Wii seemed like a full leap but to me ended up being a half step anyway. WM+ is amazing but no developers are using it. And in all honesty, touch controls work a lot better than motion controls. The biggest revolution of the Wii - to me - was the pointer, which made Metroid Prime an absolutely joy.
The Wii U is a bit too minimal, and again it's such an uncreative 'design wise' boring effort compared to every other console they've released. It doesn't stand out, because it looks like the Wii's bigger powerful step brother....Another problem was how they basically hid it during their Wii U e3 unveiling trailer, making it take a complete back seat...Which overall gave it zero impact since the controller took center stage.
Do you play with video game consoles? Yes you do, so ya they can be considered toys because technically we ARE 'playing' a game. But toys are awesome! You probably think otherwise, but I'm a kid at heart and I'm drawn to color like a moth to a light haha. Anyways, The Wii U however looks like a Wii fuised with an XBOX 360, it's far from creative...It just doesn't stand out like their previous consoles in the past. And I personally don't find it that sleak, then again I don't care for sleakness, i care for originality, something that stands out from the rest....hell, Nobody was expecting the Gamecube.
By the way that was a super quickie basic Pant job(Durp!), so ya of course it looks 'thrown on' haha. Anyways, they could always have the bottom blue stand detatchable like in the same way the Wii uses the grey stand so we as gamers have that option. But who am i kidding, the proto type is most likely going to be the exact same thing as the final design. So were stuck with it. And i find that to be a beautiful hue of blue...I for one love sky blue, and the Wii U's button light along with the Wii's LED light ARE Sky blue so it matches.
I actually really like the blue light on the Wii, it stands out. The Wii itself is ugly as hell, the square boxy shape reminds me of the NES, which was also ugly. I still think the best console Nintendo designed was the N64.
But if you want really ugly console design, I give you this:
The Wii U is a bit too minimal, and again it's such an uncreative 'design wise' boring effort compared to every other console they've released. It doesn't stand out, because it looks like the Wii's bigger powerful step brother....Another problem was how they basically hid it during their Wii U e3 unveiling trailer, making it take a complete back seat...Which overall gave it zero impact since the controller took center stage.
Do you play with video game consoles? Yes you do, so ya they can be considered toys because technically we ARE 'playing' a game. But toys are awesome! You probably think otherwise, but I'm a kid at heart and I'm drawn to color like a moth to a light haha. Anyways, The Wii U however looks like a Wii fuised with an XBOX 360, it's far from creative...It just doesn't stand out like their previous consoles in the past. And I personally don't find it that sleak, then again I don't care for sleakness, i care for originality, something that stands out from the rest....hell, Nobody was expecting the Gamecube.
By the way that was a super quickie basic Pant job(Durp!), so ya of course it looks 'thrown on' haha. Anyways, they could always have the bottom blue stand detatchable like in the same way the Wii uses the grey stand so we as gamers have that option. But who am i kidding, the proto type is most likely going to be the exact same thing as the final design. So were stuck with it. And i find that to be a beautiful hue of blue...I for one love sky blue, and the Wii U's button light along with the Wii's LED light ARE Sky blue so it matches.
I actually really like the blue light on the Wii, it stands out. The Wii itself is ugly as hell, the square boxy shape reminds me of the NES, which was also ugly. I still think the best console Nintendo designed was the N64.
But if you want really ugly console design, I give you this:
Probably the best thing about the current Wii's design though is its size. I've often needed to carry my Wii as well as a lot of other things around between houses and if it had have been as big as a lot of other consoles that would have been pretty hard to manage.
I think the wii u may be fun but the lack of a HDD on a 8th gen home console puts me off. The only way I can see myself buying it is if its under £200 pounds as £250 will dent my xbox720 funds.Does anyone else not like the idea of a no HDD?
Checkout my gaming channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/koryz12
Nintendo direct wii u review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xawsdGO-Jao
Does anybody else feel very underwhelmed by this controller? I've always been a big ninty fan.....but I just don't feel like what we know of the Wii U so far is giving me anything to bite into.
I don't really care about playing my games on the controller instead of the tv screen, it seems like a nice idea sure....but is it one that really has legs in the long run? It's hardly ground breaking. It's just "nice". Most of this controller is "nice" but none of it makes me go "woah this is about to change everything". I'm not saying everything has to be innovative (in fact occasionally it's best to just stick with what you have)....but if you proclaim it to be innovative (like Nintendo are making a song and dance about this controller) then I want to see something innovative that'll really change things. The controller sounds incredibly useful in terms of displaying your inventory or game details or whatever....but again that still doesn't live up to the attention they're giving the controller. It's all these little "nice" things and nothing really big like how the original wii controller brought motion gaming.
I think what will really speak volumes is the support they get in from 3rd party developers (I'm not worried about 1st party, it'll be great) and also the service (online and otherwise) that Nintendo brings along with the console.
I would agree the console itself looks a little bland. Sort of reminds me of a sky box.
Does anybody else feel that the Wii U is just a 'half step' innovation wise? It's just not the innovative leap i was expecting or hoping for compared to the Wii....I'm sure Nintendo's got some killer innovative idea's brewing with their new controller and that they'll most likely floor us with their next E3, but based on what was shown.....well, it's just not that exciting at all really. But what was shown was so basic(Nintendo lineup-wise), and so little.
At this point, I'm more excited by the 3D support announcemnt, the fact that the Wii Remote/Nunchuck will be alternate control options for Wii U Titles and that's pretty much it...I've said this thousands of times, but i really hope Wii U games will be 1080p and NOT 720p....720p games are so 2006. The majority of HDTV's are in fact 1080p, i don't want to deal with scaled graphics. This is going to be a real pet peeve if the opt for 720p titles...
Anyways, the way I see it...The Wii U isn't a revolutionary next gen console like the Nes, N64 and Wii were. Instead, it's like the SNES, a Super Wii if you will. The next Nintendo system will most likely enter the realm of surreal virtual reality and who knows! I want to feel as I'm samus(for ex), immersed into the real virtual world, where i can turn my actual head and move my arms and the like IN that world.
I can kinda agree with you that it feels half-step innovative. Honestly, imo the idea of the Wii U tablet/touch/drawpad rather has DS written all over it; Mightas well be call it the WiiDS. And another thing you brought up that has me concerned is whether or not Nintendo will actually keep the Wii remote and nunchuck controller support in check for Wii U titles, or if they're going to lag behind on backwards compatibility alone for Wii games, kinda like the treatment GameCube support got.
3DS FC: 4768-7451-8056
3DS Mii QR code: http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h447/DaveGX2/HNI_0002.jpg
Not every game console has to be innovative. PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Super NES, etc. all had graphical improvements over their previous systems. But graphical improvements are expected with each new hardware generation, and that is hardly as innovative as a completely new controller design.
Fancy colors are good for handhelds. You take them wherever you go and don't have to leave them on display next to who knows what else. The more color you add to a console, the more you risk it sticking out like a sore thumb. White and black fits with anything. Sparkly rainbows might look wonderful with a matching fanny pack (<- American thing, not weird British dirty word), but not in my living room. It does look boring, but it should. I already have one more screen to look at than necessary with this console, I don't need something else to distract my eyes.
Not every game console has to be innovative. PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Super NES, etc. all had graphical improvements over their previous systems. But graphical improvements are expected with each new hardware generation, and that is hardly as innovative as a completely new controller design.
Innovation, and immersion, is what drives the industry, though. Honestly, Wii, Kinect, and PlayStation Move can only carry that so far, and tablets slightly less than that. XBox actually opened doors for what our current gen consoles are already capable of because Microsoft made a bold decision on hardware But then again, where would any of them be without Philips who started it all on laserdisc? As far as graphics go, only time will tell, as I believe there will be more in store for us than people make of it, such as 3D being gimmicky or just a fad. What those people don't understand is that it's another step closer in immersion, sort of a slow, steady, step by step process of reintroducing VR at the peak of its game.
3DS FC: 4768-7451-8056
3DS Mii QR code: http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h447/DaveGX2/HNI_0002.jpg
Not every game console has to be innovative. PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Super NES, etc. all had graphical improvements over their previous systems. But graphical improvements are expected with each new hardware generation, and that is hardly as innovative as a completely new controller design.
Innovation, and immersion, is what drives the industry, though. Honestly, Wii, Kinect, and PlayStation Move can only carry that so far, and tablets slightly less than that. XBox actually opened doors for what our current gen consoles are already capable of because Microsoft made a bold decision on hardware But then again, where would any of them be without Philips who started it all on laserdisc? As far as graphics go, only time will tell, as I believe there will be more in store for us than people make of it, such as 3D being gimmicky or just a fad. What those people don't understand is that it's another step closer in immersion, sort of a slow, steady, step by step process of reintroducing VR at the peak of its game.
The Philips CD-i was a complete failure, it wasn't designed for gaming. Sega and Sony are the ones that pushed disc-based gaming back in the early 1990's.
And video game graphics still have a long way to go before they've reached their peak. Computer graphics are so far ahead of video game graphics; look at the stuff made by Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM, Weta Digital, etc.
So.....if the Philips CD-i, or more specifically what i was referring to, laserdisc, was a complete failure, how did we get all the way from laserdiscs to Blu-Ray discs? obviously they did something right. Sorry, i still give the props to Philips on this 1, maybe even Toshiba for the DVD. Sony may have worked with philips on CD-ROMs, but had it not been for Sony pushing Blu-ray on everybody, HD-DVD might have stood the light of day and further improvement in the future (and not that I don't credit/support Sony either on Blu-Rays). Now, as far as video games go.... I can't even count how many times I've heard these stereotypes about how video games are so far behind PCs; It's not the case anymore with this generation's consoles; Never has been, really. The industry could have done whatever they wanted to with consoles. Look at what the earliest arcades offered us. Sure, they're not much new anymore in the gaming industry compared to what we have now (in the US anyway), but that wouldn't have necessarily stopped them from producing a decent product for experimenting with in its infantry stages.
You... don't think PC games are anywhere near capable of recreating Pixar graphics, do you?
Do you realise how much technology it takes over at Pixar to render those movies?!?
Or how long it takes. They have "rendering farms" that are just a pile of high-end computers all networked up that each bear a little part of the load during rendering, and they just leave them there churning away for however many hours or days it takes to render the whole 1.5-3 hours of movie footage. Obviously that's a lot different from a single computer processing gameplay and rendering graphics in real-time at 60+ frames per second.
Computer graphics are so far ahead of video game graphics; look at the stuff made by Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM, Weta Digital, etc.
You... don't think PC games are anywhere near capable of recreating Pixar graphics, do you?
Do you realise how much technology it takes over at Pixar to render those movies?!?
I'm talking about computer animated movies and visual effects, video games will reach that point eventually. Some of the stuff on PS3 is getting very close to Pixar and ILM quality.
I'm still greatly unimpressed with the Hardware, and even with more 3rd party support, I doubt many will be exclusive. At this point, it's going to take some big 1st party games to sell it to me.
In short, give me the Exploratory Mario game and the console Pokemon that rumor promised me, throw in F-Zero HD, and you'll have youself a buyer, Nintendo.
I'm still greatly unimpressed with the Hardware, and even with more 3rd party support, I doubt many will be exclusive. At this point, it's going to take some big 1st party games to sell it to me.
In short, give me the Exploratory Mario game and the console Pokemon that rumor promised me, throw in F-Zero HD, and you'll have youself a buyer, Nintendo.
If you want F-Zero in HD, Sony has a nice little franchise called Wipeout.
You... don't think PC games are anywhere near capable of recreating Pixar graphics, do you?
Do you realise how much technology it takes over at Pixar to render those movies?!?
Or how long it takes. They have "rendering farms" that are just a pile of high-end computers all networked up that each bear a little part of the load during rendering, and they just leave them there churning away for however many hours or days it takes to render the whole 1.5-3 hours of movie footage. Obviously that's a lot different from a single computer processing gameplay and rendering graphics in real-time at 60+ frames per second.
Ok so maybe gaming consoles won't reach the point of Pixar-quality yet. But with services like OnLive, they could easily stream a game with Pixar-quality graphics through their servers. All the processing would be done through the servers, the image would be streamed on the TV or computer screen.
I'm still greatly unimpressed with the Hardware, and even with more 3rd party support, I doubt many will be exclusive. At this point, it's going to take some big 1st party games to sell it to me.
In short, give me the Exploratory Mario game and the console Pokemon that rumor promised me, throw in F-Zero HD, and you'll have youself a buyer, Nintendo.
If you want F-Zero in HD, Sony has a nice little franchise called Wipeout.
Wipeout is my second favourite racing series, but calling it "HD F-Zero" is rediculous, they're two very different series, and that's easy to tell once you've played them.
Wipeout looks something like F-Zero and the air brakes support that impression a little, but weapons and wildly different handling make it almost nothing like F-Zero. I love F-Zero and can't stand Wipeout, personally.
Forums
Topic: Wii U Thoughts
Posts 41 to 60 of 68
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.