Post by: NWR_Neal on April 14, 2015, 02:22:22 AM
Neal investigates why Wii U games rarely seem to focus on the system’s exclusive features.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/40073/what-happened-to-the-wii-u-gamepads-potential
In the summer of 2012, I remember feeling excited about the Wii U, giddily anticipating Nintendo’s next console. After experiencing Nintendo Land, Pikmin 3, ZombiU, and much more at various pre-launch events, the wait for November was agonizing. The GamePad, to me, was a new controller filled with potential, especially since it was so fundamentally integrated with the console. When the system launched, I loved the experiences I had in multiplayer with the GamePad in Nintendo Land. I adored how the GamePad was used in Ubisoft’s ZombiU. Then, something happened: The GamePad disappeared.
Now, of course, it’s not like it actually disappeared. The GamePad is still a fundamental part of the console and a wide swath of Wii U owners are still over the moon about off-TV play. But look at how the controller is used in games: outside of rare efforts such as Kirby and the Rainbow Curse, Nintendo barely uses the GamePad as more than a mirror of the TV image in the majority of their games. Rainbow Curse, in a way, was weird because for the first time since Nintendo Land, a first party game used something resembling asynchronous multiplayer. The upcoming game Splatoon uses the GamePad in a seemingly integral way that calls to mind Lego City Undercover, that two-year-old game that featured a necessary interaction between the TV and the GamePad that hasn’t really been expanded upon or repeated since.
At this point, even eShop developers barely use the GamePad in unique ways outside of Knapnok Games’ Affordable Space Adventures, a game that Renegade Kid’s Jools Watsham hopes that “Nintendo helps promote…as much as the game helps to promote the innovative qualities of the Wii U.” Released last week, Affordable Space Adventures is a Wii U exclusive that takes advantage of basically everything the system offers, combining interesting GamePad/TV usage with local multiplayer. Still, that doesn’t stop Knapnok’s Lau Korsgaard from saying that a lot of Wii U exclusive titles don’t “feel like they are ‘fulfilling the potential.’”
“I think the problem (if it is a problem) is deeper rooted in the design of the Wii U,” Korsgaard explained. “The Wii U does a bunch of cool things: It has this GamePad that makes two-screen play possible, it lets you play with your old Wii Remotes, so local multiplayer is easy and cheap, off-screen play makes it possible to continue playing on your GamePad while mom is watching TV. These features are really unique, but also mutually exclusive!”
Korsgaard followed up, giving examples: “If I want to make a game that supports local multiplayer, like Mario Kart, I can't at the same time make the controls depend on a lot of GamePad features. If I want to make a game that lets you continue play if the TV is turned off, like New Super Mario Bros., I can't make the gameplay be dependent on the GamePad either. I think that is why there hasn't been made a single game, even by Nintendo, where everything made sense as it just clicked for the system. You simply can't do everything at the same time.”
He’s absolutely right, even if Korsgaard is one of the few developers who actually uses as much of the system’s potential as possible in each of his games. Before Affordable Space Adventures, he was the mastermind behind Spin the Bottle, which is a crazy eight-player multiplayer game that doesn’t use the TV at all but manages to use the GamePad and Wii Remotes in a wide variety of ways.
Going back to ardent Affordable Space Adventures supporter and noted eShop developer Jools Watsham, he chalks up the lack of interesting GamePad usage to one simple fact: sales. “If you're going to dedicate your time and effort to taking advantage of the unique features of the Wii U, you need for it to pay off in sales if you're going to be able to continue making games for a living,” he detailed.
Watsham, who is currently working on Mutant Mudds Super Challenge for Wii U and 3DS, chalks up big publishers shying away from GamePad-heavy titles because of the lack of profit and porting potential. As for indie developers, it’s more tenable for them to make something compelling with the GamePad, but their scope is limited and an indie developer can’t make something as grand as Nintendo Land.
The bigger mystery for Watsham is why Nintendo shied away from the GamePad themselves. At launch, Nintendo Land was a tour de force of potential for the shiny new controller, but it didn’t stick. “The GamePad is clearly not the revolution that the Wii Remote was,” Watsham mused. “There, I said it.”
Nintendo, historically, has always made their systems around a single vision or concept, usually tying into a Mario game of some kind. The clearest examples, according to Watsham, are Super Mario World and Super Mario 64. The goal with those titles is to “demonstrate and inspire developers to create great things on their new hardware.” Nintendo Land, with the absence of anything resembling it in the past two and a half years, clearly missed that mark.
Because of how much that mark was missed in both acclaim and system sales, there is a clear, inherent risk to any Wii U-heavy game, which is a sentiment that both Yacht Club Games’ David D’Angelo and 13AM Games’ Alex Rushdy share. “Introducing such a bizarre, unique gameplay design element exponentially increases that riskiness in both game quality and financial aspects,” D’Angelo elaborated. “Incorporating such a unique hardware feature also means the Wii U is pretty much the only option for sales. Cutting off other huge sections of the market is very scary.”
D’Angelo and the team at Yacht Club are in the process of bringing their 2014 Wii U and 3DS game Shovel Knight to PlayStation 4, Vita, and Xbox One. Even though Yacht Club might have had other systems on their mind when creating Shovel Knight, they still created a unique feature for the game that couldn’t be replicated on another platform “We felt Miiverse was also a big part of the Wii U experience, so that's how we ended up with the Digger's Diary.”
The Digger’s Diary is a way of letting players post to Miiverse for specific areas of the game in a similar way to how New Super Mario Bros. U did. D’Angelo further explained: “We spent a very large amount of time coming up with this feature. We wanted to create something we thought would be fun and engaging, but at the same time not create something so big and unique that you'd be disappointed if you owned the 3DS or PC versions.”
And because of that last point, Digger’s Diary wasn’t something wholly necessary. As someone who personally played through Shovel Knight on 3DS, I can’t say I felt I was missing anything by not playing it on Wii U. That seems to be par for the course with a lot of Wii U features, as it’s usually as simple as a map on the GamePad’s screen, if that. Essentially, the GamePad has been reduced to being the touch screen on the 3DS.
On the other hand, you have Rushdy and 13AM Games’ current project Runbow, which is an ambitious nine-player competitive platformer that features modes and controls that can only be done on Wii U. As they near the end of development, there are no regrets on their heavy Wii U focus. “I think it's really worth it to put in that extra effort,” he said. “Wii U owners are looking for games that make use of the hardware beyond off-TV play and a lot of people have been really pleased with ColourMaster and its unique use of the GamePad. Heck, even just the fact that the GamePad allows us nine players instead of eight is something that is really cool and only possible on Wii U.”
For eShop developers like 13AM Games and Knapnok Games who want to go the extra mile, that system-specific focus can be worthwhile. “I also believe Nintendo really takes notice when you put in the extra care to make your game a Wii U game, as opposed to a game that is simply appearing on Wii U,” Rushdy explained, about a month after Runbow was a highlight of Nintendo’s own eShop-focused press event during GDC.
But for others, even the carrot of support from Nintendo might not be enough to save the system and its unique ideas. “The Wii U never lived up to its own potential, even from its creators,” Watsham said. “You have to lead [by] example, and Nintendo are the kings of doing this, but they failed to deliver with the Wii U in terms of utilizing their own platform, which has resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
That doesn’t mean the Wii U is a failure, as the system still has many magnificent games, even if most of them don’t take advantage of the system’s biggest features. Developers have fond memories of Nintendo Land, and Watsham directly called out a slew of games ranging from Super Mario 3D World to ZombiU. D’Angelo even mused over the idea of working on a GamePad-specific game in the future, but the way things are looking, that might not be a reasonable idea.
“It's not like the Wii U has failed gamers in a general sense, but in regards to how well the GamePad has been utilized, overall [it] has unfortunately been somewhat of a failure,” Watsham concluded. “And that is Nintendo's burden to bear.”
So here we are, more than two and a half years past the launch of the Wii U and it is more or less guaranteed the GamePad won’t be a revolution like its motion-controlled predecessor. While we might be able to look forward to a few more bright spots similar to Affordable Space Adventures, the sad reality is that the GamePad will never be anything more than an underachieving peripheral, serving up little innovation or consistently unique experiences outside of off-TV play. For some, that’s likely more than enough, but as Wii U system sales continue to be trumped by competitors, it makes you wonder: what if the GamePad’s potential had been fully realized?
Post by: Adrock on April 14, 2015, 10:32:46 AM
Quote from: Ian Sane
(http://i.imgur.com/eZjThLk.jpg)This thread...
The GamePad as a concept has tons of untapped potential. Like the Wii Remote, it was severely limited by Nintendo not fully committing to it (Motion Plus should have been included from the beginning). Wii U only supports two GamePads and the frame rate is cut in half. Additionally, consumers can't buy an extra easily and even then, no games support two GamePads anyway so in practice, Wii U only really supports one GamePad. Sure, cost was likely the culprit here again, but if Nintendo can't realize the concept's full potential, wait until it can.
The components inside the GamePad aren't terribly advanced, especially by 2015 standards. By the time Wii U's successor launched, Nintendo can probably sell an even better version for $60 at a profit. That puts it in the same price range as every other controller. I hope Nintendo tries again and goes all in. The GamePad doesn't have to change gaming forever, but it can certainly enhance games.
Post by: Evan_B on April 14, 2015, 11:43:21 AM
I think Nintendo themselves are trying very hard to come up with a title that is just a good game rather than being a big risk with extensive gamepad functionality, mostly because of the system's poor sales. That's a bad sign when even they would rather focus on other aspects, but it's also telling that they came up with an interesting idea that was certainly distinguishing, but lacked some good ideas. However, the one thing that does comfort me is that yes, there are indeed many people who are interested in creating interesting experiences on the Gamepad (like Kickstarter title "Hex Heroes" which is one of the games I'm looking forward to quite eagerly this year) and that the Gamepad has a ton of possibility- there's motion, touch, NFC... a slew of neat features that could possibly be taken advantage of, but I fear the console doesn't have much more life in it for those ideas to arrive. Who knows...
I will say this, though- you want gamepad functionality, look no further than Fatal Frame.
Post by: broodwars on April 14, 2015, 12:20:15 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 14, 2015, 01:03:26 PM
The analog stick is the go-to example of Nintendo introducing an unexpected controller feature that immediately took off and became a standard. But with that it was like Nintendo was making these 3D N64 games and realized that the d-pad wasn't cutting it for movement so they came up with something else. They didn't sit down with this analog stick idea and then said "okay so let's see what we can do with this." That's the difference. The games they were making created a need for a controller innovation. They didn't come up with the innovation and hope for it to inspire new ideas.
The Gamepad though also had the problem that the basic concept is essentially the same as the DS. If the touchscreen was going to inspire all these awesome ideas then surely Nintendo would have thought of them during the DS years. What was so specific about the Gamepad that was going to make it different this time?
And the problem with all of this is that Nintendo now designs their consoles so that the controller is the whole damn point. What possible selling point does the Wii U have besides the controller? All of its other improvements over the Wii are things the competition offered years before. So you have a controller where Nintendo is hoping inspires cool ideas, even though the exact same concept already failed to do so before, and this controller is the sole selling point for the entire thing. If the controller fails, the console fails. And Iwata thought that was going to work? How does this guy still have his job?
Post by: Adrock on April 14, 2015, 01:47:37 PM
If the touchscreen was going to inspire all these awesome ideas then surely Nintendo would have thought of them during the DS years.This is faulty, closed-minded thinking. Nintendo released a lot successful touchscreen games on DS. You and I may not have liked them, but a lot of people did. Also, people come up with new ideas and implementations of existing concepts all the time. That isn't just gaming. This goes for everything ever.
Nintendo had awesome ideas and they paid off handsomely. I mean, I sure as hell didn't care about Brain Age and whatnot, but no one can rightly claim those games didn't have an impact. It's silly to think there aren't more ideas just because Nintendo didn't think of it in 2004.
Quote
What possible selling point does the Wii U have besides the controller?Is this a serious question? All those exclusive Nintendo games.
Quote
How does this guy still have his job?It's unfair to separate a person's failures and successes. If executives from every company were graded on your scale, all of them would be fired. And you're like the harshest, weirdest critic. According to you, Wii U was supposed to be in bargain bins before the end of last year. No one should listen to you.
Post by: Lazers on April 14, 2015, 02:31:59 PM
What possible selling point does the Wii U have besides the controller? All of its other improvements over the Wii are things the competition offered years before. So you have a controller where Nintendo is hoping inspires cool ideas, even though the exact same concept already failed to do so before, and this controller is the sole selling point for the entire thing. If the controller fails, the console fails. And Iwata thought that was going to work? How does this guy still have his job?
People buy video game consoles to play good video games (!), not fidget around with a really nice controller. Most are far more likely to play good games with a mediocre controller than play mediocre games with a good controller, and it becomes a complete non-issue when you consider the Pro Controller is completely viable and compatible with the majority of worthwhile titles. If they made it necessary in almost every capacity to enjoy the system, I'd get all the hate the Gamepad gets, but again, turn it off and go use the Pro Controller if you don't want the Gamepad. It's more of an add-on to me than anything, and as an add-on it's still pretty cool.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 14, 2015, 02:39:10 PM
If the touchscreen was going to inspire all these awesome ideas then surely Nintendo would have thought of them during the DS years.This is faulty, closed-minded thinking. Nintendo released a lot successful touchscreen games on DS. You and I may not have liked them, but a lot of people did. Also, people come up with new ideas and implementations of existing concepts all the time. That isn't just gaming. This goes for everything ever.
Nintendo had awesome ideas and they paid off handsomely. I mean, I sure as hell didn't care about Brain Age and whatnot, but no one can rightly claim those games didn't have an impact. It's silly to think there aren't more ideas just because Nintendo didn't think of it in 2004.
But what ideas for touchscreen gaming does NINTENDO have? Not that there aren't other ideas other people could hypothetically think of but Nintendo's best ideas for the thing pretty much peaked with Brain Age. Nintendo had the very same concept as the Gamepad at their disposal for eight years and yet they were resorting to goofy forced touchscreen usage in Phantom Hourglass. So after all those years Nintendo will suddenly come up with better ideas just because the concept is now on a console? We saw Nintendo's potential for the concept already. They wouldn't be sitting on these awesome ideas. Did anything Nintendo was doing with the DS touchscreen suggest that a console that revolves entirely around the concept was a goldmine idea? And clearly they've don't have any great ideas or they would be using them right now.
And still it's the same flawed concept of feature first, ideas second. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a saying for a reason. A need creates the invention. Doing it the other way around is what failed inventors hawking products on infomercials do. Nintendo's approach should be to brainstorm game ideas and then if the existing controller conventions fail to accommodate these ideas, come up with solutions. Their current approach inspires shallow novelty games.
Nintendo was doing this on the Gamecube. They're all hyped about this Gamecube-GBA connectivity and what do they come up with? Pac-Man Vs., a game with so little depth that they have to package it in with other games to even sell it as a retail product. They came up with the feature first, then tried to make games for it and then were dumbstruck when trying to come up with marketable ideas for it. Why put yourself in that position? Why create that kind of pressure to "prove" the concept when we know that Nintendo can make conventional games that put everyone else's to shame? These controller ideas tend to result in lots of glorified tech demos more than meaty games.
Post by: Evan_B on April 14, 2015, 03:03:45 PM
Post by: Adrock on April 14, 2015, 03:29:56 PM
But what ideas for touchscreen gaming does NINTENDO have?Nintendo has had many ideas for the touchscreen which, once again, have paid off handsomely. You call Phantom Hourglass' controls goofy and forced, but the game sold millions of copies. And it wasn't even a fluke either because Spirit Tracks also sold millions of copies so clearly, some people liked them. Keep in mind that I never really liked touchscreen games. Unlike you, I won't claim they have no merit just because I, personally, don't dig them. The reason these discussions never go anywhere with you is because you can't separate your preference from everyone else's.
And if Nintendo nixed the touchscreen, that means no one can use it. Even if Nintendo ran out of ideas (which it hasn't), why not include it?
Quote
Did anything Nintendo was doing with the DS touchscreen suggest that a console that revolves entirely around the concept was a goldmine idea?I can't even take this seriously. You keep reducing the GamePad to just its touchscreen.
DS is one of, if not the most successful dedicated gaming platform ever. Nintendo was developing Wii U while DS was dominating so I don't think it's that farfetched to think that Nintendo hoped to find success with a similar collective concept. DS was everything Wii wasn't. It gave developers new tools without sacrificing the old tools.
Quote
Pac-Man Vs., a game with so little depth that they have to package it in with other games to even sell it as a retail product.Nintendo doesn't own Pac-Man, chief. It had to take the game to Namco who then decided what to do with it. Namco did none of the work so why wouldn't it package Pac-Man Vs. with one of its own games? Jebus, man. You're not even trying...
Post by: Ian Sane on April 14, 2015, 05:14:55 PM
QuoteDid anything Nintendo was doing with the DS touchscreen suggest that a console that revolves entirely around the concept was a goldmine idea?I can't even take this seriously. You keep reducing the GamePad to just its touchscreen.
Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?
So what's the Wii U? A PS3/X360 equivalent with a touchscreen. That's its hook. That's the whole damn selling point. Everything else was done by someone else a generation ago. The controller is supposed to be what keeps it relevant. Yeah the online infrastructure and graphics are all a generation out of date but that's supposed to be okay because the almighty controller with its unique functionality is supposed to make all the difference by offering new gameplay that no one else can.
That was the Wii's whole strategy. All the out-of-date stuff was acceptable because there are games like Wii Sports that no other videogame system at that point could do. That's why new videogame systems get made - because they offer something that prior systems couldn't do. Nintendo has struggled to offer something like that with the Gamepad and the Wii U struggles because that's all it can do differently.
Post by: NWR_Neal on April 14, 2015, 05:34:24 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 14, 2015, 05:41:35 PM
Post by: Adrock on April 14, 2015, 06:36:35 PM
Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?Good God, Lemon. Did you do any homework before you started running your mouth? It has an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, NFC sensor, camera, and headphone jack. Those are a lot of things the Pro Controller doesn't have, chief.
Post by: Khushrenada on April 14, 2015, 06:44:02 PM
Quote from: Ian Sane(http://i.imgur.com/eZjThLk.jpg)This thread...
Bravo.
When I saw the title of this thread, I too pictured Ian Sane's reaction to be something like this.
Finally! After 3 years of whining about the Wii U, the perfect topic is here for me to post in and crap all over the Wii U for the 1,587,294th time!
(http://i1029.photobucket.com/albums/y354/sinuhe777/Emotions/Rafawettingpants.gif)
Post by: Soren on April 14, 2015, 07:02:40 PM
Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?Good God, Lemon. Did you do any homework before you started running your mouth? It has an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, NFC sensor, camera, and headphone jack. Those are a lot of things the Pro Controller doesn't have, chief.
Don't forget the infrared array that simulates the Wii sensor bar and the TV remote control functionality.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/giddy-conan.gif)
Post by: Mop it up on April 14, 2015, 07:06:45 PM
And it has speakers. And it seems to have something else for IR at the top near the headphone jack, not sure if it's an IR camera or emitter.Don't forget the infrared array that simulates the Wii sensor bar and the TV remote control functionality.Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?Good God, Lemon. Did you do any homework before you started running your mouth? It has an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, NFC sensor, camera, and headphone jack. Those are a lot of things the Pro Controller doesn't have, chief.
Post by: Soren on April 14, 2015, 07:14:50 PM
I feel the GamePad has been put to even less use than the Wiimote was, so it's quite a disappointing controller. Though maybe that's for the best, since I think it's a terrible controller, due to being way too huge and square to be held and used comfortably.And it has speakers. And it seems to have something else for IR at the top near the headphone jack, not sure if it's an IR camera or emitter.Don't forget the infrared array that simulates the Wii sensor bar and the TV remote control functionality.Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?Good God, Lemon. Did you do any homework before you started running your mouth? It has an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, NFC sensor, camera, and headphone jack. Those are a lot of things the Pro Controller doesn't have, chief.
Ah yes, for the Fit Meter.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 14, 2015, 08:02:04 PM
Weird. I missed the part where a game like Nintendo Land was possible on the DS.
So if Nintendo Land is the big example of "this couldn't be done on any other system" you've narrowed in why the controller has gone nowhere. Cart before the horse. Nintendo throws all sorts of doodads into this big monstrosity of a controller and then when tasked with coming up with something for it all they can come up with, as usual, is a mini-game comp.
If anything pointing out all the goofy features the Gamepad has just reminds me of how unfocused the whole thing is. "Throw everything into the controller and surely we'll come up with something good for it." That mentality is what Nintendo has to avoid next time. This whole editorial is about unrealized potential. What the hell good is potential as a consumer product? I'll crap on Wii Sports but at least it offers a tangible selling point for motion control. "This is what we can do!" The analog stick wasn't potential, it was something with real benefits from day one because of Super Mario 64. That's what the Gamepad needed to be - something that immediately demonstrates how necessary it is. Not some tech demo with hypothetical ideas that might materialize in great games later.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 14, 2015, 08:11:45 PM
Post by: Khushrenada on April 14, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
Please inform me what the hell else distinct the GamePad offers beyond the touchscreen that makes it different then the Pro Controller. The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it. What else is it?
Or you know, you could inform yourself for once.
And now, Nintendo World Report is happy to present:
IAN SANE
in
Other Real Life Situations
Today's episode: The Swiss Army Knife!
in
Other Real Life Situations
Today's episode: The Swiss Army Knife!
Hey, Ian. Check out my new Swiss Army Knife!
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZjbZIDL%2BL._SY300_.jpg)
*Ian Sane looks at it*
(http://images1.miaminewtimes.com/imager/five-reasons-marco-rubio-isnt-ready-to-be/u/original/6523809/marco_rubio.jpg)
Ian: "That's stupid! It's just a knife that can fold itself up. That's its hook. That's the whole damn selling point. Everything else was done by someone else a generation ago. The folding knife is supposed to be what keeps it relevant. And it's not even a good knife. I can buy a bigger knife like a butcher knife from someone else. It may not fold but it will have a cover I can put over it. There's no reason to make this knife either. It's out-of-date technology. Metal knives were acceptable in the 1900's BCE but now everyone should be using lasers to cut things. Please inform me what the hell else distinct the Swiss Army Knife offers beyond the ability to fold the knife away that makes it different from a normal knife. I mean, *snicker*, are you going to cut a pineapple with that? Ha ha ha! I really nailed this Swiss Knife business."
*Everyone else's reaction*
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/6d5a62dc9fcc01c171575e9ab9425300/tumblr_mrsl3xwbQx1qfd965o1_500.jpg)
Post by: Khushrenada on April 14, 2015, 08:30:49 PM
The Wii U's Gamepad is a normal controller with a big touchscreen in it. That's it.
Translation: It only does one thing. It sucks.
Okay I really did forget about a bunch of other things the Gamepad can do.
If anything pointing out all the goofy features the Gamepad has just reminds me of how unfocused the whole thing is.
Translation: It does too many things. It sucks.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/NTsOF.jpg)
Post by: Khushrenada on April 14, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
And now, Nintendo World Report is happy to present:
IAN SANE
in
Other Real Life Situations
Today's episode: The Swiss Army Knife! Part 2!
in
Other Real Life Situations
Today's episode: The Swiss Army Knife! Part 2!
And so that's what else the Swiss Army Knife can do.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZjbZIDL%2BL._SY300_.jpg)
*Ian Sane looks at it*
(http://timoelliott.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/perplexed-banner.jpg)
Ian: "Okay I really did forget about a bunch of other things the Swiss Army Knife can do. If anything pointing out all the goofy features the Swiss Army Knife can do just reminds me of how unfocused the whole thing is. "Throw everything into the device and surely people'll come up with something good for it." That mentality is what companies have to avoid next time. This whole discussion is about unrealized potential. What the hell good is potential as a consumer product? I'll crap on Slap Chop but at least it offers a tangible selling point for cutting food. "This is what we can do!" The steel knife wasn't potential, it was something with real benefits from day one because of war. That's what a Swiss Army Knife needs to be - something that immediately demonstrates how necessary it is. Not some mishmash of tools with hypothetical situations that might materialize in real life later. And still it's the same flawed concept of tool first, potential second. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a saying for a reason. A need creates the invention. And clearly people don't have any great needs for these tools or they would be using them right now.
*Everyone else's reaction*
(http://media.giphy.com/media/n4c3nXK1nyEpi/giphy.gif)
[/quote]
Post by: jarodea on April 14, 2015, 11:19:05 PM
Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?
I wish they would have, but Sony did and is doing quite well right now thank you. Unless you meant the 2nd best selling system, the DS, in which case they shouldn't since it is a handheld and the Wii U is a home console.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 06:57:26 AM
Post by: lolmonade on April 15, 2015, 01:00:29 PM
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.
Post by: Adrock on April 15, 2015, 01:34:35 PM
All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?". Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.Since this doesn't imply that Nintendo makes any other changes policies regarding third parties, online play etc., it would be in roughly the same position except with a more powerful, more expensive console and no GamePad and still no third party support. That is better in some ways, worse in others. If you play primarily Nintendo games, you'd just end up having to pay more.
Post by: Phil on April 15, 2015, 01:37:31 PM
All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?". Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.
Who would buy a console that would struggle to have the same games with parity to the newest consoles from the PlayStation and Xbox brands? Who would want a Nintendo system which has predecessors with a history of poor quantity and quality of third party games? And who would want three identical systems on the market? I like the Wii U because it's actually different, and in a fun way, to the nearly identical pair of the PS4 and Xbox One. Being the same power as the next PS and Xbox systems isn't going to magically fix anything. Nintendo's problems as a console owner go much deeper than that, I believe.
Post by: lolmonade on April 15, 2015, 04:30:39 PM
All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?". Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.
Who would buy a console that would struggle to have the same games with parity to the newest consoles from the PlayStation and Xbox brands? Who would want a Nintendo system which has predecessors with a history of poor quantity and quality of third party games? And who would want three identical systems on the market? I like the Wii U because it's actually different, and in a fun way, to the nearly identical pair of the PS4 and Xbox One. Being the same power as the next PS and Xbox systems isn't going to magically fix anything. Nintendo's problems as a console owner go much deeper than that, I believe.
Just pondering here....I know a lot of people who like Nintendo games but don't bother with their systems because they also want to have 3rd party games. My hypothetical is if they were to do this in the first place, not axe the Wii U and do it now.
If the three systems were all on the relative same page, they all would have most likely started with the same quality of 3rd party game, so it would come down (mostly) to "Do I like Nintendo's exclusives enough to choose this over PS4/Xbox One?"
I get there are other factors (price, what systems are all my friends getting?), but one thing that's clear is Sony's "let's have the best hardware in the console space that's easiest to develop for" has been a winner for them so far, and saying Nintendo wouldn't get better 3rd party support if they'd be literally porting the same game over from Xbox One/PS4 is wrong, IMO.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
Post by: lolmonade on April 15, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?". Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.Since this doesn't imply that Nintendo makes any other changes policies regarding third parties, online play etc., it would be in roughly the same position except with a more powerful, more expensive console and no GamePad and still no third party support. That is better in some ways, worse in others. If you play primarily Nintendo games, you'd just end up having to pay more.
1) I'm operating under the assumption that the costs of developing the Wii U Gamepad & connectivity between it and the system was a relatively costly endeavor. Google search puts PS4 at a $384 cost of production, i'm guessing Nintendo could probably get to a fairly competitive price point.
2) If Nintendo's system would be nearly the same as PS4/Xbox One, what would really stop 3rd parties from doing what they do with the Xbox One/PS4, which is develop it primarily on one and port it to the other? Most articles i've read is that the systems are different enough between the specs and gamepad that it makes no sense to port them. Assuming they all started out the gate with similar specs/control schemes/limited technichal differences, doesn't this lower the barrier to entry for development on the Wii U and invite more ports?
3) Educate me on this one - what in itself is bad about Nintendo's online policy?
Post by: lolmonade on April 15, 2015, 04:47:52 PM
Third party support would likely be better in that scenario (though honestly, could it really be worse?) simply based on the fact that it'd require less effort. It'd be basically GameCube level, where it got most things, but they were usually inferior in some way. Honestly though, I'd rather have the GamePad, but that may just be because I own other consoles and don't really need the Wii U for third party games.
Personally, as much as I like the PS4 for some reasons, I would have held off on buying until I found a good bundle or a price cut if Wii U had a good 3rd party line of games.
I like the Wii U as well, and appreciate the gamepad for some of the things it can do, but utilization is really half-baked.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 04:53:28 PM
Third party support would likely be better in that scenario (though honestly, could it really be worse?) simply based on the fact that it'd require less effort. It'd be basically GameCube level, where it got most things, but they were usually inferior in some way. Honestly though, I'd rather have the GamePad, but that may just be because I own other consoles and don't really need the Wii U for third party games.
Personally, as much as I like the PS4 for some reasons, I would have held off on buying until I found a good bundle or a price cut if Wii U had a good 3rd party line of games.
I like the Wii U as well, and appreciate the gamepad for some of the things it can do, but utilization is really half-baked.
I understand that feeling. I basically bought a PS4 just for remote play in FIFA, so if the Wii U had continued to get sports games I probably wouldn't have bought a PS4 yet.
Post by: Soren on April 15, 2015, 04:57:34 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
I think a system similar to PS4/X1 with a "standard" controller but the same Nintendo antipathy towards 3rd parties would be worse than Wii U. It doesn't matter how close the specs are to each other, companies aren't going to budget for Nintendo ports if they have to face the same scrutiny, lack of hardware documentation and tech support they've had to deal with in the past.
Would the situation from their perspective really be that much different from the early years of the PS3?
Post by: Soren on April 15, 2015, 05:30:05 PM
Would the situation from their perspective really be that much different from the early years of the PS3?
Probably. I don't have any evidence but I'm guessing Sony was a lot better at communicating than Nintendo. Hardware revisions on dev kits would have notes stating what changed from the previous version, actual documentation devs could use without having to play a game of telephone between NOA and NCL that took weeks. The kinda stuff that doesn't get fixed just by throwing out a machine with better specs.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story
Post by: Ian Sane on April 15, 2015, 06:29:19 PM
Though hardware architecture plays a part. A lot of devs use middleware engines and the popular ones have to be supported on Nintendo hardware. Nintendo's own policies also have to be friendly enough that it is worth the effort for the third party.
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 07:01:44 PM
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
Post by: Adrock on April 15, 2015, 07:30:12 PM
1) I'm operating under the assumption that the costs of developing the Wii U Gamepad & connectivity between it and the system was a relatively costly endeavor. Google search puts PS4 at a $384 cost of production, i'm guessing Nintendo could probably get to a fairly competitive price point.I was under the impression that $384 was the estimated cost of PS4's collective components at launch which didn't include things like manufacturing. Therefore, Sony wasn't losing $16. Comparatively, Wii U's components cost roughly $230 at launch (the GamePad clocked in at a little under $80 of that sum). Nintendo was losing money on at least the Basic Set and probably less than Sony per unit sold. All hardware requires research and development so I don't know how much more costly it was for Nintendo.
Quote
2) If Nintendo's system would be nearly the same as PS4/Xbox One, what would really stop 3rd parties from doing what they do with the Xbox One/PS4, which is develop it primarily on one and port it to the other? Most articles i've read is that the systems are different enough between the specs and gamepad that it makes no sense to port them. Assuming they all started out the gate with similar specs/control schemes/limited technichal differences, doesn't this lower the barrier to entry for development on the Wii U and invite more ports?In a vacuum, nothing is stopping third parties from supporting Wii U. Third support involves far more than just hardware. In fact, hardware isn't really an issue. Notice that many third parties are still supporting PS3 and Xbox 360. Some third parties are scaling their games. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain uses the same engine across PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, Xbox One, and PC. Other third parties contract developers to handle ports either by scaling or just building assets specifically for older hardware. Apparently, Wii U hardware is close enough Xbox 360 in terms of architecture that porting shouldn't be a problem. Third parties are actively choosing not to port. There are a great many things Nintendo is just not doing. Paying for support and/or subsidizing development with upfront payments is one. General basic courtesies that Soren touched on is another. It doesn't stop there either.
Quote
3) Educate me on this one - what in itself is bad about Nintendo's online policy?Nintendo doesn't (or refuses to) offer the same online features as Sony and Microsoft. For example, Wii U doesn't include universal voice chat. If you've seen voice chat in Wii U games, third parties had to include that themselves. Nintendo Network and the eshop are vastly superior to Nintendo's previous efforts (sadly), but neither are really where they need to be.
Post by: nickmitch on April 15, 2015, 10:21:59 PM
Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?
If it worked once, it should should twice!
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.
How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 15, 2015, 11:32:47 PM
Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?
If it worked once, it should should twice!
I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.
I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.
How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?
LEGO City Undercover and then recently Affordable Space Adventures are the only ones I remember offhand, but there were others.
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.
My point was that there's no one deciding factor, it's a product of a whole bunch of different things.
Post by: nickmitch on April 15, 2015, 11:56:59 PM
Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?
If it worked once, it should should twice!
I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.
I dunno. The Wii was never the most sustainable strategy. It was mostly a fad. Nintendo wasn't getting long-term customers. Or if they were, they had no clue how to keep them.
Quote
I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.
How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?
LEGO City Undercover and then recently Affordable Space Adventures are the only ones I remember offhand, but there were others.
That reminds me, I never got LEGO City Undercover.
Quote
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.
My point was that there's no one deciding factor, it's a product of a whole bunch of different things.
Yeah, the horsepower isn't the one true decider, but it does create a very large barrier.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 16, 2015, 12:32:24 AM
Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?
If it worked once, it should should twice!
I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.
I dunno. The Wii was never the most sustainable strategy. It was mostly a fad. Nintendo wasn't getting long-term customers. Or if they were, they had no clue how to keep them.
I was talking about the DS. Some of that's still true, but not to the same extent.
Post by: nickmitch on April 16, 2015, 12:43:30 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 16, 2015, 12:48:21 AM
Post by: nickmitch on April 16, 2015, 08:05:41 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 16, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker. If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties. That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible. Is it ALL that matters? No, but it is absolutely essential.
If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.
But the Wii's third party support was absolutely terrible - easily the worst by a wide margin for any console that sold the best of its generation. Certainly all those great games of last gen for literally every non-handheld platform BUT the Wii would have been ported to the highest selling console if it was feasible but it wasn't. Instead we usually got Wii-exclusive spinoffs handled by the b-team with some half-baked motion control in it (or the dreaded on-rails shooter cliché). I'm not even giving a **** about sales. Yeah, the Wii U isn't selling well but that isn't why I don't think it's a good system and the Wii's high sales never made me like it. Nintendo's third party support is terrible and that makes their consoles a lot worse than they need to be. The Gamecube was the one time in the last 20 years that they didn't put a major technological roadblock in the way to completely destroy third party support and sure enough things noticeably improved. Things weren't perfect but they were getting better.
A game being released on every non-handheld platform BUT Nintendo is an inexcusable failure on Nintendo's part. It should practically never happen and yet it practically never DOESN'T happen. And maybe if the Wii U sold better it would get the PS360 ports that are still showing up. Sure but what's the appeal in that? I already have a PS3 if I'm content with getting the "lesser" version of a game. I'm going to buy a whole new console for those? If I'm going to buy a new console why don't I get the PS4 or XB1 and get the spiffier versions? And those last-gen ports will eventually fade out as the PS360 sales dry up and no one was ever going to keep the last-gen versions going for JUST the Wii U. The Wii U would certainly better if it was getting those games but that wouldn't be a valid substitution for having the same versions as the other consoles.
If you buy a Nintendo console you pretty much just get Nintendo games and NOTHING ELSE. Only the most die hard Nintendo geek would ever deem that acceptable. Buy a Nintendo console and you can't play 90% of the games being made while it's the exact opposite if you buy one of the other ones. The decision for most consumers is obvious. Even as a Nintendo fan it's a big compromise to make. Either miss out an almost anything Nintendo themselves doesn't make or buy two consoles. That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.
And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation? The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds. Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.
Post by: Soren on April 16, 2015, 02:13:28 PM
That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.
And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation? The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds. Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.
You do remember why the NES had 90% of the games being released right? I'm going to assume you do because the post up until this moment was such a wreck of words. A verifiable crash.
Technology means nothing if the company can't fundamentally change how it communicates with people outside the company.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 16, 2015, 06:44:36 PM
That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.
And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation? The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds. Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.
You do remember why the NES had 90% of the games being released right? I'm going to assume you do because the post up until this moment was such a wreck of words. A verifiable crash.
Technology means nothing if the company can't fundamentally change how it communicates with people outside the company.
So Nintendo shouldn't bother to fix anything because they'll just **** something else up? Underpowered specs should remain the status quo because Nintendo's shaky relationship with third parties will doom them anyway? Having industry standard specs next time around might not turn things around but going with outdated specs absolutely WON'T and I'll take possible failure over assured failure any time.
The Wii U is disaster for Nintendo. I don't get this need to defend their decisions with it. Practically everything that could have gone wrong for Nintendo on this console DID and yet if you suggest they should have done this or that differently you get swarmed. How was something like going with outdated specs a good thing? How does Nintendo or Wii U customers benefit from that decision in any way?
Or alternatively what SHOULD have Nintendo done that would have resulted in a successful console? What they did clearly didn't but all suggestions to have different specs or a different controller get crapped on. So what the hell should they have done? Nintendo themselves should be trying to figure that out to avoid this outcome next time around.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 16, 2015, 07:01:47 PM
Post by: Luigi Dude on April 16, 2015, 07:48:03 PM
Or alternatively what SHOULD have Nintendo done that would have resulted in a successful console? What they did clearly didn't but all suggestions to have different specs or a different controller get crapped on. So what the hell should they have done? Nintendo themselves should be trying to figure that out to avoid this outcome next time around.
Well for starters the system shouldn't have been $100 more expensive then the Wii was at launch since the 3DS already showed them this is a bad idea. Then they shouldn't have taken all the hype away from their biggest launch title by releasing a similar experience on a much cheaper system only 3 months earlier, resulting in every who wasn't a hardcore Mario fan to have no reason to buy the system. Finally you don't let the system have a 9 month drought with the next big being Pikmin 3, which was the sequel to a series that hadn't had a new installment in 9 years and wasn't exactly a huge seller in the first place.
Seriously, do you think a PS4 power level system would have solved this? It would have just made the biggest issues the system faced worse since it wouldn't have been even more expensive, with games taking even longer to make. Yeah Nintendo might have gotten more ports but that wouldn't have done much when people could have gotten the same games on the 360/PS3 during that same time.
Post by: jarodea on April 17, 2015, 12:42:54 AM
The DS passed the PS2, and I don't think there's such a difference between consoles and handhelds that they shouldn't be influenced by each other.
Sorry I'm a couple days late, I have precious little free time and as fun as this is I can't devote much to it. Anyways, I went looking for official info that the DS passed the PS2 and found none, the PS2 was 1 million ahead and still selling 3 years ago and both no longer sell. I looked up "DS outsells PS2" and found the source, VGChartzzzzzzz requoted by multiple Nintendo fanboy sites and blogs.
Well, I would hope NWR was above that but either way, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter. What matters is Sony took cues for their console from the most popular console of all time, and Nintendo from the most popular handheld of all time. We're seeing how that worked out for both.
Such a juicy thread, I really wish I had the time to go bull in a china shop in here.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 17, 2015, 12:54:49 AM
Post by: pokepal148 on April 17, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
I would bet a whole lot of money Nintendo sold well over a million more DS units in the last three years than Sony has.Of course they did, sony doesn't sell DS games.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 17, 2015, 02:00:39 PM
