Topic: HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF FOR THE BETTER

First off, Id like to start by saying the Wiiu isn't doing bad, it's doing slow, which is normal for the launch of a new console anyway, especially in this economy. And on the "Nintendo should quit the hardware business" trend, Nintendo is a hardware company (an important one) as much as a software company. And It's every company's job to be successful at what they do.

Now, on to the subject...

The Wiiu is prepared to set ablaze the world of gaming hardware. If you follow Iwata's interviews you'd understand that the Wiiu was inspired by the 3DS's new and unique concept of "flexibility over power", flexibility also meaning capability. And here's what that means: the 3DS was comparatively designed to the Wii with the Wii having a bit more raw power, but the more flexible shaders in the 3DS's GPU would allow, to a feasible extent, modern software feats not possible on the Wii, like Street Fighter 4. Such flexibility also allows the 3DS to share space with the powerhouse that is the Vita. What I mean is that Sony can no longer monopolize in the production of console quality handheld games because now Nintendo can do it too, although with less fidelity. And such feats aren't keeping the 3DS from being marketed with hardware costs at a minimum (since the early price drop).

Nintendo, realizing the marketing potential in such a formula, utilized a similar tactic for development of the Wiiu. It won't be as powerful as the two upcoming competing systems in terms of numbers, but thanks to the flexible gpgpu it will be somewhat as capable, all while being cheaper. What I mean is games will be cheaper to make,and multiplats will be possible more often, though they may not have the same graphical scope. So, what does that mean for Nintendo's success, you ask? Off the stigma created by the Wii's third-party troubles, the media has been seemingly attempting to discredit Nintendo's current efforts with gloomy and misinformed stories of how raw numbers will play a role in keeping the company in the cold once again. But what the media doesn't understand is that Nintendo has learned not only from the successes but also from the failures of the Wii, and is not repeating history for the worst. The company realizes that the Wii's dilemma was that its lack of flexibility only allowed them to accomplish half of what they needed to. But it was also acknowledged that despite it's lack of competitive power it managed to become the top selling platform of its generation. In turn, the weaknesses of the Wii were left behind, and the strengths of the Wii were combined with the unexpectedly successful elements of the 3DS to create Nintendo's most powerful, flexible, and accessible hardware platform to date: The WIIu.

With that being said, the company will be challenged with the concept of the Wiiu's approach. Nintendo's dilemma these days seems to be the one thing that properly sets them apart from the competition: that they are a dedicated game company and therefore sharply focused on gameplay experiences. Allow me to once more clarify. With the Wiiu, Nintendo will be faced with the challenge of selling "experiences" in an era more obsessed with cutting edge technology. Unlike its competitors, Nintendo won't have the honor of reaping the benefits of the typical kind of direct approach (Sony's tech demo heavy PS4 conference for example), one of those benefits being immediate success. They are going to have to charm their way into gamers' living rooms, which takes time. Nintendo Direct is the start of their strategy for this. In conclusion, Nintendo's creation of the Wiiu is not their attempt to repeat the history of what they've done wrong. It is their attempt to repeat the history of what they've done well.

Thank you for reading. Please check out my next article entitled "Nintendo's Success=Sony's Dilemma", which will be located in the 3DS forum when I am finished typing it. You may be enlightened. Thank you.

Sorry bout that. I wanted to make it brief, but when I started I couldn't stop, lol. Anyway, It's not as long as it looks and I can say that you won't regret reading it through. I will try to keep em more brief in the future.

Thanks, but can you clarify your advice about the caps lock?

Ah, I see. I thought about that. Thanks, I'll consider that from now on.

very great read cant wait for the next one =]

Thanks. Will have it up as soon as possible.

• Why throw Memes at this guy because of your inability to hold your attention longer than 3 sentences? Not his mistake, its your loss.
• While I agree to most the OP said, I have to disagree that it will be that easy. Being "flexible" is just another hohum word like "blast processing" What does it really mean. If a port from PS4/Nextbox cannot be realized on Wii U because it's just lacking raw memory (8B Sony) or the shader units in the GPU or just the CPU cores to not calculate the 100's enemy AI's storming at you it will just not get the port. End of the line, here is where flexibility ends....

... BUT. Such games have yet to be created. For me the strongest point of the Wii U will be that maybe the graphical capabilities may lack behind Sony and MS, but what else is there besides graphics? It's innovation. Im not saying the Wii U is THE masterpiece of innovation I am just saying the competition (judging the games) is far from innovative. Sure we will see stunning graphics of boring and proven gaming concepts (FPS anyone) on the big consoles. Given the install base of the Wii U (which will raise to relevance once the big 1st party titles hit) Wii U will get its fair share of multiplatform games.

Given the similar technology used in ALL 3 platforms, I don't see a problem in getting many multiplatform games even if they have to be scaled down in graphical oomph to run on the WIi U. The Wii U will be multiplatform-fine as long as there are not big innovations like I said before. New AI in games, better concepts, new genres, pushing processing power and graphical power. But until then the Wii U will just get "less shiny" versions of whats on other consoles. And I don't mind that.

But saying the Wii U is anymore flexible than the PS4 or Nextbox, I think thats wrong. Maybe its friendlier to Indies, but that remains to be seen.

To bring up your Vita argument again. Im what way is the Vita inferior to the 3DS? NONE except it has lackluster games library and is priced too high.

Imagine a Vita selling for 190,- and having all good 1st and 3rd party titles of Sony within a year of its launch. Things would look different I guess. It's an amazing piece of hardware and its failure surely is not because its not flexible enough. Everything except 3D could be done 3x better on Vita than 3DS, IF anyone cared putting it there.

Im not defending Sony, God I hate them, Im just saying that touting Wii Us flexibility sounds too "not enough facts" to me, its like marketing speech. Otherwise it was a good read (for those of us who still CAN and WANT to read) and I hope my disagreement in those few points don't come over as a personal attack. It's not. It's called discussion!

Thanks for your input. You made some good points. And don't worry, I love a good debate, and would never take criticism as a personal attack. I didn't intend to glorify Nintendo with my article and it seems that I may have done that. I was fighting the stigma caused by the media and protecting the truth. And I wasn't attempting to downplay Nintendo's neighbors, Sony and Microsoft. I acknowledge their strengths and accomplishments very well. I also acknowledge that what's good for any gamer is a matter of personal preference. I actually happen to have a Vita that I love. And the ironic thing is that I can't stand Sony either, by the way, lol. But, anyway, I just wanted everyone to understand that you can't always judge a company by its past because with each fiscal or generation there is always the opportunity to evolve. You can't look ahead to yesterday.

@kloudd someone who likes to discuss... thats a first here it seems! Hehe. Nah, I'm being cheeky.

Anyways,
I can totally understand where you're coming from but in todays day and age it's really hard not to shoot over the goal (happens to me all the time as well) when you're trying to make an argument, defending your point of view or try to reason with the general public. What you said about the past of a certain company is definitely true. People who say: Wii U won't sell as good as Wii are probably right, but to think this is a failure is nonsense. Back in the day casual gaming was in its infancy. Older people or people "too cool to play games" didn't have much exposure to gaming at all. Then the Wii came. It has a revolutional concept of how to control games and every Steve and his mom got a Wii. The problem is that the casual market today is satiated. Partly by Nintendo themselves, because a casual gamer that got a Wii won't necessarily upgrade himself to be a "core gamer" and suddenly go for the next system and buy 3 games a month, he is most likely still happy with his Wii and Wii Sports that he brings out on family-evenings. For everything else he has his smartphone or tablet. So no, I don't think the Wii U will sell as good as the Wii. Never ever. BUT: doesn't have to. At all. People who love Nintendo will have to get a Wii U at some point (when more games are available) anyways because you can't experience those games anywhere else.

Now look in comparison at Sony... how many exclusives are there? How many exclusives of those are are really something "different" and not just Sonys try at something others have done before? As good as unchartered might be, the new Lara Croft game looks wonderful too, and its multiplatform. Same goes for God of War or MS Halo, while those games might still be console exclusives they are not different enough from other, similar games (in my opinion). You got Darksiders (which will definitely be bought by someone, I believe) and Dante for example (unfortunately closed down before a second game) and of course, in a less violent way you got plenty of Zelda games as well. Halo? There are plenty of sci-fi shooters out there with robust multiplayer and while Halo (in most of its versions) is an excellent game, it only goes THAT far giving you a reason to buy a certain console platform over this one game, because most of the other stuff is multiplatform anyways.

I also cannot stand those so called analysts, there is a reason that there is the word anal hidden in analyst, because mostly their opinions is crap. I always wonder why they even dare to make assumptions about a genre/industry they only know half as much about (or less) as any serious gamer or gaming journalist or the devs themselves.

For me, personally, not for the whole industry (because most people seem to be shallow enough to enjoy their yearly dosis of same old COD and similar games) the challenge of the "next gen" is to provide deeper gaming mechanisms. More engaging experiences and the opportunity to enjoy/share it with friends.
Since you obviously don't mind to read, let me explain:

Back in the 90ies, I was a PC gamer. We had games like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, X-Com Enemy Unknown, Syndicate, Theme Park, Mortal Kombat, Battle Isle, Mechwarrior, Earthsiege, Jagged Alliance, Theme Hospital... all those games were fantastic, pushing the available tech to the limit AND innovating how you play those games and what you can do. Every single game I mentioned is better/deeper than their modern counterparts. Thats not opinion, thats fact (if you would put feature vs feature and review scores vs review scores for example).

Why did EA's re-imagination of Syndicate fail? It was a bland scifi shooter. In the original it was a tactical realtime strategy game. You could have your cyborgs, research weapons and new bodyparts and could solve your missions in many different ways. It was original. It had depth. Its an absolute stunning game with masterful soundtrack, even until this day.

The new XCOM? It was solid, but overly simplified to ensure it's not a niche game like the original one and gerate big sales. Overall it was a good game but the hardcore fans of the first XCOM were merely disappointed. Whole trees of research were missing, the 3D cover system didn't work properly and the game was way too easy that it got boring except you played it on hardest difficulty.

Etc...

My point is, we didn't have HD back then. We had friggin VGA, which is 320 x 240 pixels. Read that again. Your pocket calculator has a higher resolution today. We were playing on Adlib Soundcards, giving us awesome MIDI music. The games rocked, they were brilliant. When you had them as a kid, you'll never forget them.

Now, today... I cannot even remember HOW MUCH crap I played in the lifecycle of my Xbox360 and how much of it was just a bland lazy copy of something that has been done before ad nauseum.

So, to sum it up,
I still have a capable gaming PC (and Im not saying PC is the best platform, basicly the games in general suck nowadays, mostly ...) and a 3DS and eventually will get a Wii U in the future. But I think I'm done with XBOX and never thoguht about the PS4. The only thing that could change all of that is:

GOOD GAME DESIGN

Games like Fire Emblem that excell in their brilliance even though being on a limited platform. It would look LEAGUES better on a Vita, but it still looks perfect on 3DS. Where the games are I want, there I'll be. Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate? Castlevania? Awesome year for 3DS and even more to come.
Now look at the big picture.

Whats coming?
Whats coming for PS4 or XBOXNEXT that you could get excited about?
I got a PC for SYNDICATE and XCOM.
I got a Gamecube for Smash Brothers and Mariokart.
I got an XBOX for Halo.
I got an XBOX360 for Halo2, Forza2.
I got a 3DS for Mariokart, Fire Emblem, Monster Hunter, ...

Its the games that moves the consoles and thats the one and final all beating argument. It's not bad marketing if a game doesnt sell (hello Crapcom) its also not necessarily the TIME when you release a game judging if it will sell. MAKE GOOD GAMES, they will sell and with them the system they're availabe on. Simple.
People knew that back in the 90ies, why they forgot today is beyond me.

@Scollurio As I read only part of the bs your fingers were throwing up all over your keyboard this was all I could think.

Good thoughts. Who knows what the future may hold.

I've learned you just have to ignore some of the people on here. Not sure if some just want to feel better about themselves or what, but for some reason, some people take the time out to post just to leave a rude comment.

Sometimes usernames say all there is to know about certain people.

@RancidVomit86

LMAO

Nice articles man keep it up.

I have yet to understand this supriority complex some of you people have just because you dont play COD(because most people seem to be shallow enough to enjoy their yearly dosis of same old COD and similar games)? Maybe some people genuinely enjoy those games and nothing about that makes the shallow. I've said it before and I will say it again, just because you may have different taste than another person does not in anyway make you better than that person especially when it comes to something like video games.

Anything you said becomes invalid because you are another person thinking your opinion is fact (Every single game I mentioned is better/deeper than their modern counterparts. Thats not opinion, thats fact) and you think your opinion is right and others are wrong (I also cannot stand those so called analysts, there is a reason that there is the word anal hidden in analyst, because mostly their opinions is crap. I always wonder why they even dare to make assumptions about a genre/industry they only know half as much about (or less) as any serious gamer or gaming journalist or the devs themselves.)

@RancidVomit86
Oh, so it speaks.

Yes I don't like COD and yes some people do enjoy COD, it maybe a solid game gameplay wise and might give certain people exactly what they are looking for, but even the die-hardest fans of COD have a problem with the series going stale. I was commenting on "theres not much new on the table" and not "you suck because you like COD". Difference.

I never said I am better than anyone, I just say I speak my opinion and enjoy sharing thoughts with other people, its what a MESSAGE BOARD is about (look it up, its on Wikipedia). You are free to disagree to me and I am free to respect your different opinion if presented in a mature manner and not a shitty Meme.

Im not thinking EVERYthing I say is fact, but it IS fact that those old games had more depth than their newer counterparts. Its not opinion. They took longer to complete, offered more variety, missions, game modes, you name it. Fine, the only thing they didn't have was online. Woohoo. And yes it is also fact that back in the day all of those games I mentioned were rated higher throughout the media (metacricis didn't exist back then) than todays counterparts. I also have the opinion it is like that but that just doesn't remove the fact that... how to put it... they were received better by the critics and the public back in the day.

The last thing you quoted me on, yeah, right, I hate analysts so what. And I also make assumptions about the gaming industry, share them with other people, discuss them. The difference is, I am a customer and an analyst is responsible for what he is predicting. I can chit chat about what I want any day, I don't get paid for it, I don't tell YOU to put all your money into OLD games because they were better.

Get the difference?

Thus all your arguments against me are disarmed.
Kudos.

That said, this is a message board, feel free to state your disagreement to what I said but leaving a silly comment on something you didn't admittedly even read makes you look really dumb.

This thread needs more @WaltzElf.