Wii-U thoughts so far

[Stark]

I don't think I buy the graphics alone dictate generational placement argument, Dsh. Also, am I the only one that thinks it is weird that Sony and Microsoft produce a product line that offers so little distinction beyond what controller you're holding and they get a pat on the back for doing a good job, while Nintendo offers a product that (for better or worse) offers a different experience but they get shit for their troubles?

What's the alternative? Nintendo produces a machine that does exactly what their competitors already offer?

Why does doing something different have to mean they use hardware that isn't up to snuff with the competition. From the sounds of it, the latest games trying to push to the TV and to the controller would've benefitted from better hardware.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I don't think I buy the graphics alone dictate generational placement argument, Dsh. Also, am I the only one that thinks it is weird that Sony and Microsoft produce a product line that offers so little distinction beyond what controller you're holding and they get a pat on the back for doing a good job, while Nintendo offers a product that (for better or worse) offers a different experience but they get shit for their troubles?

What's the alternative? Nintendo produces a machine that does exactly what their competitors already offer?

Yeah I tend to think of generations chronologically. This is why something like the Neo Geo AES is still a 4th gen system despite the vast technological differences between it and the SNES / Gen / PC Engine.

The distinction between the Wii U and the PS4 / Xbone is one thing that attracted me to the Wii U in the first place. Incredible library of first-party Nintendo games coming out at a rapid pace + backwards compatibility + interesting control scheme + low price = a must-buy for me.

PS4 and Xbone have done little to differentiate themselves from each other. I still can't find a reason to own one or the other, let alone both.

On other news, I see the GameCube Wii U adapter listed at $20:
http://www.amazon.com/GameCube-Controll ... B00L3LQ1FI

If future games will have GC controller support I may forgo the Pro Controller completely.

[Violent By Design]

I don't think I buy the graphics alone dictate generational placement argument, Dsh. Also, am I the only one that thinks it is weird that Sony and Microsoft produce a product line that offers so little distinction beyond what controller you're holding and they get a pat on the back for doing a good job, while Nintendo offers a product that (for better or worse) offers a different experience but they get shit for their troubles?

What's the alternative? Nintendo produces a machine that does exactly what their competitors already offer?

Why wouldn't they get shit for it if they delivered an inferior product? Is PS4 just getting a pat on the back for doing the same thing, or are they getting a pat on the back because most people think when it is said and done, they will have both the best software and hardware amongst the current gens? Just like they pretty much did with the PS3.



Isn't the cliche statement is that "games matter more than anything", or something to that nature? If so, why would Nintendo get a pat on the back for making unique; arguably gimmicky hardware, as opposed to just focusing on software? Bottom line is, Nintendo knew they would alienate the 3rd parties if they made the Wii-U the way it was, and that's exactly what they did.




I have a response to the question I put in bold, that would flesh out my point. Why couldn't they just have the silly TV Controller and motion control things, AND not have a massively underpowered machine? You make it seem like it had to be one or the other.

In fact, why even have the gimmicky stuff? People who often champion for Nintendo insist that Nintendo is all about first party gaming, and that they prioritize software over the other big 2. If that is the case, why wouldn't they just make a powerful system? Their two highest acclaimed systems are the NES and SNES, and that's exactly what they did in those generations; no gimmicks.

[BoneSnapDeez]

Deeming a console "inferior" due to limited hardware seems strange in a era where plenty of folks are content to play Angry Birds and Minecraft and doubly strange to see on a forum dedicated to outdated hardware.

Also "gimmicks" seems to be a catch-all term for "stuff I don't like and/or won't use." I can't see anything about the Wii U that's more gimmicky than a built-in Kinect or a damn "Share" button on a controller.

[Violent By Design]

Deeming a console "inferior" due to limited hardware seems strange in a era where plenty of folks are content to play Angry Birds and Minecraft and doubly strange to see on a forum dedicated to outdated hardware.

Also "gimmicks" seems to be a catch-all term for "stuff I don't like and/or won't use." I can't see anything about the Wii U that's more gimmicky than a built-in Kinect or a damn "Share" button on a controller.

We're talking about hardware, so it is not incorrect to say that the Wii-U is inferior. Could your agenda be any more obvious?

[dsheinem]

The fact that the Wii U has hardware and software that are close to what Sony and MS had last gen is not a "knock" against it as much as a reasonable rationale for grouping it in with the previous gen when thinking about both A) what its games are capable of doing (graphics-wise, connectivity-wise, etc.) and B) what generation most of its cross-platform games are native to. Hardware generations aren't strictly about dates - that is ONE potential way to categorize them but not the ONLY reasonable way to do so.

I don't know why everyone has to be so defensive about it, especially on a retro gaming forum where we all still enjoy and collect games for hardware that is from previous generations.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Replace the word hardware with penis/penises/a penis and things become that much more entertaining.

Also...does having a far superior penis make the PC the 1,000,000th generation?

[Tanooki]

I don't think I buy the graphics alone dictate generational placement argument, Dsh. Also, am I the only one that thinks it is weird that Sony and Microsoft produce a product line that offers so little distinction beyond what controller you're holding and they get a pat on the back for doing a good job, while Nintendo offers a product that (for better or worse) offers a different experience but they get shit for their troubles?

What's the alternative? Nintendo produces a machine that does exactly what their competitors already offer?

It's not the graphics alone, it's the total package. The cpu, gpu, ram, all of it are marginally over what came out in 2006~ and because of that, and primarily that is why the WiiU gets the problems it does. The rest is just the usual third party dump on Nintendo garbage that's beyond old. If they had tried as much as Ubi did with ZombiU and very few others to out of the gate day one to provide a game that really used the system correctly and kept the releases coming the WiiU would be in a very different position now. Those games in the last year that popped out on PS3 would be on it, and the stuff coming since like AC Unity and the others would be too. That just didn't happen.

Flake I agree, it's weird, but it's also not. My brother who works for pipeworks (he's lead on the resurrection of Rollercoaster Tycoon out next year) as a producer and he knows from his end and his contacts that Nintendo, Sony and MS were approached by many third parties with a laundry list of capability they wanted with a new system to get their support. Sony and MS did it, this is why this generation those systems are so annoyingly close in power despite Sony going with some better stuff to edge it out. Nintendo basically did their classic f-off you do it our way with our system or forget it, and they got hung out to dry over their bad attitude. They planned the tablet well in the past, they went forward with it and dismissed making a third me-too box and this is the punishment they get and us as WiiU owners get too in turn. That's why I write what I do and am sour about it because they had the opportunity to get equal support and told the developers to go screw themselves basically.

Nintendo wanted to stick to a budget and this is the result, and had they gone with a $400-500 box instead with or without the tablet they'd be in far better spot and I still would have bought it and likely never bought a PS4 because they'd have got the third party games I'd like to have along with their own.

[Tanooki]

Replace the word hardware with penis/penises/a penis and things become that much more entertaining.

Also...does having a far superior penis make the PC the 1,000,000th generation?

I think as long as it comes with plenty of RAM to back it up, you're good.

[Cronozilla]

These kinds of arguments would hold more water if those impossible to achieve PS4 and XB1 games weren't also on PS3 and 360 when not exclusive.

Really, if developers wanted to support Nintendo's system, they would. It wouldn't matter how much power competitors have in the box (PC has all the exclusives, right guys?). There's a long history of the weaker systems being supported over more powerful ones.

I think, in essence, something that happened was everyone thought ... or wanted ... Nintendo to go the way of Sega following GameCube.

They didn't, everyone scrambled and made some junk to try to capitalize on the sudden success, they were exceedingly late to the party and by that point in time competitors developed a very handy narrative to go along with their failures on the system. One thing that was clearly shown last generation was that a marketing machine was more important than anything else (Something third party Wii games didn't generally receive). As long as they're riding that gravy train with whomever, it isn't going to change.

It might even comes down to something as simple as business decisions from Sony and Microsoft to get more involved when games are being made. Should Nintendo do that? I thought people spent a good 15 years explaining to Nintendo why that's a bad thing ...

I think there's a lot of things Nintendo could change with their hardware design, for instance, getting off the shelf components would be a lot cheaper, so they could pack in more raw power for people to use. But, who knows? Who cares? I get Nintendo systems for the Nintendo ecosystem that it brings, that includes all the exclusive games people might bother to make. Usually, something pretty great is created and there still hasn't been a single generation where that hasn't happened on a Nintendo system for me. Nintendo is going to design that ecosystems for themselves and anyone who wants to use it is more than welcome to. It makes their systems exceedingly unique.

I never bought a Nintendo system, while current, and felt cheated because certain games didn't come out on it. This entire notion to me, also, is extremely bizarre.

This will probably offend you, dear reader:
To be perfectly candid

, unless you are a developer whom has access to these systems and has done significant work on them with unbiased code ... you really don't know what they can and cannot do on a hardware level with the operating restraints on resources. You just don't.