Nintendo Wants Wii U The "Preferred" Console for Hardcore Gamers

[him over there]

snap

Fair enough, though I haven't seen that sort of attitude from some of the kids I know. My brother and his friends often come in when I'm playing something like Shadows of the Damned and tell me to stop playing the stupid game so I can play the wii, and they're 11 and 12 years which seems like the time that kids usually want to be "grown up". I'm not saying all kids who got the wii won't move on, that would be absurd. Just that the wii U's success is in the hands of tykes, and the difference between sink or swim will probably be the desire to be "mature" versus brand loyalty.

 

[drosalion]

If thats true they're sure as hell going about it the wrong way.

The 'hardcore' generally want:
- High-end specs (which nintendo continuously dodge questions about and rumours are that its only moderately better than current gen)
- A good online experience (which nintendo have completely failed to deliver in the past and that doesnt seem to be changing)
- Gimmick-free gaming with a simple controller, no motion controls, screens, etc (yeh nuff said about the wii u)
- Good games, and ideally good exclusives too (yet to be seen, but as of yet thats a big 'no' too).

So yeh i cant possibly see how they even think they're going to attract the hardcore with their current plans..

Funny post is funny.

1. Short answer, no. Long answer.... well, still no. If the "hardcore" gamer wanted high end specs, they wouldn't be playing on the PS3 or 360, but on a high end PC. Ya know, that's high end specs, not 7 year old technology that wasn't high end even on release.

2. Every developer that talked about the WiiU online aspect was only praising it. Nintendo's E3 presentation focused only on the social aspect of the online feature, but there is a lot to see.

3. You don't have to use the tablet controller. Unless the game was specifically designed to be played on the tablet controller, you can use the Pro controller without problems. And I doubt that the "core" developer will try to do something innovative when porting th next Battlefield of Duty. Seriously... EA, Activison? Innovative? The Pro controller was specifically designed to be used in games like CoD and BF.

Also, a gimmick is something that is completely unnecessary. That is jet to be seen for the controller. As with every technology, the tablet controller could be used for better immersion (ZombiU) or for bullshit. And since Nintendo will let the developer choose which controller to pick and use, there will be a lot less gimmicky feeling. The Motion Controls were bad because they were forced into games that had no place for them. Red Steel 2 would be shit without the motion controls. Monster Hunter 3 would be shit if it had forced motion controls.

Whether a technology is a gimmick, depends on the usage of it (or in some cases it just is because there simply is no use). The extra screen has a lot of potential and the outcome depends on the developer.

4. HAHAHAHAHA.... no good exclusives... damn you made me laugh really hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_games

1. The hardcore console gamer wants high-end specs, or as high-end as they can possibly get. If they wanted to play on a PC they'd play on a PC - but they dont, they want a console. The highest spec'd consoles are the xbox360 and the PS3. There's no denying that they're the preferable console for the hardcore to the significantly weaker Wii.

2. There may be more to see, but my point still stands of them failing to deliver in the past and we have no proof (as of yet) to believe that will change. It most definitely can change and may be fantastic, but its an unknown at the moment. Most people would feel much safer in the experienced hands of sony/microsoft in this regard.

3. The pro controller is a great idea, but its a completely separate peripheral that has to be purchased and is just an annoyance, and makes the expensive controller that comes with the console a complete waste for those not interested in it. Why would I buy a console that I also have to buy an extra controller for when I can just buy a different console that comes with the controller I want included? Theres also the debate of the positioning of the right thumbstick and such not being what people are used to, but thats a minor thing and another topic.

4. Read what I said... Good exclusives for the hardcore do not exist on the Wii U, as of yet. I'm very certain that some great games will come down the line, or even at release... but for the 'hardcore' audience there are absolutely 0 good exclusives that have been announced for the Wii U (prove me wrong with specific examples if you want, as that wiki list isnt doing your argument any favours.). For the non-hardcore I would argue that the exclusives (for the moment) are lacklustre at best too.

 

[Meight08]

if Wii dropped the entire motion control shit and that stupid magical tablet gimmick and went back to proper controls you dont need to think about or look at. they also need to shake off the giant toddler off its back, Then maybe Nintendo will get a quick glance from "hardcore" gamers. until then * continues to enjoy 360 *

Nintendo is for kids and parties. its not even a console to me anymore, its a silly port with mini games. i used to love you Nintendo...*sniff*

I smell a hardcore gamer elitist.
Maybe you should actually do some research before you judge something as a "stupid magical tablet gimmick "

 

[Strazdas]

So, anyone still arguing that Nintendo isnt raving lunatics? i mean the signs have been around for what, last 10 years? how do they even stay afloat?

That's how.

are there so many idiot suckers that still buy their products?

Ya, we're all idiot suckers, we just can't help falling into the trap of cheap, reliable consoles with innovative controls and host of unique, high quality first party titles that can appeal to multiple family members.
And for some reason we just can't help coming back for more. We must truly be deranged.

yes, a newly released console sold more for 6 years than other consoles that are not sold that much because everyone already has one. wow that is definatelly a fantastic news, right. total sales wii doesnt come close.

Bolded text, oh my looks like yes, indeed you are one of those nasty suckers.

 

[Olas]

snip

yes, a newly released console sold more for 6 years than other consoles that are not sold that much because everyone already has one. wow that is definatelly a fantastic news, right.

I've tried my best to decipher whatever you just tried to say, it sounds like you're arguing that the only reason the Wii sold better was because everyone who wanted a 360/PS3 had already bought them.
That doesn't really prove anything other than that less people wanted to buy the other 2 consoles than the Wii. Of course this entire argument is irrelevant since I wasn't trying to attack the PS3 or 360 in the first place, they were both decent pieces of hardware, sold very well, and were successes for their respective companies. I was simply defending Nintendo and the Wii from you by showing how it clearly wasn't the poorly received piece of shit you seem to think it is.

right. total sales wii doesnt come close.

Obviously the Wii didn't sell better than the other 2 consoles combined over their entire lifetimes, that would be insane. I simply used that particular sales report for dramatic effect, however it [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)"]did[/a] sell the most units of the three consoles to date, for what it's worth.

Bolded text, oh my looks like yes, indeed you are one of those nasty suckers.

Please tell me how I'm a sucker then, because your spew doesn't seem to include any supporting details.
Are you arguing that the Wii isn't less likely to break than the 360, thus making it more reliable?
Or that motion controls aren't a gaming innovation?
Or that it's first party titles weren't generally high quality despite getting mostly good ratings?
How about you just shut the fuck up then, instead of this baseless name-calling.

 

[NiPah]

Funny post is funny.

1. Short answer, no. Long answer.... well, still no. If the "hardcore" gamer wanted high end specs, they wouldn't be playing on the PS3 or 360, but on a high end PC. Ya know, that's high end specs, not 7 year old technology that wasn't high end even on release.

And that's why hardcore gamers aren't looking forward to PS3 and Xbox 360 coming out... they already bloody came out, with Bluray disk technology, revamped and near perfected online multiplayer, huge online game libraries, wireless controllers made standard, and HDTV support. For their time the PS3 and Xbox 360 were amazing pieces of technology. Yes now the systems are showing their age, they are limited the development of new games due to their hardware limitations and this is why the hardcore crowd are looking for new systems soon.

2. Every developer that talked about the WiiU online aspect was only praising it. Nintendo's E3 presentation focused only on the social aspect of the online feature, but there is a lot to see.

So I guess Nintendo chose not to reveal those praise worthy WiiU online features because? No actually why the hell wouldn't reveal those great online features and instead focus on the Social crap? Maybe leaving it up to the fans to guess is better PR then actually revealing their new strategy to pick away at the godlike standing Xbox Live has become.

3. You don't have to use the tablet controller. Unless the game was specifically designed to be played on the tablet controller, you can use the Pro controller without problems. And I doubt that the "core" developer will try to do something innovative when porting th next Battlefield of Duty. Seriously... EA, Activison? Innovative? The Pro controller was specifically designed to be used in games like CoD and BF.

So you're saying the Battle Field and COD games will be non-innovative ports based around a controller much like you can find on the PS3 and 360 counterparts?

Also, a gimmick is something that is completely unnecessary. That is jet to be seen for the controller. As with every technology, the tablet controller could be used for better immersion (ZombiU) or for bullshit. And since Nintendo will let the developer choose which controller to pick and use, there will be a lot less gimmicky feeling. The Motion Controls were bad because they were forced into games that had no place for them. Red Steel 2 would be shit without the motion controls. Monster Hunter 3 would be shit if it had forced motion controls.

Whether a technology is a gimmick, depends on the usage of it (or in some cases it just is because there simply is no use). The extra screen has a lot of potential and the outcome depends on the developer.

It's hard to claim necessity in the entertainment industry, I just don't see it really adding that much to the picture. The fact that there is an option to opt of it's use in development shows its lack of use in certain situations, and in the games that do use it how much will it differ from the start menu or in-game scope?

 

[Strazdas]

it sounds like you're arguing that the only reason the Wii sold better was because everyone who wanted a 360/PS3 had already bought them.
That doesn't really prove anything other than that less people wanted to buy the other 2 consoles than the Wii. Of course this entire argument is irrelevant since I wasn't trying to attack the PS3 or 360 in the first place, they were both decent pieces of hardware, sold very well, and were successes for their respective companies. I was simply defending Nintendo and the Wii from you by showing how it clearly wasn't the poorly received piece of shit you seem to think it is.

So, your arguing, that if 100 people have a 2 year old car. and then 10 people buy a newer model, that 100 people dont want to have a car and only 10 people that bought the new model counts, because obviuosly they didnt buy the new one so they didnt "want" it. maybe thats becuase they already had one. people dnt buy other consoles that much in the given time period becuase they already had them, no point in having two eggsboxes now is there.

right. total sales wii doesnt come close.

Obviously the Wii didn't sell better than the other 2 consoles combined over their entire lifetimes, that would be insane. I simply used that particular sales report for dramatic effect, however it [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)"]did[/a] sell the most units of the three consoles to date, for what it's worth.

Looks like it did caught up with them. my mistake there.

Bolded text, oh my looks like yes, indeed you are one of those nasty suckers.

Please tell me how I'm a sucker then, because your spew doesn't seem to include any supporting details.
Are you arguing that the Wii isn't less likely to break than the 360, thus making it more reliable?
Or that motion controls aren't a gaming innovation?
Or that it's first party titles weren't generally high quality despite getting mostly good ratings?
How about you just shut the fuck up then, instead of this baseless name-calling.

For something to "Break" it should work first. Whether Wii controller actually works as intended is a long discussion. Well unless you claim that responding half the time is working as intended. Motion controls arent innovation. Its been tried couple decades ago and turned out bad, and so it did again. That would be claiming that driving with horses woudl be innovating becuase hey noones is doing that (anymore). And really, you are arguing that Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good? really?

 

[Jingle Fett]

One thing to keep in mind is that we don't yet know what actual hardware the WiiU will be sporting. We know what companies sure but we don't know what actual hardware specs and until then it is wrong to just write it off.

Nintendo hasn't said how much ram it will have, how fast the processor is, etc. And wisely so, because it would tell MS and Sony exactly what they need to top and they'd have plenty of time to figure it out. Nintendo will keep that tidbit quiet as long as possible, they're playing that card extremely close to the chest.

Now lets suppose that they pack in the most powerful hardware they can into the WiiU, something that can be said to be truly next gen, groundbreaking hardware. Maybe even initially selling at a loss. Keep in mind that with the money they've made off the Wii, along with the Wii name brand, they're in a very good position to do this. Most of us don't expect them to do this but for the sake of discussion let's suppose they do.

If MS and Sony want to top that they would have to have hardware that significantly out-does the WiiU since that's their main strength. At a certain point however their consoles will be either too expensive or they will have to sell at too much of a loss, or have to use some sort of gimmick equivalent to the tablet controller make it different. Basically there's a ceiling to how much better the consoles can be while remaining price-friendly.
If Nintendo is able to hit that sweet spot, MS and Sony will be in a very tough position. If Nintendo plays it right, it could be a much closer race than most of us think.

 

[Olas]

So, your arguing, that if 100 people have a 2 year old car. and then 10 people buy a newer model, that 100 people dont want to have a car and only 10 people that bought the new model counts, because obviuosly they didnt buy the new one so they didnt "want" it. maybe thats becuase they already had one. people dnt buy other consoles that much in the given time period becuase they already had them, no point in having two eggsboxes now is there.

After several minutes of rereading that text block I finally understand what you're trying to say. You're right in that no single period of time, viewed in a vacuum, can reflect the overall success of a console. All three consoles had periods in which they sold well, and times they sold poorly. Still, the overall sales have always favored the Wii, and the Wii was outselling the other 2 almost from launch. In fact, if any console was at risk of fully saturating the market it was the Wii, which sold well at first but slowly lost ground in the last few years of its life. That fact that so many people had already bought it probably didn't help, and unlike the Xbox Wii's don't get red rings of death.

For something to "Break" it should work first. Whether Wii controller actually works as intended is a long discussion. Well unless you claim that responding half the time is working as intended.

the Wii remote pretty much works spot on as long as you use it the right way. No it may not be 1 to 1 responsive for people who play like they have Parkinson's disease, which includes you apparently, but it works well enough that both Sony and Microsoft tried to copy Nintendo's idea and make their own motion control devices.

Motion controls arent innovation. Its been tried couple decades ago and turned out bad, and so it did again. That would be claiming that driving with horses woudl be innovating becuase hey noones is doing that (anymore).

I'm just gonna come out and say it: you suck at making comparisons, especially when they involve vehicles apparently. Yes there were a few brief attempts to create functional motion control devices in the 90s, they never fucking worked, they were practically unusable, and they were just addons anyway that weren't even produced by Nintendo or Sega, no games were ever made that required them, or even utilized them properly.
With the Wii, Nintendo made working motion controls that combined gyroscopic sensors with light detectors (which hadn't been done before btw) and built them into its primary controller. They weren't bringing anything back, they were fixing something that had never worked before and then used it for things it had never been used for before. They made a whole host of games that actually required motion controls as an integral part of the gameplay.

And really, you are arguing that Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good? really?

Ya, most of them, go look up the reviews for a few. Here, I'll save you some time:
[a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/donkey-kong-country-returns"]DKCR[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/super-mario-galaxy-2"]SMG2[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/super-smash-bros-brawl"] SSBB[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/mario-kart-wii"] MKW[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/new-super-mario-bros-wii"] NSMBW[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/kirbys-epic-yarn"] KEY[/a].
It's all subjective of course so if you personally hate them that's fine, the fact is me and many others enjoy them, so ya.

 

[Strazdas]

For something to "Break" it should work first. Whether Wii controller actually works as intended is a long discussion. Well unless you claim that responding half the time is working as intended.

the Wii remote pretty much works spot on as long as you use it the right way. No it may not be 1 to 1 responsive for people who play like they have Parkinson's disease, which includes you apparently, but it works well enough that both Sony and Microsoft tried to copy Nintendo's idea and make their own motion control devices.

Motion controls arent innovation. Its been tried couple decades ago and turned out bad, and so it did again. That would be claiming that driving with horses woudl be innovating becuase hey noones is doing that (anymore).

I'm just gonna come out and say it: you suck at making comparisons, especially when they involve vehicles apparently. Yes there were a few brief attempts to create functional motion control devices in the 90s, they never fucking worked, they were practically unusable, and they were just addons anyway that weren't even produced by Nintendo or Sega, no games were ever made that required them, or even utilized them properly.
With the Wii, Nintendo made working motion controls that combined gyroscopic sensors with light detectors (which hadn't been done before btw) and built them into its primary controller. They weren't bringing anything back, they were fixing something that had never worked before and then used it for things it had never been used for before. They made a whole host of games that actually required motion controls as an integral part of the gameplay.

And really, you are arguing that Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good? really?

Ya, most of them, go look up the reviews for a few. Here, I'll save you some time:
[a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/donkey-kong-country-returns"]DKCR[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/super-mario-galaxy-2"]SMG2[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/super-smash-bros-brawl"] SSBB[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/mario-kart-wii"] MKW[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/new-super-mario-bros-wii"] NSMBW[/a], [a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/kirbys-epic-yarn"] KEY[/a].
It's all subjective of course so if you personally hate them that's fine, the fact is me and many others enjoy them, so ya.

A simple answer would be: your wrong. Controler does not work well even if used right. The controlers in the 90s may not been made by nintendo, but it is the same feature, and it didnt work then and it doesnt work now. Yes there are games that force you to use it now, only adds fire to my point of nintendo being mad.
As for youį list, notice how 4/6 games you mentioned is Mario, a franchise that has been run on nostalgia only for longer than anything else in gaming industry. Those are your top games? I stay with "you are arguing that Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good? really?"

 

[Olas]

A simple answer would be: your wrong. Controler does not work well even if used right. The controlers in the 90s may not been made by nintendo, but it is the same feature, and it didnt work then and it doesnt work now. Yes there are games that force you to use it now, only adds fire to my point of nintendo being mad.
As for youį list, notice how 4/6 games you mentioned is Mario, a franchise that has been run on nostalgia only for longer than anything else in gaming industry. Those are your top games? I stay with "you are arguing that Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good? really?"

I really don't know why I'm still arguing with you, the fact that you think the Powerglove is the same as the Wii remote pretty much invalidates you as a credible source on anything. The powerglove literally only read which general 2D direction your hand was facing (up, down, left, or right) and mapped that to the D-pad output, poorly I might add; the Wii tracks the remotes 3 dimensional position, direction, and acceleration completely separately from it's D-pad and joystick outputs.

As for the games I listed, only 2 of them are traditional Mario titles, Mario Kart is and has been a standalone racing series since the SNES, anyone will tell you that. I'm assuming that you're counting Brawl as the fourth Mario title, which is utter nonsense for reasons too obvious for me to even bother explaining to a dimwit like you.
You are right though that Mario carries plenty of nostalgia, and who doesn't like nostalgia? but IGN, Gamespot, Edge, 1UP, and GamesRadar didn't all give Galaxy 2 perfect 10/10s because of nostalgia.
So, to answer your question: no, I'm not saying Nintendos first party titles for Wii were good, it's EVERYONE ELSE who is saying that.
If there are a few people who think Nintendo's games are crap, that's fine, but they are clearly a small minority, and no game ever pleases everyone.

Feel free to admit defeat whenever, otherwise I'll happily keep this discussion going.