Topic: Wii U - e3 is over... now what?

[UncleBob]

Nostalgia is just reminiscing memories from way back when. Has nothing to do with whether they we good or bad memories.

By the strictest definition, no.

Nostalgia is always in reference to good or happy memories.

Unless, I suppose, you could *want* to go back to crap memories.  Which doesn't make much sense...

[ThePerm]

Today I saw the Unreal 4 demo, and it was fucking fantastic. That being said the graphics on PS3 and Xbox 360 still are spectacular to me. In the long run Nintendo will make some gorgeous games and so will some of the third parties. Im just mad they are still keeping them secret. Teasers c'mon!

or if they just aren't ready, I would just like them to be on the ball and plan to have something ready before hand. I have no idea what the hardware after Wii U is going to be like, I can make an estimate NOW though and start working on something like that ahead of time.  Wii U is a supped up xbox 360. We should be seeing ambitious games at launch not games like nsmb or nintendo land.

though I have to say I was watching more of Lego City and it looks pretty Legit. I don't even care if the games are extremely childish or kiddy to be honest, I just want something that I couldn't EASILY slap together with some college buddies. Or i should rephrase that, i shouldnt feel like I've done more work goofing around in minecraft with teenage new zealanders and  achieving more work last year than all of Nintendo's efforts put together.

[Phil]

I was down on the Wii U at first, but seeing impressions of such games like Pikmin 3, New Super Mario Bros. U, Rayman Legends, Project P-100, and Nintendo Land made me interested.

[Evan_B]

Yeah, although this year's E3 was lackluster, I don't think it's a sign of ultimate failing in Nintendo's current strategy. I mean, they could just be hyping up games that are within a close release range. They teased Paper Mario and Luigi's Mansion last year, and that could have been kind of a bite in the ass for them, considering they aren't coming out until now. As for Nintendoland, I think it's a smart way to get casual gamers familiar with the Nintendo franchises that will undoubtedly be seeing releases in to coming year or so- and I think that's its draw.

I think everyone's still riding on post-E3 blues, personally, and Nintendo WILL have to pick up the slack in the coming months. If it doesn't, then we have more reason to hate on it. But the Wii U is still a console with a great deal of potential, especially in a social aspect.

[ThePerm]

Yeah, although this year's E3 was lackluster, I don't think it's a sign of ultimate failing in Nintendo's current strategy. I mean, they could just be hyping up games that are within a close release range. They teased Paper Mario and Luigi's Mansion last year, and that could have been kind of a bite in the ass for them, considering they aren't coming out until now. As for Nintendoland, I think it's a smart way to get casual gamers familiar with the Nintendo franchises that will undoubtedly be seeing releases in to coming year or so- and I think that's its draw.

I think everyone's still riding on post-E3 blues, personally, and Nintendo WILL have to pick up the slack in the coming months. If it doesn't, then we have more reason to hate on it. But the Wii U is still a console with a great deal of potential, especially in a social aspect.

thats pretty much the truth. Like or hate e3 the Wii U WILL be a fine system. They must outline the non gaming functionality soon, because I think it will be pretty big. I can see that with the Wii U you're not going to be using many other devices. I assume they must announce another show really soon, because those things need to be addressed. Even now with my Wii I use it all the time since I've got netflix, but with the new Wii U controller that experience is going to be even more fantastic. They also must address the online functionality because all talk was that they were going to be pretty robust and on par or better than xbox live at its current incarnation. My biggest beef as of now is Nintendo's constant software droughts.

[Kairon]

I'm honestly surprised at the positive impressions from other staff on Wii Fit U. I really wasn't planning to get that game but...urk... peer pressure!

[MegaByte]

It was kind of the best Nintendo game (demo) at the show. It's a shame some people automatically wrote it off and didn't try it.

[Snake-Arms]

I was down on the Wii U at first, but seeing impressions of such games like Pikmin 3, New Super Mario Bros. U, Rayman Legends, Project P-100, and Nintendo Land made me interested.

Project P-100 is the one game that has really peaked my interest.  In this time of muddy brown action games that feature a glut of quick-time-events, shallow characters and uber scripted Micheal Bay-type moments, it's nice to see a colorful, quirky experience.  Platinum games is quickly becoming one of my favorite developers.

[shingi_70]

Wii U is looking like Gamecube 2.0 to me.

Watching the live demo ign had of project P-100 and it looks really good.

But I have to say they didn't show me any must have uses for the controller.

[NWR_insanolord]

The GameCube was technically about on par with its competition, got most major third party releases and had a diverse and creative lineup of first party software. Wii U being that again is just fine by me.

[Kairon]

The GameCube was technically about on par with its competition, got most major third party releases and had a diverse and creative lineup of first party software. Wii U being that again is just fine by me.

Eeek! I love the GameCube itself, but that was one of the lowpoints of my Nintendo fandom. I'm not particularly keen on reliving my disappointments over some of Nintendo's output from that era!

[Chozo Ghost]

Wii U is looking like Gamecube 2.0 to me.

Better for it to be a Gamecube 2.0 than a Wii 2.0.

I know I'm the minority,
but I loved the Cube and hated the Wii.

[Ian Sane]

The GameCube was technically about on par with its competition, got most major third party releases and had a diverse and creative lineup of first party software. Wii U being that again is just fine by me.

This would be a step in the right direction and am improvement on Nintendo's part.  I can live with incremental improvement.  Though it is kind of sad that with the Cube I felt Nintendo had to improve a lot of things but now going to that not-particularly-high standard would be an improvement.  What would be nice is for them to go out strong.  The Cube died with a whimper, like the Wii is dying.  The Xbox was a distant second place to the PS2 but it wasn't considered a disappointment because it ended with momentum and the Xbox brand having potential.  Nintendo doesn't have to be number one with core gamers at the end of the Wii U's life, but just be in a position where them becoming number one with a later console is seen as a realistic possibility.  Nintendo has ended the last THREE generations on a low with the next console facing an uphill battle on day one.  Just make it so that core gamers are excited about the Wii U successor instead of the "oh yeah, those Nintendo guys" attitude.  Let's not have the Wii U's last year be the absolute low point in the console's popularity.

[Kairon]

One of the things I'm worried about with GC comparisons is that even though it was on par in many ways with other systems, it was Nintendo's worst performing console ever. As a fan who wants to see Nintendo do well and keep playing Nintendo games long into the future, that really concerns me. The GC is one of the reasons I embrace the Nintendo difference: the less they have it, the worse they do.

That said, I wonder if GC level 3rd party suppirt, which was still significantly lacking in many aspects, is a worthy benchmark to hold the Wii U to.

[Stogi]

As the largest Japanese company, it boggles my mind to hear concerns over Nintendo's strategy.

I swear, if the vocal minority had their way, they'd want Nintendo to go third party and develop for NextBox. Why? So they don't have to buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games.

And these are supposedly long time fans of Nintendo.

[Ian Sane]

One of the things I'm worried about with GC comparisons is that even though it was on par in many ways with other systems, it was Nintendo's worst performing console ever. As a fan who wants to see Nintendo do well and keep playing Nintendo games long into the future, that really concerns me. The GC is one of the reasons I embrace the Nintendo difference: the less they have it, the worse they do.

Since I have no financial stake in Nintendo, I only wish for them to do well in a way that will encourage them to make great games that appeal to me.  So if they became solely casual guys and continued to be successful as such, that's nothing to me.  They might as well have gone broke.  Prior to the Wii, what I wanted Nintendo to achieve was to become the market leader again, without compromising the good things about themselves that made them matter in the first place.  The benefit to me in this goal was that it would improve the third party support and make Nintendo more relevant in the game industry and thus have a positive industry-wide influence on game design.  I wasn't just concerned about having little third party games to play but also that an entire generation of game designers were growing up ignorant of Nintendo's game design brilliance and that a higher profile of them would be better for future game design.

The financial aspect is important to me merely as a way to achieve this.  Obiviously Nintendo has to stay in business to accomplish this and if they made lots of money doing it, it would provide obvious incentive for them to continue their good habits.  In an ideal world every videogame company is rewarded for their good habits and punished for their bad.  Nintendo succeeding through bad habits or in a way that I feel compromises their identity is no good.  Whether or not you agree with me about Nintendo changing you have to admit, Nintendo succeeding with bad games or with bad business practices is no good, because it will just encourage bad behaviour.  We all want Nintendo to succeed but we want it to be by providing great games.  Anything other than that is of no concern unless you're a Nintendo shareholder and can only hurt your experience as a fan.  Activision and EA are good examples of a company developing bad habits because the market seemingly rewards them for it.  We should never want such a thing to happen to Nintendo.

We should strive for earned success for Nintendo, though our opinion on what is "earned" or not differs.

[Kairon]

We all want Nintendo to succeed but we want it to be by providing great games.  Anything other than that is of no concern unless you're a Nintendo shareholder and can only hurt your experience as a fan.

A sports team fan is not financially invested in their team, but they are materially affected if the team moves to another city, or if the team cannot afford upkeep of their facilities or their roster. Likewise, a fan may not be financially invested in Nintendo, but they ARE stakeholders in the financial future of the company, and have every right to be concerned with the financial stability of Nintendo if they so wish to be. I mean, just look at Sega.

I agree with you that Nintendo's financial well-being, and their way of achieving that, is of interest to a fan primarily as a means to the goal of Nintendo making great games. But I think a fan has plenty of reasons to be invested, even if not financially, in the everyday economic realities Nintendo faces.

[MagicCow64]

As the largest Japanese company, it boggles my mind to hear concerns over Nintendo's strategy.

I swear, if the vocal minority had their way, they'd want Nintendo to go third party and develop for NextBox. Why? So they don't have to buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games.

And these are supposedly long time fans of Nintendo.

While I don't exactly wish that Nintendo would go third party (did not work out well for Sega, quality-wise), at this point in time I don't really see the point in differentiated platforms. All the next consoles will be dressed up PCs with extremely similar basic controller inputs (360 controller base) with fairly similar accessories (Wiimotes, PS Move, Smart Glass, UMote). I think people generally agree that there should be a standard of online functionality similar to that of the 360, with the multi-media apps that will be on all three consoles. What's really being gained by having three difference consoles? It's a very narrow competitive track for exclusive games. Sony has a lot, most are marginal, Microsoft has a few, which are huge, Nintendo has a moderate amount of active properties that are pretty big.

I think this parallels the sort of crisis that's happening with handhelds and to take a longer view, general computing. Really it would be best for the consumer if a single platform offered the content of all companies, both media and game, but then you encounter monopoly problems. The more I think about, the hypothetical Steambox licensing approach with minimum specs might be the best outcome.

Look at the desktop computing war: Apple has pretty much ceded that ground to Microsoft, outside of the realm of high-end media production, and the world seems to have shrugged past on the vague hope that Windows will suck less in the future than it does today (which has mostly proved true so far).

[Killer_Man_Jaro]

http://kotaku.com/5917363/better-friend-codes-achievements-and-more-nintendo-answers-our-burning-wii-u-questions?popular=true

Well worth reading if you want clarification on certain system architecture details.

[BranDonk Kong]

Good (short) read, it's also nice to see the screenshot and video comparison of the Wii U versions of Batman AC and Assassin's Creed 3 to the PS3 versions (here's a hint: Wii U looks better).

[Ian Sane]

We all want Nintendo to succeed but we want it to be by providing great games.  Anything other than that is of no concern unless you're a Nintendo shareholder and can only hurt your experience as a fan.

A sports team fan is not financially invested in their team, but they are materially affected if the team moves to another city, or if the team cannot afford upkeep of their facilities or their roster. Likewise, a fan may not be financially invested in Nintendo, but they ARE stakeholders in the financial future of the company, and have every right to be concerned with the financial stability of Nintendo if they so wish to be. I mean, just look at Sega.

The whole point of cheering for a sports team is to see them win.  It's a contest.  But the purpose of being a fan of a videogame company is that they make games you like.  If they don't make games you like, then it doesn't benefit you at all if they "win".  Put yourself in a hypothetical situation where Nintendo changed in such a way that they ceased to be recognizable as Nintendo in your eyes but doing so was incredibly financially successful for them.  Is that good?  Are you glad they did that?  It only matters if they continue to make games you like.  Otherwise you're just a fan of the name "Nintendo".

[NWR_insanolord]

The difference with sports is that the team putting out a product you like and being successful generally involve the same thing: winning. In gaming and other forms of entertainment the two aren't aligned as much. Nintendo can be successful in ways that don't interest us that much, and they can have relatively low sales while producing content that we really like. Ian's right that it isn't a good analogy.

[Kairon]

We all want Nintendo to succeed but we want it to be by providing great games.  Anything other than that is of no concern unless you're a Nintendo shareholder and can only hurt your experience as a fan.

A sports team fan is not financially invested in their team, but they are materially affected if the team moves to another city, or if the team cannot afford upkeep of their facilities or their roster. Likewise, a fan may not be financially invested in Nintendo, but they ARE stakeholders in the financial future of the company, and have every right to be concerned with the financial stability of Nintendo if they so wish to be. I mean, just look at Sega.

The whole point of cheering for a sports team is to see them win.  It's a contest.  But the purpose of being a fan of a videogame company is that they make games you like.  If they don't make games you like, then it doesn't benefit you at all if they "win".  Put yourself in a hypothetical situation where Nintendo changed in such a way that they ceased to be recognizable as Nintendo in your eyes but doing so was incredibly financially successful for them.  Is that good?  Are you glad they did that?  It only matters if they continue to make games you like.  Otherwise you're just a fan of the name "Nintendo".

I agree that the analogy isn't perfect, but the fact remains that a fan is a stakeholder in a company's financial situation because that situation affects the products that the fan wants to see.

I agree with you that a company can be successful in ways which are to the detriment of their fans or even their field. I would argue that sports teams can too. I would argue that some fans are there for perceived values they see in a team's play beyond their win-loss record, and it's possible to betray those values (sportsmanship, fair play, love-of-the-game, heck even FUN, etc.) while winning. I agree with you: winning at any cost isn't winning, whether the game be football, golf, or Mario Kart.

So yes, I care about how Nintendo "wins". I care because if they "win" but become financially exposed, it could affect their freedom to create. As a fan, I'm still here to see the product and values that the Nintendo philosophy produces. It's precisely possible for a company to win in a way that's detrimental to the reasons I'm a fan of them and that is EXACTLY why I am so concerned about their financial situation.

[Chozo Ghost]

As the largest Japanese company, it boggles my mind to hear concerns over Nintendo's strategy.

I swear, if the vocal minority had their way, they'd want Nintendo to go third party and develop for NextBox. Why? So they don't have to buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games.

And these are supposedly long time fans of Nintendo.

I'm the opposite. I want Sony and Microsoft to go third party so that I only need to own a Nintendo console and they would have a monopoly on the market and thus have all of the games... just like they did back in the golden age of the NES era. I want that era to return.

[Ceric]

History shows that there shall always be 3 Videogame Platform holders.