Crysis set the next generation standard with its densely interactive and procedurally simulated gameworld and extremely smart AI - the likes of which we won't see until the next generation of mass market consumer hardware unshackles game developers to use such high end code in big budget commercial products again.

Yes - the PC technically shat on consoles 5 years ago, and even more so now. That doesn't mean that we've gotten any big budget 'triple A' games taking full advantage of the PC platform's technical advantages. We have not gotten such a thing since the first Crysis in late 2007. All hallmark big budget 'triple A' games have been multiplatform games, and have as such been built with current generation console limitations in mind.

We won't start seeing Crysis-levels of 'next generation' software until the next higher mass market consumer hardware standard is established. Hence my argument, that even PC players have not yet played true next generation software outside of Crysis, at least of the big budget 'triple A' kind. Even heavily fan-modified games, like GTA IV with ICEnhancer, only offer next generation sheen, but not substance.

#29 Posted by Sackmanjones (4688 posts) -

I was hoping to write a nice little piece about the Wii U later. After playing Nintendoland, SMBU and ZombiU I thought I could bring some insight about the console.

In short: there is some absolutely incredible potential there and ZombiU is the leading case for that.

Also I know ill enjoy all of Nintendos releases even if they are a bit too similar to previous titles like Zelda and Mario and pikman etc.... Mainly because I haven't owned a Nintendo console since the NES so these will all be new experiences I'm looking forward too. From what I've seen of previous titles though, a fps metroid games seems like it could be brilliant with the gamepad

#30 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

@DeF: Wow, good news :-) I swear I heard someone describe the external storage situation in the same way SD cards worked on the Wii. Thanks for clearing that up for me

#31 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

The problem I see with the WiiU, and it's one that others have brought up in the past, is that it is released with such an odd fit. It's in between generations of hardware, and lacking in some seriously vital areas such as Online features. Wii worked because it was incredibly focused on one purpose but this new console seems like they want to attract everyone at the same time, and instead it just falls short because of it. I really do hope that it isn't a complete failure because I know Nintendo can put out quality even if they were franchises I've never been interested in, but they really need to step their game up if they want to compete on a market beside their first-party games.

#32 Posted by DeF (4863 posts) -

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports. Also, how the GamePad feels in your hand is entirely subjective.

#33 Posted by Imsorrymsjackson (855 posts) -

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports. Also, how the GamePad feels in your hand is entirely subjective.

These are my opinions and I stick by them.

#34 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

@Begilerath: Those rumours actually implied that Microsoft would be releasing a portable style system ALONG with a stationary console, which essentially sounds like it would be doing exactly the same thing as the Wii U. A console controlled by a tablet device. Considering what they're doing with smart glass, that doesn't seem too unlikely either. And I think it's more than just "possible" we'll see new systems next year, both Microsoft and Sony have clearly stopped focusing on their current systems, sales are grinding to a halt, there's nothing new being developers and multiple developers have stated their working on games for the new systems. It might be late next year and we'll probably still see 360 and PS3 games coming out for a while, but it's going to be next year, without question.

I do agree that the power likely won't be much of an issue though. We're unlikely to see a huge jump with the next systems, improvements will likely come in terms of resolution, frame rate and the amount of things that can be done on screen, etc. It would be easy enough to scale games like that back to work on a less powerful system, but the problem is.. Is there a market on the Wii U for games like that? The Gamecube had plenty of great third party games too, but they sold abysmally compared to the Xbox and PS2 versions and even if the other systems are only slightly more powerful this time, we're still talking about the Wii U getting inferior ports. That's not a good position for them to be in.

I'm also not sure Nintendo has indie friendly policies, they by far have the least amount of indie support and the market for games like that seems to be drying up on consoles all around, especially on the 360, where it used to be huge. The PC is just a much better platform for releasing smaller/cheaper games, especially since they'll typically run on pretty much any machine. Regardless, indie games alone couldn't support a console.

#35 Edited by ProfessorEss (7324 posts) -

Yeah my biggest fear about the WiiU is how many of these devs are signed up for a single title for the sake of Nintendo being able to list names at a press conference that will jump ship after their release sells poorly. I mean, if you were a third-party who developed games for the Wii, a system with massive buzz and a ridiculous install base, and your games still flopped how much confidence would you have developing for the WiiU?

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates...

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports.

It's not about Nintendo being responsible as much as it's about it potentially being Nintendo's problem. If it takes massive amounts of effort (aka: time and money) to optimize games to run well on the WiiU that will go into a developer's "cons" list when making decisions as to whether to develop for that console or not, and it could potentially be what tips the scales in favour of skipping it.

But it's still early so we'll see if these issues get resolved.

#36 Posted by DeF (4863 posts) -

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports. Also, how the GamePad feels in your hand is entirely subjective.

These are my opinions and I stick by them.

That's entirely fine, aside from the fact that the thing about framerates of third party ports being Nintendo's fault has nothing to do with opinions.

#37 Posted by DeF (4863 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

Yeah my biggest fear about the WiiU is how many of these devs are signed up for a single title for the sake of Nintendo being able to list names at a press conference that will jump ship after their release sells poorly. I mean, if you were a third-party who developed games for the Wii, a system with massive buzz and a ridiculous install base, and your games still flopped how much confidence would you have developing for the WiiU?

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates...

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports.

It's not about Nintendo being responsible as much as it's about it potentially being Nintendo's problem. If it takes massive amounts of effort (aka: time and money) to optimize games to run well on the WiiU that will go into a developer's "cons" list when making decisions as to whether to develop for that console or not, and it could potentially be what tips the scales in favour of skipping it.

But it's still early so we'll see if these issues get resolved.

The major issue right now is that this is a transitional period. The hardware architecture differences between 360/PS3 and Wii U are such that porting between the two is a nightmare (see ports with inconsistent framerates but partial improvements in other areas) that comparisons are mostly useless. This previous gen, consoles were CPU heavy, now things are moving into GPU-heavy directions which is why all those games made for systems where the CPU is pulling all the weight kinda suck on Wii U since it's not designed for that. Once all new platforms are out and, in theory, devs can focus entirely on the new stuff, things should go a lot smoother and comparisons become more useful.

Let's talk again in 2014.

#38 Posted by ProfessorEss (7324 posts) -

@DeF said:

Let's talk again in 2014.

Fair enough.

#39 Posted by Imsorrymsjackson (855 posts) -

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports. Also, how the GamePad feels in your hand is entirely subjective.

These are my opinions and I stick by them.

That's entirely fine, aside from the fact that the thing about framerates of third party ports being Nintendo's fault has nothing to do with opinions.

I'm afraid I feel some of the blame lies with Nintendo, if you are going to launch your console with a limited amount of games then you have to exercise some quality control and make sure these bad ports don't slip through, Nintendo should have tested these games or had some sort of say in quality control, they will lose some sales of the WiiU based on these bad ports so they have to have an interest in them rather than just letting them be released all over the place.

#40 Posted by DeF (4863 posts) -

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

@DeF said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

7 years late to the HD party and they bring shitty frame rates, 720p and a Gamepad that doesnt feel good in your hands after like 30 minutes, good job Nintendo.

I don't see how Nintendo is responsible for shitty frame rates in 3rd party ports. Also, how the GamePad feels in your hand is entirely subjective.

These are my opinions and I stick by them.

That's entirely fine, aside from the fact that the thing about framerates of third party ports being Nintendo's fault has nothing to do with opinions.

I'm afraid I feel some of the blame lies with Nintendo, if you are going to launch your console with a limited amount of games then you have to exercise some quality control and make sure these bad ports don't slip through, Nintendo should have tested these games or had some sort of say in quality control, they will lose some sales of the WiiU based on these bad ports so they have to have an interest in them rather than just letting them be released all over the place.

Processes like this are in place for every platform. The ports aren't unplayable. If you deny the release of every game that has framerate dips then you're gonna get a lot less games to play.

#41 Posted by BlackLagoon (1413 posts) -

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

I'm afraid I feel some of the blame lies with Nintendo, if you are going to launch your console with a limited amount of games then you have to exercise some quality control and make sure these bad ports don't slip through, Nintendo should have tested these games or had some sort of say in quality control, they will lose some sales of the WiiU based on these bad ports so they have to have an interest in them rather than just letting them be released all over the place.

...and if Nintendo tried to play hardball, they'd not have these games at launch and undercut the point they were pushing about great third party support and how the system was good for "hardcore" gamers. They'd likely also piss off the publishers who would have been promised easy money by riding on Nintendo's launch marketing. And if the time and money needed to get the ports up to par proved substantial, they might just cancel them instead, and certainly be less inclined to do anything for the Wii U in the future.

Online
#42 Posted by Fattony12000 (7310 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

The general rule for me is that when a game shows up that I want to play, that's when I buy the system. For the XBOX it was Ninja Gaiden. PS2 it was GTA3. GameCube it was Metroid Prime, etc. I have no "loyalty" beyond the games. For instance I haven't picked up a Vita yet, simply because there isn't anything on there I want to play. Yet.

The same is true for the Wii U. To me, a system is not defined by its statistical potential, but by its gameplay reality. For instance, ZombiU (that name!) is what makes the Wii U desirable to me, NOT the prospect of "next gen". I think anyone who has been playing games on the PC for the past couple of years have been inhabiting the next gen for long enough to make that prospect pretty uninteresting.

Just the one game per system? My rule 'o' thumb is that I've got to be able to count the number of games that I can play on more than the fingers of one hand.

#43 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

@Fattony12000: I'm satisfied with the one, as a primer :-) I think if you want 5 system sellers before you commit, you're going to be very late to the party. I suppose I feel that one game is an indication of potential much greater than hardware specs ever will be, so I wait for that.

#44 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Sunjammer: Except it's NOT different... It's the same lame dual screen handheld thing, but not on a handheld. There are very few interesting things to do with that, and a lot of it's been done already. The only difference is now you can add local multiplayer on one system, which is potentially interesting, but not game changing. The console handles much more like a traditional console now.

Also, Watch Dogs is a current gen game. In fact the only platforms it's confirmed for are current generation platforms (PC, PS3, and X360) so I'm sure a Wii U port will come. Hopefully they will figure out the system and release a better running port than pretty much everyone else has so far, but we'll have to wait and see.

@cannonballBAM said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

Its up to developers to come up with innovative games for the WiiU, not create a system where you can use the touch screen to interact with the game or use the gamepad's buttons or in game menus which are faster/better than the touchscreen experience.

So who's fault is that? Nintendo for giving the developers a platform to flex their creative genius or the developers for just lazily removing HUD iconography down to the touch pad?

Developers have had a long goddamn time to figure out more interesting things to do with that. They have yet to see much more to the dual screen way of gaming as more than convenient place to put interfaces. Because what the hell else are you going to do? It's just not that interesting of a dichotomy.

#45 Posted by cannonballBAM (602 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos: The Wii U was announced at E3 2011 and developer units were released shortly after that. No matter how streamlined the process, you cannot change the framework of a games design within that time to function and focus on that platform. Especially when over 90% of video games releases are cross platform.

I am not defending Nintendo on any of their decisions to monetize the DS into a home platform but there has to be some creative genius behind it. They have been ahead of the curve a long time. Zombi U and Nintendo Land showcase some interesting design choices and provide unique experiences.

I want to see how PlatinumGames or Tango Gameworks will utilize this. I hope Michel Ancel gets his chance to release Beyond Good and Evil 2 on this platform since it caters to the camera functions in the first game. Or Retro games releases another Metroid Prime, there is a lot of promise behind some strong developers.

#46 Posted by Gladiator_Games (444 posts) -
@Levio What I think people want more is for Nintendo to just make a great console, like its first three. No gimmick, nothing fancy, just excellence
#47 Posted by Fattony12000 (7310 posts) -

@Sunjammer:

Actually, it's six games, you can count up to the number five on the digits provided by just one normal human hand.

It's a system that's served me just fine for the past ten years of console purchasing. I consider a minimum of six half decent video games available to play within the first three months of a console's release to be sufficient (obviously trading, borrowing, playing at a friend's house, or demoing games can tweak this number higher or lower, but I consider it to be a very solid base from which to figure out when I should buy a console). If that means I don't get to over inflate a hardware manufacturer's initial monthly sales figures, simply for the privilege of holding onto a console that I won't get multiple hours of varied video gaming joy from, then I'm okay with that.

PlayStation (September 29, 1995)

Wipeout (29 September 1995)

Battle Arena Toshinden (September 29, 1995)

Destruction Derby (October, 1995)

Air Combat (October 1995)

Rayman (December, 1995)

Warhawk (December, 1995)

Nintendo 64 (March 1, 1997)

Killer Instinct Gold (November 22, 1996)

Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire (March 1, 1997)

Super Mario 64 (March 1, 1997)

Pilotwings 64 (March 1, 1997)

Wave Race 64 (April 29, 1997)

Mario Kart 64 (June 24, 1997)

GameCube (May 3, 2002)

Super Monkey Ball (May 3, 2002)

Luigi's Mansion (May 3, 2002)

Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader (May 3, 2002)

Burnout (May 3, 2002)

Super Smash Bros. Melee (May 24, 2002)

Pikmin (June 14, 2002)

Xbox 360 (December 2, 2005)

Call of Duty 2 (November 25, 2005)

Amped 3 (December 2, 2005)

Condemned: Criminal Origins (December 2, 2005)

Need for Speed: Most Wanted (November 25, 2005)

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (March 10, 2006)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (March 24, 2006)

#48 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

The other day I was going to stop into a local EB Games and pick one up just because I like new things, but the more I thought it over the more I realized how much I don't want it. The big factors for me not getting it were:

  • None of the games look fun enough to justify $500

Games are so important. Amazon had the vita for $179 with the AC vita game, and if that system had more interesting games I would have bought it.

I see the same issue with the next gen - I don't see anything MS could bring out to make me buy a 720 as I don't care about Halo/Forza/Fable, and what other IPs does MS have anymore? Sony might have an advantage with all their IPs and dev studios.

#49 Posted by JasonR86 (9659 posts) -

The power of the system is directly linked the nature of the games that are created. More power=more opportunities.

#50 Edited by Subbeh (90 posts) -

There was a time when I would have bought the latest Nintendo console just because it was the latest Nintendo console. I remember buying an N64 plus Golden Eye despite the fact I would have to eat instant noodles for the rest of the month to get by. I did feel kinda screwed by their pricing policy of first party games on N64 and GC, but the lack of third party support for those and the Wii mean that I honestly can't see myself buying another Nintendo console. Sure this one appears to have a technical edge over the console opposition (in the short term) but I generally feel so let down by Nintendo's track record over the last decade that, and it honestly does pain me to say this, I just don't care any more.