Wii-U thoughts so far

[ejamer]

.

[dsheinem]

. In-game commentary was also fantastic

OMG WTF

you people are delusional.

[isiolia]

In the end, it seems like a pretty typical Platinum Games release: fun, stylistic, and largely unappreciated.

With a metacritic score like that, it's probably not largely unappreciated.

Still, I found what I played of it tasteless, and, as a gamer, felt insulted that someone thought it'd be appealing to me (kind of like the Mortal Kombat X trailer at E3).

Obviously though, there are those out there that dug it.

[KalessinDB]

The only problem with the "if only Nintendo matched specs" argument is that, in the past when they did (or had higher specs) third parties did not support the system the way people are claiming they would.

Actually, my biggest problem with people touting specs at this point is diminishing returns. We've reached a point where "better" specs... don't really mean a whole lot.



But there will always be those who disagree. I have a buddy whose big line is "It's not just about the graphics, it's about the number of actors on the screen!" and then goes into a huge diatribe about what that actually means, and he has yet to explain it in a way that doesn't translate to... well... graphics. More "actors on screen" means more polygons. The math behind the scenes certainly does need to go up as well, but that pales in comparison to the processing power needed to drive the polygons.

So the part where people always complain about Nintendo consoles being "a generation behind" just kinda makes me laugh. I don't care what generation things supposedly are, I care if I enjoy playing their games. Console generations are fuzzy anyway, much like people generations.

[dsheinem]

Console generations are fuzzy anyway, much like people generations.

They aren't that fuzzy, but Nintendo has made them fuzzier for the last decade with hardware that is underpowered in relation to the others.

And I don't know about diminishing returns of graphics, really - the PS4 and Xbox One both clearly outclass the visuals on the Wii U (there's no contest) whereas the Wii U's ports are sometimes better looking/sometimes worse looking than their PS3/360 counterparts. It isn't always about polygons in a character - it is also frames, speed, lighting, texture loading, aliasing, etc.

It's been a while since I've introduced my "woe is the future of Nintendo consoles" argument, but I am increasingly convinced that Nintendo has to play catch up NOW if they want to stay competitive in that arena. IMO they need to announce the Wii U follow up before Holiday 2014, with a competitive price, for release next year. Implement all the bells and whistles (games linked to accounts, cross buy/play, etc.) that the competition has and allow the platform to be attractive to indie devs like the PS4 is, work much closer with third parties, and just address all the long-running and oft-repeated complaints about Nintendo hardware from the majority of people who buy consoles. I "get" that a lot of you enjoy that Nintendo does its own thing, but they are being killed for it this time in a way that is worse than even the GameCube was. It isn't a sustainable business model.

Imagine how successful a console that lets you play Mario Kart 8, Destiny, Metroid Prime 4, Final Fantasy XV, and Madden 2016 would be.

[Jmustang1968]

Dont forget draw distance, Ai, and several other variables that are improved with increased tech specs.

[KalessinDB]

Console generations are fuzzy anyway, much like people generations.

They aren't that fuzzy, but Nintendo has made them fuzzier for the last decade with hardware that is underpowered in relation to the others.

You have some decent points, no question, but "not that fuzzy"? I don't know what source you're using, but for convenience I'm going with Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games) which I'm aware isn't a scholarly source but this isn't a scholarly debate.

• Second generation consoles (1977–1983)
• Third generation consoles (1983–1995)
• Fourth generation consoles (1988–1999)
• Fifth generation consoles (1993–2006)
• Sixth generation consoles (1998–2013)
• Seventh generation consoles (2004–2011)
• Eighth generation consoles (2011–present)

That's fuzzy since the 4th-gen Genesis came out in 89 (NA) while 3rd-gen NES was still going strong. So while you say "last decade" (which is still approximately 1/4th of all video gaming when you consider it's only roughly 40 yrs old total), it's really been more like the last 2.5 decades that the generational lines have been kinda fuzzy.

[dsheinem]

Console generations are fuzzy anyway, much like people generations.

They aren't that fuzzy, but Nintendo has made them fuzzier for the last decade with hardware that is underpowered in relation to the others.

You have some decent points, no question, but "not that fuzzy"? I don't know what source you're using, but for convenience I'm going with Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games) which I'm aware isn't a scholarly source but this isn't a scholarly debate.

• Second generation consoles (1977–1983)
• Third generation consoles (1983–1995)
• Fourth generation consoles (1988–1999)
• Fifth generation consoles (1993–2006)
• Sixth generation consoles (1998–2013)
• Seventh generation consoles (2004–2011)
• Eighth generation consoles (2011–present)

That's fuzzy since the 4th-gen Genesis came out in 89 (NA) while 3rd-gen NES was still going strong. So while you say "last decade" (which is still approximately 1/4th of all video gaming when you consider it's only roughly 40 yrs old total), it's really been more like the last 2.5 decades that the generational lines have been kinda fuzzy.

I wasn't referring to date fuzziness, but rather tech fuzziness. By essentially releasing a Gamecube + motion controls, Nintendo screwed the pooch on the idea of a new generation = more powerful hardware with the Wii.

It worked out for them then, but it hasn't this time around.

[emwearz]

The gap in video quality in much smaller this generation than last generation. I think Nintendos biggest misstep is the marketing on the Wii U, starting with its name, how it looks, being marketed with Wiimotes in its advertising, being released around the same time as the Wii Mini, the console physically looking like a Wii, just got them off on the wrong foot.

Large numbers of people outside of the "scene" did not even know it was a new console, they assumed it was a tablet controller for the Wii, similar to the uDraw (again the name doesnt help them does it).

The Wii U has had heaps of issues, it's graphics are one of the smaller ones, my opinion anyhow.

[flex wood]

The truth to this is instead of just showing the same one for 6k and 60k it should actually have ten of them.

It also completely ignores things like the ability to render better textures and playing at higher resolutions. Seems like it was created by someone that either has no clue what they are taking about or just wanted to focus on poly count and ignore everything else that goes into a game.