Wii U to be quickly outdated?

[Serving UpSmiles]

I disagree with the Wii U not having any staying power, It actually gives way to third party developers to be creative and experiment new ideas, on a less demanding console. the next generation will hardly have any games developed for it, which will let the Wii U flourish.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I disagree with the Wii U not having any staying power, It actually gives way to third party developers to be creative and experiment new ideas, on a less demanding console. the next generation will hardly have any games developed for it, which will let the Wii U flourish.

I agree, with the growing price companies have to pay to make a game people will play I don't think that the next generation of consoles will have anything but sequels and tired ideas. Like what we have now, but much worse. The Xbox 720 and the PS4 will be to powerful for companies to handle, and they will ultimately suffer from it because they want the best graphics. Whereas, on the Wii U companies can make good, to amazing looking games and do some new ideas because of the tablet controller.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Reading some of the criticisms in this thread I have no idea what people want from Nintendo. It seems like they'd rather have them stop producing consoles entirely than try something new and interesting. Either that or just make the NintendoBox3, and try and be like Sony and Microsoft.

I'm not saying that the WiiU is a guaranteed day one purchase for me, but I think it has a lot of potential. The amount of stick Nintendo get for trying to innovate - seriously, say gimmick one more time, I dare you, I double dare you mother-fucker - simply beggars belief.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Reading some of the criticisms in this thread I have no idea what people want from Nintendo. It seems like they'd rather have them stop producing consoles entirely than try something new and interesting. Either that or just make the NintendoBox3, and try and be like Sony and Microsoft.

I'm not saying that the WiiU is a guaranteed day one purchase for me, but I think it has a lot of potential. The amount of stick Nintendo get for trying to innovate - seriously, say gimmick one more time, I dare you, I double dare you mother-fucker - simply beggars belief.

I agree with this too. The word "Gimmick" is holding back the whole industry. Nintendo tries to do something new, and change the way we play games and everyone shouts "GIMMICKY SHIT I GO BACK TO XBOX NOW!". Then they don't buy it, and because of that other companies see making innovative stuff like the Wii U as too risky and will just make the Xbox or the PS3 with better graphical power. Then people complain there's not enough innovation in the industry...

Seriously gamers, get your shit together and stop calling ANY new innovation a "Gimmick", it just makes you look like whiney douches who don't want change.

 

[Vivi22]

On Topic: It will be fine, like the Wii. Why? Good first party titles and Nintendo brand.

If Nintendo is going to rely on first party titles to sell the Wii U then we might be looking at 10 million sales or so based on the sales of games like Mario Galaxy, Zelda, etc. 25-30 if we assume every single person who bought New Super Mario Bros. or Mario Kart Wii will move to the new console. Other than that (and I think that's being a bit generous) they'll be relying on drawing in casual gamers again and they have other options. I'm sure Nintendo will be fine financially since they usually sell their systems at a profit, but I don't see the Wii U repeating the Wii's success. Especially when you're average casual gamer will wonder why they should get it if they already own a tablet. And if they don't own a tablet, they'll probably just decide to get a tablet.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Snip.

Exactly. If I wanted to play an Xbox game, or a PS3 game, I would go to the Xbox or PS3. The fact that Nintendo are bringing something different to the table is what sets them apart.

On top of this I can occasionally see where people calling things a gimmick are coming from, but I'd say its the use of the tech as opposed to the tech itself that is gimmicky. With the Wii for example, some games used the tech really well and it felt like the motion control was actually adding to the experience rather than detracting from it. Waggly shovelware on the other hand didn't.

 

[SpAc3man]

Well from what I recall the GPU being used in the Wii U is based on the AMD R700 GPU family. AKA as the Radeon 4000 series. This puts it two GPU generations ahead of the 360 and PS3. That is quite a bit in console terms. The next Xbox and PlayStation will no doubt be more powerful but as it stands the Wii U has the best market opportunity. No competition in the new generation and all the current Wii users and any other gamers that like the sound of a return to more serious games for Nintendo.

 

[razer17]

Soooooo.... You all really care that much about graphics? Haha don't play Xenoblade then.

Wii had some of the best games this gen. Wii-U will follow the same path of innovative ideas and using the tech well to make good games. But, you hate on it.

FYI, I work in a RadioShack and you guys really have NOOOOO IDEA how fast tablets sell. This is going to make BIG MONEY.

Why would developers, when they are developing for PS4 and Xbox 3, bother to develop for the Wii U? they are porting current gen games because that's all the power the Wii U has, but when devs start putting out games on the next generation, the Wii U will be forgotten by most third parties, becuase it won't be powerful enough to port the games from other consoles.

And you really sound like a fanboy with phrases like "haha don't play Xenoblade then", it's kind of hard to take you seriously. Tablets might sell well, but the Wii U controller isn't going to be used as a tablet. Why buy the clunky Wii U controller (which I don't think would even function like a normal tablet) when you could get a sleeker, better equipped alternative, probably cheaper.

The Wii wasn fairly innovative. A waggly controller that was badly implemented in a lot of games, and that was generally ignored for the most part even in some First party games, but the ideas were good. The Wii U on the other hand is showing almost no innovation. It isn't improving hardware, it will still use the Wii remote. It might have the touch tablet thing on it's controllers, but that's nothing but a gimmick, what game is really going to use two seperate screens, touch control, motion control, dual analogues and buttons all at once?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Snip.

Exactly. If I wanted to play an Xbox game, or a PS3 game, I would go to the Xbox or PS3. The fact that Nintendo are bringing something different to the table is what sets them apart.

On top of this I can occasionally see where people calling things a gimmick are coming from, but I'd say its the use of the tech as opposed to the tech itself that is gimmicky. With the Wii for example, some games used the tech really well and it felt like the motion control was actually adding to the experience rather than detracting from it. Waggly shovelware on the other hand didn't.

Yeah I agree with that second point, but really I'm more talking about the people who see anything other than the standard Xbox or PS3 controller to be "Gimmicky shit". Just look at ZombiU, that game's using the controller in an AMAZING way. Mainly to actually make a survival horror game where even going into your inventory is in real time, meaning no zombies just standing still waiting for you to pick out your best gun to defeat them with. Also the way stuff like Keypads are on the controller, so you have to be quick or a zombie will kill your ass. And zombies will kill you, a lot because one bite equals death.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Snip.

Exactly. If I wanted to play an Xbox game, or a PS3 game, I would go to the Xbox or PS3. The fact that Nintendo are bringing something different to the table is what sets them apart.

On top of this I can occasionally see where people calling things a gimmick are coming from, but I'd say its the use of the tech as opposed to the tech itself that is gimmicky. With the Wii for example, some games used the tech really well and it felt like the motion control was actually adding to the experience rather than detracting from it. Waggly shovelware on the other hand didn't.

Yeah I agree with that second point, but really I'm more talking about the people who see anything other than the standard Xbox or PS3 controller to be "Gimmicky shit". Just look at ZombiU, that game's using the controller in an AMAZING way. Mainly to actually make a survival horror game where even going into your inventory is in real time, meaning no zombies just standing still waiting for you to pick out your best gun to defeat them with. Also the way stuff like Keypads are on the controller, so you have to be quick or a zombie will kill your ass. And zombies will kill you, a lot because one bite equals death.

I was trying to get at the same thing in a roundabout sort of way. ZombiU looks like a hell of a lot of fun, and the whole 'one life' thing is an interesting concept. Of course we'll have to wait and see how it pans out, but put me down as cautiously optimistic.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Reading some of the criticisms in this thread I have no idea what people want from Nintendo. It seems like they'd rather have them stop producing consoles entirely than try something new and interesting. Either that or just make the NintendoBox3, and try and be like Sony and Microsoft.

I'm not saying that the WiiU is a guaranteed day one purchase for me, but I think it has a lot of potential. The amount of stick Nintendo get for trying to innovate - seriously, say gimmick one more time, I dare you, I double dare you mother-fucker - simply beggars belief.

I agree with this too. The word "Gimmick" is holding back the whole industry. Nintendo tries to do something new, and change the way we play games and everyone shouts "GIMMICKY SHIT I GO BACK TO XBOX NOW!". Then they don't buy it, and because of that other companies see making innovative stuff like the Wii U as too risky and will just make the Xbox or the PS3 with better graphical power. Then people complain there's not enough innovation in the industry...

Seriously gamers, get your shit together and stop calling ANY new innovation a "Gimmick", it just makes you look like whiney douches who don't want change.

Yeah, this pisses me off beyond belief.

People are shouting about stagnation and they want new shit. What is the first post I see about the new star wars IP: "Oh, I wanted it to be a sequel to X, Y or Z". I mean, really?

Nintendo is doing something different, get your shit together and stop complaining.

I'm going to laugh at their faces when in a few years Microsoft and Sony unveil their new consoles, with incredibly likely and crappy DRM, games that will most likely cost 80 dollars or more and just sequels at launch. Whilst Nintendo has a less powerful console, that has backwards compatibility, no DRM and cheap games. I've heard nothing but bad things rumoured about the next Microsoft and Sony consoles, yet people are still waiting for them instead because "they're not using teh crappeh gimmickz!"

 

[Ranylyn]

All I see in this thread is literally "duurrrr graphics."

EDIT: The haters, I mean. Forgot to specify there's actually intelligent debate going on between nonhaters.

Mask it under feigned intelligence if you like, it's all the same.

"The Next PS and Xbox will render it obsolete due to technological limitations."

So rather than look at all the possible gameplay applications of the whole tablet controller thing, and of course, the amazing success of the DS, and how touchscreen gimmicks can actually be downright amazing if used well (and not shamelessly/needlessly shoehorned in.) You guys are looking PURELY at GRAPHICS.

Honestly, graphics are a huge budget sink; they're often the most expensive part of a game's budget, and honestly, if a game can't be good without top of the line graphics, then the graphics themselves won't save the game, so it's ultimately stupid to think of graphics as important.

I'll openly admit that the Wii has a lot of trash shovelware titles. But that doesn't shrink it's library of good games. Honestly, the number of "good" games on each console this gen is actually pretty damn even if you just meet one simple criteria: Not being a brainless consumer whore who buys the next installment in once-good series gone bad. And especially if we eliminate multiplatform titles, because exclusives are a good way to judge whether something's worth getting or not, suddenly the Wii begins to outright shine.

I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I have all of the major consoles and handhelds of this gen (Not counting the 3DS and Vita, since I'm between jobs right now - but honestly, I really don't want to give Sony my money anymore after the BS that went down last year. And I don't mean the security comprimise) and have actually not played my Wii at all in a few months simply since my actual TV is dead and I don't have a component-to-DVI adapter (while I do have an HDMI to DVI converter for my PS3/360.) I'm a gamer who likes good games, regardless of platform. And I say that really, Nintendo takes way too much flak.

If you want to be a total consumer whore and be all "graphicsgraphicsgraphics" and take any bad game a dev throws at you so long as it looks good, then by all means, continue to give your money to people who don't deserve it. If you can enjoy a game that looks decent without being utterly stellar, then keep an open mind to the WiiU. You might be pleasantly surprised, like I was, when I was skeptical about the DS.

 

[VoidWanderer]

At the rate technology grows, as soon as it is available to purchase the technology will be out of date. So this is an uphill arguement.

How long will it last, would be a better question.

 

[Epona]

Wii had some of the best games this gen. Wii-U will follow the same path of innovative ideas and using the tech well to make good games. But, you hate on it.

All three systems had some of the best games this gen.

 

[Epona]

I disagree with the Wii U not having any staying power, It actually gives way to third party developers to be creative and experiment new ideas, on a less demanding console. the next generation will hardly have any games developed for it, which will let the Wii U flourish.

The Wii let third party developers be creative for cheaper too but they still abandoned it. What makes the WiiU different?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

People said the exact same thing about the Gamecube...and the Wii. Give them a little credibility, the reason Nintendo does so well is because it doesn't actually try to compete with sony/microsoft directly. Not to mention the hardcore fans will be salavating over every exclusive they come up with. Zelda, Super Smash Bros., Metroid, Mario, Pikmin (I could go on).

 

[WanderingFool]

yeah..personally I dont really see who this console is for

Thats my thoughts. Just looking at some of the games, the Wii U doesnt seem to have many games to call its own, a number of them are games going to be available on the PS3 and 360, which people already have. The only thing to really sell the WiiU will be the exclusives for it.

 

[Epona]

People said the exact same thing about the Gamecube...and the Wii. Give them a little credibility, the reason Nintendo does so well is because it doesn't actually try to compete with sony/microsoft directly. Not to mention the hardcore fans will be salavating over every exclusive they come up with. Zelda, Super Smash Bros., Metroid, Mario, Pikmin (I could go on).

The Gamecube was in last place.