Wii U

[MattJack]

Surprised that nobody has posted this yet.

Nintendo does it again.

Those clever, clever Japanese.

4e3qaPg_keg

[k0k0]

There was talk of the Wii U in the 'Let's argue about video games' thread. Just 2 messages, one being me. Both not really into it. My reasons being, it is massive. I don't have small hands, but it doesn't even look comfortable to hold for hours on end. Plus I'm not big on the video display on the controller. It will not only be distracting in a dark room situation (even with turning down the dimmer) plus I don't want to have to look down at my hands every few minutes to mess with inventory or look at a ui, breaking my immersion into the game. I just know in 10 years I'm going to be just pissed off at the direction of where our games have gone. I just want a regular controller that I don't have to shake, a tv, and some sweet gameplay.

[LordSappington]

Seems kind of useless to me. It looks like it works like the old console, only now you get to buy an even more expensive controller. Or use the old controllers anyways.
Why not just make a new controller for the old Wii?

[Esuohlim]

Nintendo is so retarded, always inventing gadgets and shit that focus way more on innovation than enjoyment (like that thing you can clip to your belt to level up your Pokemon as you're walking around). I used to really love Nintendo but after six years of not really having time for video games they're making it really difficult for me to give a shit about them again. I must be getting old already.

[LordSappington]

Yeah, they've been pretty disappointing to me. I'm sick of every console needing motion sensors; I just want a good, solid console to play fun games on. That used to be the N64. Get back in the game, Nintendo, and focus on good games over cool gadgets.

[Esuohlim]

I mean, yeah, I can't deny that the Wii U looks very goddamn cool. I can see why anybody would think so. But it feels so unnecessary. It just seems like a typical controller without any of the fancy innovative motion sensors and screens has been fine now for 30+ years and it's not something that needs to change with the times, in my opinion.

[Zhukov]

I watched the video before I read your comments, and I agree with everyone here. I don't want that big fucking thing, I just want to play a good Zelda game thank you very much.

I was fine with just the Wii remote, but this trend is taking over normal gaming. Kinect and that PS3 ball on a stick cockery both look like shit, and it's all just gimmicky crap that never has any depth to it.

This Nintendo ipad thing looks uncomfortable and balls.

[Phoenix Gamma]

I'm gonna have to disagree with everyone. This is a pretty logical step for Nintendo, whose been trying to make Connectivity a big thing since the Gamecube. There are some pretty awesome game ideas to be used here, like the baseball demo or the shield demo or the hide and seek game. And I love the idea of throwing the game onto another screen when someone wants to watch something, or taking the game to another room. And from early connectivity experiments with stuff like Four Swords Adventures, I think there are going to be a lot of really novel ideas coming to the system, as well as the typical HD games that enthusiast gamers care about (you know, the ones where the only way to interact with the environment is with a gun).

People who have actually held the thing are saying it's a lot more comfortable than it looks. It's a lot smaller than it looks (smaller than an iPad). Plus all the Wii accessories are compatible, so people who already took the plunge with the Wii can get more use out of their stuff.

I think the important thing to remember is that we've pushed the traditional controller to its limit. There are only so many ways you can interact with a game using the same controller since the PSX/N64 era. When Gamecube, PS2, and XBox were out, everything was the fucking same. Which console do I buy? Who cares? The Wii taught people that you shouldn't be restricted with how you play games...and that competent hardware actually fucking matters. I think Wii U shows that they've learned a thing or two in that regard.

There's a place in Florida called Disney Quest. It's a big fucking arcade, but it has games there that you literally can't play anywhere else. There's a room covered in tv screens showing a big ocean, and the floor is basically a big boat. Everyone takes a canon and one person is the captain steering the ship. You sail around and shoot other ships until this ghost appears, and the whole crew engages him in a battle. It's really intense, but really exciting, because you're very involved, physically. You really can't replicate that on a traditional game pad, or even the Wiimote. But using the screen and the gyros, you could come close. There are more games like that at Disney Quest, and they are REALLY fun and stick with me more than Joe Shooter 5: Shoot Harder.

Compared to Microsoft desperately trying to enhance the 360 with the Kinect, and Sony trying to convince me that Move matters at all, I think this is a pretty neat idea, with room for really cool new mechanics as well as traditional games (which Nintendo can now actually ENJOY with a machine whose specs aren't shit.) Everyone wins. Where else can you go from here aside from "better graphics, same controller" and "better graphics, taste controls"?

[Zomboid]

I sort of tried to get excited for that thing, but I really can't. It's the same reason I don't like the wiimote: I just want to be able to sit, hold my controller, and play. If I were a casual gamer who played and loved stuff like Wii Sports, then yeah, I'd be into this, but it's just not my thing.

And no, I don't really think that we need cameras, motion and voice controls for games to get even better--they've been get better for years, and controllers have changed very little in that time. I can see how some of this would be fun, and there's definitely a huge audience for it, but I'm also hoping it doesn't start getting shoe-horned into games that would be better off without this kind of thing.

[LordSappington]

I don't want to get some gimmicky interaction. I want a console that can just deliver some quality games, dammit.
As for Kinect, at least it took the motion sensing to its next level, whereas Move simply copied the Wii. That said, I still don't want to buy it. I'm going to save my money for GOOD GAMES.
If I could emphasize something to the gaming industry, it would be that: QUIT FOCUSING ON ALL THIS NEW SHIT AND FOCUS ON MAKING SOME GOOD GAMES! AT LEAST FOR MORE THAN A FUCKING YEAR

[k0k0]

I just want them to keep the controllers about the same and make better graphics, more shit going on at the same time, real physics and more realistic texture work. Once I see a game and think I'm looking at a live action movie, then you can start throwing fancy controllers at me (I still won't want them). We're close, but not there yet.

[Zhukov]

Nintendo aren't creating this crap to be innovative and allow us to interact more realistically in an environment; it's to make huge amounts of money on being far more technologically advanced than anything else out there.

It really, really, really comes across to me as the next step in cashing in on a gimmick, rather than the next step in human/computer relations.


Also, fuck 'moving your game from the TV to your controller' shite. How often is that REALLY going to come in handy? I think we are all adults here who own their own god damn TVs, and don't have to worry about Da missing the ball game.



While I am at it, what's the fucking point of a sports game where you run on the spot to make your game character run in a race? Just have a freaking race outside for real - it's exactly the same. If you can't go outside you could just run around the room and save a few dollars on expensive new game hardware. This game is on Kinext or some sort of motion crap I don't know.

[Phoenix Gamma]

I just want them to keep the controllers about the same and make better graphics, more shit going on at the same time, real physics and more realistic texture work.That's the kind of thinking that alienated most of the world from games and brought us more of "Same Game, Different Graphics." The PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era was a rutt compared to everything before it. I think we're still trying to get out of that rut because no one knows where the fuck games are going, because you can only improve graphics so much before you hit a wall.

Nintendo aren't creating this crap to be innovative and allow us to interact more realistically in an environment; it's to make huge amounts of money on being far more technologically advanced than anything else out there.
That's a cynical way of framing it. Nintendo likes money, sure; they're a business. But to make money, they need to make something new and different. I'm not sure what you're expecting; Sony made Move and Sixaxis, Microsoft made their gamepad and Kinect.

It really, really, really comes across to me as the next step in cashing in on a gimmick, rather than the next step in human/computer relations.
I think there are tons of practical applications, though. Don't compare it to the Wii; compare it to the DS. An HD DS with a gyroscope and compatibility with Wii controls.

Also, fuck 'moving your game from the TV to your controller' shite. How often is that REALLY going to come in handy? I think we are all adults here who own their own god damn TVs, and don't have to worry about Da missing the ball game.Roommates, bro.

While I am at it, what's the fucking point of a sports game where you run on the spot to make your game character run in a race? Just have a freaking race outside for real - it's exactly the same. If you can't go outside you could just run around the room and save a few dollars on expensive new game hardware. This game is on Kinext or some sort of motion crap I don't know.I don't remember any sports demos, but yea, I remember Wii Fit had a game where you jogged in place and the screen showed you jogging around different places. That shit's silly, but thankfully there seem to be plenty of traditional games on display. Everyone gets what they want, no matter how casual or snobby they are. I really don't see a problem with that.

[Esuohlim]

It all started going downhill when they made us trade Pokemon to get them all. SOME OF US AIN'T GOT NO FRIENDS :CRY

[MattJack]

lul im not even a Nintendo fanboy buttttttt

I'm going against the grain it looks like in this thread.

I like it, and I think it can open up a lot of cool possibilities. I'm rather glad that they will keep stepping in a different direction rather than just try to make a different version of something that already exists (PS and XBX).

The Xbox and PS consoles are just Pepsi and Coke to me. It really doesn't matter which I play because the quality of game, controls, and titles seem to be mirror images of each other (we have both here in the house). Touching on the controls a bit further, if you dislike the Wii control so much, then simply buy the add-on controller.

And yes, there are a lot of gimmicky things you can purchase for the Wii, but you should understand the things you'll need if you are smarter than an 8 year old.

The Wii just doesn't compare to either because it's a different beast (for better or worse). Bottom line is that we have more fun on the Wii than any console in the house. If we have a party or get together you think my girl and her friends will want to get down on on some Street Fighter IV? How about some COD (yuck)? How about even being open to any games at all?

Shit no.

Let me bust out some Mario Party 8 or Wii Sports and then, gasp, watch people stop talking on the patio with drinks and come get down.

The Nintendo has a wider audience and it is definitely a lot more casual. That's why I like them a lot. I like the touch screen. It opens up so many cool possibilities and it is going to trail blaze a new path. Much like the Wii did.

While Sony and Microsoft fanboys were hatin' their companies were cooking up recycled ideas that Nintendo had years before. Fact.

If you want really want to play games, then get a PC. I'd never give my PC up for a console, and anybody who acts like gaming is better on consoles is ignorant at best.

Bad Company 2? Yeah I'll play on PS3 with sub-par graphics and a map with six people in it.

Oblivion, Fallout, GTA? Yeah, that's totally not better on PC..

Want to play a great RTS? Let's load up the Xbox360 Elite! They have tons of great RTS titles! Oh wait..

I mean I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but my main point is if you are such a hardcore gamer mayng then why are you even fucking with shit consoles to begin with?

Nintendo is doing the right thing by not trying to get in a pissing match with Sony and Microsoft. They will continue to build a strong fan base for years due to their uniqueness. Meanwhile, console gamers will be jumping from ship to ship when the PS4 and Xbox 1080 are released.

Don't worry, if the Wii U has even a fair amount of success, watch for Sony and MS to be trying to "innovate" some shit. Like the Kinect or Move :lol

You can take that to the bank.

I'll go with the Wii U and yall tell me how the Sony Vita is working out for ya (and that ATT contract):lol

Once again, I'm not even a Nintendo fanboy. I will say that consoles are good for one thing: Mother fucking fighting games.

PS: If you play CoD, I hope your fingers get permanently mangled by your dad's asshole.

[MattJack]

Also, I think only one line at a time.

Sometimes two, but really only one at a time for the most part.

[Zhukov]

I guess there are some pretty fair points there, and you are right to say that innovation (whatever brings it about) is certainly better than being stale.

I do prefer games on the PC, but don't have an overly powerful one. My fault, though, not Nintendos. I do prefer to battle through a tough game rather than have fun. Fuck fun.

I suppose what I am more against is the trend as opposed to the style of this particular new gadget, and what it stands for. I still think it looks dumb and will probably feel dumb, and I'll never be bothered to use half the features they pump into it, or promise to pump into it, but the thing that bothers me personally is the FEAR (yes, fear) that my PC styled games are going to follow the trend just like Microsoft and Sony.

I suppose it is a step forward, somewhere, and that's certainly better than pumping out the same games with better graphics. Even though that's all people want some times, myself included.

In closing I would like to say that I'd still rather play Zelda with a normal controller, and if it allows me, well good. I'll then just stick to scoffing at the casual games that are shit, and hoping all games don't go down that cash cow path.

[Chojin]

I think the concept with this console is that there's a controller you can do a lot of shit with, but at the same time doesn't require you to do anything different than a regular controller. Part of the problem with Wii is that a developer really had to commit to the platform with a game, because using the controller well meant that the game was unportable to other systems (both in terms of graphics and controls).

I don't understand why the hardcore contingent is pissing all over this when it's basically what they've been criticizing nintendo for not doing--it's a regular controller that you could play any 360 or PS3 game with, but it's also got some extra functionality if developers choose to use it.

In the worst-case scenario, devs will only use the screen for its ability to make the game portable, and for what they're already using the 2nd screen on the DS for. In the best-case scenario, people will actually use the screen creatively as shown in the video. Either way, I'm ok with that.

The screen in the middle reminds me a lot of the intellivision and colecovision style controllers, where you needed a card to label the 12 buttons. I think a controller like this is what people were thinking the future would be like back in the early 80s. It's an ironic retro future, like george jetson's voice-activated typewriter.

[Chojin]

I mean I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but my main point is if you are such a hardcore gamer mayng then why are you even fucking with shit consoles to begin with?

yeah, pretty much. i understand why consoles like the 360 and PS3 exist--it's a far better value per dollar than a PC and doesn't require years of experience to operate without making everything explode. but that's pretty much the definition of a "casual": little commitment and easy.

my PS3 mostly gets trotted out to watch downloaded videos on the tv. my 360 basically never gets turned on, because i'm terrified it'll combust and they want me to pay twice to play online, but i do use it to test XNA programs I write. out of the last generation, I used my Wii the most because I felt it legitimately had the better games and I have no interest in 300+ indistinguishable war shooters.

[Fathom Zero]

I think it's the next logical step for Nintendo, since controllers you plug into your brain don't really exist yet and the camera-based systems are sucking big time. Then again, motion control did too, for the Wii.

I think our way of thinking's dying out - sitting with a controller and buttons in hand. And I suppose it's only right that it should.

[Phoenix Gamma]

If you want really want to play games, then get a PC. I'd never give my PC up for a console, and anybody who acts like gaming is better on consoles is ignorant at best.

I love my PC, and I do a lot more gaming on it now that I have one I built myself, but one complaint about the PC is that I honestly prefer to sit back on a couch than hunch over my desk. Yea, I could run an HDMI from my computer to a TV, but they're in separate rooms, and I'm not lugging that fucker all the way over there.

That, and consoles have too many exclusives for me to ignore them outright, and I don't see a PS3 emulator coming out any time soon :\

[mew barios]

it feels like they're marketing this thing directly to me because it's exactly what i personally want, something with a lot of unique potential that can also be totally ignored at the whim of the developer.

i am concerned about cost and how good those things will hold up to being dropped though :<

[Mad Melvin]

Looks like a fucking joke. Yeah, can't wait to wrap my fingers around that huge lump of unergonomic plastic. And "Wii U"? What the hell. I hope Nintedo is at least planning to make some games for mature audiences and not the same casual crap, 'cause I'm guessing that touch screen isn't so resilient against punching from drunk idiots. Or little kids.

[LordSappington]

After the Wii U, I'm sort of afraid of what the next xbox is going to be like. If it's an entirely motion-based system like the Wii, I'm going postal.

[k0k0]

Same here Lord. I usually get the Microsoft console and then the playstation console later. If microsoft follows suit and makes something controllerless or with a wierd new controller, I am skipping their console this time and going with a playstation 4. And if sony does it, there's always suicide eh? My letter:
"The world of weird controllers is scary and new to me. I can't live in a world where I have to shake things or get off the couch. You did this to me microsoft and sony, but you fucked me most of all nintendo. Right in the ass. Goodbye."
Nah, it wouldn't come to that but I'd feel like I was kicked in the dick. I can't change my feeling about these kinds of 'innovations' that are ruining my regular play.

[Zomboid]

What's the deal with that sniper game--the one where they bullseye Miyamoto? I know Nintendo would never approve a game where you peer up into an apartment complex and assassinate Miis, but oddly enough, that sounds a little bit fun.

I understand both sides to this, but I think the main complaint that some of us are having is that this trend will force us to play games we like with all of these things added in. I can see myself enjoying a lot of what they do with it (though certainly not that stupid ninja star game), but I don't want to be forced to use an iPad to manage my inventory in a Zelda game--but I'm assuming they'll realize that some people feel that way and give us the option.

Also, I'm sorry, but that controller does not look comfortable to hold for long stretches of time.

[LordSappington]

I think what gets me most about the Wii U is that the fans are stressing you can still use the old wiimotes. In which case, what the fuck is the point?

[k0k0]

It's because you can't use more than one Wii U controller. It only comes with 1 and it's not going to be purchasable. So to play anything multiplayer you need the wiimotes.

[Esuohlim]

My problem with this gimmicky stuff is that everything feels like a dumb little arcade game that you play for 10 minutes and move on. Nothing has depth anymore. Honestly, I don't have much experience with the Wii but I can tell that they're really focusing on all these novelty multiplayer diversions at the expense fully fleshed out single-player games. But, yeah, I guess if you want that you go with PC games.

[MattJack]

I think what gets me most about the Wii U is that the fans are stressing you can still use the old wiimotes. In which case, what the fuck is the point?

Yeah because Sony has drastically changed their controller format over the past 14 years :lol

[k0k0]

In my opinion sony didn't need to change theirs. It works, it feels good to hold. The wii remote when turned sideways and held for games just feels unnatural and holding it like a television clicker feels wierd for a video game. This is all my opinion, but I've never liked the wiimotes. I don't like their new controller either, so they're in good company.

[Phoenix Gamma]

I don't want to be forced to use an iPad to manage my inventory in a Zelda game--but I'm assuming they'll realize that some people feel that way and give us the option.
Everyone's been adamant that it IMPROVES Ocarina of Time on the 3DS. I'm kinda inclined to agree, based on my time playing it at PAX East.

[Zomboid]

I guess I'll have to see for myself, but you'd think that looking down every time you need to change some equipment (like in the water temple, where that happens every 30 seconds) would sort of leave you open to attacks on-screen.

Also, how many Wii games were compatible with the classic controller? I don't remember there being many.

[Supafly345]

wsRfQMEyul0

[k0k0]

The first thing I thought of when I heard the name was Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. Seems I'm not alone. Nintendo stocks are down 5 percent since the Wii U announcement to where they were before the wii launched.

[MarioRPG]

I'm not sure how to feel about this because I've had all the information relayed to me through friends. I didn't watch any e3 coverage or anything like that. It seems like a cool idea, I want to see where they go with it. Is the controller on batteries? If it is it seems like it would burn through those really fast. Also, it looks really big yo.

[Chojin]

My problem with this gimmicky stuff is that everything feels like a dumb little arcade game that you play for 10 minutes and move on. Nothing has depth anymore.

i guess you never owned an atari or nes

[Esuohlim]

An NES, yeah, but that's how video games were back then. Most of the stuff I play on browser emulation sites (http://www.thesmartass.info) (:eek) only entertains me for a few minutes before I want to try something else, unless I already have nostalgic ties to it.

Not much on the SNES or N64 really feels like shallow fluff, but they weren't really putting emphasis on multiplayer over single-player yet either. Now that they are it feels shallow again, and the single-player games just feel like dumb little diversions :\

[Phoenix Gamma]

Wii U is the sound Navi made when you locked on to enemies.

Seriously, what was up with that?