Wii-U thoughts so far

[CavZee]

"Nintendo gonna Nintendo" for better AND for worse.

[Sload Soap]

I've put myself in the maybe later camp, but I'm finding it harder and harder to get excited for the system.

There's some good stuff out already and coming but I think this E3 will show the true extent of the gap between the Wii U and its competitors. It's not purely about graphics; the designer on Arkham Knight has stated that the simple decision to include the Batmobile made a Wii U version unlikely on a technical level.

I also worry that Ninty has become too focused on the franchises they know are safe: Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing. Is it too much to ask for a new Starfox or F-Zero? It does seem a bit hypocritical on their part when we hear Miyamoto saying F-Zero is on hold because "they don't know where to take the franchise" when we are up to the tenth Mario Party release.

[fastbilly1]

It does seem a bit hypocritical on their part when we hear Miyamoto saying F-Zero is on hold because "they don't know where to take the franchise" when we are up to the tenth Mario Party release.

I dont see that at all. Fzero GX was damn near perfect, while the Mario Party franchise is still far from perfection. I mean what could be done to create a new Fzero that would be even on par with GX? While I would be happy if they just gave me GX with online multiplayer, that is not something Nintendo will do.

[CavZee]

The more something sells the easier ideas for a sequel crop up it seems. I can think of many examples from many different publishers where there's a game series I'd like to see more of (or localized to the west in some cases) but it just isn't happening. That goes back to my point about risk taking and new IPs. Some take off and some don't.

=[

I do disagree about Nintendo playing it safe to a certain extent when you see the big 'swing for the fences' that were the DS and Wii. Seems they just struck out when it comes to the Wii U and the gamepad though.

[Sload Soap]

While I would be happy if they just gave me GX with online multiplayer, that is not something Nintendo will do.

Why not? Wouldn't this be a selling point? Would it not be an evolution of the series? Mario Kart has done it, why not F-Zero? Nintendo seem to have plenty of ideas to keep Mario Kart going but F-Zero gets left in the cold. Obviously F-Zero isn't the system seller Mario Kart is but I wholly reject the idea that there is nowhere left to go for it. Even just a HD lick of paint and online is significant enough for me to consider a purchase.

[fastbilly1]

While I would be happy if they just gave me GX with online multiplayer, that is not something Nintendo will do.

Why not? Wouldn't this be a selling point? Would it not be an evolution of the series? Mario Kart has done it, why not F-Zero? Nintendo seem to have plenty of ideas to keep Mario Kart going but F-Zero gets left in the cold. Obviously F-Zero isn't the system seller Mario Kart is but I wholly reject the idea that there is nowhere left to go for it. Even just a HD lick of paint and online is significant enough for me to consider a purchase.

It is just something they have never done. They have given us upgraded ports, but never an something like a split screen game turned online multiplayer. If they did release it alot of us would buy it. I have stated several times, if they gave me a LAN version of GX or AX on a console, I would buy a four player setup. But all of this is super out of character for Nintendo.

Dont get me wrong, I would love a new Fzero. But now that MarioKart has driving on the walls, I doubt we will see the franchise anytime soon.

[vatermuzik]

While I would be happy if they just gave me GX with online multiplayer, that is not something Nintendo will do.

Why not? Wouldn't this be a selling point? Would it not be an evolution of the series? Mario Kart has done it, why not F-Zero? Nintendo seem to have plenty of ideas to keep Mario Kart going but F-Zero gets left in the cold. Obviously F-Zero isn't the system seller Mario Kart is but I wholly reject the idea that there is nowhere left to go for it. Even just a HD lick of paint and online is significant enough for me to consider a purchase.

I would agree with this. A nice coat of HD paint and some other small bells and whistles would be enough for me, mainly because it's been over a generation since we've seen one. The impact of some minor tweaks and adjustments would be greater, to me anyway, than if a new iteration came out for every console with said changes.

[pepharytheworm]

One of the big reasons people aren't getting excited about the Wii U is because even though it has an increasing amount of exclusives, most of its AAA titles aren't showing off graphics or in-game experiences that haven't been had previously on the PS3/360. I mean, this partially explains its sagging sales, right? Sure, HD Mario Kart 8 looks nicer than the SD Mario Kart Wii, but it doesn't look leaps and bounds better than Sonic's All-Star Racer, which came out four years ago or Wipeout HD, which came out six years ago.

am i wrong? Video game news and hype have ALWAYS been linked to graphics and new ideas...

As retro gamers who enjoy old games and don't care about graphics very much we are the exception.

I get the graphics part, but what are these new ideas you speak of? What new ideas have PS4 and Xbone brought?

[dsheinem]

I get the graphics part, but what are these new ideas you speak of? What new ideas have PS4 and Xbone brought?

Well that's the rub, because I think that the two are intertwined in a way that most of the folks here would generally disregard but, historically, have been pretty important in game advertising.

The "new ideas" in a lot of the current AAA titles are often very small ones like "greater draw distance so that you can snipe from further away" (Killzone) or "more/larger enemies on the screen and more accurately gushing gore" (Ryse) or "more realistic stadium design and Nomar's nostril hairs" (MLB The Show) or even "traversing an entire city in seconds as a beam of neon light" (Infamous SS). These, obviously, aren't new game designs per se. They are refinements and advancements on existing design elements that are successfully pitched as new.

Most importantly, they are marketed as things that we haven't seen before on consoles or that haven't previously been possible within the genre. That's where Nintendo is suffering: other than saying that they've enhanced an old series to be HD, their popular franchises aren't really showing off anything visually that we haven't already been seeing on consoles for almost a decade now. I think graphics matter a great deal to the consumer buying a new console: they want to know that they can put images on their big screen TV that will look nicer than what they have been putting on it so far, and they want a sense that these graphics are adding depth and possibility (and maybe realism) to their games in a way that they couldn't experience before and that their friends who still have a 360 or PS3 aren't getting to enjoy.

The Wii U's hook for "new experience" is almost entirely the gamepad which, given the general proliferation of tablets and pads that's been taking place since before its launch, hasn't really seemed that novel to the average consumer.

[pepharytheworm]

I get the graphics part, but what are these new ideas you speak of? What new ideas have PS4 and Xbone brought?

Well that's the rub, because I think that the two are intertwined in a way that most of the folks here would generally disregard but, historically, have been pretty important in game advertising.

The "new ideas" in a lot of the current AAA titles are often very small ones like "greater draw distance so that you can snipe from further away" (Killzone) or "more/larger enemies on the screen and more accurately gushing gore" (Ryse) or "more realistic stadium design and Nomar's nostril hairs" (MLB The Show) or even "traversing an entire city in seconds as a beam of neon light" (Infamous SS). These, obviously, aren't new game designs per se. They are refinements and advancements on existing design elements that are successfully pitched as new.

Most importantly, they are marketed as things that we haven't seen before on consoles or that haven't previously been possible within the genre. That's where Nintendo is suffering: other than saying that they've enhanced an old series to be HD, their popular franchises aren't really showing off anything visually that we haven't already been seeing on consoles for almost a decade now. I think graphics matter a great deal to the consumer buying a new console: they want to know that they can put images on their big screen TV that will look nicer than what they have been putting on it so far, and they want a sense that these graphics are adding depth and possibility (and maybe realism) to their games in a way that they couldn't experience before and that their friends who still have a 360 or PS3 aren't getting to enjoy.

The Wii U's hook for "new experience" is almost entirely the gamepad which, given the general proliferation of tablets and pads that's been taking place since before its launch, hasn't really seemed that novel to the average consumer.

So, basically no new ideas, but perceived new ideas because of greater graphical capabilities.