New Nintendo console - Wii U

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are confusing aesthetics for graphics. You want an aesthetically pleasing game, it doesn't need to be cutting edge graphics, no?

Extra Credits recently did an episode on that.

Extra Credits can be pretty awesome.

And yeah, aesthetics != graphics. Something can be aesthetically pleasing without being top of the line, graphically. I mean, Okami is one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen and it's a PS2 game; graphics-wise it doesn't compare to anything released right now, but the art-style is gorgeous.

So, no, it's not about the graphics. It's about the art style and direction and how they utilize that within a game.

And I'd like to see an HD Zelda, but I sure as hell won't throw down my controller and pout (like it seems some people will) if it's not absolutely perfect.

E3 2011: Wii U Designed for One
It's not set in stone, but maybe you won't have to buy more controllers for your new console.

A little bit of a mystery is starting to surround Nintendo's Wii U system. Just how many tablet controllers can the system support? Obviously replicating a display is no easy task, and so far anything we've seen with the system only features one of these complex devices (sometimes with up to four Wii remotes).

After detecting a pattern, many journalists have asked if there is a limitation or if the demos were not exploring the full range of the system's capabilities. For the most part, we've had no answer. Today, in an interview with News, Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto discussed how the system was designed:

"Our basic premise is that you can use one with a system," Miyamoto told the site. He detailed further that asking players to use more controllers started to beg the question of why not just find a way to use a 3DS as a Wii U controller.

Don't think the idea of a single controller Wii U is set in stone, though. Miyamoto discussed the notion of friends bringing over their controllers. Would friends be able to play against other friends on one system?

"We are doing research about if someone brings their controller to their friend's house and they want to play together on Wii U to whether or not something like that would be possible."

I still say the cost of the tablet is prohibitive... could be the machine can't currently handle two properly at the same time. Being just one package can easily keep the price at $400. half of that price is the controller 350-300 would be much sweeter though

anyway, besides fighters and some sports games, many games have ditched split-screen multiplayer for online. Nintendo is the only company keeping traditional multiplayer alive, so it's time to move on... you can still use up to 4 wiimotes 😬

Originally posted by dadudemon
This has never been true of any generational console release. Sure, there are "those" games but there are always games that show, quite clearly, the graphics jump between consoles. That goes for all systems except for the Wii. The Wii was not supposed to be a power jump like the SNES, N64, and Gamecube were. The Wii U is. Sure, we'll see a jump over the Wii, no doubt. But it's looking like it's not going to be a jump above the PS3 or 360, which is disappointed.

Some people say, "IT'S NOT ABOUT TEH GRAPHIX!!!!" Yeah, it is. It's about the entire package: not just graphics. You can't say that you were not charmed by the New Super Mario Bros. graphics. They were fun and part of what made the game so awesome. Same thing with the N64's Yoshi's Story: quite a splendid game (graphically and gameplay).

I want both content and graphics. I don't want the best, but I want a generational jump. Something between $200-$300 would be fine and should provide that jump.

I hear ya, but things are a lot different now bro. The N64, ps1 and ps2 all had gpu's that were not comparable to anything out for PCs at the time. Currently, the 360 and PS3's gpu, as well as the Wii's gpu are based heavily on the architecture of PC graphics cards. The next big graphical leap that you're expecting won't be happening until the next gen of uber gpu's come out around 3-4 years from now.

As for the U compared to current systems, the difference won't be noticeable right away. Maybe, a higher output resolution or smoother frame rate for some games at launch. It will get better though, especially if there is a PC version to draw assets from rather than porting up from the console versions etc. The important thing for Nintendo is convincing the hardcore to opt for a U version of a multi console release. They'll likely succeed in winning back fans like me that they lost with the Wii, and in peeling off 10-15% of the ps360 fanbase.

Rest assured though that in all likelihood you're going to see crisper visuals, and a smoother frame rate at the very least in the early going. Not sure about sound though.

I'll tell you what bothers me *right now* is the seeming tepid non-committal comments that we're getting from people like Ken Levine and Frank Gibeau regard big time core games like Mass Effect and Bio Shock. If the system in fact has the power to spare then what's the big flipping deal?

This console. LOOKS AMAZING. Utterly amazing, if it really does have as much third party support as is rumoured, I expect great, great things.

Originally posted by dmills
I'll tell you what bothers me *right now* is the seeming tepid non-committal comments that we're getting from people like Ken Levine and Frank Gibeau regard big time core games like Mass Effect and Bio Shock. If the system in fact has the power to spare then what's the big flipping deal?

Well, EA is notorious for never wanting to try anything new, so that can explain Mass Effect.

Ken Levine just straight up said no to U development lulz.

"There's no secret thing going on there," Levine says, "We have no plans on making a game for that platform right now. I'm not saying 'No,' it's just -- who knows?

http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/220283/e3-2011-is-bioshock-infinite-coming-to-wii-u/

Ouch. In the gaming world a comment like that is tantamount to "when pigs fly". I knew that some of those developers bitching about the Wii's lack of power were full of shyte lol! They won't bring a core game to Ninty no matter what.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are confusing aesthetics for graphics. You want an aesthetically pleasing game, it doesn't need to be cutting edge graphics, no?

Extra Credits recently did an episode on that.

No, "graphics" does not necesaarily mean "400 billion polygons a second." Or "ultra high resolution surface textures." It's just simply what you see on the screen. AKA, the graphics/image/display.

What I'm referencing is not just aesthetics, frame-rates, surface textures, shading, etc. I'm referencing the entire visual experience when I say graphics. The "textures" in Yoshi's Story were quite detailed: something the SNES could not even come close to rendering had it been 8 times as powerful. The colors also far exceeded those used by the SNES. Those were brought together in a very nice aesthetic with a really smooth frame-rate: the whole "graphics" package. That's what made it "good."

New Super Mario Bros.? Some of the sequences could not have been done on the Gamecube as even the Wii experienced frame-rate slow-down. However, New Super Mario Bros. is one of the most polished recent games I can think of. It was almost perfectly designed to match the Wii hardware. There were hardly any glitches. And it was nice mixing in 3D environments with a "virtually" 2D game. (It wasn't 2D. Most of the stuff you saw on screen were 3D objects. That was part of the "charm" of that game.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "graphics" does not necesaarily mean "400 billion polygons a second." Or "ultra high resolution surface textures." It's just simply what you see on the screen. AKA, the graphics/image/display.

What I'm referencing is not just aesthetics, frame-rates, surface textures, shading, etc. I'm referencing the entire visual experience when I say graphics. The "textures" in Yoshi's Story were quite detailed: something the SNES could not even come close to rendering had it been 8 times as powerful. The colors also far exceeded those used by the SNES. Those were brought together in a very nice aesthetic with a really smooth frame-rate: the whole "graphics" package. That's what made it "good."

New Super Mario Bros.? Some of the sequences could not have been done on the Gamecube as even the Wii experienced frame-rate slow-down. However, New Super Mario Bros. is one of the most polished recent games I can think of. It was almost perfectly designed to match the Wii hardware. There were hardly any glitches. And it was nice mixing in 3D environments with a "virtually" 2D game. (It wasn't 2D. Most of the stuff you saw on screen were 3D objects. That was part of the "charm" of that game.)

I see, I believe there is just a confusion on terms there, what you said i'd class as aesthetics, graphics being a factor of it, you apparently define it the other way around. I think we are in agreement on the meaning of what is said though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see, I believe there is just a confusion on terms there, what you said i'd class as aesthetics, graphics being a factor of it, you apparently define it the other way around. I think we are in agreement on the meaning of what is said though.

Yes, I consider "graphics" to be what is displayed on the screen. Part of what is displayed on the screen are several elements which includes "aesthetics."

We are not defining it the same: we are defining it with "graphics" and "aesthetics" in an opposite way.

I think a game with high-levels of aethetics fails without proper "power" behind it. For instance, a very aesthetic game for the iPhone/iPad came out recently but it was a bit irritating because it didn't have very good surface textures. Well, it did...but not good enough and it made some of the gameplay confusing.

I guess I consider it similar to how I rate movies: it's a large list of items that make up the final score.

I think this looks great. I am a casual gamer, my only current console is a Wii; but this looks more fun than the Wii was (and I liked the Wii). I would buy this depending on the price.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/713574/Feedback-at-E3-2011-Sony-Microsoft-Nintendo-Everything-Else-From-The-Show/

G4 analysis of the big four press conferences... they really aren't very excited about Nintendo or the Wii U.

I feel like a) Apple should be at the E3 (though the WWDC is at the same time so I guess that's good) and b) that what Microsoft revealed (Xbox Live TV) should have been revealed somewhere else as it has nothing really to do with gamin, as it would get way more coverage and because it seems like a direct "Look Google....Apple....**** you, we have our own TV solution now!"

Wow. After announcing the Wii U, Nintendo's stock dropped to a five year low. Lets hope they can turn this around.

http://www.destructoid.com/e3-nintendo-stock-drops-to-5-year-low-after-wii-u-debut-203323.phtml

I will inevitably buy this console just for Smash Brothers.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/713574/Feedback-at-E3-2011-Sony-Microsoft-Nintendo-Everything-Else-From-The-Show/

G4 analysis of the big four press conferences... they really aren't very excited about Nintendo or the Wii U.

I understand the stock dip. Nintendo caused a massive amount of uncertainty with Wii u. The market hates uncertainty. When I first saw it I thought it was just a peripheral to the Wii and boy was I pissed!

Originally posted by dmills
Meh. I hold g4 in about as high regard as I do ign. Not very high at all. When the Wii came out back in 06 they were some of its biggest apologists, then flip flopped later.

I understand the stock dip. Nintendo caused a massive amount of uncertainty with Wii u. The market hates uncertainty. When I first saw it I thought it was just a peripheral to the Wii and boy was I pissed!

Honestly it was so long ago that I don't recall what the E3 conference when the Wii was announced looked like, or what they announced. That Twilight Princes was going to come out on the Wii as well as the Game Cube? And I guess a lot of stuff about Wii Sports resort, Red Steel and some party games? Still, in retrospect I can kinda understand getting on board the initial Wii train, even though I personally did not. Motion control was new and they had game announcements. Wii U had video footage of games running on the PS3/360, a tech demo with a bird and an graphically underwhelming Zelda "HD" (HD is in quotes because it looked somewhere between 480p and 720p, nothing spectacular). They didn't even announce system specs. I can't really fault a press junket for not being excited for the Wii U or for have been exited for the original Wii in the past. I agree about G4, I mostly go to G4 because of the humor and not their actually critic, overall I prefer Kotaku (who also don't seem jazzed about the Wii U) but I find IGN to be fairly reputable. Nintendo blew their load early, they should have waited until next year when they have something to show.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Honestly it was so long ago that I don't recall what the E3 conference when the Wii was announced looked like, or what they announced. That Twilight Princes was going to come out on the Wii as well as the Game Cube? And I guess a lot of stuff about Wii Sports resort, Red Steel and some party games? Still, in retrospect I can kinda understand getting on board the initial Wii train, even though I personally did not. Motion control was new and they had game announcements. Wii U had video footage of games running on the PS3/360, a tech demo with a bird and an graphically underwhelming Zelda "HD" (HD is in quotes because it looked somewhere between 480p and 720p, nothing spectacular). They didn't even announce system specs. I can't really fault a press junket for not being excited for the Wii U or for have been exited for the original Wii in the past. I agree about G4, I mostly go to G4 because of the humor and not their actually critic, overall I prefer Kotaku (who also don't seem jazzed about the Wii U) but I find IGN to be fairly reputable. Nintendo blew their load early, they should have waited until next year when they have something to show.

👆

Even though I sorta sat out this latest console round, Kotaku along with Game informer (their coverage is always even tempered) and to a lesser degree, game trailers is how I get my info.

The Wii u came across as a mixed bag. Nobody particularly loved it or hated it, but rather people seem to be proceeding with caution. Some -like myself- were initially confused. Even some of the so called hardcore developers supposedly down with ninty seemed a bit confused as to what was going on lol!

I think that Nintendo had a couple of objectives at E3:

-Get the name out there

-Start the process of people associating them with "hardcore"

-Gauging reaction so they can adjust accordingly.

That's why no concrete info on specs was given. I think that some final design elements aren't quite in place and ninty will make its final implementations based on the e3 initial response. Imo of course lol, but this is the first time that I can recall Nintendo not doing a full info blowout of an impending console release. There has to be a good reason for this.

Originally posted by dmills
👆

Even though I sorta sat out this latest console round, Kotaku along with Game informer (their coverage is always even tempered) and to a lesser degree, game trailers is how I get my info.

The Wii u came across as a mixed bag. Nobody particularly loved it or hated it, but rather people seem to be proceeding with caution. Some -like myself- were initially confused. Even some of the so called hardcore developers supposedly down with ninty seemed a bit confused as to what was going on lol!

I think that Nintendo had a couple of objectives at E3.

Get the name out there
Start the process of people associating them with "hardcore"
Gauging reaction so they can adjust accordingly.

That's why no concrete info on specs was given. I think that some final design elements aren't in place and ninty will make its final implementations based on the e3 initial response. Imo of course lol, but this is the first time that I can recall Nintendo not doing a full info blowout of an impending console release.

Yeah that all seems to be the case. With the info at hand it's hard to gauge just how far they are into development, but considering that a lot of people were thinking late 2011 or early 2012 release a few months ago, it seems pretty clear they are further off than must people thought. Reggie even said in a interview after the conference something along the lines of "if we meet our expectations it will be as powerful as either the 360 and PS3." It seems like they haven't really decided just what they are doing with the finale model they produce for commercial release yet.

Next year Nintendo needs to show some new ips, ips that can compete with the Uncharteds and Gears on the third person shooter stage, and with the Halos and Killzones on the first person shooter stage. They need to show they have stuff for the Hardcore gamer. It's great that they have Mario and Zelda, but if we are being honest those aren't Hardcore titles in the same way Sly or Little Big Planet or Rachet and Clank aren't "Hardcore" titles. They are as close to a causal game as you can get without dancing. Microsoft and Sony are AMC and HBO, but Nintendo is content with being Nickelodeon. Now there is nothing wrong with being Nickelodeon - except for mostly costing on reruns of successful shows form decades ago - they made some great cartoons, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they are on the same level as HBO or AMC. Nintendo needs to be FX and go head to head with Sony and Microsoft, while at the same time offering their Nickelodeon "programming." If they can do that - and I think they can - then they could be a true powerhouse and reclaim the number one seat next gen without the scorn of "Hardcore" gamers.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Yeah that all seems to be the case. With the info at hand it's hard to gauge just how far they are into development, but considering that a lot of people were thinking late 2011 or early 2012 release a few months ago, it seems pretty clear they are further off than must people thought. Reggie even said in a interview after the conference something along the lines of "if we meet our expectations it will be as powerful as either the 360 and PS3." It seems like they haven't really decided just what they are doing with the finale model they produce for commercial release yet.

Next year Nintendo needs to show some new ips, ips that can compete with the Uncharteds and Gears on the third person shooter stage, and with the Halos and Killzones on the first person shooter stage. They need to show they have stuff for the Hardcore gamer. It's great that they have Mario and Zelda, but if we are being honest those aren't Hardcore titles in the same way Sly or Little Big Planet or Rachet and Clank aren't "Hardcore" titles. They are as close to a causal game as you can get without dancing. Microsoft and Sony are AMC and HBO, but Nintendo is content with being Nickelodeon. Now there is nothing wrong with being Nickelodeon - except for mostly costing on reruns of successful shows form decades ago - they made some great cartoons, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they are on the same level as HBO or AMC. Nintendo needs to be FX and go head to head with Sony and Microsoft, while at the same time offering their Nickelodeon "programming." If they can do that - and I think they can - then they could be a true powerhouse and reclaim the number one seat next gen without the scorn of "Hardcore" gamers.

I have been and always will be a ninty fan, hell I'll go to the grave saying that the gamecube got a bad rap last gen. But I'm sorry, I just couldn't do the waggle thing this gen. In retrospect I guess I can somewhat see their position. The gcn was roughly on par with the xbox in terms of power. They had some kick ass games that at the time were exclusives in Resident evil 4, Viewtiful Joe etc. Yet they still got the kiddy label. I remember when capcom released Viewtiful Joe, EGM gave it a 9 and I distinctly remember the reviewer saying something like "this is a great game, I wish that Capcom would've released it on other consoles so that more people could experience it". At the time I was like wtf?! They don't say shyte like that about ps2 or xbox exclusives! Ninty must've been like "we've done what we could, we have the games and the power and they still dis us so phuck em. Let's go casual".

The Wii was so far from the norm that I often think that it was Nintendo truly saying phuck you to the hardcore gaming establishment lulz.

Your Nickelodeon, HBO AMC analogy is spot on. I'm just glad you didn't mention showtime. Well, apart from the first 3 seasons of Dexter lol.