Topic: Wii U is the new PS3?

[Ian Sane]

Going third-party would mean a whole change of Nintendo-- mass exodus of employees, less risks, no ability to work on games that are on hardware they're comfortable with, no features that come from Nintendo hardware that can't be found elsewhere, etc.


Those thinking it would be the same Nintendo and the same quality are sorely mistaken.

It already is a different Nintendo.  Once the N64 scared off all the third parties we got a different Nintendo.  When the Wii started a new trend of Nintendo having out dated hardware we got a different Nintendo.  And I would say that with both changes the overall experience for a Nintendo console owner got worse.  It's happened and it can happen again.

Something will change.  Either they get out of consoles altogether or they switch to a handheld/console hybrid or they go third party.  They could change their policies and get their act together and come back but that would still be a change.  They could keep doing things the way they're doing and if the Wii U ain't the console that crashes and burns the next one is and then change comes.  We're getting a different Nintendo no matter what.

Really Nintendo just made some big mistakes with the N64 and have never gone back and addressed them.  They just introduced bad habits and policies that have dragged them down to this day.  The refusal to admit and address mistakes has become part of the company's culture: "Nintendo is always right.  Everyone outside of Nintendo is our enemy."  They need to step back, acknowledge when the train derailed and try to turn into the company they SHOULD have been at this point if they corrected the mistakes at the time they needed to be addressed.  And it isn't like Nintendo's historical quality is because of these negative traits.  Being an asshole to third parties, retailers, the media and their own damn customers has nothing to do with Mario and Zelda games being great.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Phil - I think you have it backwards. Nintendo has totally refused risk and instead become a Mario factory. 3 core Mario games in year 1 of  the.Wii U?  This right after NSMB 2 and 3D Land were pumped out to save the 3DS. Titles like Fire Emblem Wii U publically spurned because they don't sell enough. Wii U product line is still not profitable per 10/31 reports. Iwata has spurned layoffs thus far. It's easy to do when you project 9 million units sold in 5 months or whatever their target is. When Nintendo misses that target (and they will)  Iwata is going to have a lot of pressure to do something. That could be to lay off or start supporting tablets or to have a plan to move away from the Wii U.

Either way there is no reason to believe Nintendo would have to lay off or wouldn't be able to optimize hardware they didn't create. Actually I think it would be great that software developers could focus on developing quality software and not be forced to use hardware features. Latest example being the tablet only 3D World levels. Does that really make the game better?

[ShyGuy]

If Nintendo software developers could focus on quality software and not forced to use hardware features, we would have never had shoulder buttons or the analog stick.

[NWR_insanolord]

To say that Nintendo's developers have been hamstrung by the requirement to use hardware features anytime recently is insane. That was a valid criticism on the Wii but if anything they're not doing enough to showcase the Wii U functionality.

[Luigi Dude]

Phil - I think you have it backwards. Nintendo has totally refused risk and instead become a Mario factory. 3 core Mario games in year 1 of  the.Wii U?  This right after NSMB 2 and 3D Land were pumped out to save the 3DS. Titles like Fire Emblem Wii U publically spurned because they don't sell enough. Wii U product line is still not profitable per 10/31 reports. Iwata has spurned layoffs thus far. It's easy to do when you project 9 million units sold in 5 months or whatever their target is. When Nintendo misses that target (and they will)  Iwata is going to have a lot of pressure to do something. That could be to lay off or start supporting tablets or to have a plan to move away from the Wii U.

And yet we're still getting Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem for the Wii U.  I like how you also forget the funding of games like The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2 and Monolith Soft's X.  Or the fact we finally got a Pikmin 3, a sequel to a game that came out 9 years ago and wasn't a big seller either, but was still allowed a more expensive full HD sequel instead of a cheaper 3DS one.

If Nintendo refused to take risks like you say, then non of the above games would exist.  And yet they do, since every single game above is 100% funded and released by Nintendo.  All the money spent on these titles could have been used for more Mario and yet they spent it on riskier new IP's or lesser known current IP's.  Hell The Wonderful 101 was originally suppose to star Nintendo characters but Nintendo allowed Kamiya to make it a completely knew series when he complained.  If that isn't risk taking then I don't know what is in your world.

[Ian Sane]

If Nintendo software developers could focus on quality software and not forced to use hardware features, we would have never had shoulder buttons or the analog stick.

The funny thing with hardware features is if they're great features you can't tell if anyone is forced to use them because it is so obvious that you would anyway.  The L&R buttons clearly weren't forced since Super Mario World barely uses them and I don't think A Link to the Past does at all.  On the SNES, games use the L&R buttons when it makes sense to or they pretty much never use them at all.  On the N64 I'm having trouble thinking of a Nintendo game that didn't use it so it's harder to tell if it was forced or not.  It didn't feel like it because the games controlled great.  Now Nintendo didn't really emphasize those features much anyway.  Those systems were mostly sold on the obvious technological leap they provided over the previous generation.  It was all Mode 7 and the leap to full 3D.

Now on the Wii the controller was the center of the marketing so there was obvious pressure to use it.  I think a good indicator is how much third parties, who are not going to feel any need to "sell" us on questionable features, actually use it.

On the Wii U though, they do seem to be a lot less interested in pushing the Gamepad than one would expect.  Okay, so why are you making us buy this expensive controller and likely compromising the specs to keep the system at an affordable price point?  It's like they learned from the forced remote usage but didn't realize that basing the whole system around a pack-in accessory kind of requires you to force the usage to justify it.

[smallsharkbigbite]

To say that Nintendo's developers have been hamstrung by the requirement to use hardware features anytime recently is insane. That was a valid criticism on the Wii but if anything they're not doing enough to showcase the Wii U functionality.

I stand by my criticism that they are forcing it in games where it doesn't make sense. With the Wii, it made games worse at times. With the Wii U it doesn't make things worse. It's just annoying and doesn't make them better. Another example is Pikmin 3. I plop down with my pro controller to play since I preferred the smaller Gamecube-like controller. I wasn't 5 min into the game when I got a message. Well okay how do I answer it?  Oh, I can't get a gamestopping message to show on the tv?  I have to go pick up the gamepad sitting in the cradle?  That was stupid and I felt like I was forced to use the gamepad and the pro controller was useless except for multiplayer. Now did using the gamepad to play the game make the game substantially worse the way motion controls did in making me spin jump to my death in NSMB?  No they didn't and that's not my argument. My point is it was forced and added nothing to the game.

Shy - You're missunderstanding me. I don't hate the gamepad and games that take advantage of it like Nintendoland are welcome to use it. My problem is when they force it into traditional games where it doesn't make sense like the two examples I've given where it clearly adds nothing to the game.

Luigi - I'm not really going to get in a big argument because I feel that's offtrack and goes back into the history and decisions of each console to know if Nintendo's riskier or more adverse to risk at this time. I feel Nintendo has been safe and I don't recall a time when they've gone to the well this much with their main franchises. I also think Nintendo thought the Wii U would sell much more making those choices less risky st the time. For instance, I don't think Nintendo would greenlight Pikmin 3 today knowing what they know about the Wii U and in general Nintendo has filled their schedule with delayed titles rather than announce anything new and exciting recently.

[Adrock]

To say that Nintendo's developers have been hamstrung by the requirement to use hardware features anytime recently is insane. That was a valid criticism on the Wii but if anything they're not doing enough to showcase the Wii U functionality.

I don't think management is forcing the developers to use certain hardware features as a requirement or something. However, I believe sometimes Nintendo's developers force themselves and that's why it's been somewhat uninspired in certain games. For example, the GamePad doesn't really work that well in Super Mario 3D World. It felt like they decided to use the GamePad because it's there, not because they had any interesting ideas that couldn't be implemented within the confines of their design otherwise.

I agree that they aren't doing enough showcase it. A sequel to 3D Land isn't the right game to do it with while Zelda Wii U might. I really want to see another game from Nintendo that revolves around the GamePad. They have to design a game with the GamePad in mind from the get-go, not design a game then think of ways the GamePad might be useful.

On the Wii U though, they do seem to be a lot less interested in pushing the Gamepad than one would expect.  Okay, so why are you making us buy this expensive controller and likely compromising the specs to keep the system at an affordable price point?  It's like they learned from the forced remote usage but didn't realize that basing the whole system around a pack-in accessory kind of requires you to force the usage to justify it.

I don't think it's fair to make that assumption. Third parties aren't interested in Wii U in general, but I doubt it's rooted in the GamePad. If there was no GamePad, we'd probably be looking at the same level of support.

And for the love of Jebus, man, would you stop calling the GamePad expensive without context? We've been over this 42716261717473818 times already. You keep complaining about this without also acknowledging that every other controller on the market today is obscenely and insanely expensive because these companies are selling them for like $50 to $60 when it costs them $5 to $20 (for the new consoles, maybe) to make. There's nothing that expensive in the GamePad itself.

You keep pushing the same nonsense that the GamePad compromised the specs. Explain, please. Seriously. Are you claiming research and development cost? Every company has sunk millions on research and development, but those are operating costs. It apparently bears repeating that Nintendo has been following Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy for decades, well after he left Nintendo. This is not new. Even without the GamePad, Nintendo wasn't shooting for the stars with the specs. Look at 3DS. It's a sizable spec bump over DS and perhaps a bit higher than expected, but when you look at Vita, it's obvious Nintendo could have taken it so much further. As long as Nintendo keeps their policies the same, the specs Nintendo chooses will always be modest. People always point to GameCube, but had Nintendo released GameCube a year earlier, directly against PS2, the specs undoubtably would have been reflective of the year it was released. Wii is the oddball. It's the only Nintendo console that was deliberately behind where Nintendo would have traditionally ended up hardware wise.

TLDR: You're killing me, Smalls.

[Spak-Spang]

Phil - I think you have it backwards. Nintendo has totally refused risk and instead become a Mario factory. 3 core Mario games in year 1 of  the.Wii U?  This right after NSMB 2 and 3D Land were pumped out to save the 3DS. Titles like Fire Emblem Wii U publically spurned because they don't sell enough. Wii U product line is still not profitable per 10/31 reports. Iwata has spurned layoffs thus far. It's easy to do when you project 9 million units sold in 5 months or whatever their target is. When Nintendo misses that target (and they will)  Iwata is going to have a lot of pressure to do something. That could be to lay off or start supporting tablets or to have a plan to move away from the Wii U.

Either way there is no reason to believe Nintendo would have to lay off or wouldn't be able to optimize hardware they didn't create. Actually I think it would be great that software developers could focus on developing quality software and not be forced to use hardware features. Latest example being the tablet only 3D World levels. Does that really make the game better?

It is interesting you mention the smaller games.  It is like Nintendo is willing to give us 1 or 2 smaller less known franchise every few years.  However, they never build those franchises up, because they don't sell Mario and Zelda numbers...or even Metroid numbers.  But you know what...THEY SHOULDN'T have to.  If Nintendo had more realistic expectations for some of their other franchises and built them up and allowed them to mature they could do better.  And if they MARKETED these games, Nintendo could have some great IPs grow into larger mainstream IPs.

But right now, Nintendo is focused on what games sell a system, and Nintendo thinks all Mario and all Zelda games sell and push systems.  This just isn't true.  Re-releasing a Zelda game that most gamers at the time viewed as a lower quality Zelda game, with few additions does not make a system seller.  Nor does creating 3 Mario games within 1 year.  Especially, because I feel all those Mario games despite being great games feel kinda lazy.  New Super Mario Wii U is old school gaming with unimaginative 3D modeled Mario graphics and traditional Mario game play.  I personally LOVE those games.  However, I am not naive, I know others look at it as been there done that.  If Nintendo wanted to make waves with the New Super Mario series, they would do something with beautiful HD sprites.

Now, Super Mario 3D World is the Mario game that should have been available at launch to lead the new console.  Also, Wind Waker HD if it was going to be released at all is a launch game, not a lead up holiday title. 

At this point Nintendo really needs to rethink their franchises and be more careful with when and how they release them. 

[BlackNMild2k1]

The thing is that there is so much Nintendo could do with that GamePad that would instantly improve the perceived value of it and the system, but alot of it has nothing to do with the games.

Full on Universal Remote would make owning this worth the hassle.
A Logitech Harmony remote can cost anywhere from ~$80 for basic w/ small screen up to $500 for a GamePad sized one. Nintendo could have swooped in on that whole market, and included a gaming system/netflix machine to go with it..... at a fraction of the price of their comparable highend model too. Not to mention it could probably outshine it in features since it's more than just the remote to control, but an internet capable device w/ a camera and other such tech inside.

and that is just one of the more obvious things they could have done, and probably still can do if they wanted to.

So it's one thing to make the tech and then force the software to somehow utilize it.
But it's another thing entirely to make the tech, and then gimp it from being useful by limiting the scope of the software for it.

[Spak-Spang]

Nintendo are old school video game visionaries.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact, in this era of gaming we really NEED that.  But we also NEED visionaries in all areas.  And we need for Nintendo to not just look at the market now, but into the future. 

I feel Nintendo is too conservative.  They release each new system with a gimmick, and they look into how the future for the next gimmick.  For example.  Nintendo should have never needed a Wii remote plus.  Nintendo knew the technology wasn't perfect.  And they had probably been experimenting with how to make it more perfect.  They should have perfected the controller then released.  heck even if it meant the Wii was out a year later, Nintendo then could have upped the specs to be closer to the Xbox 360 or PS3 for cheaper. 

Nintendo has some great ideas with the Wii U.  But if Nintendo would have been less secretive, and went to their partners they could have developed a better system, and had more features ready from the start.

I really think Nintendo is a great company, that needs to get new visionary leadership.  They need to keep their talent they have, but completely shake up management and direction, and begin to push the limits again. 

[Ian Sane]

I don't see how the Gamepad could possibly NOT be expensive.  It has a giant touchscreen in it.  If it isn't expensive why do we even have the cheaper Pro option?  Every extra doodad that goes into the standard package has some manufacturing cost.  It is just logical that a controller with a touchscreen in it costs more than the "normal" controller the Pro is because they're like the same thing but one has more parts.  Well Nintendo isn't taking a loss on the Gamepad, they're incorporating it's more expensive manufacturing costs into the price (or at least they were prior to the price cut).  Well perhaps that manufacturing cost could have come towards hardware specs that are a little more comparable to modern consoles.

The Wii was basically a rebranded Gamecube with a new controller.  Controller vs. up-to-date hardware.  Well the Wii U is the same thing.  It's last gen hardware (and was so when it came out; it is not conventional hardware for 2012) but it's got a fancy controller.  Once again we have controller vs. up-to-date hardware.  Up-to-date hardware matters, gimmick controllers only impress rubes.  Give me the up-to-date hardware or I don't buy your obsolete-from-birth product.  If you have to ditch the stupid touchscreen to make such a console an affordable product then so be it.

Of course this whole thing brings up another issue with the whole Wii U design.  It's clearly another Wii.  It's last gen hardware with a gimmicky controller that will inspire gameplay "innovation" that will provide the "newness" for the console.  Well that means that everyone knows what to expect from it: good or bad.  Nothing about the Wii U surprises me.  I knew the third party support would suck and that the controller would be nothing but a lame gimmick that only a handful of titles would make any decent use of.  I knew that because that's what happened with the Wii.  Well what person that owned a Wii couldn't guess what they would be getting into with the Wii U?  Do people want to buy another Wii and deal with all the shortcomings that system had?  Anyone who was not happy with their Wii purchase was not going to take a chance on the Wii U.  The Wii's sales don't matter.  How satisfied were people with their purchase?  Whenever a videogame series loses its popularity it isn't the bad game that has the weak sales, it's the one that follows it.

[Spak-Spang]

Well, technically, it isn't much more expensive to manufacture.  It is probably 10-15 dollars more a controller to make, but then businesses need to make a profit, so they need to have a profit margin that helps eliminate the risk and provide profit for the manufacturing of the product. 

I don't want to sound down on Nintendo.  I believe Nintendo's mind and heart are in the right places.  I think they realize hardware and new specs alone are not enough to truly be next generation.  However, they fail to see that a gimmick alone is not enough.  You need both. 

This is where I wish Nintendo would start to think and act more like a global business.  I feel they behave like they are strictly a Japanese company.  They do not give true control and authority to NOA.  They need to allow NOA to pursue games for Western gamers and develop experiences that will help increase Nintendo's public perception.  That does not mean making M rated games...you can do all this without doing that.  And for goodness sake...don't just do something differently, because you think it is the Nintendo way to do it.  Try to do the best way...even if that is copying others.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Ian, certainly the Wii U is not perfect from a hardware perspective.  But's its much closer than the Wii was and a good looking game on the Wii U will look comparable enough to most people.  That and the Gamepad is so much better than the Wiimote for most traditional games so I think it is much better than a Wii-redux.  Yes, they tried to sell a gimmick, but Madden on the Wii U is awesome unlike Madden on the Wii because you can easily get around the gimmick. 


I think the key is, if the Wii U was the PS4 (better tech, no gamepad), except priced at $300 does it make a difference?  In my mind no.  I don't think third parties flock to the Wii U (PS4), I don't think consumers flock to it.  Marginally more sales from techies but most consumers pick a console based on games and the Wii U in my opinion would be as lacking as it is now. 


It does make me wonder though.  I'm not big into "mature games" for the sake of mature games, but clearly the demographics for gaming have increased and mature games lead the market in sales (other than Nintendo games).  I wouldn't want a mature Mario/Zelda/Metroid, but what if Nintendo were to release a Watchdogs or Uncharted or some new mature series that would knock peoples socks off?  I think if they were to come out with a AAA mature series that was exclusive, that may get more people to consider buying a Wii U even if it's just in additional to a PS4/XBO.

[BranDonk Kong]

The initial costs of the GamePad were probably pretty high, but I'm sure producing them now is not very expensive. LCDs are cheap and so are resistive touch screens. Buttons are cheap. Bluetooth is cheap. WiFi is cheap. I can't see the GamePad costing more than $30 to make at this point.

[MagicCow64]

I don't think either moving the Wii U up two years or releasing a PS4-tech competitor now would have made much of a difference. For the earlier Wii U, you might have received more PS360 ports then and now, but probably still less than even the Gamecube, which would still dry out next year as major titles moved to PS4/XBONE. And in that scenario, Nintendo would have been even less prepared with their own software. So then they would have needed to have gotten on the ball circa 2008, a time period in which the Wii was still doing gangbusters. And then you could argue that the Wii should have been PS360 equivalent, which they would have started ramping up for in 2004. Etc., etc. Basically, you're asking for them to have been a different company with a different philosophy for the last 10+ years.


On the other hand, a jump to PS4 specs now would likely have been a bigger disaster. It would have cost more, sold less, and have a negligible software differential. That could have been a console they pulled the plug on. They won't drop the Wii U, but I could see them retiring it early for whatever comes next. You can be certain that they have all their teams working on WiiU software through 2015. If the holidays go as badly as they seem poised to, in the next year Nintendo will have to map out a post-Zelda gameplan. A confounding factor is how to appease stockholders without publicly revealing long-term strategy, RE: the console wars.


I would caution, however, about being too credulous about hot air from Bethesda or whoever. I think it's been pretty clear for a while that the western players want Nintendo out of the hardware game, and they'll talk all the trash they can. As I recall, Nintendo did indeed perform unprecedented outreach to the west when designing the WiiU, and it still got them nowhere, aside from blackballed from EA.


Finally, I'm seeing a lot of poo-pooing of the gamepad. Sure, it's not revolutionary, and probably will never be (nor was the DS), but offscreen play/video streaming is fucking rad. I get a ton of use out of it. Given the choice between purchasing a game on a platform with offscreen play or full online features, I'd go for the offscreen. I think it's a major undersold strength of the WiiU, much more compelling than mini-maps, inventories, or what-have-you.

[Spak-Spang]

I do wonder what Nintendo's long term gameplay is for the Wii U. 

Obviously, they were wanting to make a mass market appealing device that can be affordable quickly, and have new ways of playing.  They also saw that the technology wasn't quite there yet for 2 Game Pads to be supported. 

I wonder if Nintendo is looking at constantly building upon previous generations.  The Wii U still uses all the accessories of the Wii.  Not only that but the Wii Technology is mostly perfected.  The Wiimote + controllers are very good, and work as they should.  You could enhance that Nunchuk attachment, but it is not necessary. 

I wonder if the Wii U successor was going to go that same direction.  Perhaps enable multiple streaming Gamepads, and come with a Game pad with a higher resolution screen and perhaps multi-touch sensors?  If this is truly Nintendo's game plan, then I think they can ride the Wii U for 4-5 years and release this next system early.

Nintendo will still need to leap frog some the Xbox One and PS4 in grahics, but it is possible that doing this will put them in a good position for the Wii reNU. (As I would dub it.)

[Adrock]

I don't see how the Gamepad could possibly NOT be expensive.  It has a giant touchscreen in it.  If it isn't expensive why do we even have the cheaper Pro option?

Is that a serious question? Nintendo originally only had one GamePad working. They eventually managed to get two working before launch. The Pro Controller exists for four-player games. Jebus, man, it's like you're not even trying.

See, this isn't about being expensive; it's about Nintendo being shortsighted again. The main problem with the GamePad is Nintendo had this idea and didn't run with it. It's like they didn't even consider having more than one per console. What the? It reminds me when Nintendo didn't include Motion Plus in the original Wii Remote. Fortune favors the bold. Want an idea to catch on? Do everything to help it catch on. For Motion Plus and the GamePad, it may have been wise to eat the cost initially. If an extra GamePad cost Nintendo $X, sell it for $X-Y. Eventually, the price of components drops as it always does and they no longer take a loss. More importantly, Nintendo releases a better product and more people have it.

Every extra doodad that goes into the standard package has some manufacturing cost.  It is just logical that a controller with a touchscreen in it costs more than the "normal" controller the Pro is because they're like the same thing but one has more parts.

For the eleventy billionth time, every controller on the market is marked up egregiously. You're out of your damn mind if you think a Pro Controller costs Nintendo anywhere close to MSRP to make. The Pro Controller even has fewer things in it than a five year old Dual Shock 3 which I don't believe has ever dropped in price. Why is this a problem when Nintendo does it and not a problem when Sony does it?

CNN Money hired a company to estimate the cost of Wii U. They valued the GamePad at $79.25. Let's just assume that's true for argument's sake. In 2012, Nintendo is still not coming close to a PS4 if that $80 was put towards better hardware. Nintendo would still be left with a console that requires developers to scale down their games. It's the same problem without the GamePad so your point to put the cost of the GamePad toward more powerful hardware is moot.

Once again we have controller vs. up-to-date hardware.

You can't be this daft. We've been over this so many times. Nintendo has had the same philosophy on hardware since ALWAYS. It's not controller vs up-to-date hardware by a damn sight. It's hardware with new controller vs. the same hardware without new controller. You need to drop this if-Nintendo-didn't-include-a-gimmick-controller-they-would-have-included-better-hardware line of thinking because it is patently false. Nintendo didn't choose one over the other. They have only ever chosen modest hardware.

Going back to what spurred this discussion, you can't just throw better hardware at third parties and solve all the problems. A Wii U with better specs is still a Wii U released by a Nintendo with limited communication and ass policies. They don't fix those things, they don't fix anything.

[Stogi]

This is an interesting debate but it's definitely not analogous. PS3 was higher end and came out later. There's no comparison here.

There is however some interesting aspects of the PS3 that made it successful that could be applied to the Wii U. For one, allow linux. Despite the high price, people bought the PS3 because it was potentially a powerful linux box. it wasn't until Sony decided to renig that all hell broke loose with hackers, but that's besides the point. The point is that a linux box with a touchscreen could be a huge deal for those looking to customize their living room experience. Both Sony and Microsoft are trying to become Apple in the living room, i.e. provide a platform that they have complete control over. Adding linux to the Wii U could be a very definitive move in garnering support from even the most jaded of videogame enthusiasts.

EDIT:

Nintendo should really make a real theme park.

[BranDonk Kong]

PS3 launched a week before the Wii.

[Stogi]

But a year after the xbox.

[Khushrenada]

So then, PS4 is the new Wii?

[Ian Sane]

You can't be this daft. We've been over this so many times. Nintendo has had the same philosophy on hardware since ALWAYS. It's not controller vs up-to-date hardware by a damn sight. It's hardware with new controller vs. the same hardware without new controller. You need to drop this if-Nintendo-didn't-include-a-gimmick-controller-they-would-have-included-better-hardware line of thinking because it is patently false. Nintendo didn't choose one over the other. They have only ever chosen modest hardware.

Don't fuckin' insult me, particularly when your "fact" is revisionist history.  Nintendo has gone with last gen out-of-date hardware since 2006 and no earlier.  The NES, SNES, N64 and Gamecube were all cutting edge console hardware at the time of their release comparable to the competing consoles of the same generation.  The Wii was the exception and the Wii U continues this new direction.  We've only been over this many times because this outright Nintendo propaganda Reggie-might-as-well-have-written-this LIE keeps coming up.  Do you know how big of a jump the Famicom was over consoles like the Colecovision and Atari 5200?  It supported scrolling and you could play music in the background the whole game and every sprite was multiple colours.  It was incredibly advanced future-proofed hardware, while the Wii U got lapped after one single lousy year.

Anyway, I find it very odd that Nintendo feels this need to rely on gimmick controllers to stand out.  It shows a real lack of confidence because Nintendo has always had something that stands out: their first party lineup is better than everyone else's.  If they had comparable hardware and features and had the same third party games then the whole comparison goes to exclusives, which Nintendo could easily win no-contest (unless they just made 2D sidescrollers that could have been done on 20 year old hardware).  Nintendo's attempts to be unique means that Mario and Zelda don't just have to compete with Halo and Uncharted but also GTA and Bioshock and Elder Scrolls and Fallout and Street Fighter and Metal Gear and Soul Calibur and Final Fantasy and so on and so on.

[Oblivion]

Ian Sane, you are silly. And wrong. The SNES has been underpowered since the SNES days. Sega does what Ninendon't? Sonic able to go really really fast and Super Mario could not? Ring a fucking bell? No, sorry, Nintendo has never been cutting edge, but the gap has certainly gotten larger.

[NWR_insanolord]

If you were to put aside the storage medium the N64 was fairly cutting edge, at least as far as game consoles go. And the SNES was a weird case where it did a bunch of things better than the Genesis but Sega had advantages of their own. The GameCube on paper was underpowered but could do just about anything the Xbox could if you knew how to use it. There's a huge difference between that kind of thing and the way in which the Wii and Wii U were and are underpowered.