Wii U - The Potential

[Ranylyn]

First off, I apologize if there's already an active topic like this. With how active these forums are, and with the topic pages often not updating regularly, after scanning the first 2-3 pages or so I just went "screw it, I'll make one myself."

Second, I apologize to anyone who was awaiting a reply in my last thread, "RPGs: The Grinding Genre?" I babysit Wednesday through Saturday, and made it on a Tuesday. Considering the nature of this forum, I didn't want to risk necroposting before re-reading the guidelines, and I just ended up seeing threads that caught my eye in the sides when catching up on the video content for the week.



Anyways, moving on!

I've seen far more hate for the Wii U than support. And sickeningly, a lot of it is from people who bashed the Wii for being motion sensing, and then went on to buy a Move. Stupid, I know. But some people are determined to hate Nintendo with all they can.

Anyways, I wanted to make a thread for people to point out what kind of potential they believe the system can have with it's unique dual-screen functions.


#1: Local Multiplayer RPGs or non-RPGs with inventory systems

FFCC for the gamecube's multiplayer was.... well, let's just say sis didn't have a GBA so it wasn't something I got to enjoy that often. But between some friends and I, we got 4 cables and 4 GBAs and it was GREAT. If ONE person needed the menu, the OTHERS could keep playing without a pause. It was great. Especially at the final bosses where no one needed to carry the chalice so it was 4 active combattants at all times.

Imagine something like that on the Wii U. You already have the second, personal, screen, so no need to buy bonus peripherals and cables. We could be looking at an entire untapped market; party RPGs. The Wii can already store Miis on a Wii Remote, so I'd assume that storing a character's data from an RPG wouldn't be a stretch, so everyone can just bring their own. No internet lag to worry about (though having online options available would be a must, especially if it allows multiple players per console, like 2 consoles with 2 players each, etc)

Another good example is actually Pokemon Stadium for the N64. You could tap R2 to see what moves and Pokemon you had access to, and what was assigned to which buttons, but this meant your friend could see that information as well. Having that info at your fingertips and yours alone would be invaluable, and might spark a much-demanded console pokemon trend. Hell, I'd even settle a console port of the DS games (bottom screen on your controller, naturally) coupled in with Stadium/Stadium 2 style gym and cup modes.

Maybe an RPG like a Tales game with your own menu for re-equipping and using items without pausing the battle for everyone else? Hell, even non-RPGs like Resident Evil 5 comes to mind right now. Have your inventory on the controller for a touch screen quickselect for healing items and whatnot. You can seriously do a lot with this without making it feel needlessly gimmicky or shoehorned like a lot of shovleware does.


#2: An extra input method means more possibilities

The DS proved that, if done right, the touchscreen can be a powerful tool. Sure, some games ruined it so hard (Spiderman 3, ugh) but some games effectively treated the touch screen almost like extra buttons. FFCC: Ring of Fates, for example, used the touch screen as a quickselect method for your equipped magicite type. It was literally like having extra buttons next to the A/B/X/Y.

As a somewhat older PC gamer of sorts, imagining the possibility gives me nerdgasms. Things like fully controllable throttle in flight sims (many console ones just have Brakes/Normal/Boost, not the full 1-9 range PCs have had in the past) which would bring far more control and enjoyment to the game, or even games like the PC Mechwarrior games (Let's face it, Mechassault is kind of "Mechwarrior goes 3rd Person Shooter instead of mecha piloting simulator" and that's a letdown, Mechwarrior was epic. Controlling your forward thrust, torso rotation, 6 different weapon groups, jumpjets, coolant flushing you just don't get this kind of control on a standard controiller) etc.

It goes without saying. This paltform WILL attract shovelware. But the DS also attracted shovelware and it has some of the best games of the last gen. So rather than fear the gimmicks, why not embrace what it can do for your gaming? It goes without saying that some games never made it to the Wii because of incompatible controlls. I'd argue the opposite will be true this time unless Microsoft and Sony step up their games beyond the same old controllers.


#3: Simple generic perks for any game using these conventions

Minimaps? Unimportant HUD elements? Even scores in online shooters? Why not just display all that on the controller? I thought of this when I saw Black Ops 2 was announced for the Wii U; I can't be the only one who hates needing to block part of my game screen just to take a glance at how I'm doing compared to the rest of my team, right?



Anyways, what are your ideas on how the Wii U could use the dual screen to enhance it's games?

 

[piinyouri]

The Wii had a huge amount of potential as well.
Call me cynical, but I don't think Nintendo will use that potential particularly well.

 

[Zhukov]

I can see potential for asynchronous multiplayer, since you can have a screen that only the person holding it can see.

But that's it.

The idea of putting HUD elements or inventories on the gamepad screen is stupid. It's stupid because you could just press a button to pause the game and show those things on the main screen. If you don't want your game to be pausable then it's even stupider since you'll be making the player look away from the action.

It's like that one picture of the ZombieU (ugh) game where the only thing on the screen was a big sign saying "look down at the gamepad screen". Apparently it didn't occur to them to just put what ever was on the gamepad up on the main screen. EIther that or they were desperately trying to crowbar the console's features in wherever they could... oh, yeah.

 

[Angie7F]

iam not so sure how they will utilize the dual screen too...
Unless you have a game like Charades where one side sees some info and the other doesn't, I cant imagine how the dual screen will be of any good...
i dunno.hmmmm

 

[Tippy]

Lets get this straight - Nintendo are FIRST innovating the controls, and THEN they're trying to find how games can be forced to use those controls. Sorry but doesn't that strike anybody as fucking backwards?

Necessity is the mother of all invention, and right now the NEED for a replacement for a nice gamepad (or keyboard/mouse) is little or non-existent. Innovation is something that should be needed, not forced. I'm going to shamelessly quote Yahtzee here:

It's like someone made a submarine out of metal, and the metal submarine works perfectly fine and became the norm, but then someone said, "Everyone makes submarines out of metal - let's make one out of bread!"

Probably less than 1% of all games that I have ever played (ever) have made me feel "gosh, if only I had another screen to look at, if only I was waving my arms around like a windmill!". And that was only because those games were terribly designed/coded in the first place.

The touchscreen worked for the DS because it was a mobile gaming device subject to space constraints. It was becoming impossible to increase screen sizes while accomodating physical buttons, so buttons were integrated into the screen to keep form factors small for portable devices. Makes perfect sense. Games which required constantly making use of dual-screen were a pain, but atleast the screens were tiny and right next to each other.

But the HELL is that technology relevant when you're sitting at home and focusing on a 40" TV?

I'm not saying the potential of Wii U isn't there. It's just that the "potential" is feeling extremely forced here. The human eyes (and mind) absolutely suck at trying to focus on more than 1 thing at a time, try opening any random book and reading pages 5 and 6 at the same time. You just can't, you have to keep switching focus and finding where you left off. With one screen that is 2 meters away from you (the TV) and another screen that is 2 feet from you (the controller) the eyes will constantly have to keep re-adjusting focus, it's going to cause fucking headaches.

Want to test it? Hold a watch/phone year your face and read what it displays. Then quickly switch focus to a further away object (like a TV) and focus on the text/numbers on that (something which actually requires you to focus). Then quickly switch back to your phone/ watch. Do this repeatedly and tell me how it goes.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Comparing the WiiU's potential and the Wii's potential, I see a much more favorable future for the former. Potential for motion control seemed great at the time, but we've seen that it was mostly "hit and miss" (with a lot of misses). The only genre that thrived under motion control was the "party games". However, party games always need a revolution to survive. Who makes a party out of Rock band anymore?

The WiiU keeps the motion controls, but don't make it a necessity. Getting used to two screens isn't that much of a task. What will fufill or kill the potential of the WiiU is how developpers will decide how to use it in their games. Although, I'm pretty certain that 3rd parties will have less of a difficult time developping a game for the WiiU than the Wii.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

We spoke about the Wii's potential. Then we saw it in practice. Potential is always given waaaay too much optimism these days.

 

[WoW Killer]

The Wii didn't have potential, the fabricated version they advertised had potential. Swinging a remote around like a ninja sword to cut up enemies had potential. A single additional input activated by shaking your controller never had potential.

But regardless, Nintendo does have the right idea by putting out new control schemes. That's the one genuine advantage consoles have. There was a topic a while back about new control systems for PCs, and the problem is you need the controls already present to sell the games, and you need the games to sell the controls. Games can only realistically be based on what is standard issue. With a console, you can take a new idea and make it standard issue. You can say "everybody now has this new controller", and developers can make games using it.

As for the Wii U, well I think touchscreens have potential as an input mechanism. I don't buy into the minimaps and inventory screens, as that's just a comfort thing rather than adding a new dimension to gameplay. Input devices are where it's at.

 

[Melondrupe]

Things that may be appealing about the gamepad:

Anything requiring the input of codes or names can be done faster.

Better control over AI partners. Thinking of Resident Evil Outbreak: you could have the ability to point at an object and instruct them to pick it up, tell them to move an object such as a box or statue, go through their inventory faster, mark an enemy to be attacked or avoided or point at a spot and have them cover you while you're performing an action necessary to progress. The single player of Left 4 Dead would be worth playing with such controls.

Manipulation of small objects such as a Rubik's Cube might feel more enjoyable with a touchscreen. Any puzzle involving switches and rotation could be done faster and easier.

The viewpoints of multiple cameras on the screen in anything involving hacking or monitoring for infiltrators.

 

[Tippy]

Innovation is something that should be needed, not forced.

Bullshit.

Lets go back a few years. Do you think people were thinking, "You know what? We NEED to have an MP3 Player, a Browser, Random Games and other Applications, and a Touchscreen with the ability to take pictures, watch videos, and talk to people face-to-face!"?

Of Course they weren't. No one in their right minds thought that. Don't say they were: They weren't.

And are you seriously implying that all those devices were combined together in one go? Hell no, it was a step-by-step process based on ONE NEED AT A TIME. What you see today is a culmination of innovations and devices based on needs.

There was a need for an MP3 player, look at portable CD players and cassette players before that.
There was a need for a portable browser, the ability to access the internet wherever you were.
There was a need for portable entertainment and functionality (videos/games/applications). There was a need for a touchscreen because it was becoming impossible to fit enough buttons and still have a large screen while keeping a small form factor.
There was a need to integrate the features of a digital camera into a phone.

If it weren't for the above needs to combine all those devices together, here's what you would be carrying around with you all the time:
> An MP3 player
> A portable video player
> A phone for calling/texting
> A camera (still)
> A video camera
> A portable gaming device (GameBoy!)

And you know what? There WAS a point when many people were lugging around several of the things mentioned in the above list. It was tedious, it was easy to lose/damage stuff, it was too much.

So yes, I just told you why there was a need to combine it all into one convenient device with one screen.

Now it's YOUR turn to tell ME why video gaming in general needs 2 screens and/or motion controls when gamepads/mice/keyboards have done the job fine for the last 15 years.

Don't innovate for the sake of innovation (like making a submarine out of bread), innovate out of a genuine need. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
The OP lists out extremely niche appeals involving "local multiplayer RPG's" (because MMORPG's are for weaklings) and inventory systems which allow local multiplayer RPG's to function properly.
No RPG player in their sane mind would ask for their inventory to be moved to a different screen, 99% would prefer it to pop-up on the screen they're already focusing on.

Again, I repeat - Nintendo is first trying to revolutionize controls, and THEN develop games which somehow use those controls.

It's the equivalent of buying a random pair shoes for someone without knowing their size/shape, and then forcing their feet into those shoes - if you're extremely lucky there's a chance it'll be a perfect fit - but it's far more likely they'll simply end up with a fucking uncomfortable/awkward fit and the shoes will promptly be thrown into the junk pile (yes, I just described the Wii).

 

[Atmos Duality]

Don't innovate for the sake of innovation (like making a submarine out of bread), innovate out of a genuine need. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Using that logic, explain sex toys.
Why were they invented if they were not needed?
Not in terms of wants, but needs.

 

[Tippy]

Don't innovate for the sake of innovation (like making a submarine out of bread), innovate out of a genuine need. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Using that logic, explain sex toys.
Why were they invented if they were not needed?
Not in terms of wants, but needs.

The need for sexual pleasure without requiring a partner, or as a means to enhance pleasure while with a partner? For some people just plain old sex isn't enough.

I fail to see where you're getting with this and how it justifies a control system which requires you to switch your focus betwee 2 different screens at vastly different distances and then finding a way to force games to use the 2nd screen.

If you're implying that there are a select group of gamers out there who want such a thing, power to them and power to Nintendo. Of course Wii U will sell, after all it looks like a functional console which doesn't seem to revolve 100% around dual screen gameplay or motion controls. It'll just be interesting how Nintendo (or 3rd party devs) will try and shoehorn the console's "unique" aspects into games, and how those exact same games will be more enjoyable on the PS4/720.

 

[Kleingeier]

Rayman Legends
Pikmin 3
Bayonetta 2
New Super Mario Bros U (I just love the artstyle, a cross between Yoshi's Isle and Super Mario World).

Those of us who aren't 11 are unimpressed.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The need for sexual pleasure without requiring a partner, or as a means to enhance pleasure while with a partner? For some people just plain old sex isn't enough.

Sorry, that's "want", not "need". If it were a need, we would have gone extinct long ago.

I apologize for being pedantic, but the argument was doomed the moment you threw out the term "necessity" and applied it to gaming (a luxury).

People invent random shit all the time that isn't practical until potentially given a new context. Someone else finds a use for those gadgets and makes it work.

I'd argue that in the modern age, it's more curiosity than necessity that drives invention.
Especially for markets of luxury.

But more to the point of the actual topic:


The problem with the original Wii is that their motion controls weren't even innovative.
Remapping buttons to waggles wasn't innovation, because it functionally did not change how the game was designed, except maybe to slow it down to account for input error.

The one benefit of the Wii controls was being able to point at the screen. That adds new contexts to console gaming (retaining controls similar to a mouse on PC, and Light Guns on consoles).

As for the new WiiU tablet...I can simultaneously see how it can be useful, but how it can also fall into the same trap as before. It offers flexibility of touch-controls, and those worked out pretty good for the DS-family.
On the other hand, there is the matter of design...is there anything new this can do without it becoming convoluted?

I dunno. I'm waiting to see if some developers out there can find the proper context to match. I remember the Gamecube version of Four Sword Adventure being making clever use out of the GBA screen (even if it was one of the most obnoxiously expensive gimmicks out there)

 

[Tippy]

The one benefit of the Wii controls was being able to point at the screen. That adds new contexts to console gaming (retaining controls similar to a mouse on PC, and Light Guns on consoles).

The "pointing at the screen to aim" thing fell flat on it's face IMO. If you point it too far in any direction (as humans tend to do) then the Wii-mote would go off the screen and the game would start having spasms and somehow it turned out to be even less accurate than aiming with analog sticks, let alone mouse accuracy. Even for navigating menus it was painful for someone who's been used to zipping around menus using a regular controller.

No, the only strength of all the Wii-mote flailing were games which made it a core part of the gameplay and expressly required the player to hold a straight object at specific angles (yes, a SWORD) as demonstrated in Red Steel 2. I can't really think of any other game which genuinely proved how the Wii-mote could be benefitial over a traditional controller.

Now regarding the topic of 3rd party support for the new controller - the thing with Wii games was that by translating button pushing to wii-mote waggling, atleast developers could somewhat translate games from the Xbox/PS over to the Wii and we saw a decent number of games come out for it.

But how will devs make games which use the 2nd screen without giving Wii U games some sort of entirely new/awkward gimmick which doesn't exist on PS/Xbox/PC due to the lack of a screen on the controller? I have no idea. Having to code such a thing seperately would be horrible, not to mention unfair.

If I was a 3rd-party developer I would literally ignore the entire 2nd-screen gimmick (keep it turned off or something) for the sake of keeping coding simple and porting easy - effectively I would only require the Wii processor to render the game and the traditional dpad/etc buttons on the controller to do their job. Uh oh, there goes that whole gimmick.

I saw a demo of Assasin's Creed III being played on the Wii U with the player constantly holding the controller up near their eyes because it showed more information, while also trying to play the game on a big TV. All I can say is that the experience looked nothing short of painful and convoluted. If AC3 was to be made on a PS/Xbox/PC, where would that additional information be shown? In a small rectangle on the main screen? Or nowhere at all?
Because if it was to be shown on the primary screen, as a gamer I would take that any goddamn day over having to hold another screen up with my arms and switch focus between two screens at two distances. It would be obvious as shit to pick the more simple amd less painful (read: my arms and eyes won't fall off) solution.

I also saw a demo of some zombie game being played, and whenever the player aimed with their gun they would have to switch to their Wii-u screen to aim via sights, and then look back up to the TV to continue gameplay. If that doesn't fully define "breaking flow" I don't know what does.

It really takes the notion of "pointless and gimmicky" to a whole new level.

Sorry. I screwed up my statement. All I am saying is that there was no Need for any of those things. There was Want. People WANTED to have an MP3 Player. People WANTED to watch videos. People WANTED X and X so they could Y and Y. There was no need. There is NEVER a NEED for Innovation, only want.

Fair enough. I can see how this could turn into an argument into what classifies as a want and need (we "wanted" to get around faster, it wasn't a need, so we invented wheels/flying instead of spending months/years walking everywhere) and I'm not going there.

Yes, perhaps there are some people who WANT motion controls in their games and WANT a 2nd screen woven into their gameplay.

I can only imagine such people also want to play Street Fighter with a steering wheel, and eat soup with a fork. Gogo niche appeal!