Did the Wii U launch fall flat on its face?

[TrekkiesUnite118]

The reverse of this is true as well however. There's tons of "meh" games on the ps3 and 360, but a whole slew of games you can't get on the wii. But the one thing that is also true is that ANY game on both the wii and either ps3 and 360 is a superior version on the system that is not the wii.

As for innovation, I agree, but I saw nothing innovative about the wii, and even less about the wii u. That doesn't mean there were not fun games, nor innovative games, but the systems themselves had little to do with it. The wii had several great games that used the controller well, and had many more that they made no difference at all or even suffered for them. (The move and kinect have the same issue, as will, I'm sure, the wii u tablet).

That's a rather fanboyish statement. Resident Evil 4 while available on the PS3 and 360 in HD is superior on the Wii due to the controls. The Tiger Woods games are superior on the Wii again due to the controls. There are some fans who will argue the Wii version of Sonic Unleashed was better than the 360 version because it had less focus on the Werehog. There are many other examples like this.

You can't deny that the Wii was innovative with the Motion Control. Regardless of if you personally liked it or not, it was innovative. And many games benefited from it. And there were many games that due to the Wii being cheaper to develop for came out only because of the Wii. These would be titles such as XenoBlade Chronicles, which were innovative because they could focus less on graphics and more on gameplay.

[EclecticGroove]

That's a rather fanboyish statement. Resident Evil 4 while available on the PS3 and 360 in HD is superior on the Wii due to the controls. The Tiger Woods games are superior on the Wii again due to the controls. There are some fans who will argue the Wii version of Sonic Unleashed was better than the 360 version because it had less focus on the Werehog. There are many other examples like this.

You can't deny that the Wii was innovative with the Motion Control. Regardless of if you personally liked it or not, it was innovative. And many games benefited from it. And there were many games that due to the Wii being cheaper to develop for came out only because of the Wii. These would be titles such as XenoBlade Chronicles, which were innovative because they could focus less on graphics and more on gameplay.

Motion controls have existed before the wii, having them was not "innovative"

What they did was take a risk in packaging them with a low cost system as the primary method of interaction.
If there was any innovation on the system it is that Nintendo decided to buck the trend of "better and faster" and try for another market entirely. For system sales they made out like a bandit, gamewise? less so, but still did well due to the large installed user base.

As to your examples of "superior" games. When looking at performance, visuals, and amount of content offered, I've never seen a "superior" version of any game that has existed on the wii that has also existed on the 360 or PS3. They have all been cut down and hacked apart to work within the limitations of the system.

Having a preference for the controller, like the sonic issue of less focus on the werehog, has little to do with the game itself, and more to the player. That's like listing a ps3/xbox version as superior to its counterpart regardless of any other features simply because you like the controller better.

I don't doubt that the wii controller will be a selling point when used well on some games, but it's essentially the one factor the wii can do that the other consoles cannot (without using kinect/move functionality).

[doomguy]

Looks like Watchdogs might be coming to the Wii U

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/02/gamesto...i-u-pre-order/



Don't expect these graphics though obviously, still the hacking could actually come over well to the game pad I suppose.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Motion controls have existed before the wii, having them was not "innovative"

What they did was take a risk in packaging them with a low cost system as the primary method of interaction.
If there was any innovation on the system it is that Nintendo decided to buck the trend of "better and faster" and try for another market entirely. For system sales they made out like a bandit, gamewise? less so, but still did well due to the large installed user base.

As to your examples of "superior" games. When looking at performance, visuals, and amount of content offered, I've never seen a "superior" version of any game that has existed on the wii that has also existed on the 360 or PS3. They have all been cut down and hacked apart to work within the limitations of the system.

Having a preference for the controller, like the sonic issue of less focus on the werehog, has little to do with the game itself, and more to the player. That's like listing a ps3/xbox version as superior to its counterpart regardless of any other features simply because you like the controller better.

I don't doubt that the wii controller will be a selling point when used well on some games, but it's essentially the one factor the wii can do that the other consoles cannot (without using kinect/move functionality).

Aside from the Dreamcast Fishing rod and the EyeToy I can't think of much Motion Control that existed and worked as well as the Wii does prior to the Wii. Sure motion control may not have been a brand new idea of Nintendo's, but they do deserve credit for innovating the industry by making it a standard means of play for their system. And again, graphics don't always make the superior version of a game. Again I bring up Resident Evil 4. Sure the 360 and PS3 have it in HD, but the Wii version has the superior controls thanks to the Wii Remote. It's a shining example of well done motion control. So much so that I would have rather played Resident Evil 5 on the Wii with worse graphics over the 360 and PS3 versions.

And again the Tiger Woods PGA Tour games are better on the Wii as I already mentioned, because of the controls. These aren't random opinions or things I'm pulling out of my ass, it's a general consensus that the Wii versions are better. Sure if all you look at are games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Madden, and other half assed ports you'll get the impression that no Wii version is superior. And if all you care about are the graphics then you wont see any superior Wii versions either. But if you actually look at the gameplay, there are a very substantial amount of Wii versions of games that are hands down superior.

[EclecticGroove]

the old dance pads, the power glove, eyetoy, fishing controllers, and others that I can't even remember names for.

There have been tons that relied on various types of movement to control a game (arcade, home, or pc). Now, doing it well and cheap? Sure, Nintendo deserves credit for that, but it's not like they invented the concept from thin air. It's not innovative, just an evolution of the concept, like most things are.

Likewise, the controller preference may make the game the preferred version, but that doesn't mean it's superior in a technical standpoint from the other versions. The controller is, for those who enjoy it, more than enough to make up for any extras found in the ps3/360 version (better sound/visuals, more content, etc).

I suppose I could have made my point cleared by saying the superior version from a technical standpoint, which is not always the one that is better received or preferred, even if it usually is.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Dance Pads aren't really motion controls. You are simply standing on a giant D-Pad and stepping on buttons with your feet. The Power Glove would fall under the category I mentioned of "Not doing it as well as the Wii". And note I clearly mentioned that they didn't invent the concept out of thin air.

And it's not just a simple thing as controller preference. The game experience significantly improves from the motion controls when they are used well. In many cases where the Wii versions I've mentioned are superior, they typically has the same content or more than the 360 and PS3 versions, the only downside is the graphics. Resident Evil 4 plays like a breeze with motion controls. It's easy to get headshots, conserve ammo, take down more enemies more quickly, and fight difficult bosses with the Wii controls over fumbling around with 2 analog sticks. The game plays far better on the Wii than on any other system it was released on. And since it has all the bonus content that would make it on par with the others for content.

All you are saying is the 360 and PS3 versions are graphically superior. Which is an obvious statement and really has no purpose in this kind of discussion, as clearly when someone says a Wii version of a game is superior to the 360 and PS3 versions they are obviously not counting the graphics.

[Moirai]

Sega made some good games on gc, and there's also Cubivore, animal crossing,ikaruga, Ssbm, and others.

[bultje112]

I see you missed the mention of Bayonetta 2 and The Wonderful 101.

honestly, bayonetta 2? I couldn't care any less. the original bayonetta is great but buying a system for one good/great game. no way. it's not like they are offering gta 5 exclusive or something. in fact they don't even get that game because the wii u can't handle it.

[EclecticGroove]

All you are saying is the 360 and PS3 versions are graphically superior. Which is an obvious statement and really has no purpose in this kind of discussion, as clearly when someone says a Wii version of a game is superior to the 360 and PS3 versions they are obviously not counting the graphics.

It's not always that cut and dry. Some ports are done much better than others, and the visual discrepancy is a matter of technical facts as opposed to blatantly obvious. And it's more than just the visuals, the handful that are even approaching "as good" are the exception, not the rule.

For the examples you gave, it's not that all other things were all equal and the wii controller just pushed it over the edge.
It's a case of the other items were seldom equal, but people liked the way the controller worked out for that game so well it make them overlook other deficiencies. Those deficiencies could have been any/all of graphics, sound, or content. That depends on the game. But the general situation with wii vs the other 2 major systems will almost always be a case of it fighting against it's disadvantages.

To be more back on topic, this is also my issue with the wii u once the competitors are released as well, as it will continually be fighting to use it's only unique point (the pad) in ways that set it apart and hopefully make it appealing enough to make up for it's technical shortfall vs the next MS/Sony systems.

[bultje112]

That's a rather fanboyish statement. Resident Evil 4 while available on the PS3 and 360 in HD is superior on the Wii due to the controls. The Tiger Woods games are superior on the Wii again due to the controls. There are some fans who will argue the Wii version of Sonic Unleashed was better than the 360 version because it had less focus on the Werehog. There are many other examples like this.

You can't deny that the Wii was innovative with the Motion Control. Regardless of if you personally liked it or not, it was innovative. And many games benefited from it. And there were many games that due to the Wii being cheaper to develop for came out only because of the Wii. These would be titles such as XenoBlade Chronicles, which were innovative because they could focus less on graphics and more on gameplay.

lol and you are to say that? you are the biggest fanboy in this topic. you try to desperately defend the wii u. but even you deep down realize the wii u is bombing harder than anything dropped on hiroshima. and there's nothing invoate about motion control on the wii. I suggest you pick up a dremacast with a fishing rod, that came out in the past century! yes you read that right. sega was once again inovative, not nintendo.

Dance Pads aren't really motion controls. You are simply standing on a giant D-Pad and stepping on buttons with your feet. The Power Glove would fall under the category I mentioned of "Not doing it as well as the Wii". And note I clearly mentioned that they didn't invent the concept out of thin air.

And it's not just a simple thing as controller preference. The game experience significantly improves from the motion controls when they are used well. In many cases where the Wii versions I've mentioned are superior, they typically has the same content or more than the 360 and PS3 versions, the only downside is the graphics. Resident Evil 4 plays like a breeze with motion controls. It's easy to get headshots, conserve ammo, take down more enemies more quickly, and fight difficult bosses with the Wii controls over fumbling around with 2 analog sticks. The game plays far better on the Wii than on any other system it was released on. And since it has all the bonus content that would make it on par with the others for content.

All you are saying is the 360 and PS3 versions are graphically superior. Which is an obvious statement and really has no purpose in this kind of discussion, as clearly when someone says a Wii version of a game is superior to the 360 and PS3 versions they are obviously not counting the graphics.

the dreamcast maraccas are though, sega has tons of motion control peripherals that nintendo stole years later and gets all the undeserved credit for, appearantly even by you...

[TrekkiesUnite118]

If you actually read all my posts you would have realized I mentioned the Dreamcast motion control peripherals and that I didn't give Nintendo full credit for motion control.

Just because I'm not on the "OMG I HOPE WII U FUCKING FAILS SO HARD!" bandwagon, doesn't mean I'm a fanboy. I just see reasons to own it, Bayonetta 2 is one of them, along with the obvious Nintendo franchises, Wonderful 101, and other third party titles that are coming out for it. Will I get it for Madden and Call of Duty? Probably not, 1) I hate those games, 2) I have a PC for modern FPS games. Will I get it for Grand Theft Auto V? Again probably not, I haven't bought a new one of those since Vice City on the PS2. One was more than enough for me. I can see the Wii U being a great platform for Japanese developed games. Especially if developers can't afford the inevitable budget increases of next gen games.

[Soulis]

sega has tons of motion control peripherals that nintendo stole years later

Power Glove was made by Nintendo way before the Dreamcast era. So, i guess Sega stole the idea of motion controls after all.

[MrSega]

Motion controls have existed before the wii, having them was not "innovative"

What they did was take a risk in packaging them with a low cost system as the primary method of interaction.
If there was any innovation on the system it is that Nintendo decided to buck the trend of "better and faster" and try for another market entirely. For system sales they made out like a bandit, gamewise? less so, but still did well due to the large installed user base.

As to your examples of "superior" games. When looking at performance, visuals, and amount of content offered, I've never seen a "superior" version of any game that has existed on the wii that has also existed on the 360 or PS3. They have all been cut down and hacked apart to work within the limitations of the system.

Having a preference for the controller, like the sonic issue of less focus on the werehog, has little to do with the game itself, and more to the player. That's like listing a ps3/xbox version as superior to its counterpart regardless of any other features simply because you like the controller better.

I don't doubt that the wii controller will be a selling point when used well on some games, but it's essentially the one factor the wii can do that the other consoles cannot (without using kinect/move functionality).

Not only did SEGA contract Midway to design a motion sensor remote for the Dreamcast back in 1999,(http://the-dreamcast-junkyard.blogsp...ntrols-by.html) in which Nintendo stealing prompted SEGA to go back and revive the Dreamcast name and protect its patents.



But even the shitty CD-i used basic motion sensor features. And as early as 1988, Mattel was using and implementing motion sensor tech in the "Power Glove".

Wii wasn't original or innovative. It just took an existing concept and turned it into a novelty. It tried to blur the reality of simplicity and primative hardware. Trouble is, it got old fast.

Wii U is exactly the opposite, its more underpowered,lame gimmicky garbage with a confusing as hell name and weak library of games consisting of PS3 ports with tacked on gameplay variations. Except with Wii Nintendo did a fantastic job suckering people in, their not so lucky with Wii U.

[MrSega]

Power Glove was made by Nintendo way before the Dreamcast era. So, i guess Sega stole the idea of motion controls after all.

Incorrect. It was designed,patented and developed by Mattel and licensed by Nintendo and first test marketed in late 1989(4 years after NES's test market and around the time Mario 3 came out.)

[Soulis]

Incorrect. It was designed,patented and developed by Mattel and licensed by Nintendo and first test marketed in late 1989(4 years after NES's test market and around the time Mario 3 came out.)

Ok. Still proves that Nintendo didn't steal the idea from Sega, in the dreamcast era, like someone suggested.