WiiU, the future of hardcore gaming?

[darkewaffle]

the reaction to the Wii's deput at E3 was WWAAYY better than the Wii U's was at this years E3 showing. everyone toted and raved about how cool the motion controls were. it was about 6-12 months after the Wii released that people realized how shitty it was for anything other than party games and first party games.

people have a reason to feel skeptical about the Wii U after seeing how the lifespan of the Wii actually turned out.

Lifespan? Nintendo has released a console roughly every 6 years since the original NES. Nothing's changed. The only supporters of the extended console cycle are the 360 and PS3 camps because they were in the red for so long and those systems are honestly 'good enough' graphics to last for a few more years, easily.

 

[purbeast0]

Lifespan? Nintendo has released a console roughly every 6 years since the original NES. Nothing's changed. The only supporters of the extended console cycle are the 360 and PS3 camps because they were in the red for so long and those systems are honestly 'good enough' graphics to last for a few more years, easily.

i really don't know what your response has to do with what i said. by "lifespan" i meant the wii being the main nintendo console. the fact they did not show any wii titles at this E3 I think it's pretty safe to assume the console's life is coming to an end and will not be supported by nintendo after the Wii U comes out.

and you say nothing's changed since the NES days? you think the Wii has as much 3rd party support as the NES and SNES did?

my post had absolutely nothing to do with the length of a consoles lifespan.

i'm stlil not sure exactly what your post had to do w/mine.

 

[darkewaffle]

i really don't know what your response has to do with what i said. by "lifespan" i meant the wii being the main nintendo console. the fact they did not show any wii titles at this E3 I think it's pretty safe to assume the console's life is coming to an end and will not be supported by nintendo after the Wii U comes out.

my post had absolutely nothing to do with the length of a consoles lifespan.

people have a reason to feel skeptical about the Wii U after seeing how the lifespan of the Wii actually turned out.

Then I really have no idea what you were getting at. It sounded like you were saying that the Wii had a shorter lifespan than expected which would be a reason to be skeptical about the Wii U? Which really is unfounded.

I'd say it's safe to assume that the showing of any successor console signals the end of life for a previous console. Following the release of the 360 and PS3 there were very, very few memorable releases then on the Xbox and the PS2. The only one I can remember was God of War II which had been in development on the PS2 long enough to justify the release.

and you say nothing's changed since the NES days? you think the Wii has as much 3rd party support as the NES and SNES did?

Completely off-base. Part of the whole Dreamcast analogy that seems to be going on with the WiiU is the implication that the release date is at a bad time and it'll be at an unhappy medium between technologies and that Nintendo is trying to get a jump on the competition and so on and so forth. What's really happening though is much less interesting; its been 6 years since their previous console so they are releasing another one just like always. The point is Nintendo isn't changing their ways, just their console.

 

[purbeast0]

i quoted you because you said the Wii U is being received at e3 just as the Wii was at e3, and I stated that no it wasn't, at all.

 

[Deeko]

Full HD in 3D is basically like human sight at it's best, maybe even better, so why bother trying to get to 2160p anyways?

Putting aside the gameplay vs graphics debate, this statement is just factually inaccurate for a number of reasons. Firstly - yes, there's still a need for higher resolutions. More important - there's more the graphics quality than resolution, you do realize this, yes? Lighting still has a LONG way to do, and there are still improvements to be made in polygon count, animation realism, physics, etc. We are NOWHERE near photorealism in real-time. Pixar movies aren't even there yet, and those aren't rendered in real-time, they are rendered painstakingly slowly on big server farms.

People are free to debate graphics vs gameplay, and they have been for years, but to say we have achieved all we can in terms of visual quality is just not even close to correct.

 

[Deeko]

The hardware the Wii is rumored to be packing puts it way ahead of the competition.

Being more powerful than a seven year old xbox 360 is not impressive. The next generation of Playstation/Xbox will, in all likelihood, destroy the WiiU in terms of processing power.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I haven't even looked at Wii U but hopefully the (very distant) future of hardcore gaming is more like Tron and less like being essentially the same thing I used to do when I first played a game on our Odyssey when I was a little kid.

In short, innovation of interaction is where these companies need to target. Hopefully they'll get it right eventually.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This guy must not have heard of 4K(movies are starting be shot for it, soon theaters will be upgraded to use it, eventually it will make its way into the consumer market).

We will eventually get to true photo realistic graphics in real time. Its just how long its going to take for the technology and artists to be capable of doing it.

The true question is how long will it take to be a widely adapted home technology, which is most likely at least 7-10 years away. That puts it way out of range for the next gen consoles which will probably all be 3d 1080p, which is plenty good for all but the most conceited videophile...albeit not as good as human sight pur, but still close enough to make the huge leap in cost not worth it to 99% of the populace.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Hardcore gamer is a stupid term. You've got people playing Black Ops/MW and people call them shitty console players. You've got pro gamers who are playing in Smash tournaments and don't shower for days. Oooh Darksiders. Big fucking deal. Play Dwarf Fortress if you're so damn hardcore. People call it hardcore because it hurts their ego when everyone's playing The Sims 3 or Flower.

You guys just want third party games. Get it straight.

 

[Pheran]

But in seriousness, its absolutely useless and a dumb feature. Limit of 1 controller per console, and not sold separately. Great move Nintendo.

Wait, what? I missed this bit of info. If that is true, this console is an epic fail.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Being more powerful than a seven year old xbox 360 is not impressive. The next generation of Playstation/Xbox will, in all likelihood, destroy the WiiU in terms of processing power.

which is ultimately irrelevant

the most powerful consoles have never been the long-term industry leaders

Sega's systems were more powerful than the NES and SNES but always trailed in sales

The first Play Station was also the least powerful relative to the Nintendo 64 and Saturn but dominated sales

The Play Station 2 was also outclassed by the XBox and even the GameCube and dominated sales even more than its predecessor

Now we have the Wii which has bested the PS3 and 360 in the greatest mismatch of console power ever

 

[LumbergTech]

Wait, what? I missed this bit of info. If that is true, this console is an epic fail.

one of those tablet controllers per console, otherwise it uses the regular ones from wii

yea i dont get it.......i was like..........................wtf..when i heard that

 

[mchammer187]

which is ultimately irrelevant

the most powerful consoles have never been the long-term industry leaders

Sega's systems were more powerful than the NES and SNES but always trailed in sales

The first Play Station was also the least powerful relative to the Nintendo 64 and Saturn but dominated sales

The Play Station 2 was also outclassed by the XBox and even the GameCube and dominated sales even more than its predecessor

Now we have the Wii which has bested the PS3 and 360 in the greatest mismatch of console power ever

I'm pretty sure the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis and the PSX was more powerful than the Saturn and N64 by far. N64 had better AA textures but could not push nearly as many polygons as the PSX

 

[crisium]

The SNES destroyed the Genesis in terms of power.

The PSX was way better than the Saturn in 3D. The N64 wasn't stronger than the PSX in every way either (polygons).

Your point stands that the most powerful console doesn't always win, but please get your facts straight.

 

[toyota]

I wasent aware Nintendo was including KB/Mouse support

its 100% casual

perhaps check the forum you are in? you can be a hardcore console gamer if I am not mistaken...


I think the new console looks pretty cool and its great that it will get many of the games I would like to play. I need to see price first of course.

 

[Deeko]

The SNES destroyed the Genesis in terms of power.

The PSX was way better than the Saturn in 3D. The N64 wasn't stronger than the PSX in every way either (polygons).

Your point stands that the most powerful console doesn't always win, but please get your facts straight.

Yea, the N64 also had major memory limitations, plus devs didn't want cartridges.

Also to the guy who made that comment, I already clarified that my point was not "better graphics win", rather it was a direct response to the comment about how powerful the Wii U would be.

 

[Ross Ridge]

I'm pretty sure the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis and the PSX was more powerful than the Saturn and N64 by far. N64 had better AA textures but could not push nearly as many polygons as the PSX

As far as I'm concerned, just having bilinear filtering gave the Nintendo 64 significantly better graphics than PlayStation. The unfiltered textures on the PSX just looked bad no matter how many polygons were on screen.

 

[smartpatrol]

WiiU won't be the future of hardcore gaming. Most likely it'll be just like the Wii, Gamecube, and N64: the system you buy for 1st-party Nintendo games.

It doesn't help that Nintendo fans will moan and whine until they get a new Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Smash Brothers, Kirby, and Starfox game. And if they're anything but a prettier rehash of older games, the Nintendo fans will whine some more.

Once the next Playstation and Xbox come out, they will be the hardcore systems of choice. WiiU will mostly get some inferior ports. Most third-party Wii games look like low-budget PS2 games, because devs don't bother to put any effort into their Wii shovelware. WiiU will likely inhabit the same gaming ghetto.

 

[RussianSensation]

The SNES destroyed the Genesis in terms of power.

SNES didn't not have better looking games than the Genesis. I know as I owned both. In fact, some games on the SNES had limited mature/gore content (i.e., Mortal Combat on the Genesis was better for that reason). While SNES had arguably a better library of games, the graphics were almost identical between the 2 consoles.

The PSX was way better than the Saturn in 3D. The N64 wasn't stronger than the PSX in every way either (polygons).

N64 had superior graphics to the jaggied mess that was the PS1. If you played games like Goldeneye 007, Turok 2, Banjo-Kazooie, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron then you would have known that it had superior graphics to PS1. It wasn't until PS2's SSX that 1080 Snowboarding was finally dethroned as the best snowboarding game. At the time, 1080 Snowboarding had great draw distance, top texture design, amazing particle effects for a console.

WiiU won't be the future of hardcore gaming. Most likely it'll be just like the Wii, Gamecube, and N64: the system you buy for 1st-party Nintendo games.

I will probably agree with this assessment. Since PS4 and Xbox next will come out after Wii U, they will have more powerful hardware. Secondly, they both have superior online communities/online play. Still, a lot of gamers might end up with PS4 OR Xbox720 + Wii U (for 1st party titles). Then again Wii U won't cost $500+ at launch so there is a trade-off between it and the likely much higher priced next generation Sony and Microsoft systems. Considering consoles have extended their lifetimes from the usual 5 year cycle, which used to be the norm, to the 8-10 year life cycles, it's not unreasonable to own more than 1 console now. The investment isn't that much when you consider how long these consoles will last in the next generation. As long as Wii U sells 50 Million plus, it doesn't necessarily need to be the best selling console to make $.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Being a hardcore gamer is about as meaningful as being a hardcore knitter.

:awe: Sig material!

 

[Monster_Munch]

I've bought every Nintendo device since the SNES and as long as this thing is relatively cheap I'll be getting at as well.

It looks like it could be the perfect machine for browsing youtube in the living room. An iPad like touchscreen in your hands connected to a 1080p big screen TV.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I remember this sort of negative sentiment prior to the launch of the original Wii, and it went on to rape the market...

 

[novasatori]

It looks cool, but I'm not sure it will be all that great.

Games will still come to PS3/360 and if you have one of those, aside from the controller and first party games there's no reason to really get it. Plus just a year or two later the next gen consoles (like, really next gen, not just innovative controller) will be out with probably significantly more power and features.

Tough to say really, because I love the controller idea, but only having a max of one per console is kinda like... wat?

 

[gorcorps]

I remember this sort of negative sentiment prior to the launch of the original Wii, and it went on to rape the market...

Doesn't matter. It sold like crazy which is good for Nintendo, but I know many games who feel the Wii was the worst console of the generation. Very few great titles in comparison to the others. It may be a financial success, but that doesn't mean it'll be well received by gamers.

 

[crisium]

SNES didn't not have better looking games than the Genesis. I know as I owned both. In fact, some games on the SNES had limited mature/gore content (i.e., Mortal Combat on the Genesis was better for that reason). While SNES had arguably a better library of games, the graphics were almost identical between the 2 consoles.

64 on screen colors vs 256. Enough said. But in case it's not:

Yoshi's Island
Donkey Kong Country 1, 2, 3
Super Mario RPG

These games had no peer on the Genesis, and that includes Vector Man and Sonic 3D Blast which could not touch these. The Genesis was more receptive toward Neo Geo ports than the SNES thanks to similar hardware, but otherwise it could not touch the quality of SNES exclusive graphics.

And graphics are not everything. The Genesis has a vastly, vastly, inferior sound chip compared to the SNES.

The Genesis was released two years earlier so it is neither a shame nor a surprise that it has inferior graphics when both systems are pushed to the highest level. This is an established fact on retro gaming forums, sorry pal.