Topic: Is Wii U Nintendo's worst home console ever?

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

I think, regardless of where Zelda U and Star Fox land on the quality scale, Wii U is easily better than Wii at this moment and yes tied with N64 but close to knocking it off. N64 has a couple advantages, one slightly stronger 3rd party support gave it some favorites of mine like Shadows of the Empire, Mortal Kombat Trilogy (although I had it on PS1 also), MK4, and it had a pair of really neat Bomberman games and a Tetris, all things Wii U is currently lacking. If they could get MKT and MK4 VC N64 and an original Bomberman that makes use of the tablet and a decent Tetris it would surpass N64 easily. Without those things no matter how good Zelda U is it will be tough to beat Ocarina  of Time, original Mario Party (man I had so much fun with that game I am still confused/pissed it's not on VC when the crappier 2 is) and and Super Mario 64. It could also use a good Rogue Squadron type game, or any Star Wars games for that matter, but it is what it is.

As far as controllers go, I rank the tablet higher than anything on Wii even the Pro, higher than N64, higher than NES, tied with SNES (only because the tablet's buttons are too spread out it hurts my hands playing, opposite problem as NES being too small) but beneath Game Cube (including GBA connectivity and Wave Bird)


As far as extra features, I rank Wii the best, despite the lacking game library and the sloppy last-gen with waggle tacked on ports, the Wii had the most fun non-gaming apps when it was at it's height, sure Mii stuff got old after a while but damn those early days of Mii share or whatever it was called, that polling app, the Opera browser, the Mii TV or whatever it was called, the Nintendo channel, all those early channels/apps were actually worth owning a Wii for. They weren't good replacements for games and when the library started to feel thin they started to lose their charm but for a good year at least the channels/apps was where it was at, I will give the Wii that much.

Wii U didn't even try with apps, it was almost like they put everything into Miiverse and figured to hell with it good enough, even the Netflix app was better on Wii for the first few years into Wii U's life. In fact the only thing I don't like about Wii U b/c is that the Wii Apps either don't exist or don't work in it or anymore at all.

As far as design, Wii U is ugly, but not as ugly as N64. NES was different for the time, SNES looked like a toy, Game Cube was cool looking but it had a bad, but undeserved, reputation of being a lunchbox, and Wii looks only slightly better than Wii U only because it looks right, Wii U looks stretched and warped for what it is. Like they just let the Wii eat too many bacon wrapped bacon sandwiches dipped in bacon grease for a couple of months and then threw it out to market.

But as far as original games go, Wii U sucks, it has what, one game that can be considered original? It is great but that is it, one original game. Everything else is just a new spin on an old idea, Dr. Luigi, sure fun but it's just a new skin to Dr. Mario, NES Remix, sure fun but it's just the same old NES games I already own on dozens of platforms, Super Mario Maker, sure it's fun but its not new, or original.

The best thing I can say for Mario is the catsuit was so fun it better make a return, and Super Mario 3D World is still my favorite 3D Mario, and I recently went back and tried all previous entries except Sunshine because I don't have a Game Cube, and it still has me having more fun than I do with those. But Super Mario 64 is still very close in the fun factor even as ugly and outdated as it is, which is why that is the one HD remaster I want the most. Yes I do want original games too but the old games aren't going anywhere and revamping them, giving them a facelift, tweaking them, etc, how hard can those things be?

[Mop it up]

I think that Wii will be remembered favorably by many. There are more good games on the console than many people give it credit for, and the Wii will also have been the first exposure to video games for a large group of people.

This year will be the tenth anniversary of the Wii, and I'm already starting to see some fond reminiscing of the system, so I agree that it will still have a good number of people who continue to like it.

The IR pointer was definitely the best thing introduced with the Wii, and it's sad to see it get lumped in with waggle so much. It's a bummer that everything got tossed out instead of keeping what worked with Wii, as I still feel and miss the absence of the pointer in most games. Gyro is not and likely never will be a good replacement.

Splatoon for example has had a lot of its content added digitally after the fact.  In the future when you can only find the disc you won't get to experience the "full" game unless Nintendo has re-released it.

Splatoon's added content is all for the online multiplayer mode, so once the servers shut down you won't be able to play online anyway. Not that this changes your point, but Splatoon does not fit your example.

Nintendo's worst console to me is the Wii. It has lots and lots of shovelware, probably the worst for any console thus released.

The PS1 and especially PS2 have way, way more shovelware than the Wii. Even the DS probably has more. The problem is that the Wii received practically none of the high-profile third-party games that were releasing on other systems, so the presence of shovelware was much more noticeable even though there was less of it.

[NWR_insanolord]

The most popular, best selling console is always the one that gets the most shovelware. The whole point of it is going for the biggest audience.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo's worst console to me is the Wii. It has lots and lots of shovelware, probably the worst for any console thus released.

The PS1 and especially PS2 have way, way more shovelware than the Wii. Even the DS probably has more. The problem is that the Wii received practically none of the high-profile third-party games that were releasing on other systems, so the presence of shovelware was much more noticeable even though there was less of it.

Shovelware rate or percentage is probably the highest though because of that problem where the good third party games were largely absent.  Third parties were intentionally making Wii-specific content that revolved around half-assed motion controls.  There is no console in history to have the weird combination of selling better than the others but having the worst third party support.  Third parties truly bought into the "casual console" stereotype and based their development around it.

Regarding the IR pointer, why have we not had a console mouse since the SNES?  Clearly PC games have routinely used a mouse since GUI became a thing so there are tons of genres that really demonstrate it to be a prominent controller option.  I'm not even talking about FPS but point-and-click adventures and RTS games and sims and stuff like that.  I guess in theory you could do similar things with touchscreens but we haven't really seen that (and without multi-touch the feature is much less functional then a mouse proper which can have different button clicks).

[NWR_insanolord]

The Dreamcast had a mouse. The Dreamcast had all kinds of crazy **** like that. Also, some console games have supported USB mice, since those ports are standard across all consoles now, though it's not that common. It's just not that conducive to the living room style of gaming; even now that they can be wireless, you still need a surface to use it on, which isn't always available in that setting.

[Mop it up]

It's just not that conducive to the living room style of gaming; even now that they can be wireless, you still need a surface to use it on, which isn't always available in that setting.

This is one reason why I find the IR pointer to be better than a mouse.

Shovelware rate or percentage is probably the highest though because of that problem where the good third party games were largely absent.

Looking at the number of games released and Metacritic scores, this does not appear to be true either. But these are your claims, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

[Ian Sane]

Shovelware rate or percentage is probably the highest though because of that problem where the good third party games were largely absent.

Looking at the number of games released and Metacritic scores, this does not appear to be true either. But these are your claims, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

If you're going to use something like review scores as proof then it is easy to make my claim.  I'll go to GameRankings and look at the top ranked Xbox 360 games and just start listing from the top the third party titles that appeared on the 360 and PS3 and not the Wii.  GTA IV, Orange Box, GTA V, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim, BioShock, Red Dead Redemption, Portal 2, Arkham City, Oblivion, Street Fighter IV, Fallout 3... do you want me to keep going?  Call of Duty and Rock Band/Guitar Hero are the only ones with Wii versions thus far.  I haven't even gotten out of the 90% range yet.  Meanwhile I count a mere 3 third party Wii games with 90% average or higher and two of them are RE4 and Okami - ports of games from the prior generation!  Is this really a discussion?  Third parties either ignored the Wii or used it as a dumping ground for junk.

[Mop it up]

No, this is not a discussion, because you seem to have completely forgotten what you wrote:

Nintendo's worst console to me is the Wii. It has lots and lots of shovelware, probably the worst for any console thus released.

I contested that this is not a true statement. If you'd like to backpedal and now compare the Wii to only the Xbox 360 and PS3, sure, go ahead. But it won't make this statement any less false.

[Spak-Spang]

By what definition do we use to define worse?  You see this is important, because it is really a personal question.

For instance, someone might really love Sports games so the system with the least number of good sports games is the worst.  Another person may be a modern gamer and thus hates 2D games and doesn't care to look at legacy and to them the NES may be the worst system. 

For me personally, I look at worst and best on one single criteria does the system have the games I want to play on it.  Period.  So for that definition whether I like the Wii or not, it can't be the worst system.  The Virtual Console alone provides me with more than enough games I actually want to play to be considered a great system.

However, the Wii U doesn't offer the same value proposition and when you take the system as a whole compared to all the other Nintendo systems it appears to have the least value when it comes to games and therefore would be the worst system. 

That said, Nintendo has also released some classic and arguably best games of classic series on the Wii U.  This makes it difficult to rank the system as a failure.  The system does have significant value worth owning for any Nintendo fan. 

The end of the day I think I would rank the top 3 Nintendo systems in no particular order as the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Wii.  And the 3 Worst Nintendo systems are the Gamecube, Wii U, and NES. 

This is of course a personal opinion as I said before based on what I believe each system has to offer and what games I can enjoy on them. 

[Evan_B]

I find it hard to say certain Nintendo consoles are more or less good than one another- although the Game Boy Advance has a lot going against it, with it's ridiculous peripherals and high number of ports. When I try to approach the argument, it usually goes like this:

NES: Well, it started so many franchises and pushed for a certain level of quality, but many of its titles are almost unplayable today.
SNES: Well, they did release some of the great "classics" on this system. The only real flaw I can see here is how they failed to respond to their competition.
N64: Well, it was a crucial and successful time for Nintendo to transition into 3D, but the system lacks third party support and the controller is pretty bad.
Game Cube: Well, they had an image problem, but the games were polished versions of their N64 counterpart and the controller was awesome.
Wii: Had really interesting ideas and (some) third parties used the device well, but also became a bit gimmicky and too platformer focused.

Now, with the Wii U, it's hard to judge, at least in comparison with the others. It has my favorite Pikmin title, my favorite Donkey Kong title, one of the better 3D Mario games, one of my favorite survival horror games, and even several third party titles I've really enjoyed. It has  its fair share of flaws, sure, but I would put it on par with the Game Cube and even the N64.

In regards to the post above mine, I'd rank the consoles as SNES>GCN>Wii>Wii U>N64>NES

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

See, I loved that the GBA had all those ports, it was like a portable SNES but with more power. It didn't have much in the way of original games, but it did have some of the best entries in certain franchises like the Sonic Advance games were all pretty cool, there was a unique Mortal Kombat to the system and some great Dragon Ball Z and Mega Man games, and that Mario Kart and Metroid were both fantastic games too.

[Mop it up]

If we're ranking systems then I might as well throw in mine too, though I'm too lazy to go check the ranking topic that Adrock referred to with his rankings. I'm pretty sure this is what I said though:

During their time: N64, Wii, SNES, GCN, NES, Wii U
Current fave listing: Wii, N64, SNES, GCN, Wii U, NES

By what definition do we use to define worse?

Judging from the opening post, it seems to be factoring in mostly the game library, but also a few other things such as the GamePad. It also seems to be a question stemming from the system's low sales, so I also get a hint of wondering if it truly deserves its low popularity.

[Spak-Spang]

I thought the GBA was one of Nintendos finest systems. 

[Ian Sane]

No, this is not a discussion, because you seem to have completely forgotten what you wrote:

Nintendo's worst console to me is the Wii. It has lots and lots of shovelware, probably the worst for any console thus released.

I contested that this is not a true statement. If you'd like to backpedal and now compare the Wii to only the Xbox 360 and PS3, sure, go ahead. But it won't make this statement any less false.

I would consider shovelware to be games where there is no legitimate effort to make something truly great.  It's sheer product, designed to take advantage of the target audience.  Think of games based on licensed properties for example where the whole plan is to get sales off of the IP and the publisher doesn't even care if the game is good or not.  Or another example are half-assed ports with obvious missing features.  The intention is to get people to buy the inferior product based on the name value of the superior source material.  Think of Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U.  Great game but since the port was missing the very important feature to import your character from the prior games the release was in bad faith.  EA didn't care that the game was essentially incomplete, they just hoped Wii U owners would buy it because they heard that the game was good.

On the Wii the vast majority of the third party releases were created with this shovelware mentality in mind.  They couldn't just port over the "real" game so they stuck the same IP into some derivative product, had the C-team work on it and threw in some waggle controls and promoted it as a specifically tailored for the Wii audience.  The intentions were merely to get product on the shelf for a console that was selling like hotcakes, usually using IP that had some name value from past generations and/or equivalents on the other consoles.  Then we got all the really bad casual fluff hoping to attract the same audience as Wii Sports and Wii Fit, but with 1/10th the polish of those titles.

It's all opinion but I felt a very deliberate effort from third parties to try to exploit the Wii audience with junk because they thought we were all casual suckers that didn't know better.  So I see it as a higher shovelware ratio than any other console.

[Mop it up]

So I see it as a higher shovelware ratio than any other console.

You've now changed your statement again, to be about ratios instead of numbers. But that's fine, as all I was suggesting is to be more clear and accurate. I still don't agree with you, but you've at least changed it to sound closer to an opinion than fact. Good enough, I s'pose.

[Evan_B]

Yeah, I agree with some of your definition of shovelware but I think a good deal of respectable IP that had a version-specific release on Wii don't fit your bill.

[Mop it up]

Yeah, I agree with some of your definition of shovelware but I think a good deal of respectable IP that had a version-specific release on Wii don't fit your bill.

I'm pretty sure Ian Sane's definition of shovelware is "Any game I don't like, which is a lot."

While there is certainly a good number of junk games released with questionable intent, I also feel like the system was similar to the likes of NES and N64, in that there was also a lot of experimentation going on to see what worked and what didn't. I think a good number of games were made with this mindset, some of which are good-quality and some could have used more work, but I don't think they were made with malicious intent. Also, I feel there are a decent number of mid-budget games that could not find a home on PS3 or X360 because it would have cost too much; most of these may not be great games, but they're good, and they reminded me of good ol' fashioned games that focused on pure fun even if they couldn't have the best graphics and sound.

[Ian Sane]

they reminded me of good ol' fashioned games that focused on pure fun even if they couldn't have the best graphics and sound.

I HATE this type of language.  "I like FUN games" like as if consoles not made by Nintendo don't have games that are fun.  Fun the whole damn point of a videogame!  You think these big hits on non-Nintendo consoles are selling to millions of people that DON'T have fun with them?  And this "pure gameplay" idea is hogwash.  Most games made by Nintendo or otherwise aimed to have impressive graphics and sound for the time.  Your favourite N64 games for example only look like **** today but Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64 - all of those were trying their damn hardest to have impressive graphics and sound.  It was a very rare occurrence for a game to seriously compromise graphics quality solely for gameplay, though there have always been lots of games that use graphics to cover up weak gameplay.

Until the Wii every developer made it a priority to make their games look pretty so as to catch the eye of potential customers.  This idea of "pure gameplay" games that only focus on gameplay being the old way is revisionist history.  Go check out the old Nintendo ads when they were hyping the **** out of the rendered graphics of DKC games.  Modern games that appear to focus too much on graphics are not doing anything different than what was being done on the Atari and Intellivision, they just have better graphics hardware to work with and the price of development has gone up.

[Mop it up]

Funny, but that type of language is all what you are assuming from what I said, and not at all what I was implying. And you know what they say about people who assume...

There are plenty of games on previous systems such as N64, SNES, NES, etc. that do not push the graphical capabilities of those systems to their limits, some not even close, particularly ones not made by Nintendo. They were still fun then, and still fun now. Also, even with games that did try to have the best graphics, I feel they still knew that graphics were in a primitive state, and they still needed to have great and/or creative gameplay to catch some attention. Not like the sequel-filled world of today where most games don't even show gameplay in commercials. Those are all the kind of game I meant. I was certainly not implying that graphically-impressive games can't be fun.

As a value-conscious consumer, I've played a lot of games in retrospect instead of during their time. Most SNES games I played during the N64/PS1 years and beyond, most N64 games I played during the GameCube years and beyond, etc. Whether or not those games had good graphics for the time, they were far below what was standard at the actual time I played them, and I was fine with that. Graphics have never been a priority for me at any point in my life.

One thing about the Wii is that the system and games were priced lower than the competition. You get what you pay for, and all of that. I was happy that there was an alternative to those expensive systems, as to me they were not worth paying more to get better graphics. Would it be nice if Wii had better graphics? Sure, but not if I had to pay more for it. The system did have a shift in priorities, and I am simply saying that I was okay with that, since graphics have never been one of my priorities either.

I suggest that instead of assuming the meaning of something, you ask for clarification if you're not sure. That is, of course, if you actually want to have a discussion instead of finding any excuse to go off on yet another complaining rant. Your call.

[KeyBilly]

I'll throw in my own, completely personal, ranking:

SNES, N64, Wii, NES, GCN, Wii U

The SNES has many classics that are as playable today as they were then, and largely dominated a time period where game development had matured to a large industry, while still being experimental and unpredictable.

The N64 had Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time.  Nintendo was leading the industry, creating iconic versions of largely new genres.

The Wii was daring and unique in spite of its flaws.  While the console was a mess and died with a whimper, it did give me one of my favorite games of all time - Super Mario Galaxy.  With beautiful orchestrated music and a fantastic blend of linear and exploratory level designs, aided by an imaginative world, it biases my whole view of the console for the better.  Still, most of the promise of the console was not realized.

The NES was pivotal and many games are still fun, such as Zelda.  Nostalgia is needed to enjoy the majority of them fully, since standard game features that streamline gameplay had yet to be invented.

The GCN era was a fall from grace for Nintendo in terms of sales, but had good technology and controls for the time and a decent number of gems.  The Zelda and Mario titles had great aesthetics and concepts, but the execution was no longer at the Nintendo level of yore.  They were more iterative, and less genre-defining.  Metroid Prime was crazy good.

The Wii U is the first Nintendo console I could give a pass on entirely, but this is largely because of my preferences.  The 3D Mario is okay, but a bit of a mess with multiple people and bland without.  A lot of the excitement and production quality of Galaxy is gone, streamlined into a more classic style that left me and others playing underwhelmed.  Still, games like Captain Toad and Pikmin 3 make it hard to fault it too harshly.  The poor sales may also spark a more competitive and exciting successor than if it was a success.

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

Well I feel bad, I started this thread hoping to have people come to defend the Wii U which is why I listed it's positives first, but I guess I should have known better.

[Evan_B]

Then your thread title should have aligned more with TOPHATANT's spinoff, rather than having a negative connotation. But, I digress.

Graphics =/= Level of texture resolution or HD visuals. Fast Racing NEO has 4K resolution textures, and it looks detailed. But it certainly doesn't have much going for it in terms of aesthetics. Aesthetic is possibly the most important lesson Nintendo learned from some of their greatest successes like DKC and Wind Waker- pre-rendered graphics are an artistic choice, not a technical one. So the graphics aspect of the Wii is utter nonsense, in my opinion, unless you hopped on the HD train early and want some post-purchase rationalization. Likewise, the graphical difference between Wii U and other systems is nowhere near the difference between SNS-N64 or N64-GCN. Power, however, and performance- those are things that matter. They will always matter. So when Bayonetta 2 runs like butter and Xenoblade Chronicles X does open-world almost seamlessly, that's an example of a developer getting the most out of the system. However, on the flipside, the ****-show that was the Wii U User Interface in its early days was absolutely unacceptable, and Nintendo better realize that. Growing pains of the HD-transition or no, they need to come out of the gate with some better loading times, a better integrated system between applications, and a little more polish.

[KeyBilly]

Sorry if I was being too negative.  The ranking is my own fickle one of Nintendo consoles, and I've enjoyed all of them.  The Wii U is the lowest on that scale, but it is a good scale to be anywhere on.

[Evan_B]

I find that, during periods of refinement, Nintendo puts out their best work. NES, N64, and to some extent Wii U have all been introductory phases for them, and all have suffered in their own ways. NES is just simplistic, N64 established many themes for certain franchises but was hardly the perfect transitory phase, and Wii U has the scars of HD development all over it, despite performance generally being quite steady.

Whereas SNES was the culmination of previous ideas streamlined by gorgeous 16-bit graphics, Game Cube was a polishing of Nintendo's earlier forays with an emphasis on art style, and Wii was that, taken to a further extreme. Sure, there was lots of motion control experimentation, but the performance and visual styles of those games were fine-tuned to an extent that surpassed the GCN.

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

Then your thread title should have aligned more with TOPHATANT's spinoff, rather than having a negative connotation. But, I digress.

Graphics =/= Level of texture resolution or HD visuals. Fast Racing NEO has 4K resolution textures, and it looks detailed. But it certainly doesn't have much going for it in terms of aesthetics. Aesthetic is possibly the most important lesson Nintendo learned from some of their greatest successes like DKC and Wind Waker- pre-rendered graphics are an artistic choice, not a technical one. So the graphics aspect of the Wii is utter nonsense, in my opinion, unless you hopped on the HD train early and want some post-purchase rationalization. Likewise, the graphical difference between Wii U and other systems is nowhere near the difference between SNS-N64 or N64-GCN. Power, however, and performance- those are things that matter. They will always matter. So when Bayonetta 2 runs like butter and Xenoblade Chronicles X does open-world almost seamlessly, that's an example of a developer getting the most out of the system. However, on the flipside, the ****-show that was the Wii U User Interface in its early days was absolutely unacceptable, and Nintendo better realize that. Growing pains of the HD-transition or no, they need to come out of the gate with some better loading times, a better integrated system between applications, and a little more polish.

Because I was curious if others felt it was their worst, I was never going to consider it as the best that is ridiculous. to me.