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

[BlackNMild2k1]

Bethesda to bring Skyrim, Rage & Prey 2 to WiiU!?
Skyrim look spretty damn good, so let's hope so.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/309811/news/bethesda-will-support-wii-u-if-its-powerful-enough/

"Our motto has always been: We want to make our games available to the widest audience possible on whatever platforms that will support the game,"

"So to whatever extent new consoles fit with the kind of games we are making and support them technologically, we would certainly do that."

"The Wii wasn't even an option - we would have to make wholesale changes to the games we were making on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC to make them work on Wii."

"I honestly know nothing about the tech specs of the new platforms and whether or not they are a good fit for what we are making with say Rage and Skyrim and Prey 2,"

"If they are a good fit for the kind of games we are making then absolutely, we would look to put them out for those. But beyond that I can't get into specifics."

Sounds kinda like a non confirmation that they are already porting the titles to me.
When are any of those 3 titles supposed to release BTW?



Wii U's corner cutting could keep core away
CVG Opinion: Nintendo's half-baked approach could prove tricky, reckons Tom Pakinkis... will Ian Sane everyone else agree?

But there's still an itching, worrying feeling in my chest that Nintendo's not quite going all-in to reclaim the core audience, and - shudder - it might even be cutting some corners.

As far as I'm concerned, for hardcore gamers Wii U could easily end up being seen as a console of half measures, a machine that makes an effort but doesn't quite deliver a five star package. I'm worried it'll end up an amalgamation of 'almosts' that falls just short of the luxury we've come to expect from the top end machines like the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

-Soon after E3 came to a close, more issues started to emerge as well. Wouldn't it be great to get involved in some split-screen FPS multiplayer with those Wii U controllers on something like Battlefield 3? Having a full map between the sticks (sorry, nubs) at all times for guiding air strikes?

The good news is that once Battlefield 3 arrives on the Wii U, you'll more than likely be able to do just that. The bad news? You're going to have to gingerly offer your mate a Wii-mote and hope he understands.-

[BNM Summary of Article]
1. No HD screen on uMote (controller would only cost that much more and make #3 more of an issue)
2. 3DS Analog Sliders instead of Analog Sticks (I heard they were different than 3DS, but functional)
3. No confirmation of multiple uMotes on one system (this gets me the most right now)
4. No Bluray or DVD playback (hopefully available in the eShop)
5. Ambiguity of statements regarding the Online Plans (they aren't ready to reveal it yet..... be patient)
6. Streaming to the controller only while in the same room (Iwata already stated that you could do it from a different room, you just can't go too far)

Dear BlackNMild2k1,

Post more Wii U news and rumors so we have something to talk about instead of the nature of subjectivity vs objectivity (again). Please and thank you.

Sincerely,
Everyone

Don't forget to support the troops
<-------------------------------

[Morari]

Don't be an idiot. You KNOW we'd rather have you neutral. Or at least "wait an see."

I would argue that I am neutral at this point. I just have some strong reservations. Reservations that I think everyone should have, given how the Wii's controls turned out. It doesn't help that Nintendo has shown absolutely nothing to really win anyone over to their VMU way of thinking.

[Ceric]

...
Don't forget to support the troops
<-------------------------------

With Crack?

[apdude]

We could talk about possible WiiU warnings like:

Warning: uMote is not a freesbie.  Please do not Pass.
Warning: uMote will not let you see under other users clothes. Despite what the Internet Says.
Warning: WiiU is not a Wii or Wii Accessory.

You missed one. 
 
Warning: The UMote can't be used as a Balance Board even if it's big enough to stand on.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Nintendo Wii U Is 'Slam Dunk' for id Tech 5 Games
Carmack: I think they probably made a fairly intelligent decision with the Wii U
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-wii-u-is-slam-dunk-for-id-tech-5-games-says-john-carmack/

"It should be a slam dunk to move over to Tech 5 games on there. We haven’t had that discussion yet as a company, but it seems technically like it’s a valid target, so I’m always happy to go ahead and get a new box in and see what it takes to bring it up and see the pros and cons of the choices they made. I think they probably made a fairly intelligent decision with the Wii U,"

"I think there may be more good uses of that [Wii U tablet] than [there are for] the current generation with Kinect and Move... there’s clearly a subset of games for which things like that are appropriate for,"
"We’ve been going on with how can we use those types of motion things with Rage and it’s hard to take a game that’s fundamentally designed around a controller and get value out of doing some of those other things, while adding extra touch interfaces there, that seems like something that almost every game could make some use of without it being just like, 'Oh, we have to do something like this.' Because if you remember, when the DS came out, there was a lot of talk about how, ‘Isn’t this going to be just a gimmick?’ But really it did turn out to be quite a good interface to build on."

Other WiiU news
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-01-wii-u-nintendo-kept-own-devs-in-dark


http://www.videogamer.com/news/is_activision_hinting_at_call_of_duty_for_wii_u.html

[Adrock]

[BNM Summary of Article]
1. No HD screen on uMote (controller would only cost that much more and make #3 more of an issue)
2. 3DS Analog Sliders instead of Analog Sticks (I heard they were different than 3DS, but functional)
3. No confirmation of multiple uMotes on one system (this gets me the most right now)
4. No Bluray or DVD playback (hopefully available in the eShop)
5. Ambiguity of statements regarding the Online Plans (they aren't ready to reveal it yet..... be patient)
6. Streaming to the controller only while in the same room (Iwata already stated that you could do it from a different room, you just can't go too far)

The only thing above I can see as legitimately cutting corners is the multiple tablet controller thing. Nintendo's comments on this have been vague/borderline contradictory. The gist I get from Iwata's comments are that the technology is capable of handling more than one, but they're not sure if they're going to include it. Seriously, it's the main thing that separates WiiU from the competition. Besides 1st party titles, it could be the reason to buy WiiU. More importantly, it could be the reason to get the WiiU version of a game.

I'm not at all bothered by the lack of HD screens on the controller. Currently, some high end smartphones are around qHD quality (960X540 pixels in 16:9) which, according to wikipedia, is 1/4 full HD 1080P frame, 3/4 full HD 720P frame. I've read estimates of 854×480 (approximately 16:9) and that it shouldn't look terrible on a 6 inch screen. Having only seen the controller in action through video, the streaming looked smooth and lag-free which is what excites me the most about it.

I got a chance to put some time into playing the 3DS last night at a friend's house and I played through the Deku Tree in Ocarina of Time 3D. I like the analog slider and while I've read that the sliders on the tablet controller are closer to the nunchuck's analog sticks, I kind of feel like I'd rather just have analog sticks. Still, I don't see this as "cutting corners" because it's more of a design choice than anything. The sliders probably cost just as much as analog sticks. Just seems like Nintendo is trying to keep the face of the controller as flat as possible.

I can live with streaming to the controller in the same room (I don't see myself needing to do otherwise currently) and with no DVD/Blu-Ray playback though I would buy an eshop app if it became available for convenience. I don't mind the lack of info on their online plans because it's still about a year away and 3rd parties have been pretty positive about what they've seen/heard so that's good enough for me for the time being.

"I think there may be more good uses of that [Wii U tablet] than [there are for] the current generation with Kinect and Move... there’s clearly a subset of games for which things like that are appropriate for," he said. "We’ve been going on with how can we use those types of motion things with Rage and it’s hard to take a game that’s fundamentally designed around a controller and get value out of doing some of those other things, while adding extra touch interfaces there, that seems like something that almost every game could make some use of without it being just like, 'Oh, we have to do something like this.' Because if you remember, when the DS came out, there was a lot of talk about how, ‘Isn’t this going to be just a gimmick?’ But really it did turn out to be quite a good interface to build on."

I really like this quote. In most cases, you couldn't just take a game built for traditional controllers and translate it into motion controls. Games had to be built with motion controls in mind to get the most out of it. That's why something like Metroid Prime 3 was more satisfying than the Wii versions of Metroid Prime 1 and 2 in Metroid Prime Trilogy.

The tablet controller is a progression of the traditional controller. It has all the buttons so no sacrifices need to be made; the touchscreen serves to add to the experience. Developers don't have to reinvent their vision. They can focus on what can be done with this additional functionality (if anything) rather than what has to be done when motion controls were the only viable option. Nintendo really put the ball in their court. Basically, Carmack related what Michel Ancel did a few days ago.

Don't forget to support the troops
<-------------------------------

You got it, sir. We need you to keep this topic on track, even if it seems like the subjectivity/objectivity thing bears repeating. One internet point for you.

[Tanookisuit]

I don't understand why everyone is saying they would be playing in the same room with more than 1 or 2 WiiU controllers.  Doesn't everyone play FPS (and I assume those are the games we're talking about) online these days?  Isn't part of the point of this system that it will have much improved online infrastructure?  I don't think people sit around in the same room anymore like they did with Goldeneye in 1996.

[Adrock]

I prefer local multiplayer pretty much whenever possible. Online is necessary for when it isn't.

[Tanookisuit]

I prefer local multiplayer pretty much whenever possible. Online is necessary for when it isn't.

Me too, but I don't think the same is true of the "hardcore" crowd Nintendo is courting with the WiiU.  And Wiimotes will continue to work well for party games. 

[nickmitch]

I honestly prefer getting people in the same room and going online together, like in Halo or Gears. Nintendo used to have the multiplayer system. Then that **** went online and Nintendo didn't. After that Nintendo brought made playing in the same room cool (again) for (casual) gamers. Now, they seem to be focusing on just this concept of "asymmetrical" multiplayer, which I still say is an incredibly short sighted strategy. It just seems that the people who would get the most out of gamplay that revolved around everyone having their own screen are the hardcore gamers (ie, the ones asking about it), and all Nintendo can say is, "D'uh..., I dunno. I never thought of that."

[Adrock]

Me too, but I don't think the same is true of the "hardcore" crowd Nintendo is courting with the WiiU.  And Wiimotes will continue to work well for party games.

The real question here is, "Why shouldn't Nintendo aspire for both?" That way, you please as many people as possible. For better or worse, I will never be in the same room as anyone on these forums so a competent online experience would make playing against you all the most engaging it can be. If everyone can have a tablet controller when playing online, I would prefer to have as close to that experience in local multiplayer which requires more than one tablet controller per console.

Asymmetrical multiplayer with Wii Remotes isn't the same thing. It's limiting. I'm also in the camp of wanting Nintendo to update the Wii Remote/Nunchuck for Wii U, namely more buttons and Motion Plus in the nunchuck. That would significantly soften the blow of asymmetrical multiplayer if the WiiU Remote/Nunchuck was essentially the tablet controller without the screen so it wouldn't require a classic controller (which strips motion controller from that set-up). Again, both WiiU Remote and multiple tablet controllers would be the best of both worlds. For those worried about cost, keep in mind you'd only have to buy what you need and every new console has required purchasing new controllers.

[Morari]

Doesn't everyone play FPS (and I assume those are the games we're talking about) online these days?

These days? Try since 1996.

Still, local multiplayer is always preferred when possible. Split-screen sucks though. I don't think that the WiiU will solve that problem, but the capability might just exist. It still won't beat a good LAN though.

[ThePerm]

i really dont get people bitching about how many screens people get to play on, i mean you have several options

single player
Multplater albeit Asymetrical 1 Wii-U controller 3 or more Wii-motes
Multiplayer with 3DS connectivity(most likely), and here the options become VAST. It could be possible to have more than 4 player multiplayer, with mix matching variation on which controller you play with.
Online Multiplayer

[Adrock]

Does this really need to be repeated?

The most obvious advantage to having the tablet controller is picking plays in a sports games. Any kind of private info can be displayed on the screen. That changes the way games can be played and just doesn't work with asymmetrical local multiplayer.

Using 3DS is NOT the same thing nor is it even a viable solution if Nintendo is citing cost as a hurdle since 3DS costs more than an extra controller ever would. It also lacks an analog stick and 2 shoulder buttons. On top of that, the top screen is significantly smaller than the tablet controller's screen. You simply cannot do the exactly same things with a 3DS. Finally, don't put a screen on the controller if "just use a 3DS" is even a real option. Don't ask people to buy a completely additional, independent and separate piece of hardware just to play local multiplayer. That's absurd.

Most importantly, the tablet controller is the entire point of the system; it's biggest selling point. Why wouldn't anyone expect local multiplayer with the new controller?

[MaryJane]

So what's the next Nintendo event for us to find out more info about the WiiU?

[Chozo Ghost]

Splitscreen sucks unless you have a really huge TV, but even then there's nothing stopping you or the other player from looking at the opposing player's screen and using that information to cheat. I was optimistic the Wii U controller would fix this problem, but since only one controller is allowed per console it probably won't.

[BlackNMild2k1]

So what's the next Nintendo event for us to find out more info about the WiiU?

GDC Europe on Aug 15-17
Game Conference (Liepzig, Germany) which I think is during the exact same time.

After that it's EB Games Expo Oct. 15th & 16th
and Tokyo Game Show Setp. 15th-18th

Nintendo's Japanese Retailers conference is sometime in October too.

After that there is always CES in January and GDC in March then E3 in June

[nickmitch]

And of course Space World.

[ThePerm]

Does this really need to be repeated?

The most obvious advantage to having the tablet controller is picking plays in a sports games. Any kind of private info can be displayed on the screen. That changes the way games can be played and just doesn't work with asymmetrical local multiplayer.

Using 3DS is NOT the same thing nor is it even a viable solution if Nintendo is citing cost as a hurdle since 3DS costs more than an extra controller ever would. It also lacks an analog stick and 2 shoulder buttons. On top of that, the top screen is significantly smaller than the tablet controller's screen. You simply cannot do the exactly same things with a 3DS. Finally, don't put a screen on the controller if "just use a 3DS" is even a real option. Don't ask people to buy a completely additional, independent and separate piece of hardware just to play local multiplayer. That's absurd.

Most importantly, the tablet controller is the entire point of the system; it's biggest selling point. Why wouldn't anyone expect local multiplayer with the new controller?

Nintendo wouldn't be asking people to buy another system for multiplayer...the isntall base of 3ds will be large enough by then that its just an additional option. If it isn't then by then youll have another great reason to by a 3ds. Hopefully 3DS will be as popular as DS was.

i dont get people bitching about not having multiple tabs because....NOBODY EVER HAD THAT BEFORE. Nothing would change in your life if you didn't.
If they had offered the option and then took it away, or if a competitor had this option then there would be a reason to be upset. I don't bitch that I don't have a Terabyte SD card, i know that one day I probably will. The Wii U is a super computer that makes near photorealistic graphics, connects to people around the world through outer space, has a billion times the calculation power nasa had in the 60s when they launched humans onto the moon, it connects to a giant TV, with 6.75x the pixels Wii could use. Not only that it connects to a TV Screen in your hands! It has rumble, cameras, lots of buttons, a touch screen, gyroscopic sensors, infrared sensors....a new type of joystick that is neither a regular analog stick or a slidepad....we live in a miraculous time of wonder and all i hear are whining and bitching.

[broodwars]

i dont get people bitching about not having multiple tabs because....NOBODY EVER HAD THAT BEFORE. Nothing would change in your life if you didn't.

The problem with not being able to use multiple tablets is that it's Nintendo artificially limiting what is possible with local multiplayer.  Take the example everyone likes to use for some reason in the NFL football example.  The hype is that "you can select your plays on your controller without the guy next to you being able to see them!"  Well, the problem here is that in the process of removing one imbalance (having your plays visible by the other player), Nintendo's added another: only one player has this capability.  The other guy's plays with the Wii Remote will be quite visible to the player with the tablet.  Sure, online play wouldn't have this issue, but Nintendo's never been about online play but local play.

Nintendo's putting all this emphasis on asymmetrical multiplayer, and that's certainly a gameplay element worth exploring...but it's not the only element worth exploring, especially when the multiplayer standard right now is symmetrical multiplayer.  If Nintendo allowed even two tablets to be used by the Wii U, you could have both symmetrical and asymmetrical multiplayer on local Wii U play.  Everyone gets what they want, instead of having to make just a different sort of compromise from what we already have.

[Stogi]

Two should be the goal. Most local games these days are coop or head to head.

[nickmitch]

The "nobody ever had that before" argument doesn't really work. If Nintendo pulled that **** on the Wii, the system wouldn't have worked. Without at least being able to use two uPads at a time, you're basically playing Wii again whenever you have friends over. Same golf game, now the ball is on the floor. Yeah, there's the asymmetrical thing, but with everyone else, they're just playing Wii albeit in HD.

[ThePerm]

heres what i see on the argument scale
1 extreme
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2003/20030825l.gif

the other
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

[Stogi]

I think the major gripe is the significant loss in potential. Having one umote for one person is cool and all but things start to get interesting quick with two or more. If the technology is not there then that's understandable, but if it is there, then it's a terrible oversight. If it's too expensive to sell on its own then subsidize it so it's cheaper. Take the loss and don't limit the value of the system for gamers and developers alike.

In all honesty, if they knew they couldn't allow for two or more umotes, they should have scrapped the idea and doubled down on M+.

[Chozo Ghost]

The problem with not being able to use multiple tablets is that it's Nintendo artificially limiting

Well, the problem is that the console hardware itself can't handle more than one tablet. Nintendo could fix that by beefing up the hardware, but the question is how much would it cost to pull that off? $50 more? $100 more? From the sound of it, it seems like its going to be pretty expensive as it is. But I wouldn't say they are "artificially limiting" it to just one controller. The capability of the hardware itself is what imposes that limitation.