Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Did Wii U inspire the gaming industry yet again?

    Even though, some claim that Nintendo is failing, the company remains as the pioneers in gaming industry. They paved way for remote controlled gaming which is now Kinect and PS Eye.

    Similarly, Wii U inspired game developers to integrate tablets or touch phones into games. The upcoming Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs allow players to use tablets to perform various functions.

    In my opinion, this is going to be awesome because hacking or launching a missile from a tablet screen will be an immersive experience. This is going to further enhance gameplay and Nintendo is the forefathers of this technology integration.

    It's just inferior hardware and lack of third party titles that hinder Wii U's reach. If they do so, it will rule the world again as it did decades ago! My second console was a Nintendo SNES.

    Anyone else feel the same that Wii U is great, no matter what?


  2. #2
    Captain Sexual Innuendo Cronus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,107
    Nintendo are good at seeing the potential of tech, buying it and refining it and then, with their dedicated first party support, making that btech a success. But pioneers? no sorry, not in my book. Console camera's pre-date the Wii, as does motion controls. 'Remote Play' and second screens pre-date the WiiU as well.
    [CENTER]

  3. #3
    New Member BadgerSquadron3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    In the basement
    Posts
    36
    Honestly, I don't think the gamepad is a very good idea. Not even Nintendo has properly utilized it with their console, and it was THEIR idea. The problem with it is, it doesn't enhance the gaming experience. If anything, it just distracts your from what you are really trying to do.

    While I don't currently own a Wii U, I will say that from what I have heard, there is yet to be a game where the gamepad improves gameplay. Right now it is used as a gimmicky menu system, and that just isn't enough. I will say that those screens above look pretty cool, but I don't think they will be very successful. Its annoying having to have a control and a tablet used for one game. It gets distracting and IMO it doesn't help with immersion.

    I'm not saying that touch screens don't have potential, but I wouldn't say that the Wii U has really improved the outlook on their use.

  4. #4
    I don't think that they inspired anybody. Smartphones have been all about interconnectivity and that's just what the Wii U is doing - making use of a tablet controller as a second screen for the main game you are playing on the big screen. But, Smartphones have been doing this all along, in a more practical way. Let's take for instance the app Splashtop which allows a mobile phone to control your laptop or desktop PC.

  5. #5
    New Member Gamer_Fries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    30
    No honestly as many have said Nintendo has not been doing a very good job as of late and that's kind of sad, but people don't really want to take too many risks on things like the Wii U. They might have a strong first party development but even that's not doing the best it could be and you can't except everyone to buy the same game on a less enjoyable platform.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,139
    Quote Originally Posted by uashwinp View Post
    Even though, some claim that Nintendo is failing, the company remains as the pioneers in gaming industry.
    They are failing. They're losing money per unit on the console itself.

    They paved way for remote controlled gaming which is now Kinect and PS Eye.
    No. I direct you to the Playstation EyeToy, back on the PS2. Also the GameTrak, which came with the PS2 game Dark Wind, a first person fighting game where your body is the controller,

    Similarly, Wii U inspired game developers to integrate tablets or touch phones into games. The upcoming Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs allow players to use tablets to perform various functions.
    No. Lots of games have apps that enable you to do things. Mass Effect 3, Far Cry 3, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

    In my opinion, this is going to be awesome because hacking or launching a missile from a tablet screen will be an immersive experience. This is going to further enhance gameplay and Nintendo is the forefathers of this technology integration.
    I don't see the appeal in having to look away from my TV to play a game. It seems counterproductive, and especially in a first person shooter, that moment I look away could kill me.

    It's just inferior hardware and lack of third party titles that hinder Wii U's reach. If they do so, it will rule the world again as it did decades ago! My second console was a Nintendo SNES.
    I've been saying this for a while. Unless Nintendo get some big guns on board and produce some truly amazing IPs like Sony and Microsoft have done, they'll never break into the "hardcore" market the way they wanted to with the Wii-U. From a technical standpoint Nintendo have always been the weakest party. The DS was weaker than the PSP, the N64 was weaker than the PS1, the 3DS is weaker than the Vita, the Wii was weaker than the PS3/360. The Wii-U is about on par with the PS3/360, but as the supposed precursor to the next generation, that's sloppy work. Both the PS4 and XBONE are set up to blow the Wii-U out of the water with regards to sheer power, tech, and most importantly, exclusives. What big exclusives does the Wii-U have? See how many you can name that aren't first-party.

    Poor form, indeed.

  7. #7
    The main issue with using a tablet or phone as a peripheral is that it doesn't really add much to the game. I fell that it's almost like a fad that probably won't take off unless some dev's get really creative.

  8. #8
    TRGT The real gamer_thing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    3,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Éclair View Post
    They are failing. They're losing money per unit on the console itself.
    As said in the other WiiU thread they make money after one game per console is sold (which is surely a guarantee) so they aren't failing in that sense - the "fail" is that they won't be profiting a lot because I doubt many WiiU owners have been able to buy more than one or two games for the damn thing..............


    Quote Originally Posted by Éclair View Post
    No. I direct you to the Playstation EyeToy, back on the PS2. Also the GameTrak, which came with the PS2 game Dark Wind, a first person fighting game where your body is the controller,
    I know these were the ones that "came first" but does that necessarily mean they paved the way for what we have today? There is a very big time gap between the release of EyeToy and the release of Kinect. Whilst it's arguable that if Nintendo hadn't done motion controls with Wii, Microsoft may not have played the "me too" game and pursued their own tech. Hence I'd say that what Wii did was more pioneering than what EyeToy, GameTrak or even the NES Power Glove did.

    Or to put it another way, it'd be kind of like saying the Virtual Boy paved the way for Oculus Rift


    Quote Originally Posted by Éclair View Post
    No. Lots of games have apps that enable you to do things. Mass Effect 3, Far Cry 3, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.
    I'm guessing he means that Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs will be using tablet apps as a gameplay addition - as far as I'm aware apps for all those games only function as community hubs or profile viewers, or the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Éclair View Post
    The Wii-U is about on par with the PS3/360 but as the supposed precursor to the next generation, that's sloppy work.
    Careful - the WiiU at launch is outputting graphically what the PS3/360 can manage today. But look how lacklustre the graphics of launch PS3/360 games are compared to now - WiiU games will continue to improve graphically and whilst it's not going to manage what PS4/XB1 will achieve, it's not going to be as far away as you'd think. And remember that WiiU is also powering a second screen, streaming wirelessly to it in real time; I disagree that a console with enough grunt to do that (and at the price point it hits) is "sloppy work".


    Quote Originally Posted by Éclair View Post
    What big exclusives does the Wii-U have? See how many you can name that aren't first-party.
    Well that's been the case with Nintendo for yonks now but what's worrying about the WiiU specifically, is that nearly a year after its launch now, how many first-party exclusives can you name that are playable? Now that's sloppy work!
    TRGT - Tosser Racing Gran Turismo


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,139
    Quote Originally Posted by The real gamer_thing View Post
    As said in the other WiiU thread they make money after one game per console is sold (which is surely a guarantee) so they aren't failing in that sense - the "fail" is that they won't be profiting a lot because I doubt many WiiU owners have been able to buy more than one or two games for the damn thing..............
    Plus there aren't that many legitimately good games on it to begin with.

    I know these were the ones that "came first" but does that necessarily mean they paved the way for what we have today? There is a very big time gap between the release of EyeToy and the release of Kinect. Whilst it's arguable that if Nintendo hadn't done motion controls with Wii, Microsoft may not have played the "me too" game and pursued their own tech. Hence I'd say that what Wii did was more pioneering than what EyeToy, GameTrak or even the NES Power Glove did.
    I'm not even sure why Kinect or PS Eye is being compared to the Wii, honestly. The Wii uses a motion controller which is powered via infra-red technology. It uses basic sensors to figure out its location, and transmits that to the bar above/below the TV. In and of itself, it is not a camera. It doesn't capture images and use them to power gameplay. That alone should set them far enough apart. Hell, if we want to go into the motion controller aspects, one could argue that the "tilt-up" Star Power from Guitar Hero was a precursor to the Wii's control system because of the way it determines its own location.

    I'm guessing he means that Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs will be using tablet apps as a gameplay addition - as far as I'm aware apps for all those games only function as community hubs or profile viewers, or the like.
    They are basic, yes. But they do have practical applications in the games, for the most part. Unnecessary yes, but still. Then we have Xbox SmartGlass, enabling you to use your 360 via your smartphone, so I'm not really seeing how Nintendo are in any way pioneers of this technology. And the functionality of the tablet controller thus far is unimpressive. It's a neat idea, don't get me wrong. But like I said before, when I'm playing a game, the last thing I want to do is look away from the screen. They used it in ZombiU; to break door codes you had to use the tablet rather than just doing it on the TV screen... in real time. While you're looking down at your controller trying to figure out if the elevator code has a 4 in it or not, you get eaten because time hasn't stopped, but you're still in a menu. Ever been called by your family while playing an MMO? It's the same concept. The action continues, yet you can do nothing to stop it because you're trapped in a crappy gameplay addition that hinders the player rather than helping them.


    Careful - the WiiU at launch is outputting graphically what the PS3/360 can manage today. But look how lacklustre the graphics of launch PS3/360 games are compared to now - WiiU games will continue to improve graphically and whilst it's not going to manage what PS4/XB1 will achieve, it's not going to be as far away as you'd think. And remember that WiiU is also powering a second screen, streaming wirelessly to it in real time; I disagree that a console with enough grunt to do that (and at the price point it hits) is "sloppy work".
    I consider it sloppy work because they talked it up so much. It's so amazing, it'll take advantage of awesome technology, it's powered by blah blah blah. And yet even Nintendo themselves aren't making use of these so-called capabilities. If the best they can do is show off games I played in 2011, I really don't think they're going to stand against the big boys this time around. Like I said, they need big guns, and they need something amazing. They need third-party IPs by the powerhouse developers, IPs that showcase the supposed might behind the console. As you say, we're almost a year into its life and it has yet to get any meaningful games. They can announce games all they want, but until they get something truly worthwhile, the Wii-U is going to look like the kid in class who has a story for everything, but never manages to live up to the expectations his mouth shows off.

    Well that's been the case with Nintendo for yonks now but what's worrying about the WiiU specifically, is that nearly a year after its launch now, how many first-party exclusives can you name that are playable? Now that's sloppy work!
    What I don't get, is how much they big up things that...shouldn't really matter. People have clamoured for a new Zelda game ever since the Wii-U released, and what gets announced? An HD version of a game two generations old. Surely a better use of their time would be to work on either a new title entirely, or on a total remake of Ocarina of Time and/or Majora's Mask, two of the most widely-loved Zelda games in the world? Many gamers would buy the console just for that alone, whereas... well, I've honestly never heard Wind Waker praised. It hasn't been called terrible, but I've never seen it praised. It's just... there.

    My issue with Nintendo in general is that they try too hard to innovate where it isn't really necessary. Same goes for some developers on the consoles, too. I mean, I have a Wii, and it was great... for a while. But the novelty wore off because a lot of the games I like became a chore. I love the fast-paced action of Red Steel, and despite how enjoyable it is, it throws me off too easily. I'm not used to fighting with a sword that doesn't have any physical existence. So the game became a training exercise rather than something truly fun. On the other hand, Rune Factory: Frontier. Pretty much everyone knows my absolute love of anything related to Harvest Moon and Rune Factory, but that game does not work well with the Wii's motion controller. It had a great story, but the controls were dire to the point it affected gameplay, which in turn affected my enjoyment of the game. I don't know if Oceans/Tides of Destiny suffered the same fate as I play with a PS3 controller, but it just overall isn't the kind of game which should be played that way.

    Put simply, they use a gimmick every time. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. The N64's weird 3-trigger controller was an interesting creation, let down by the fact it forced the user to adhere to a control system that made absolutely no sense unless the N64 was your first console. Switching between L/R to L/M or M/R made no sense, but you had to do it if you wanted to play. The Wii introduced the motion system, and now the Wii-U has done away with that in favour of the tablet controller. I honestly think they should stick to handhelds, they can't really go wrong there. Aside from not adding a second circle pad to the 3DS, but I digress.

  10. #10
    I just can't see it. The new Wii sucks. People want realistic graphics and amazing game play. The Wii just doesn't offer that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •