Wii U too late to capture the Hardcore crowd?

[Cridhe]

Honestly the Nintendo franchise has original games that I've always loved. I've never owned a Wii, but combining more adult themed games with a new awesome Nintendo-thing... I'm honestly considering trading in my Xbox when my gold membership runs out.


Addendum: I couldn't give a rats ass if the graphics are better on MS and Sony's next-next gen consoles. A good game is a good game, same goes for gaming devices.

 

[lostlambda]

i think its funny how nintendo think that hardcore means violence their entire line up to showcase the hardcore line for Wii U was nothing but violent shooters and hack and slashes

PS. if they want more hardcore fans release advance wars and fire emblem games

 

[ReservoirAngel]

As I said before, if the only example of it's optimal capabilities is replacing something that has never been a problem (menus) with some arbitrary touch funtcion, then that's not really blowing my skirt up.

The whole point of innovative stuff like this is to replace the things that we're so used to we no longer recognise it as a problem. If nobody bothers to shake stuff up, the gaming industry will just stay the same forever, increasing graphics to photo-realism then just stagnating for eternity.

Sure, it could create some new and interesting gameplay mechanics, but do you really see that happening today's bloated and stale gaming industry? Apart from a few first party titles, no developer is going to do anything innovative with this new touch screen.

I refer to my above point. The fact that innovation doesn't happen in today's big, Triple-A mainstream market is precisely why we need Nintendo to burst in with stuff like this for us to play with. That's how things get moving, and Nintendo have always been good at that.

And even when ignoring the above, that controller looks like it was designed in a half hour. It's like this was the first draft to give the big wigs an idea of what the controller was more or less going to be like, and then they just forwarded it to R&D without in any way optimizing the design. They basically just took a regular controller and crowbarred a touchscreen in there.

I really can only argue shallow points with this one, in that apparently it's comfortable, light and easy to use. But from a strictly aesthetic sense one gets from looking at it, it does look like a design in need of a refining touch applied to it.

 

[captain_Bubblebum]

As I said before, if the only example of it's optimal capabilities is replacing something that has never been a problem (menus) with some arbitrary touch funtcion, then that's not really blowing my skirt up.

Sure, it could create some new and interesting gameplay mechanics, but do you really see that happening today's bloated and stale gaming industry? Apart from a few first party titles, no developer is going to do anything innovative with this new touch screen.


And even when ignoring the above, that controller looks like it was designed in a half hour. It's like this was the first draft to give the big wigs an idea of what the controller was more or less going to be like, and then they just forwarded it to R&D without in any way optimizing the design. They basically just took a regular controller and crowbarred a touchscreen in there.

Hmmmm.....I totally agree - it looks like a piece of shit. But I have faith that it can/will be used by developers to make some cool stuff. Just as with the Wii remote getting used to make headtracking devices on PCs, this new controller will add an extra toy for developers to play with - and that is where my excitement lies. I just hope it doesn't feel awkward to hold (let alone the weight of the thing), as you stated by your concerns previously in other posts.

 

[Casual Shinji]

As I said before, if the only example of it's optimal capabilities is replacing something that has never been a problem (menus) with some arbitrary touch funtcion, then that's not really blowing my skirt up.

The whole point of innovative stuff like this is to replace the things that we're so used to we no longer recognise it as a problem. If nobody bothers to shake stuff up, the gaming industry will just stay the same forever, increasing graphics to photo-realism then just stagnating for eternity.

But it's not in any way innovating how we interact with the menu, it's simply seperating it from the game to a little screen on our controller. That same menu is still there only this time it requires you to split your focus from what's happening on screen to what you're holding in your hands.

And that brings us back to the design flaw of having two distinct screens in a game console. When I'm playing a game my fingers instinctively reach for the right buttons. I can keep my full attention on what's happening on screen. But by putting a second screen on a controller -even if it is only once every five minutes- you're forcing he player to take their eyes off of the main screen, splitting their attention and breaking the on-screen link (immersion, flow, whatever) with the game.

 

[Dexiro]

What matters is the exclusives that the Wii U has and how existing games play out on the Wii U compared to other consoles.

Of course people aren't going to be switching straight to the new console purely to play some multi-platform games, it's the exclusives that will pull people in first and the multi-platform games that will potentially seal the deal.

 

[Wintermoot]

ever since the DS Nintendo stopped marketing to the "Hardcore" crowd and focused on Retrogamers and casual gamers.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

It depends almost completely on the timing of MS. If Sony doesn't push out a next gen system within 12 months of MS, then the Playstation brand will be staring at its death. The PS3 came out a year later than X360, and we saw the difficulties it had trying to carve out its own user base. If Sony tried to repeat that with Nintendo several years ahead of both them and now in direct competition, they will get slaughtered.

Currently PS3 sales are climbing, even with the huge PSN outage sales are still better than last year. The PSP wasn't a success, but it wasn't a failure either. PSVita is slated for late 2011 release, so if they aimed for a late 2014 release for the PS4 that doesn't look unreasonable at all. At most they'll be a year behind MS and two behind Nintendo, and they still give the Vita 3 years to carve out its own space.

As to what the new console will bring? I have no idea. I didn't see BluRay coming, nor did I see Nintendo's moves with Wii and WiiU, and I didn't think that XBL would get so big. So I have no idea what is coming. All I know is that the market will not wait for them to think up something big. Timing is extremely important, and if they don't keep pace with their competitors they'll lose out.

The year head start isn't what gave them trouble carving out their user base, it was the price. It was the most expensive console this generation, and so many people voiced their desire for the console, but said they would wait for a price drop (including myself) or for certain titles to make an appearance (Final Fantasy XIII which became multi-platform, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain), but of course by the time the price drop came, many people and their friends had a 360, so for a lot of people it wasn't top priority.

Hell, some people are still saying they're going to wait for the FFVII remake, as if it's coming.

This new console 1) can't be the most expensive of the bunch, and 2) can't have a new disc format. Either one of those will put them 6 feet under. Blu-Ray, for all of it's benefits, isn't phasing out the DVD like people expected. in about 5 or 6 years maybe, but not now. Bringing in another format if the console comes out in the time you're predicting just wouldn't work if you ask me.

It's all dependent on what move Microsoft makes. As for the Wii U, I consider it to be a bridge. For all we know, by 2016 we might have another console from them, a la Xbox.

 

[Jammy2003]

So am I the only one who thinks they are on to something here? I doubt that this is going to "win" the console war or anything and phase out Xbox or PS, but it's truly an interesting concept. I think the thing they are going for here is not the hardcore crowd particularly, and it's weird people seem to think it will be a fail if it doesn't attract us guys who could even be considered "hardcore". (I hate that phrase, it's just the way people begin arguments about who's system is better, or can do more shit, whatever happened to just enjoying games?)

Think of it this way, this looks like it is finally fulfilling what all those sci-fi films promised would happen in the future, this one box that can do everything you want it to. I don't know about the specs, I looked briefly and they looked pretty good, so did the graphics demo video, but it's the functionality of this that kinda draws me to it. Look at it this way, this controller promises to be able to play your game only using the controller, not needing the tv, and still be multiplayer/better than standard handhold gaming systems. It will have an internet connection and so will, I suppose, support web-browsing etc. (To me, it looks like it could basically be used as a tablet as well, with a wireless internet connection).

Now I dunno about you guys, but one of my parents complaints is that they don't see enough of me at all, as I'm off doing my own thing upstairs most of the time as they watch tv. I'm sure this can't just be my parents, and for anyone under the age of having a job to earn money, who are the ones in the family who buy the console? So if you can do that, and be sat in the same room as them, then that makes them happier.

Basically, if they time the release right (say, a year before the next gen of PS/360 comes out?) I think this could get a chunk of the "hardcore" gamers back, will still keeping all their new customer base, and more. I think it's a truly interesting bit of kit, and I look forward to seeing how it all pans out.

Edit: Wow, just read the news about the stock prices hitting the floor, so maybe I am the only one thinking that...

 

[teh_Canape]

I'm gonna admit, that "Hardcore Gamers" name/denomination is really fucking annoying me

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

There are already hardcore gamers with Nintendo. Nobody in their right minds would want to miss out on those first party titles.

I second that.

The Nintendo originals are real, quality games. I don't care if I can't play a state-of-the-art Call of Duty game on my Wii. Anytime I want to play a game of popular mediocrity, I can go to a friend's house, but for the best of the best games I bend my knee to Nintendo.

Certainly, Nintendo has a different breed of hardcore gamer, but we are out there.

Yeah, it's called casual.
Suck it up.
Accept it.
Live with it.
*cocks PSG1* Now back to Team Deathmatch!

The point of being a hardcore gamer is that you are a loyal follower.

Also, Call of Duty is about as casual a game as you can get. Hardcore gamers follow the real game series' n development, like the Mass Effect games. hardcore games put themselves out as being new, exciting, and actually pull it off as real quality gaming art. Call of Duty may have been hardcore gaming once in a distant past, but that is long gone. The games are the same, mundane experiences every time.

In fact, I'd say Nintendo has more Hardcore gamers than other systems, if only because its people will stick by the old classics. For instance, my favorite game of all time is Ocarina of Time, because it's an amazing game, not because its mainstream and cool to play. Certainly, Wii games have left the mainstream of the important body of gamers, meaning most of its games are popular only with younger kids, but its good games, mostly Nintendo originals, are the very best of the best for fans.

As much as I recognize the complete lack of the meaning of the term Hardcore gamer as it seems to be commonly used, I will still fight to point out that Call of Duty does not fit the Hardcore criteria.

The way I see it, Hardcore gaming is about the games that were large investments of effort followed by success in creating truly high-quality experiences. The Call of Duty developers can hardly be considered to put much of a real effort into anything. They crank up the graphics from the last game, redesign the maps and skins, and then release the newest clone of Modern Warfare. To be honest, for all of that, they only put out a frustrating, unrealistic, crudely designed war simulator wearing the guise of a realistic shooter.

To summarize my rant: Hardcore gamers are the people that care about the games and their real qualities (i.e. graphics not on the top of priorities list), not just the popularity of the title. You pretty much have to be a hardcore gamer to even bother with Nintendo, because none of the games are aesthetically overwhelming or overmarketed as I feel most mainstream games are. On the contrary, they are completely focused on narrative, gameplay, and fluidity.