Hardlocks, minute-long loading times and all games delayed to hell and back! So unique!

okay loading times aren't actually THAT long, but hardlocks do suck

Stupid jeers aside, i am still waiting for Nintendo to show innovation they say they're bringing to the table.

Miyamoto (and everyone else at Nintendo, for that matter) would be wise to not whine about what little 3rd party Wii U support they have, especially in terms of GamePad usage (considering not wanting to bother with the thing has been a cited reason why 3rd parties have ignored the Wii U).

And yeah, it's very hypocritical for anyone at Nintendo to complain about a "lack of uniqueness" with Wii U titles when Nintendo itself has yet to show compelling GamePad usage or a great deal of innovation in its own titles.

I was about to say something similar. I also think it's important to note that no developer should feel obligated to use the GamePad either. Its features exist as there-if-you-want-it instead of use-it-or-else. Miyamoto basically saying "You're doing it wrong" is discouraging at best and insulting at worst.

I'm sure Miyamoto is privy to a bunch of unannounced games. Retro Studio's new title could single-handedly justify the GamePad. Still, it's not the brightest idea to call other companies out when they're already weary of supporting the platform especially with some of the backwards reasoning they've been giving out. It would be nice if every company blew our minds with how they incorporated the GamePad, but even Miyamoto admits that not every game is suited for it. I would be happy to just get some of these games on Wii U.

I don't see how Nintendoland or off tv play doesn't justify the game pad 100%.

I can't speak for Nintendo Land because I've played so little of it. It was definitely not the reason I bought a Wii U. I was glad to get with with the Deluxe Set because for me, it was effectively a throw in.

Off TV play is a nice perk, but can't and shouldn't be the reason why a company puts a giant screen on a controller. Currently, there hasn't been a single game that made me think that console gaming is so much better with a 2nd screen. It's early so I'm not concerned. ZombiU used it effectively, but I wouldn't say it justifies the GamePad in the same way that say, Super Mario 64 justified the analog stick.

As far as I'm concerned, the Gamepad has been justified in spades.  ZombieU would not be as immersive or fun to play without the GamePad implementation for me.  Off-Tv play is a huge deal in my house hold and playing NSMBU. Asymmetrical multiplayer has been a lot of fun in both Nintendoland and  the Rayman Legends demo. 


Why does the Gamepad have to revolutionize gaming like the analog stick? It's pretty much has been demonstrated before how useful a second screen is with the DS.  Why does it have to be proven all over again with the WiiU (which has already showed a significant use case with the examples above)?  Sure those games could be made to just use a regular controller, but it wouldn't be as fun nor nearly as interesting to me. 


Also, I don't know why 3rd parties and even some people on the boards think it's so hard to incorporate the Gamepad in a game.  The easiest and most useful ways I can think of are:

Off-TV Play-This a feature that I hear a lot of WiiU owners (including myself) love and is a perfect thing to incorporate into multi-platform games if you have no other ideas.
UI Enhancement- It can allow your tv to be HUD-less, add hot keys, maps, easier inventory access, or ways of accessing extra info from the game like lore, codex, etc.
Co-op or same room multiplayer for the games that have it and pretty much all multiplatform games do.
These are just a few really useful ways to make a multiplatform game unique on WiiU while being useful and not gimmicky at the same time.  Many multplatform games use the features mentioned above already (Assassins Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, The Cave, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate to name a few) to the point people really prefer to experience the games this way than without.

I think people are over thinking the Gamepad.  If you want a truly unique experience, you craft a new IP around it(like Zombie U) or take an existing franchise and make the experience brand new through the GamePad (sorta like Wimmote+nunchuk with Metroid Prime 3).  Otherwise, using those examples above are both useful and will set a game apart from it's other multiplatform iterations.

It's like the DS all over again when people thought that if they aren't doing something wacky with the second screen, nothing else is acceptable or wanted.  If graphical disparity is with in reason, The WiiU version of multiplatform games would be my preferred choice easily if any of the above was implemented in a game.  3rd parties have little excuse in my book.

Because the entire console revolves around the GamePad's existence and Nintendo made it that way. They're the ones telling the world that the GamePad is the reason to go out and buy the Wii U. Without the GamePad, there is no Wii U so if they're going to have it and push it as the next big thing in gaming then they better damn we have something (at least in the works) that really changes the way people view and play video games. Right now, Nintendo is selling Wii U primarily to their own fans which is all well and good for a console that's 2 months old, but if they can't convince an audience (outside of the one that buys Nintendo because it's Nintendo) to buy into the GamePad as something more than a passing distraction, the experiment failed. The GamePad absolutely has to be the difference maker. Not every game has to change the world, but Wii U is still waiting on a game that makes non-Nintendo fans say, "Okay, now I want one." It's probably going to have to be one that uses the GamePad in a way that's not simply better because of the GamePad, but something no one has ever seen before. Is that fair? Yes and no. It's not easy coming up with a game that revolutionary. However, Nintendo did put themselves in that position by making the GamePad the entire point of the console.

This isn't like the DS or 3DS; they're already successful. The verdict is out on Wii U.

Dear Atlus,


New Trauma Center/Team sequels for Wii U.
HD visuals.
Awesome story and characters.
Groovy music with DAT BASS.

Multiplayer gameplay that combines Wii and DS controls, with one player with the GamePad touch screen and other player with the Wii Remote & Nunchuck.
Single player can play with either controller option.

The Gamepad is effectively no different then the DS touchscreen.  It isn't anything new so it isn't like that idea is going to suddenly inspire all these amazing ideas.  Everyone struggled to come up with decent touchscreen ideas on the DS and that struggle will continue.  The concept is just not that interesting.

This is the same bullshit as the Wii.  On the Wii if you didn't use motion control your game did not stand out at all because it would just be some PS2/Cube/Xbox game then.  So now Nintendo potentially has five year old hardware AGAIN with just some lame gimmick controller and they expect something different?  The only way to encourage innovation in game design is to give developers a big sandbox to play in as they see fit.  Iwata-era Nintendo's attitude is that you give them some very specific feature and say "this is what you innovate with".  It didn't work on the DS or the Wii and isn't working yet on the 3DS or Wii U.  Fuck, even NINTENDO sucks at innovating within these parameters and gets like a small handful of creative games out of it and whole bunch of the same old shit with forced gimmick controls.  Nintendo's best work was made when their approach to videogame systems was to merely increase the specs each time.

I loved Miyamoto the videogame designer but cannot STAND Miyamoto the executive.  They seem like completely different people.

http://i.imgur.com/AStHFQk.jpg

A lot of western developers ignored the Wii and DS, and probably didn't work phones and Vita, so it's all new to them.  Until they can get out the the same old routine that that they're used to on Sony/Microsoft consoles and PC, there's not going to be much from most of them...except lots of excuses for the lack of support.

The reason the Gampad has not appealed to me thus far (I'm open to the possibility that it might be used to create interesting gameplay in the future) is that it's been employed up until now for two features that don't really apply to me.

Firstly, it offers the ability to play off-screen. This does not appeal to me for two reasons. Sharing a TV is simply not a problem for me, and I would prefer to play consoles on a big screen rather than small one.

The second feature that the Gamepad has brought to the table thus far has been asynchronous gameplay. Once again, however, the opportunity for me to get a bunch of friends round who are willing to actually play Nintendoland is pretty much non-existent.

Removing the Gamepad from the equation, therefore, I'm left to look at the games themselves. I'm sorry to say there's nothing out on Wii U at the moment that appeals to me. Pikmin 3 and Rayman Legends are definite contenders, but at this point I'm inclined to just wait and see what Sony and Microsoft are up to before taking the plunge.

I guess "didn't work" is a subjective term. For me, the Wii and DS re-energized my interest in gaming. For the 100+ million people that bought each system, I imagine a fair ratio of them thought it was okay. While I'm not blind to the possibility of Wii U faltering in the market, I'm fine with being patient and seeing how inventive devs see fit to use the tools given.

Anyway, the touchscreen aspect is way less interesting to me than the integrated gyro, making possible the kind of 360 degree game-world as seen flying Samus' ship in Metroid Blast and the scanner in ZombiU. Maybe once the panorama view thing gets out there, people will understand the utility of viewing a game environment beyond the confines of the TV screen.

I'm tired of hearing people complaining about the Gamepad, so this is gonna be a long one. Feel free to ignore, and have a nice day. : )


The problem with the Gamepad or the Wii U has nothing to do with the Gamepad or the Wii U themselves (one could argue that the Wii U isn't powerful enough, but that's an argument for another day). Aside from the lack of analog triggers (which honestly is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned), the Gamepad is empirically the best controller ever made. People are obviously going to want to argue with this. People are going to say that it's just my opinion, etc., but it's a provable fact. It has more features than any other controller ever made, and it didn't take away any features to accomplish this (once again, except for the odd exclusion of analog triggers). In a pure comparison of what a controller can and cannot do, the Wii U Gamepad wins hands down. The only reason anyone should consider it a lesser controller than what we've been given so far is that they find it uncomfortable. That's a possibility for sure, and I won't say that everyonewho finds it uncomfortable is lying (of which I've only seen a small few, by the way), but gamers will whine about the most minute things that any cries of extreme discomfort or a horrible, unusable button layout will obvious be met by skepticism by me. But I digress.


People didn't have a problem with the Wiimote because it had motion controls, people had a problem with it because it added motion controls and took away many of the things we were used to, and in many cases, needed. It didn't have two analog sticks, it didn't have 4 face buttons, it didn't have 4 shoulder buttons. Because of these limitations, games had to work around them using motion controls in bad ways, rather than enhancing games by using motion controls only when they're useful. If, somehow, the Wiimote had added motion controls while preserving all the tried and true controls we knew before, then developers wouldn't be limited like they were. They would have motion controls AND everything else (Once again, there was also the problem with the Wii's power, but I'm only taking about controls right now). So now we have the Gamepad. It corrects these problems. Just like older controllers added without taking away, so does the Gamepad. The SNES controller added extra face buttons and shoulder buttons without taking away, and now those things are standards in the industry. If that wasn't a bad thing to do then, how could adding a touchscreen (without taking things away) be a bad thing now? How could this be anything other than the natural evolution of the standard controller? Gamer's perception, that's how.


The bad thing is only (ONLY) in how Nintendo has marketed it, and how that type of marketing affects the mindset of developers and gamers. Because that's the "hook" of the console, developers are going to feel like they have to utilize the touchscreen in every game, even when it doesn't make sense. And gamers will feel cheated if the touchscreen isn't utilized in interesting and useful ways. If it doesn't revolutionize, people will look at it and say "What's the pont?" It's a lose, lose simply because of people's attitudes surrounding it.


The solution? As obvious and clichéd as it is to say... it's the games! (I know, crazy, right?) When the 3DS came out, the fact that it did glasses free 3D was supposed to be a big deal. Just like people are saying that the second screen is the reason to buy a Wii U, 3D was supposed to be the reason to buy a 3DS. That was the only thing that made it stand out when it was released. Look how completely untrue that is now. Whenever people talk about the 3DS, the 3D is hardly mentioned. Why? One, because the 3D added without taking away (the slider made it optional). Two, because they just started putting out lots of great games for it. Must buy games sold the system, and helped people stop thinking of it as a gimmick machine. People still mention the 3D in reviews and such, just to cover all the bases, but no game gets a bad score because it didn't implement the 3D well. And no game sells less because it didn't revolutionize 3D gaming. So now (most) people perceive the 3DS as just the next gen DS with loads of good games now and on the horizon. The 3D stopped being a gimmick and simply became an added feature. That's what needs to happen with the Wii U. Nintendo and others just need to pump out good, must have games. Easier said than done, I know, but that's the only solution. Then we'll see the controller and system really shine. More so than any system could have possibly done before. Definitely more so than the Wii could have ever done. Revolutionize? No, only a handful of titles will do that. Just simple, logical evolution. Which is just what we need, I think.


Will it happen, though? Well... who knows.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KZcI7kEAmh0/UBh-wBCyfUI/AAAAAAAAAEs/GSo2u2fMe10/s1600/shigeru-miyamoto.jpg

I, for one, personally hate the feel of 4 shoulder triggers. They're just not comfortable to me, no matter which controller I'm holding.

http://i.imgur.com/Wj7z8Wy.png

I think as a controller the Gamepad is fine.  Unlike the Wii controller is does not remove a bunch of expected functionality.  If you want to you can use all of it's fancy features or just make something very simple that only uses part of it.  That's flexibility and that's good controller design.  You got the screen, the sticks, the triggers, the face buttons and a developer can use or not use any part of it they wish.

My problem with the Gamepad is this attitude like it's going to inspire all these new game ideas, which seems delusional at best.  It puts too much pressure on something that realistically doesn't offer anything that the Wii or the DS didn't already have in some capacity.  It's really just an evolution of the GBA connectivity on the Gamecube.  Nintendo talks big about asymetrical multiplayer.  Uh, yeah, that's what Pac-Man Vs. was and the gaming world gave so little a shit about that that Nintendo had to give it away as a bonus with other games.

Obviously someone here doesn't know what a "fact" is, as well as what an "opinion" is. It can't be "empirically the best controller ever made" in my view if I want nothing to do with most of what that controller offers. The DS showed me that a second screen is pretty meaningless, as no one on the DS ever did anything particularly compelling with 2 screens.  Plus, at best the human eye can only track one screen at a time, so anything relegated to two screens could easily go on a pause menu while losing nothing (and I don't mind pausing my games).  And the same goes for touch capability, something I've only found any use for in rhythm games.

I don't care about Near Field Communication, as at best right now it looks to be merely a meaningless marketing gimmick to sell Skylanders-style crap.  As for Off-TV play, it's a feature I haven't had much use for yet, as no one fights with me for control of my TV.  And when I'm home playing a console game, I don't want to look at a stupid little Standard Definition screen on my controller. I want to look at my nice, expensive HD TV with all the trimmings.  I also haven't had a situation yet where I care about a Wii U game so much that I just have to play it while I'm also watching a Blu Ray.  And it really says something about both the quality of the games and the Wii U experience if one of its best features is the ability to play something not particularly interesting while you do something else you'd much rather be doing.  :P: : : :

I don't hate the GamePad.  It's too big for my hands, the triggers don't feel right to me, and the screen's distracting as **** since you can't turn it off, but it's capable enough for certain games (though I prefer the Pro Controller).  I'll only have a problem with nothing interesting ever being done with it if Nintendo keeps focusing on the GamePad as the reason to own a Wii U, because right now it sure as hell isn't.

I do find it hilarious, though, that people keep saying the GamePad doesn't need to do anything innovative when Miyamoto in this very article is bitching that he hasn't seen innovative uses of the Gamepad in Wii U games.  Either it's a big deal Nintendo needs to justify, or it's a pointless gimmick no one should have to care about (see the 3DS and its 3DS display).

http://i.imgur.com/CaojQs3.jpg

There have been many games that have used the 2nd screen on the DS/3DS effectively. I still maintain, for example, that Ocarina of Time is a much better game with the touch screen. I wouldn't say that necessarily justifies the 2nd screen on 3DS because Ocarina of Time was perfectly playable without it. Still, it is a bit easier to justify having the extra screen on a handheld because portability and screen real estate are important considerations. Neither are issues on a home console. They're also not inherently gameplay related which is what I'm most concerned about.

A big difference between the way Nintendo presents the 2nd screen on Wii U and DS/3DS is that the GamePad is the entire point of the Wii U and the 2nd screen is merely a part of the DS/3DS (I always felt that they pushed touch more than anything else). For this reason, I think Nintendo has a bit more pressure to justify the GamePad from a gameplay standpoint. Exactly why is this thing so important to gaming? They don't have an answer to that yet, but I'm confident that they will eventually. It's not as easy to explain as motion controls which, like it or not, changed gaming, like shoulder buttons and the analog stick. Nintendo wouldn't put a screen on a controller if they didn't have big plans for it, some idea of what they want to do with it. Nintendo Land is a start, but I think the best is yet to come. Honestly, the absolute best way the GamePad is used thus far is Miiverse which would not be nearly the same without the ability to draw pictures. The only caveat is that, again, it's not gameplay related.

It does, but not every game needs to. That would be wholly unrealistic.

Yeah, I don't care about NFC either, doesn't change the fact that the Gamepad has it and other controllers don't. Doesn't change the fact that it's one more function that this controller has that other controllers don't, and it opens up options to developers. Whether you personally use features or not doesn't change the fact that the features are there, and therefore, make the controller better as a functional way to control games. It has all the functions of normal controllers and more. It has less limits. So as long as it works how it's supposed to, it is a better controller. And I have no qualms stating that as fact.


Like I said before, it's not a revolution, and Nintendo should never have pushed it as such (Although, even if they didn't, I'd expect the media and gamers to blow it out of proportion anyway). It's just the next logical step in the evolution of controller design. Almost everything has a touchscreen these days, so it's only logical that our game controllers would eventually come with a touchscreen to supplement the regular controls. Will it stick, like older controller modifications? I don't know. Apparently not, the way people are overreacting about it. Is it a good idea? Does it open up different, albeit non-revolutionary, ways to control certain aspects of games? Some that may even be better than what we've been doing? Hell yes.


So everyone, stop expecting a revolution, and just accept that certain things are gonna be a little better, and other things won't change. I mean, if you can't revolutionize, isn't it still better to move small steps forward rather than to just stay in the same place?

Having "the most features" doesn't mean jack **** if they aren't done as well and if people don't actually want to use them.  Not to mention, when Nintendo had to supplement the GamePad with the Pro Controller because the GamePad just doesn't cut it for certain people & certain experiences, you can't call it "definitive". But by all means, continue to worship the controller for the checkboxes it ticks off the list rather than its ability to convince people to actually play games with it.  This argument is too stupid for me to waste any more time on it.

The Pro Controller was just made for people who like to bitch about how they prefer the Xbox 360 controller. There is nothing wrong with the GamePad, it's actually superior.

http://i.imgur.com/w2qkp9z.jpg

How are they not done as well? As well as what? The other controllers that don't even have those options?


And some people do want to use them. You don't. Some others don't. But some do. So it certainly does mean something to have those features.

1.) I highly doubt the controller pro was made so that people who didn't want to use the gamepad could play single player Wii U games. Sure they may have marketed it that way, and the media certainly saw it that way, but I'm more than certain it was made for local multiplayer, because only one Gamepad works at a time. I could be wrong, but I would bet money on that if I could. Unfortunately they decided to call it the "Pro" controller, rather than the "multiplayer" controller, or something like that. A bad move on their part, because it gives people the perception that the pro controller is the "proper" controller.


2.) What experiences does it not cut it for? I can think of one thing that might be an issue and that's racing sims like GT. Please mention more, I'd like to know.

And there lies the problem I've been getting at. Gamer perception and Nintendo's marketing. Gamers are a whiny, volatile group. We know this. They take one look at the Gamepad and say, "Nope! It's different! I don't want it." And then Nintendo doesn't market it correctly, and the media keeps referring to it as the Wii U Tablet instead of the Gamepad, and gamers are still pissed over what happened with the Wii and apply the word "gimmick" to everything they do, and Nintendo stupidly called the other controller the "pro". People shouldn't need convincing to play games with the Gamepad, because like we've been over, it's just as capable as every other controller. But for some reason there's this preconceived notion that it can't be used to play "normal" games just because it's not exactly the same as what we're used to. And obviously that's idiotic. People should only need convincing to buy the system itself, and obviously all that takes is good games. After that no convincing should be needed to use the Gamepad rather than going out and buying a "pro", because it works and works well. Unfortunately for Nintendo, gamers can't see past the "gimmick" and notice that there is a perfectly capable normal controller right in front of them.


And with that, I've made my points. I'm also done with this discussion. Goodnight.

http://i.imgur.com/dm9Nyuo.jpg

I think we know who won this round

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/MiyamotoMuscle_zps18f444dd.jpg

The Champ is here! Dun-Dun-DuhDuh The Champ is here!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/miyamotoedge_zps85ca5da0.jpg

http://youtu.be/ipDvCSL-hKg

Broodwars how did you get hired by Disney? They need to fill their quota of Snow White Grumpy Dwarves?

If nothing else switching items and inserting text onto the tv is a million times easier and more convenient with the gamepad. I was helping a friend find mind craft on the 360, inserting text was such a chore, that is a way of the past, same goes for looking up tv shows with a standard remote.

Maybe you can't see beyond your own narrow way of play but I enjoy going to practice mode in Tekken, constantly sharpening up my skills while I or my wife watch shows at the same time. When I'm looking to just grind in RPGs I do the same thing on my 3DS, when I'm trying to go after those insanely hard gold medals in Mario U I have a much more relaxing time with the game in my hands and the tv playing something else.

Now when it comes to really wanting to get absorbed in a story or something then yeah I prefer the tv. But the off tv play has already proven extremely useful for me, the convenience of typing words and off tv play makes this by far the best controller ever. 5 player split screen for local play, or 2 people not sharing the tv for any split screen game just speaks for it's self.

Off TV is very cool.

But my DS and 3DS already can do it, and without range limitations.

5 player local multiplayer is also very cool. Had a blast playing Mario with friends.

But those aren't really super innovative, like "it changes everything" innovative.

I'm thinking something like card game with two gamepads where one can't see another's deck.

Or this one:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_magsiqwes01r87xsqo1_1280.jpg

So many ideas out there besides that "let's just add touch mode".

Also, Gamepad is quite heavy and i prefer wiimote or classic controller if game allows me to.

Your DS or 3DS cannot play Black Ops 2. Or Assassin's Creed 3. Or Trine 2. Or blah blah blah.

Get Sandlot on the system and bring what they make to the West. BOOM, instant proof that the gamepad is useful.


Chou Soujuu Mecha MG is all about the touchscreen and Zangeki no Reginleiv is all about the IR pointer. Whatever they do on the Wii U (MG would work) would likely be just as strong on the unique controller support.

That Penny Arcade comic reminds me of when GC-GBA connectivity was revealed and everyone was brainstorming ideas and there were some pretty fucking cool ones being suggested.  2D was kind of endangered at the time so a lot of them had the main character bouncing between 3D and 2D worlds.  Then Nintendo revealed their ideas and they really pushed Pac-Man and all their games that required the GBA for some reason relied on multiplayer.  When the fans suggest cooler ideas than what you come up with, your idea sucks.

I think there's also a warped chicken-and-egg scenario with this stuff.  The really impressive controller innovation that Nintendo came up with that initially seemed very weird was the analog stick.  I know they came up with stuff like the d-pad and L&R triggers but those didn't seem strange.  The N64 controller looked outright bizarre when it came out.  But then we all tried Super Mario 64 and we immediately got it.  It clearly demonstrated how essential the analog stick was.  The N64 controller was largely designed based around Super Mario 64's requirements.  The game idea spawned the controller innovation.  But since then Nintendo has had the opposite approach.  They think of some neat new controller innovation and then figure this will inspire new game ideas and then they struggle with it.  They struggled with connectivity, the touchscreen, motion controls.  For every okay implementation we got like ten games with those controls awkwardly forced in.  It's just not the right approach.  You don't make the Gamepad and think "okay, now what can we do with this" because you might come up with jack shit.  You come up with game ideas and then think "okay, now what new controller functionality do I have to add to accomodate this".

What? Quite Heavy? Do you even lift?

Thank you very much for that. You articulated perfectly what I was thinking.

  People across the industry and forums seem to be losing their minds because I don't understand what is so hard about the Gamepad. Core gamers complain when the controller is too unique for 3rd party homogenization across platforms (gamecube, wii). Core gamers complain when the controller is not unique enough for 3rd party homogenization across plaforms (complaing that the gamepad screen isn't useful or unique enough a feature, "lack" of third party ideas to differentiate it). Nintendo can't win.  I can't wait until the next xbox and ps4 are revealed so we can see what unique thing (if any) they bring with their controllers.  I bet they will copy Nintendo (like always) and incorporate some kind of touch functionality to their controller.  What will people say then? Nothing. 3rd party incorporation of unique features like kinect 2.0 or some such?
"We got tons of stuff we wanna do!"
I'm gonna book mark this post just to see if this happens. 


Nintendo is the only reason why I have stuck with console gaming.  They seek every generation to make gaming a fresh and unique experience by experimenting with the one thing that dramatically effects players, how you interact with the game. Nobody takes that risk first and with such commitment than Nintendo and they are crapped on for it every time.  But what's worse is they are copied almost immediately afterwards and no one bats an eye!


If a person prefers to experience games through a traditional controller only, thats fine. But stop acting like things like motion or touch do absolutely nothing to improve on how we interact with games.

I think a big part of it all is that it isn't just that Nintendo tries some new controller idea but they really do the hard sell.  They're telling us that this is the new way to do it.  It's human instinct to push back.  "Who are you to tell ME how to play MY games?" and that can apply for both players and developers.

With the Wii Nintendo took functionality AWAY.  They didn't add, they CHANGED it and, fuck, why would we want to change?  That instantly put motion control under a microscope.  They now had to PROVE that this was actually better than what we had before, and they had to do with while facing an already existing bias against an instinctive desire to not change something we were all used to.  Well this has created a reputation.  "Oh, Nintendo, is telling me how to control my games AGAIN."  Backlash is instinctive.  Sony and MS will probably just copy the ideas but not act like this is the new standard and they know what's best for us and all that other condescending bullshit Nintendo spouts off.

Still the problem isn't that third parties aren't using the Gamepad, it's that they aren't supporting the Wii U pretty much at all.  We got some PS360 ports and not that much else.  And the Gamepad isn't the issue.  They're all waiting to see if this is going to get lapped by the PS4 and Xbox 720 because they have no desire in making what will be "last gen" games on the Wii U.  They're not interested in casual games so they have to see what sort of audience is going to embrace the Wii U.  Despite how much money Nintendo made last gen the Wii turned off everyone but casuals and diehard Nintendo nuts.  So everyone is going to just come back instantly?  We're all still waiting to see if this is just another Wii.

I've never got that impression from Nintendo ever. They've never (to my knowledge) ever stated or implied that traditional controls were inferior or suddenly obsolete. My impression is that they introduce new ways to play in order to produce innovation in gameplay and to break down the barriers of entry to videogames. Yes they took functionality away with the Wii mote and nunchuck, but they also added the option of using the classic controller for those adverse to the Wii's native setup. Did WiiSports need the wiimote to play? No. Was it more fun using motion instead of buttons? To me, yes. I think that feeling of condescension was more spurred by your argument of gamers' instant resistance to anything new or taking what Nintendo was saying to instruct its new casual audience as something directed towards you.

In any event, I agree with your points about why 3rd parties are being so tepid with the WiiU and once again I cannot wait until these new consoles are announced along with software so that we can finally see where the WiiU will stand with 3rd parties in this next gen ecosystem.

This is one of the many reasons i hate Inspector Redwood (guy from 4chan who invented this meme).

Yes, Gamepad is too heavy. It's also too big and requires to be connected to power wire almost at all times (what's the point of making a wireless controller then).

Also, gamepad screen when you're not looking at it can be distracting (yes you don't see it fully , but i still can see some flickering and motion on my peripheral vision). You can switch it off in settings, but when you touch the screen or push any button it turns on again. Hopefully they will patch this.

I agree with everything but the heavy part.

The GamePad is NOT heavy. At all. And what about it having to be wired? I put mine in the cradle whenever I'm not using it. I only had to plug it in when I was playing once.

I agree and mirror this opinion.

I also mirror this opinion, which makes this opinion infinite. Infinitee equates to truth.

Honestly? I'd just rather just use the pro controller. It sits more comfortably in my hands than the Gamepad. Also, I do find the images on the Gamepad screen to be distracting.

different strokes for different folks I guess, just some folk like to be a little louder about about their strokes when they have issues with them ;)

For me:

1. NOT heavy

2. I've had a few long gaming sessions where I had to plug it in while playing but it's NOT a problem because I have multiple outlets close to my many gaming positions so its non-issue. Oh and I just make sure its fully charged before I start anyway.

3. Gamepad's screen is only distracting when I'm using netflix, since you can't turn the screen off (without pausing the movie.. and not being able to unpause it without turning the screen back on. Patch please...) but the easy solution; throw it under a pillow or blanket and make sure I don't sit/lay on it.

Is the GamePad comfortable for 2D fighting games, like Street Fighter?
Is it comfortable to keep your thumbs placed on the D-Pad and a/b/x/y buttons, and still be able to quickly hit all four shoulder buttons without shifting your thumb's positions?

OK, try doing that while playing New Super Mario Bros. U with the only decent controller it supports (the GamePad) and tell me how that works out.  :P: :  Yeah, I find the GamePad very distracting to use when all it's doing is duplicating the same image I can already see on my better TV.

As for the "heaviness" issue people have with the GamePad, I think everyone's just using the wrong word here.  It isn't "heavy".  It's "bulky" due to its weight being spread out across a controller that's just way too big.  By contrast, the Pro Controller may weigh about the same (if not maybe a little less), but because the weight is concentrated in a form that's easier to hold with a single hand we don't notice it so much.

My central issue with the GamePad besides the screen, though, is that I find the buttons and sticks harder to reach due to its size and its form.  It's a very flat & wide controller, whereas the Pro Controller is more rounded.  There are at least two different ways to hold the GamePad depending on whether you want to use the L & R buttons or the LZ & RZ buttons.  I really haven't found a good way to hold the GamePad so your trigger fingers can quickly switch between the two sets of shoulder buttons without repositioning my entire hand.  I don't have that issue with the Pro Controller, even if it is still pretty uncomfortable IMO for the right stick to be between the shoulder and face buttons.

I have played it and I prefer it over the wiimote. Not an issue for me because even if my glance does slip downward, I keep playing the game ;) Do I wish there were a way to turn the screen off ? Yes, for battery saving purposes but its not really a distraction.

You can turn off the screen.

Not while you're using the controller.  The moment you press any button, the screen comes back on again.

Yes, you can. If you have a Wii U Pro controller or a Wii Remote you can back out of the menu and back onto Netflix. If you use a Wii Remote you can take the batteries out to shut it off.

I tried that with netflix but my wii-remote wasn't working, even though it was clearly paired with it. Thinking back, I think the sensor bar was plugged into the wii at the time... that might be why... oops.

Which is fine if you're using Netflix, but not if Nintendo's forcing you to use the damn GamePad for something like New Super Mario Bros. U.

Exactly. wow me and broodwars agree on something :D

About New Super Mario Bros. U
  We're still stuck with Wii remotes for multipayer, thanks to the gyro and waggle controls added to the game.  If only Nintendo had added these features to the more comfortable-looking Pro Controller...

I have this, works like a charm (be warned, is not a replacement for a Wii U Pro Controller, but for the classic controller pro, wii remote, and nunchuk). I love using it with NSMBU and Xenoblade.


http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Controller-Wii-Nintendo-U-6304900/dp/B009O3WU2A

I think I need this...

It even has IR pointer functionality and gyro controls built-in so it can mimic everything a Wii Remote can do.

How does this work? Do you have to switch the modes from wiimote to nunchuck to CCPro? How console even determines what this is.

Also based on the picture i can't see D-pad being comfortable to use.

It's actually very comfortable. You can tell the game what "mode" its in by using a little switch on the controller.


I also use it as a bluetooth controller for my iPod Touch/PC.

How do you connect it to PC?

I use gloverpie to connect wiimote and classic controller but it's kinda of hassle setting it up each time. Nowadays, i can't be bothered and just use xbox 360 controller even if its' dpad is pretty horrible for 2d games (played Mega Man 2 with it this saturday)

Yeah, I also use glovepie. Treat the controller just like a Wii Remote when setting it up, and it should work. The amazing d-pad (sadly, better than any of Nintendo's official d-pads) is worth the extra time setting up.

It looks like something I would have bought years ago for the Wii.  But unfortunately, according to one reviewer, where you'd use the 1 and 2 buttons to run and jump for a game like New Super Mario Bros., you'll have to use the Y and X buttons on this controller.


Here's why I wish for every video game console/game to have a way to reconfigure your controllers freely, including being able to switch analog stick and dpad uses.


But...holy christ, this controller would have been frickin' sweet to have.

You could change the button map to something that fits your liking.


...or you could listen to some idiot on Amazon. :P

Multiple people are saying this on Amazon about the Y/X button thing.
Plus, many games, like New Super Mario Bros. Wii doesn't let you re-configure buttons.  Does the controller let you, and those reviewers are unaware of it?