June feels so far away now.

Oh boy oh boy! Really can't wait to see how Sony and Microsoft react to Nintendo, not in words but actions. There is no way home console controllers will just be buttons and sticks from here on out.

Sucks to be OnLive though when everybody's shifting development from hardware power to new controllers. Can't stream those from the cloud.

Just shift in strategy and become the streaming partner for them.  I'm sure Nintendo would love to get people into subscriptions instead of hard copies.

Cloud gaming is garbage. Ohh, internet's down?  Cool, I'll just play ABSOLUTLY NOTHING AT ALL now. Why would anyone want such a service?

The whole Nintendo Current gen offerings for $30 a month without having to find a disc or pay for a new game.

Not to mention no bug fixes need to be downloaded.

The Wii was that.  No developer worth a shit supported it because of that.  This is NOT what you want.  You want to be BETTER than the other systems.  You want to be all the other systems are and MORE.  "Different" is fucking useless.  Third parties want to make one game and put it on all three systems.  If you're the oddball weirdo that goofs up that plan they'll just ignore you.

Oh but what if you sell more systems?  Well that is what happened with the Wii and the third parties ignored them.

Mr. Sane, I respectfully disagree.
If 3rd parties aren't willing to learn and adapt to an inventive, new way of thinking, and can't deliver compelling content unless it's me-too ports across the board, frankly I don't care that much about their games. (Granted, I now own a 360, so I can get the goods there if I feel so inclined.)
My point: Since getting a 360, I've bought a whole bunch of HD games I'd missed out on (Fallout 3, Orange Box, Enslaved, Bioshock) and to date I've played one. For some reason I just can't get my motivation up to slog through these cut-scene heavy, story-driven games. But the prospect of strange innovative experiences through Wii U, even if they're bite-sized or "casual" or family-friendly, gets my juices flowing more than a shinier, bigger, "badder" game. But I guess that's just my taste.
My point #2: I'd rather have another Wii-like system that changes the paradigm, even if AAA devs ignore it, than a me-too Super Wii that's the same but with more horsepower so as to allow cross-platform ports.

I remember hearing rumours about the Wii controller having a touch screen, so I think the Wii U controller is an idea they've had floating around for nearly a decade. They probably didn't want to introduce it until the price of the technologies came down to where they could make the system affordable.

Also, what is the point of having multiple systems on the market if they all do the same thing? If they aren't going to be different, then there should just be one system on the market. That's why I've never understood the notion of third-parties wanting to make three versions of the same game as opposed to one version.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I was housebound for six months due to a spinal injury, and bought a 360 to catch up on the HD generation. I had lots of time to kill, so I ended up playing through a bunch of games, but the vast majority were slogs. I liked Dead Space (though less so than Dead Space: Extraction bizarrely enough), Mass Effect 2, Arkham Asylum (not City so much), and Red Dead Redemption. Most everything else I wouldn't have missed had I not played them. But I hated Fallout 3, Bioshock, Call of Duty, and the Elder Scrolls games, so I'm probably in a small club. 

Well I hate the Wii.  It was all last gen games with shitty irresponsive controls and virtually non-existant third party support.  If Nintendo wants to do that yet again, fine, but they've lost me as a customer.  I want a videogame system that plays Nintendo and third party videogames like the NES and SNES did in their heyday.  I also want a videogame system, not some goofy gimmick system.  The gimmicks can be there as an option but it has to function well as a conventional videogame system.

The irony is that for all the chest-thumping Nintendo did about creativity and originality the PS3 and Xbox 360 did a better job of encouraging that because they had motion control as an option while also having the conventional bells and whistles.  Flexibility is what allows for originality which the Wii lacked big time.  The Wii U should do essentially EVERYTHING.  The Wii did ONE THING.  Flexibility is what they should aim for, not being different.

Eh, I've seen this song and dance before...twice (the Wii and the DS. As I don't own a 3DS, I can't really comment on whether that gimmick lived up to its hype), and in both cases I found myself liking software on those platforms either despite or due to the lack of their respective gimmicks (motion control and dual-screen display, respectively).  I'll believe the spin about "whole new experiences" that I want to play when there's actual software to back it up.  That'll be Nintendo's challenge at E3 this year.

That's fine.  All I ask is that the option remain available to use traditional controls if I so desire.  Let the player decide how they want to play the game, and we'll all get along just fine.  There were notable games on the Wii that allowed that degree of player freedom, and I hope we see the same on the Wii U.

Calm down. Yes, Wii alienated third parties, but it's clear Wii U was designed specifically to avoid that. Being different doesn't HAVE to alienate.. and from what I'm see so far, they probably won't this time around.

Besides, what happened with the Wii wasn't entirely Nintendo's fault. The majority of the blame lies with the lack of objectivity from the gaming press. The media bought into the big marketing hype pushed by Microsoft and Sony, and completely wrote off Nintendo. If more media outlets actually did their jobs they rather than paling around with the techie gaming insiders, they would have been able see the majority of public's interest was with Wii. But they didn't, and as a result Wii's success caught the gaming community completely off guard as they all planned all their major projects for 360 and PS3. By the time it was clear that Nintendo's success wasn't just a fad, the hardcore gaming audience was already established.

The overwhelming evidence clearly points to third parties' lack of preparation for Wii's success as being the cause of the lackluster support, NOT the fact it was different. Since Nintendo not only has credibility from Wii's overwhelming success, but has also gone of its way to cater to third parties this time around, there's no logical reason to assume Wii U will suffer from the same lack of support just because it's different.

Being different is what made Wii a success, so Nintendo is making the most logic choice by continuing Wii's tradition.

the thing about Wii U is yes its different, but this time around its also not different.

and wait did someone mention a subscription netflix like classic gaming service?

Why won't they have it this time?  Sure, they fixed the HD problem, but they will still be behind the game power-wise.  Which means games that have complex physics will be hard to port.  Also, the controller issue still exists.  From what I've gathered only one controller with a screen can be connected, other than that Wiimotes are the main controller.  So one person gets a madden with a standard control and the other one has to play with motion control?  Nintendo hasn't been friends with 3rd parties since the N64.  At this point, I'd say it's personal.  I don't know what it will take to bring them back but sales wasn't enough as seen during the wii.  I do know I've heard them talk about how important third parties are to them for the last two generations while they've made no inroads into this area.  Thus, I'm going to assume third parties aren't on board until I'm proven otherwise. 

Problem is the wiimote wasn't accurate enough to do much besides waggle.  It adds lag because you have to perform a motion and the controller has to recognize it which means it's hard to do games that are twitch games.  It was fun with some games but it made a bunch of games worse.  Even Nintendo failed to innovate.  The Wiisports and Wiifit are the only games that used motion control well.  The rest of the time it was a waste of time.  Seriously, why not make New Super Mario Bros use the classic controller so it could be like the SNES version with better graphics.  The wiimote is not comfortable to hold on it's side and wagging the joystick to pick up items is pretty poor implementation.  Super Strikers Charged, waggle to tackle?  These things weren't game breakers, but I found myself longing for button presses that were 100% accurate.  Not to mention the big Nintendo titles are still an updated version of Mario Kart and essentially Mario Galaxy 3.  I think that classifies as me too even though they are copying themselves.

Mop, I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all agree with you that there should be just one system on the market. The problem is they all think that one system should be their system, and they won't budge or back down. The point of that is making money. By having their own system, they can put their games on it without having to pay licensing fees to anyone, and they also get to collect licensing fees from 3rd party developers.

So that's the reason why we have multiple competing systems. Its all about making money. Is it better for 3rd parties having to develop for multiple systems instead of one? No, probably not. Is it better for consumers having to worry about which one to own and then potentially missing out on games that don't come to it? No, its not good for them either. But it is a good thing for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. And that's why things are the way they are. Sega and Atari would still be doing it too if they hadn't failed and been forced to quit.

$600 PS3 would argue with you about it being better for the consumer.  You could charge what you want if your the only game in town.

Competition is good for the market, good for consumers. Monopolies are bad, very bad.

If it was up to Ian, we'd all be driving a horse and buggy.

Except he'd still be upset, because he wouldn't think the horses were as good as they used to be because of what he sees as bad decisions by the breeder.

hahahahaha

Maybe so, but at least we would have an awesome Nintendo gaming experience waiting for us at the end of that horse and buggy ride. ;)

Not necessarily.  Microsoft has had a monopoly on the OS market pretty much since the inception of the PC.  They haven't increased the price of Windows since Win 95.  They are pretty much the reason that internet browsers and anti-virus programs are free.  Their dominance allowed a common format that allowed software developers to get a common set of tools cheaper which allowed developers time to optimize the game rather than learn the system.  They instituted a license free system which encourages developers to take chances on new types of software.  The only way a monopoly is bad is if you assume that the company is bent on destroying its consumer and inviting competition into the market.  And even in that case, the US regulatory body oversees areas like this and they wouldn't want to do that for fear of fines or the government breaking your company into multiple competing parts.

Right now in the console market, we have an oligopoly.  A few players have all the power and they set price amongst themselves.  All of the console makers charge very high licensing fees which prevent small developers from bringing many ideas to the market.  Big players are also afraid to take chances on new game designs because failure brings heavy financial losses for them and not for the big 3.  One console maker wouldn't make a difference today.  In a way, because of their internal studios, they have financial incentive to limit access to their own hardware because that breeds competition with themselves. 

Wow. There is so much you are wrong about that I don't even know where to begin correcting you, and since this is completely off topic to this thread anyway I'm not even going to bother.

I think your wish has already been granted. I completely understand where guys like you are coming from. I wanted to, but I could not complete that Spider and Scorpion game because of the controls, they weren't to hard to remember, I just hated performing them because it didn't do what I wanted.


The Wiimote was so different and the power difference was so great most developers felt they had no choice but attempt their usual game but with motion. So yeah we got a lot of bad stuff. But now aside from that extra screen the "classic" way of playing is automatically in your hands. I just don't see where the problem is, unless Ninja Gaiden, Batman and Dark Stalkers are %100 touch. This is so much more like the DS and I think it was an awesome move by Nintendo. The whole tablet thing is so big right now and the vocal "hard core" get their usual buttons and sticks.


I think the 2nd screen is one of the greatest things to happen to gaming. I use it so effectively in Mario Kart that it puts my rankings through the roof! Sort of. A clean hub is something most of us dreamed of for you years and that's when you don't even try new ways of playing. I have a lot of faith this new controller will be everything and more, the people who don't want it will some day realize it's the best thing ever, even if just for a few cosmetic purposes.

see, the thing about the tablet controller is its basically what I thought Nintendo was unveiling before they showed off the wii mote. It has motion control features, but its a step closer to more classic gaming options. I will probably prefer this 1000% because its more relaxed, but I do like the option of using a wii mote as well.

I didn't grow up with the analog stick.  When it came out it was incredibly different.  I embraced it.  I thought it was a great idea and I think it would be ridiculous to make a controller these days without it.  It is possible for someone to like one change and hate another.  I don't dislike motion control because it is different.  I dislike it because it SUCKS.  It's inferior to what was there before by being less precise and requiring more effort from the player.  It's one redeeming factor is its novelty factor which I grew bored of within hours.

I want the option to play with whatever controls I want.  Nintendo does not provide that option.  You can say they have the CC so they must.  No they don't.  Look at something like DKC Returns.  All they did was map what would normally be a button press to a waggle.  But the game does not support the CC which I assume is intentional on the part of Nintendo (can't provide the option or people will pick normal controls thus removing the one feature that justifies the Wii being a new console in the first place).  As a result I find controlling the game to be a chore because of the imprecise nature of the waggle.  Nintendo should allow me to play the game with normal controls because they aren't doing anything special with the remote.  It is literally just replacing a missing button.  But they don't offer it and that's what I want.

It's like how in theory in the DS is no big deal because if you don't like the touchscreen you have the normal controls right there.  Well, no you don't if Nintendo doesn't let you use them.  I gave up on the DS Zeldas because they control like shit.  Thankfully other DS games don't force me to use dumb imprecise gimmick controls but those ones do and they don't really have to.  Nintendo can provide the option in theory and at the very least third parties may use it but Nintendo themselves are notorious for making you play the game the way they want (they rarely even offered button mapping in the old days; why the fuck not?)  They won't TRULY provide the option.  To truly provide the option means that every game that has blatant waggle controls offers traditional controls like SSB and Mario Kart did (and NSMB and DKC didn't for no good reason whatsoever).

Though what I really want is for Nintendo to design the controls for a game with the priority being what works best for the game.  With the DS and Wii they switched to designing controls with marketing gimmick potential as the primary focus.

Actually, the real innovation (or gimmick if you will) with the DS was the touch screen. The Dual Screen feature should basically just be viewed as a large screen which is split up, because that's how some games use it. Or one of the screens just gets used as a map or inventory screen or whatever. It doesn't really change the way you play, and it being there isn't harmful to you in any way. It does make things a little more convenient at times, but its not a make or break feature of the system.

But being able to play with a touch screen on the DS was a major innovation. It was often shoehorned into games where it wasn't needed or well suited, but there are other games which do positively benefit from it, and many which wouldn't even be possible without it.

I think for everyone who is scared (Ian, Bustin, Chozo) of Nintendo finally abandoning them, I have one thing to say.

Get N' or Get Out.

lol. That's the video game equivalent of saying "love it or leave it".

Word.