By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is the Wii U a failure in concept or execution?

 

So?

Concept 75 11.92%
 
Execution 199 31.64%
 
Both 187 29.73%
 
Neither 167 26.55%
 
Total:628

It's as much of a failure as the 3ds.



Around the Network

execution 100%



Zero999 said:

It's as much of a failure as the 3ds.


I'm not even sure if the Wii U will hit life time sales of what the 3DS has right now (shipment wise).

The 3DS never hit these depths, and quite honestly for all the belly aching about games, the Wii U has better software support than the 3DS did early on.

New Super Mario Bros. U + Luigi U, Nintendo Land, Monster Hunter Tri G, Zombi U, LEGO City, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Game & Wario, Need For Speed > Nintendogs + cats, Steel Diver, Pilotwings Resort, Super Street Fighter IV, Ridge Racer 3D, Zelda: OoT 3D.

With Pikmin 3 already launched in Japan and launching in Europe, the "it haz no games" thing is becoming more and more moot. Pikmin 3, Nintendo Land, and NSMBU + Luigi U are three pretty big efforts from EAD.



it is in execution by the third party publishers.



cbarroso09 said:
it is in execution by the third party publishers.


And which third party games sold the Wii in its first 6-9 months?

Zombi U >> Red Steel.



Around the Network
Arius Dion said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Concept, IMO.

Whenever a new console comes out, it is because it is addressing a specific problem or set of problems that need to be solved. The Wii-mote was the solution to a long-standing problem, accomplished in an original way. While the Gamepad has its uses, as the basis for a console, it is a solution looking for a problem. And one reason developers aren't working on it is because it doesn't solve the problems that they are having.

The execution, however, certainly didn't help.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. 

Though I also think the execution suffered as a result of the concept. I don't think they can be seperated. With the Wii, simplicity and ease of use was key. Its like Nintendo, said, 'fuck that' and decided to hodge podge all previous ideas into a blender and voila la we have Wii U. I don't think off TV play is a big enough selling point. Its a convenience for some, but a non issue for most. 

Imagine Nintendo abandoning the NES controller concept for the SNES and instead opting to go back to Atari type controllers. That's what they've done essentially. 

A step back??? By your reasonin, the competition is also using an Atari type controller with less buttons.  The pad maybe different from the wii mote but is a step ahead of the traditional controller. 



Concept! Concept! Concept!



I LOVE ICELAND!

oniyide said:
MDMAlliance said:

I kind of dislike talking about this topic to gamers because a lot of, if not almost all, gamers are narrow-minded when it comes to games.

They think games should be played a certain way or that "gimmicks" are bad. Games no longer are about having fun and are more of a source of pride for people. PC gamers think they are the superior gamers because they incorrectly think a PC is better than a console and can do anything a console can. This isn't true due to the nature of what sets PCs and consoles apart. Graphics aren't everything. Just being able to use a controller doesn't mean anything. Hooking your PC to a TV doesn't make it a console. More goes into it than that, and when I try to argue my point, PC gamers deny it with just their words, but reality shows otherwise.

What this has to do with the Wii U is that the concept of the Wii U is not a failure, the execution isn't quite a failure but it wasn't as good as it should have been.

The gamepad itself will lend itself to making genres more accessible or making completely new ones. There is more than what a lot of gamers think to what you can do with the gamepad. The fact that it comes with the system means developers don't have to worry about if they don't have one (and the reason other consoles wont do this is because it simply wont sell unless it comes with the device) and I know a lot of gamers just think how it doesn't enhance their ability to play a game. Like how a mouse + keyboard for FPS games is good for gamers because it increases their ability to play, but motion controls are just a gimmick. The thing is that a lot of people enjoy using the motion controls, even if they aren't as precise as the mouse + keyboard. That "gimmick" is a source of fun for people, the true reason for gaming. So I really think gamers have a warped sense of what games should be like.

edit: I should also include that pretty much anyone here is in the minority as well, so I don't think gamers make up most of the market.

well considering that the WII u isnt exactly flying off the shelves at all, i dont think its just "gamers" who are not buying into the "gimmick" as for motion controls it works for some games it doesnt work for others, people are smart enough to see which ones dont.


I was actually going to address that issue.  

What I was going to type was the fact that non-gamers don't even think about that stuff, so Nintendo has to actually make the game first and properly advertise it for people who game rather "casually."  



Soundwave said:
Zero999 said:

It's as much of a failure as the 3ds.


I'm not even sure if the Wii U will hit life time sales of what the 3DS has right now (shipment wise).

The 3DS never hit these depths, and quite honestly for all the belly aching about games, the Wii U has better software support than the 3DS did early on.

New Super Mario Bros. U + Luigi U, Nintendo Land, Monster Hunter Tri G, Zombi U, LEGO City, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Game & Wario, Need For Speed > Nintendogs + cats, Steel Diver, Pilotwings Resort, Super Street Fighter IV, Ridge Racer 3D, Zelda: OoT 3D.

With Pikmin 3 already launched in Japan and launching in Europe, the "it haz no games" thing is becoming more and more moot. Pikmin 3, Nintendo Land, and NSMBU + Luigi U are three pretty big efforts from EAD.

You already made it clear long ago that your posts are nothing but pessimism and hate towards nintendo. I won't even bother countering those excuses for arguments.



I'm leaning towards execution but it's really a bit of both. Whilst I thought the concept was great when they announced it, at the moment the touch screen controller feels like a solution looking for a problem. No game has taken advantage of the touch screen or truly demonstrated why it is a significant advantage over current console control schemes.