Topic: Should the gamepad be "abandoned"???

@FutureAlphaMale
Did you know that Sony is requiring remote play features on the PS Vita for EVERY game? Sony is requiring the the exact same second screen features for potential or current PS Vita owners. They did this to compete with Nintendo and allow more features to be had on an optional software level.

Assassin's Creed 4, Watch Dogs, etc. other 3rd party games will have the Game Pad features as long as you have a PS Vita. The difference is that Nintendo allows you to make use of a second screen, immediately. Every company is doing the second screen thing this time. Smartglass and Vita use WILL be a more common thing than it has been.

EDIT: BTW, the GamePad can still be used in Pikmin 3. It improves the game, IMO. I think it's required to use the map. You can even play the entire game on the GamePad w/o a TV, using either the GamePad buttons, or the Wii remote with the sensor bar on the GamePad.

Are Sony forcing PS4 consumers to buy a Vita? Are Microsoft forcing Xbox One owners to buy a Surface tablet? Oh, they aren't?

"They did this to compete with Nintendo and allow more features to be had on an optional software level"

Key word being "optional"

@FutureAlphaMale
It's not optional for developers, though, which was part of your original argument. Your getting more in your game by having the GamePad, and every company sees that. Just because Microsoft and Sony didn't include a 2nd screen doesn't mean the features won't be there.

We might as well say DS was a failure compared to PSP, because it had more games, sold more, and was more popular while having a second screen, then saying there should have been a 1 screen version of a DS. Let's just call it the Nintendo S(creen).

Doesn't anyone remember the DS? those early DS games generally feature little to no real use of the second screen — M&L:PiT is a prime example, where you use the touchscreen once in the entire game for the absolute silliest thing. the microphone was generally about as useless. It was only after a year or two in that games really started making great use of the beyond-GBA features of the device. Devs are still feeling out the gamepad and how to make the best use of it. i don't really expect anything mindblowing involving the gamepad to hit until at least next year; until then, we'll get probably minimal to forgettable use of the thing at best.

@FutureAlphaMale I think you're also missing the point that if Sony and Microsoft are doing this, it's because they believe that Nintendo has found a concept that will be important for this generation, attractive to consumers and you bet they'll market the living daylights out of their 2nd screen solutions just like they did with the PS Move and Kinect as a direct response to Wii. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The difference is that Nintendo has the cheaper solution for 2nd screen gaming, with a GamePad included on every box at a mere €300. Meanwhile Smartglass and Vita are really expensive solutions, because they require you to get another device in addition to the console.

@theblackdragon Thank you @FutureAlphaMale this is why you wait longer than a year (hasn't even been that long) before passing judgment, The Wii U is like a flower it needs time grow and bloom.

@theblackdragon yeah and remember how the only games at the beggining that used the touchscreen propperly were like Pokémon Dash? those repetitive that even messed the touchscreen if you played more than a few minutes! it's always hard to get how to use a "new" feature at first !

You mean abother device like a smartphone or tablet which the majority of consumers who are in the market to buy a console probably already have.

Getting Rid of the Gamepad would be bad since Nintendo would have to rework a vast majority of the OS and User Interface to work without it.

My DS will never forgive me for all the intense Elite Beat Agents and Wario Ware Touched gameplay.

All true, but that only shows that Nintendo (and others) have already had a decade of dual screen gaming experience under their belt, yet still haven't been able to harness that on the Wii U in a meaningful way. And all of the big first party Wii-U titles in 2014 that people are waiting for now don't seem to be bucking that trend either.

That's a bold statement to make. Can you prove it? Are there statistics about it? I don't know anyone who owns a current-gen console and a tablet, for instance. I don't think the two audiences really overlap that much. But I don't hold my personal experience as fact.

[quote=Samurai_Goroh]I think you're also missing the point that if Sony and Microsoft are doing this, it's because they believe that Nintendo has found a concept that will be important for this generation, attractive to consumers and you bet they'll market the living daylights out of their 2nd screen solutions just like they did with the PS Move and Kinect as a direct response to Wii. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.[quote]

But both the PS Move and Kinect were pretty much flops, because most people weren't interesting in standing up and waving their arms around to play games by the time those were released. A similar thing happened to the Wii, with people eventually getting tired of the "motion gaming" concept and it sort of ran its course too. It's still cool when used in interesting ways, but the "wiimote waggle" is no longer being shoe horned into every game like it was early on.

I feel the same way about 3D gaming (and 3D films/television for that matter). Its something that in your imagination seems like the coolest thing ever, but in practice its disappointing 95% of the time, while the other amazing 5% of its usage (Avatar and Gravity) don't really make it worth the overall added cost.

What works for the DS and 3DS's touch screens definitely doesn't work for the WiiU's.

It may not seem like it, but both concepts of dual screens are very different.

You don't know ANYONE who owns a Wii-U that also has a tablet/and or a smart phone? Really???? And you don't think in the future that any of your friends who will eventually buy a PS4 or a Xbox One won't own (if they don't already) a smart phone, tablet or ipod touch?

Thats like saying most people you know who have HD televisions don't also own a refridgerator. Those items all serve different purposes and nobody chooses one over the other.

It's not as a bizarre combination as you seem to believe.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sony-mandate...

Sony says, "Don't get rid of the GamePad".

EDIT: Remote play is local 2nd screen gaming or off-TV via local wireless or network.

for handhelds, with the two screens of similar size attached to one another, absolutely. for home consoles, with a tiny gamepad floating around a room in front of a likely-as-not much, much larger TV screen, not so much.

I GamePad does two things. It fixed the biggest problem mobile games have, no real buttons, and it guarantees everyone can have the second screen experience that devs will be putting money towards during the next-generation. If Nintendo stopped supporting the GamePad or just didn't sell the GamePad with the console that would harm the second screen experience and it would put Nintendo in a situation where they are not prepared for the next-generation. The GamePad is good, the problem is Nintendo needs to show devs and consumers what is good about the Wii U. I also think Nintendo needs to lower the bar for devs to be able to publish games on the eShop, but don't make it completely open. What if Plants vs Zombies 2, Angry Birds, Where's my Water, Cut the Rope, and Pudding Monsters all came to the eShop? The Wii U can offer big devs the second screen experience, small devs with a cheaper console to develop on, and indie devs easy ports for their smartphone games.

i made the exact same thread on the nintendo board on gamespot a few weeks ago.
the result was 50/50, some people really praise the gamepad and don't wanna miss it (even though i still get why, i share the argument that not even nintendo knows what to do with it.), theo other half like myself prefer a more classic experience with the pro controller and all they need is nintendo's franchises in hd.

in my opinion the two-screen experience works for the 3ds, because you hold both screens in your hand and they are right next to each other. but on a home console with a big beautiful tv screen in front of you, it's just not as comfortable to look down on your hands.

Exactly.

I bought Splinter Cell thinking it was going to be awesome using the gamepad, but it really wasn't. In one mission when you are sniping guys from above, you are forced to view the action on the tiny gameplay screen while my beautiful 52" inch Samsung television was displaying a still image or static. I was thinking to myself "Why am I looking at the controller and not playing the game in 1080p on my TV?"

It's a cool concept in design, but completely unnecessary.

All I know is the maximum acceptable amount of latency is 2 frames (At 60fps). The Wii U has a single frame at all times so that means I need a TV that doesn't exist other than stuff for digital signage. (Or a gaming monitor which isn't desirable either). I have a plasma that on its own is less than 2 frames but with the extra frame added by the gamepad it would be 3. (This is presuming I understand how it works properly). If I had the choice of disabling the TV or the Gamepad it would be fine.

Think I would be happier if Virtual Console stuff could be sent out of the analog out to an old CRT (Like the sound can now be).

Or if the whole thing was built into the gamepad (No drive) so it was the most powerful handheld running exactly the same games (Like the turbo express was to the TG16).