Do you consider the Wii-U to be a true "next gen" system?

  • 160 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited 1 year, 7 months ago

Poll: Do you consider the Wii-U to be a true "next gen" system? (589 votes)

Yes 36%
No 64%

Seeing as how the PS4 was just announced, all of it's games make the Wii-U look like it's going to end up being a gen behind. Not saying the Wii-U is a bad system or anything, I will be getting one later for Nintendo's 1st party games. But outside of that I just can't see it as a true "next gen" system.

I honestly think the Wii-U won't be a stand alone system for Nintendo. Much of the success of the Wii was mostly based on gimmicky games that attracted gamers who weren't too serious about the hobby to begin with (I hate the terms "casual" and "hardcore" when it comes to gamers), it worked well for the Wii no doubt but that was because it was mostly a fad. The crowd that was interested in those games no longer seem to care about it anymore, hence why the Wii-U isn't doing as well in sales anymore (not that I care about this, I'm a gamer not a share holder).

What is the future of the Wii-U? Many 3rd party devs such as EA are talking about not bringing their future games over to the platform at all due to it's lack of power. I think Nintendo will release another system later, a more powerful one, as they will need that 3rd party support.

What do you think?

EA CEO says Wii-U is not next gen ... - GameFAQs

#101 Posted by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine said:

@liquidprince:

why do you keep repeating yourself?

It is true that an image rendered at 1080p will be of better quality than an image rendered at 480p and then upscaled 1080p.

The resulting products both fit within the HD specs.

HD says nothing about the quality of the image, just the size.

And here's why it doesn't.

Here is a 480p image:

Here is a 720p image. It is the 480p image "scaled up" to an HD resolution. Notice no loss in fidelity.

I just.. I don't understand what you're not understanding. An upscaled image is not the same as a native HD image. An upscaled image, just because it fits the dimensions of an HD image, does not make it HD. It makes it a scaled image. Or, like I said in the very first post, a "SUB HD" image. For something to be true HD, it needs to be rendered in a HD resolution. I honestly cannot make it anymore clearer then that. Here's an article that explains scaling and what it does... maybe it'll help... HD has to do with what the image is rendered at, not the size. That's why the differentiation between scaling and native HD even exists.

EDIT: Also to address your new images, there is no loss in fidelity because you're looking at a damned black image. Try looking at an image that has fine detail.

#102 Posted by budgietheii (165 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior: *Waves hand* Off screen play is a gamechanger for adults in a single telly household. Similarly if the PS4/Vita remote play works as well.

#103 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

I just.. I don't understand what you're not understanding. An upscaled image is not the same as a native HD image. An upscaled image, just because it fits the dimensions of an HD image, does not make it HD. It makes it a scaled image. Or, like I said in the very first post, a "SUB HD" image. For something to be true HD, it needs to be rendered in a HD resolution. I honestly cannot make it anymore clearer then that. Here's an article that explains scaling and what it does... maybe it'll help... HD has to do with what the image is rendered at, not the size. That's why the differentiation between scaling and native HD even exists.

EDIT: Also to address your new images, there is no loss in fidelity because you're looking at a damned black image. Try looking at an image that has fine detail.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect, and is the source of our misunderstanding. Look through the HD spec. HD says nothing about detail or image quality, just about image size.

Finally, the technique used for upscaling is a bit more complicated than 'just stretching'. Upscaling will produce jaggies, but that can be resolved with anti-aliasing.

The image didn't add any detail, but there is more to see and it's spread out over a larger area. It's not necessary a better picture, but for viewing purposes, the larger (HD) image is vastly significant over the small (SD) image.

#104 Posted by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

#105 Edited by John1912 (1892 posts) -

LMAO you are so on crack! Yea, your arguments make little sense as you seem to completely miss the point of the issue on "HD" The issue is the quality of the textures, number or polygons for life like objects, not that it has the required 1280x720 pixils. Nice black box lol...WTF?!

@magzine said:

@liquidprince:

why do you keep repeating yourself?

It is true that an image rendered at 1080p will be of better quality than an image rendered at 480p and then upscaled 1080p.

The resulting products both fit within the HD specs.

HD says nothing about the quality of the image, just the size.

And here's why it doesn't.

Here is a 480p image:

Here is a 720p image. It is the 480p image "scaled up" to an HD resolution. Notice no loss in fidelity.

#106 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -
@liquidprince said:

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

Actually, the 1080p upscaled image has the full 2m pixels worth of data, it's just data that did not exist in the original image, and is not necessarily accurate to the original source. Or maybe it is. You can scale black just fine, as I showed. There is not anymore detail in the image, but there is physically a large image and more data being pushed by the upscaled version vs the original version.

The HD standard talks about an output size, and says nothing about what is contained inside of the image, where the image is sourced from, what methods were used to obtain said image, how the image data exists in a file or anything else. And, in the sense of the HD specification, the PS3 and 360 typically output HD video.

I'm using what is defined as the High Definition standard, I don't know what you're using. I'm not arguing to change your opinion on what you think HD is, I just want to dispel people from taking your idea of what constitutes HD, and confusing it for the HD standard. And I believe I have achieved that. I see what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that a natively rendered 1080p =/= an upscaled 480p image, but a signal that contains a 720p signal or higher is defined as High Definition, regardless of what it contains or where it came from.

#endof

e: your image scaling technique is wrong. images are deinterlaced, then interpolated.

e2: clarification

#107 Posted by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine said:
@liquidprince said:

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

Actually, the 1080p upscaled image has the full 2m pixels worth of data, it's just data that did not exist in the original image, and is not necessarily accurate to the original image. Or maybe it is. You can scale black just fine, as I showed.

The HD standard talks about an output size, and says nothing about what is contained inside of the image, where the image is sourced from, what methods were used to obtain said image, how the image data exists in a file or anything else. And, in the sense of the HD specification, the PS3 and 360 typically output HD video.

I'm using what is defined as the High Definition standard, I don't know what you're using. I'm not arguing to change your opinion on what you think HD is, I just want to dispel people from taking your idea of what constitutes HD, and confusing it for the HD standard. And I believe I have achieved that. Since you refuse to admit an error in your thinking (for some reason?), I have no choice but to be done--since you're being standard. I see what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that a natively rendered 1080p =/= an upscaled 480p image, but a signal that contains a 720p signal or higher is defined as High Definition, regardless of what it contains or where it came from.

#endof

#108 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@john1912: stop abusing "HD". HD doesn't talk about any of the things you mentioned. HD mentions the output size of the image and nothing more. My blackbox image illustrates the absurdity of this weird HD definition you guys have.

#109 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@magzine said:
@liquidprince said:

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

Actually, the 1080p upscaled image has the full 2m pixels worth of data, it's just data that did not exist in the original image, and is not necessarily accurate to the original source. Or maybe it is. You can scale black just fine, as I showed. There is not anymore detail in the image, but there is physically a large image and more data being pushed by the upscaled version vs the original version.

The HD standard talks about an output size, and says nothing about what is contained inside of the image, where the image is sourced from, what methods were used to obtain said image, how the image data exists in a file or anything else. And, in the sense of the HD specification, the PS3 and 360 typically output HD video.

I'm using what is defined as the High Definition standard, I don't know what you're using. I'm not arguing to change your opinion on what you think HD is, I just want to dispel people from taking your idea of what constitutes HD, and confusing it for the HD standard. And I believe I have achieved that. I see what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that a natively rendered 1080p =/= an upscaled 480p image, but a signal that contains a 720p signal or higher is defined as High Definition, regardless of what it contains or where it came from.

#endof

couldn't have put it better myself lol

#110 Posted by John1912 (1892 posts) -

@magzine said:

@john1912: stop abusing "HD". HD doesn't talk about any of the things you mentioned. HD mentions the output size of the image and nothing more. My blackbox image illustrates the absurdity of this weird HD definition you guys have.

Hey look you can bury your head in the sand and stick with what HD means for a still photo, or out put in pixels, but that's one small part of HD in gaming terms. You can record the worst 8 bit sound in the world into the highest format and its still the worst 8 bit sound in the world because the source material sucks. HD in gaming is about quality of the source material, not that the image can be up scaled. Your insanely focused on what HD means in output, which is the smallest portion of of what HD has become to mean in gaming. Stop being so literal. Thats why no one had a clue as to what you were talking about.

#111 Posted by Warfare (1635 posts) -
#112 Posted by sirdesmond (1241 posts) -

"Next-Gen" is a stupid and overused term that just needs to go away.

That said, the Wii U does basically one thing new and everything else either the same or worse than the other current consoles so I wouldn't really count it as anything but the next Nintendo console.

#113 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@john1912: So was the PS2 HD in 1999? Was the PS3 HD in 2005? Will the PS4 still be HD in 2020? Will the PS5 be HD in 2035? I can answer those definitively. No, Yes, Yes, Yes. Think back to 1999 when the PS2 was first announced and they were showing off it's great graphics. Stunned. Amazed. Lots of people said that they thought graphics weren't going to get any better.

Also, your example is not a good example. Because a company can make a shitty, awful looking game (or take indie game devs with 8-bit graphics, for example) and still have it be rendered natively in 1080p. What if it looks almost (but not quite) the same as the 480p version? Is it still high definition?

It's fine that you're trying to evaluate something based on the quality of its output, I just think that there is likely a better way to do it, besides muddling an already existing term.

Let's call a duck a duck, ok?

#114 Posted by Wraxend (565 posts) -

I consider the WiiU current gen in all honesty.

#115 Posted by Castiel (2637 posts) -

Do I consider it next gen?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha... I'm sorry I didn't mean to laugh. No I don't consider it next gen at all.

#116 Posted by Imsorrymsjackson (855 posts) -
#117 Edited by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine: Stop with your ridiculous and false line of reasoning. I'm going to explain this one final time and if you still don't understand, I'm giving up.

This image is a scaled 240P image up until 1080P. Technically if you count the pixels then yes, there is two million pixels in that image because it was scaled. But the source image only had 320x240=76,800 pixels worth of image data. Just because you scale this image up until 1080P, it doesn't mean that it is actually a native 1080P image. It is a stretched image scaled to fit within the dimensions of the 1080P resolution. A native/real HD image would originate with 2,073,600 pixels of image data. Thus it is in no way an HD image.

#118 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@liquidprince: You do not understand the high definition specification. I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself, because I've repeatedly told you over and over again that I understand exactly what you're saying.

The picture you posted is shit, but what you posted still fits inside of the HD specification. If you can follow up your explanation with some concrete material why the 1080p image you posted is not HD, then I could read that, but I'm not arguing about what you think is HD. For my version, see the wiki page for High Definition.

I think what you meant to say in the first place is "native HD rendering," rather than just "HD" (though I noticed in your last post you explicitly stated "native HD," which is a bit less ambiguous). :)

I guess this means you give up.

#119 Edited by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine said:

@liquidprince: You do not understand the high definition specification. I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself, because I've repeatedly told you over and over again that I understand exactly what you're saying.

The picture you posted is shit, but what you posted still fits inside of the HD specification. If you can follow up your explanation with some concrete material why the 1080p image you posted is not HD, then I could read that, but I'm not arguing about what you think is HD. For my version, see the wiki page for High Definition.

I think what you meant to say in the first place is "native HD rendering," rather than just "HD" (though I noticed in your last post you explicitly stated "native HD," which is a bit less ambiguous). :)

I guess this means you give up.

I don't really know if you're trolling... HD requires the source to have 2 million plus pixels of image data to be considered 1080P HD. The image I posted does not fall under HD specification because it is 76,800 pixels worth of data stretched out into the 1080P dimensions. Hence the reason the term scaling and upscaled exist. It's like if I had a 5.1 surround sound system and I played a song that is only MONO. Just because all 5 speakers are producing the mono track doesn't make the track surround sound.

#120 Posted by Sackmanjones (4711 posts) -

It's Nintendos next home console. Whether you like it or not, it's a next generation console

#121 Posted by MAGZine (438 posts) -
#122 Posted by JoeyRavn (4977 posts) -

Is it new? Yes. Does it have better specs than Nintendo's previous console? Yes. Does it replace Nintendo's previous console? Yes. Was it released around the same time its direct competitors were released? Yes.

As consoles go, it looks pretty "next gen-y" to me. Whoever claims it's not based on quality of the games or specs... PC says "hi".

#123 Posted by Vextroid (1406 posts) -

Yes. It's the next generation in the line of Nintendo console products.

#124 Posted by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine said:

@liquidprince: source me.

If you have time to argue on a subject you know nothing about evidently, then you have time to actually go and do some research on your own. I'm honestly tired of explaining something so simple so many times with so many examples and having you still respond like a rock.

#125 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

@magzine said:

@liquidprince: source me.

If you have time to argue on a subject you know nothing about evidently, then you have time to actually go and do some research on your own. I'm honestly tired of explaining something so simple so many times with so many examples and having you still respond like a rock.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to support your unfounded argument. Shit, most of the time I don't bother pulling sources for my own arguments because I don't need to prove myself to some random person on the internet.

And you're right, I know absolutely nothing about technology or video games. I'm busted :( It was a good run, team. (I'm not sure on what basis you think that your opinion is actually right, other than the fact that you believe it and refuse to even evaluate a different perspective or admit that you used improper terminology. stop being stubborn. it's unbecoming of a senior member.)

On that note, I'm *actually* done in this thread. There is nothing more to be said, so if you want to go ahead and call me dense or whatever other ad hominem attack suits you, go ahead, but I'm done. There is no sense is going in circles. I've admitted several times I see your point of view, and tried to help you to reach the correct conclusion, but you ignore it and say the same thing you said in your first response. Nothing left here to do.

Also, you should forward your incredible discovery of how to transmit a full hd signal using only the bandwidth of a 240p image. Again, I get the argument you are trying to make (that the full image is not adding any extra definition) - but it's wrong. The upscaler interpolated a larger image, creating new data. While the resulting image doesn't add any extra detail, it makes the small, imperceptible details larger, and visible to the naked eye, allowing for a higher apparent definition, because of a larger image occupying more space. Like using a magnifying glass.

Cheers.

#126 Posted by LiquidPrince (15969 posts) -

@magzine said:

@liquidprince said:

@magzine said:

@liquidprince: source me.

If you have time to argue on a subject you know nothing about evidently, then you have time to actually go and do some research on your own. I'm honestly tired of explaining something so simple so many times with so many examples and having you still respond like a rock.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to support your unfounded argument. Shit, most of the time I don't bother pulling sources for my own arguments because I don't need to prove myself to some random person on the internet.

And you're right, I know absolutely nothing about technology or video games. I'm busted :( It was a good run, team. (I'm not sure on what basis you think that your opinion is actually right, other than the fact that you believe it and refuse to even evaluate a different perspective or admit that you used improper terminology. stop being stubborn. it's unbecoming of a senior member.)

On that note, I'm *actually* done in this thread. There is nothing more to be said, so if you want to go ahead and call me dense or whatever other ad hominem attack suits you, go ahead, but I'm done. There is no sense is going in circles. I've admitted several times I see your point of view, and tried to help you to reach the correct conclusion, but you ignore it and say the same thing you said in your first response. Nothing left here to do.

Also, you should forward your incredible discovery of how to transmit a full hd signal using only the bandwidth of a 240p image. Again, I get the argument you are trying to make (that the full image is not adding any extra definition) - but it's wrong. The upscaler interpolated a larger image, creating new data. While the resulting image doesn't add any extra detail, it makes the small, imperceptible details larger, and visible to the naked eye, allowing for a higher apparent definition, because of a larger image occupying more space. Like using a magnifying glass.

Cheers.

You CANNOT create new data from thin air if it didn't exist in the source. When you upscale your are either stretching an image, or replicating pixels. When you capture in native HD you are capturing 2 million plus pixels worth of actual detail, which can make fine details visible. If those fine details don't exist in the source material, you can upscale all you want, but that will not give you an HD image. As for why I refuse to evaluate a different perspective, it's because your perspective is wrong. If you had some sort of valuable insight, I would consider it, but you are the one being stubborn, and you are flat out incorrect.

With regards to your final paragraph, you are damning yourself by basically admitting you're wrong. Making things larger does not equate to having a higher apparent definition. All it means is that the low definition source has been stretched to fill a larger area, thus getting rid of the black bars that would surround the image otherwise. Using a magnifying glass doesn't add details to what your looking at, but just makes it bigger. Honestly the surround sound analogy is the best way I can put it.

I apologize if I seemed frustrated and lashed out, but you are wrong. Either take this as a moment to learn something new, or choose to ignore me completely. Makes no difference to me.

#127 Posted by John1912 (1892 posts) -

: Not worth it. Hes behind the wall of his own logic.

#128 Posted by Humanity (9385 posts) -

It's not next generation because it's hardware mirrors that of the generation that is now coming to a close. Maybe it's a Next-Gen Nintendo platform because it's certainly more powerful, if not equally more buggy, than the Wii. As far as the broad spectrum is applied to all consoles on the market, when the PS4 and new Xbox are released the Wii U hardware and basic output performance won't be able to match the technical prowess of the newer consoles effectively eliminating it from the "next gen" bracket so to speak.

#129 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

Time? Yes.

Technology? No.

#130 Edited by Ashdude (1 posts) -

After seeing how Ubisoft lied about the performance of Watch Dogs on the PS4/XB1 at the 2012 E3, I'm changing my opinion of the Wii U. If the XB1 & PS4 are next gen, then so is the Wii U. Because none of them are delivering on the "next gen" promise. And I think that I would prefer the unit with the most 1080p titles. Can anyone guess which system that is???

#131 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

It is current-gen, like the PS4 and Xbox One. Generations have never been defined by power.

#132 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5598 posts) -

Not in the traditional sense, but I still think it's cool and holds worth as a game system.

#133 Posted by egg (1469 posts) -

The term next gen has lost meaning for me. PS and Xbox are not next gen anymore. (if they ever were) They are 30 fps, sub HD, paid online, no BC, no controller BC, "give-us-money" boxes. There's virtually nothing next gen about them. And I learned last gen that if you're not playing an online game then the experience is profoundly similar to playing on a PS2--it is a lonely vacuum where the hardware is of little consequence.

#134 Posted by mrcraggle (1941 posts) -

Good job on bumping a 1 year and 3 month old topic.

#135 Posted by Corevi (3622 posts) -

Good job on bumping a 1 year and 3 month old topic.

#136 Posted by kindgineer (2738 posts) -

Well, yes. It technically is Nintendo's entry into the next generation in their line of consoles. If they were to release another console now, I believe it would be considered the next, next generation. I don't think the term necessarily dictates spectacular graphics and etc, but merely a track record of when consoles were released, and when they were relevant.

Of course there's muddied waters around there, as well.

#137 Posted by egg (1469 posts) -

Well, yes. It technically is Nintendo's entry into the next generation in their line of consoles. If they were to release another console now, I believe it would be considered the next, next generation. I don't think the term necessarily dictates spectacular graphics and etc, but merely a track record of when consoles were released, and when they were relevant.

Of course there's muddied waters around there, as well.

next gen isn't about graphics. PS/Xbox fans had two gens to prove to the world that they don't give a shit about graphics. Next gen just means "relevant" now. And relevance is determined by popularity.

#138 Posted by LackingSaint (1818 posts) -

Good job on bumping a 1 year and 3 month old topic.

A new user with 1 post bumping an old, outdated topic, leading other users to still think it's a relevant discussion? But that NEVER happens on these forums!

#139 Posted by Microshock (341 posts) -

I believe that Nintendo believes it's their next generation system. But their system isn't in a bubble and compared to the other two consoles, it's just not on that level.

#140 Posted by Lunnington (190 posts) -
#141 Edited by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@egg said:

The term next gen has lost meaning for me. PS and Xbox are not next gen anymore. (if they ever were) They are 30 fps, sub HD, paid online, no BC, no controller BC, "give-us-money" boxes. There's virtually nothing next gen about them. And I learned last gen that if you're not playing an online game then the experience is profoundly similar to playing on a PS2--it is a lonely vacuum where the hardware is of little consequence.

You do know that a console's power doesn't just refer to the way a game looks and the way it performs, right? Actually, nevermind. It seems like a lot of people can't fathom the idea that perhaps the CPU, RAM, etc. aren't just there to make the game look pretty. Those things also govern mechanics, physics, NPC's, anything happening on screen. With more power, a developer has less constraints with what they can do on screen and what they can let the player do. A vast majority of single player games available for the 360 and PS3 simply could not have worked on the PS2 even with the graphics toned way down.

On the topic at hand, do I consider the Wii U next gen? I think I've commented in here before. I don't remember what I said then and am too lazy to go find out, but yes I'd say that the Wii U is a platform that belongs in this current generation of video game consoles. The Wii was pretty underpowered, too, and nobody had any problem considering it a seventh generation video game platform. I don't see why the Wii U's underpowered-ness should be any different. Also, note that the PS2 was also underpowered when compared to the Gamecube and especially when compared to the Xbox. Having an underpowered console does not preclude being part of a certain generation of gaming consoles.

EDIT: And yes, I do know this is a necro.

#142 Posted by csl316 (8775 posts) -

It's a necro, but I gotta say... its classification mattered to me when I didn't own one. Once I got it and enjoyed so many games on it, I really, really stopped caring.

Online
#143 Posted by Tom_omb (402 posts) -

The Wii U is totally "Next/Current Gen" and so was the Wii. Just the fact that it's Nintendo's current platform is evidence enough of this.

I don't care about how many Ps of resolution your game has, even the power of hardware is becoming less vital. This generation I think Nintendo's approach for a less powerful system makes more sense then it did for the Wii. Sony and Microsoft's platforms have pretty games, sure, but there's a lack of "wow" factor that past new consoles have when compared to generational leaps in the past. I'm more impressed with what Nintendo's super talented artists can do with their new machine then the slightly sharper images of these multiplatform 3rd party games on PS4 and Xone.

Nintendo's still not the strongest in terms of social and online, but they are improving. PS4 is short a follow feature when compared with the other platforms and nobody else has anything like the Miiverse.

#144 Posted by StarvingGamer (8287 posts) -

Thanks for the necro, I somehow missed this shitshow of a thread the first time around. Gave me a chuckle.

Also yeah the Wii U is a "current gen" system because the power is irrelevant. It's the most recent Nintendo console.

#145 Posted by Corvak (1097 posts) -

In the interests of categorizing video games by generation, it has to be in the same group as the other consoles sold alongside it.

In the context of competition and multiplatform games, or the 'console war' i'd have to say no. Wii U is interesting in that its sales have nothing to do with the success or failure of the other two platforms. Most people I talk to have been "I have a 360 and a Wii, or a PS3 and a Wii" and now its "PS4 and a Wii U or Xbox One and a Wii U". Starting with the Wii, many people bought Nintendo systems not as a primary console, but alongside one of the other "HD" systems because they love Nintendo's first and second party games.

The Wii U is not selling poorly because PS4 is eating its market share - it sells poorly because people havent been given enough reasons to buy yet. Judging from Mariokart 8 and the reactions of many people at E3, I feel like its fortunes are set to improve within the next six to twelve months. In effect, the Wii U's slow start is a combination of the vast majority of Wii owners returning to their previous indifference towards video games as a whole, and the fact that they haven't managed to get third parties interested in the platform - the old catch 22 of we won't make games until it sells, but it wont sell until they make games.

#146 Posted by Mashtime_Dandies (11 posts) -

I was going to elaborate further on how wrong this question is, but instead I'll politely shake my head in disgust.

> Being less credible than /v/

GG GUISE!

#147 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I was going to elaborate further on how wrong this question is, but instead I'll politely shake my head in disgust.

> Being less credible than /v/

GG GUISE!

Just admit you're an 'old gen' backer. :^)

#148 Edited by Mashtime_Dandies (11 posts) -

@thehumandove: B-but I own a PS4! I'm hip and new, right? :P

Buzzwords... *cringes*

#149 Edited by Quarters (1721 posts) -

Technologically, no. It's way too similar to the PS3 and 360 for that.

#150 Posted by mikeeegeee (1565 posts) -

Of course it is. I'd argue that it's more next gen than both the PS4 and Xbox One. Its controller is easily the riskiest, most boundary pushing feature of any of the three major consoles, and with the most practical applications. Sure, Kinect is probably riskier, but the Wii U's controller opens up tons of worthwhile ways to improve control.

I don't own any yet, but I'll probably end up buying a Wii U. The argument that there's nothing to play on it is ridiculous. A better library than both Microsoft and Sony machines.

And for my graphics fix, I've got my kickass PC :D

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.