Topic: 3DS would have been a better fit.

Well ever since the Gamecube Nintendo had an innovative idea of using a controller with a built in screen & that controller is known as the GameBoy Advance.
Since the the Wii had inherited that very same feature but unfortunately heavy underused feature.
All Nintendo needed is to promote the idea better both with the consumers & with the developers.
Build a better marketing campaign, push ideas with the developers, even sell bundles which even includes both systems & a game that feature the connectivity feature is all that really required to get the idea going.

Then Nintendo releases the 3DS & alongside with rumors of an upcoming Wii Successor in the works could have been another chance to promote the idea again truly show what could be, what be neat with the 3DS able to do with the Wii U.

with analog circle pads, in-fact 2 if you count the circle pad pro, with motion controls, more processing power & faster wifi to help cope even to stram a raw video from the Wii U & the Wii U able to render more than display at once one for the TV & one for Wii U.

Yet instead of trying to promote the idea much better Nintendo decides to include a whole new controller that does the same job but also adding needless costs to the consumer for having to force to buy the Wii U pad when many already have a perfectly fine dual-analog motion sensing touchscreen controller with the ability to turn on a TV.

This is a feature that Nintendo should really incorporate eventually. Not just the idea of using a 3DS as a controller, but games that are cross compatible. Kinda like "Transfarring", where you play a game on the Wii U, take it on the go with the 3DS or 3DS XL, and later synch up your progress with the Wii U.

The only problem would be that the average consumer is going to be "I have a 3DS, I can play those games using it"- or "and my Wii". That's just how bad normal Humans are these days. >>;

I really don't see the point of a feature like this though. The Vita does this. This is why that system has no games, because almost every game in the Vita's library is a PS3 game.

lolno.

Vita has a lot of games that are available only on Vita.

Well if people can confuse 3DS for DS and Wii U for Wii, I don't find it hard to believe that people are confused. Vita's selling point is basically being a handheld PS3, what with the game selection, the ability to play Ps3 games on it and the graphics. So yeah, people just thinking the games that are trying to be PS3 games are actually Ps3 games is not hard to believe.

aha, so being able to play PS3 games using your Vita as controller and with specific functions running on its screen is going to kill Vita's sales, right? Or is that having PS3 games available for Vita is also a bad thing? I guess releassing Ocarine of Time for 3DS was a bad idea, right?

[/div]

I seem to remember the Nintendo 3DS had so few games worth playing for the first six months that Nintendo apologised to anyone stupid enough to buy one by giving them 20 free games. (that includes me, for the record)

The Vita's lack of quantity (though the quality is there) has to do with the fact it's a new system, not because people with PS3s couldn't be bothered buying one.

Sony need to do something similar to Nintendo and do a price cut and some sort of bonus offer because the Vita is pretty much nonexistent in Australia. The big chain stores don't even have any out on shelves as far as I have witnessed and EB games have a tiny section devoted to it next to the lackluster PSP. This same store already has one on the bargain table at a reduced price but nobody has grabbed it yet. I asked the clerk how sales have been for the Vita and the reply was 'up a creek and dead as it hit the water' Sony have alot of work to do if they want it to be successful.

The first bunch of games that were released at launch and between the launch window of the handheld were mainly composed of ports, and many still considerably are. The only difference was Sony was able to play their cards better than Nintendo with the Vita. And to boot, ditto @kkslider's post.

Well, back before we really knew anything about the Wii U, I vividly remember Nintendo saying that the Nintendo 3DS would have functions comparable to the GamePad and more in connection with the Wii U, including the possibility of connecting the handheld to the console as an extra controller.

Apart from that, you must realise that the 3DS is an independent handheld on its own with a price of its own, and to have it as the primary controller for the Wii U would make absolutely no sense. To give an example of any random person, I wouldn't want to buy an indepedent handheld I'm not interested in just to be able to play the Wii U, which I would be interested in. Regardless of whether they do have the same function, I expect my console to come with an independent controller of its own. Having a 3DS in conjunction with a Wii U should only be an advantage to the control option, not a mandatory option. As pricey as it may seem, a GamePad wouldn't pass even half of the handheld's current price, and having to buy a whole different game platform just to power another one would make no sense. And a Wii U without a GamePad just isn't a Wii U at all; it's just an HD Wii.

Besides, it'd seem rather awkward using a double-screened handheld to control a console all the time, but that's just my opinion on it.

"Buy TWO systems!" will never work as a selling point for a console. Never. The console needs to be self-contained... with some outside features optional. The Wii U without the gamepad would see... maybe 10 dual screen games before it died off for something new 5 years later. It's not worth the developer investment.

Its a good idea but not widely excepted as u mentioned
@writer of topic

So, your logic is that Nintendo is stupid for designing a controller for their new system rather than convincing consumers to pay MORE for a handheld to use as a controller for the new system? What kind of logic is this?

Not really I except the Wii U alot

I even made a thread about it way back when to see people's thoughts about the price(ps r u talkin to me or the thread writer?)
@lzthebird

I was aiming it at the thread writer actually

Sorry... it was right next to mine so no worries

No my logic is to pay less because you don't have to pay for the Wii U control pad.
Besides which how much would the Wii U control pad would cost compared to a 3DS.

Nintendo had it right the first time around with the Gamecube of using a GBA as a controller & they had it right the second time around by using a DS as a controller so why not save money by using a 3DS that we might have instead of paying extra controller that replicates a 3DS.

Nintendo already made a mistake by releasing the DSi instead of concentrating on the DS successor(a.k.a. 3DS) & it costed them with poor sales with the 3DS now they forching us to pay extra for this stupid tablet when the 3DS is perfectly capable pretty much as good a job as the tablet in fact better some ways.

Few problems:

1. When did the DS ever get used as a controller?
2. GBA connectivity was in...like 3 games.
3. 3DS has a tiny screen and you expect me to use that as a controller.
4. Not everyone has a 3DS
5. The controller will actually be cheaper than the 3DS.
6. Better ways? Like...what?

Pokémon battle Revolution
Chronicles: Echoes of Time
Rabbid go home(I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube–Game_Boy_Adv...
Here's a full list which is way more than 3
[quote=LztheBlehBird]3. 3DS has a tiny screen and you expect me to use that as a controller.[quote/]
At least it's not as bulky & uassumingly as heavy as the Wii U pad

More compact lighter weight able to use 3D 3DS Wi-Fi is 30MBPS faster than the Wii U's control pad bluetooth at least & if you allready have a 3DS a Wii U would be cheaper without needing to buy extra.