Touch integration certainly a good concept; history, if not common sense, should say that. But the cosonle, taken as a whole, is badly conceived.

Neither. With the upcoming line-up, the system sales are really going to pick.

It's definitely a matter of execution to me, since the Wii U's concept is actually quite good, especially when compared to the 3DS. The 3DS is built around its 3D effect, and while it does add to a game's visuals (at least for those whose eyes aren't irritated by 3D), it's only real gameplay contribution is helping the player judge depth in 3D platformers. I would argue its increased power over the DS has been a greater contributor to it's games.

The Wii U's concept, on the other hand, has tons of potential. Asymmetric gameplay could revolutionize local multiplayer. ZombiU was a proof of concept for dual-screen console play, with Gamepad-based inventory management and putting minigames on the controller while real-time danger lurks on the TV. Thirdly, there are those who think that being able to play on just the Gamepad is worth the $300 alone. The tablet controller is actually quite a good idea.

Its failure so far has been all about execution. The poor marketing has had a huge effect with its uncertain target audience, its infamous accessory/new console confusion, and even its relative rarity. However, the main thing holding back the Wii U despite a strong concept is the same thing that has lifted the 3DS despite a weak concept: a game library making the hardware worth owning. Nintendoland made an intriguing case for asymmetric multiplayer, but it was an unproven IP and it had its own flaws. NSMBU was a solid game from a popular franchise, but it took little advantage of the Wii U's unique hardware. It needs games that are good on their own merits but also show why they need to be on the Wii U to be the best they can be. Reviews of Pikmin 3 suggest it's such a title. Hopefully the rest of Nintendo's lineup can be likewise.

I agree they have failed to give compelling reasons for why they have the GamePad on the system. The best thing they have had has been the ability to play games on the GamePad but that in of itself isn't enough as most would attest. 

But I disagree in it being the concept that is the problem. Going off the success of the DS and 3DS, having a second screen with touch capabilities has been shown to work, especially with certain games. The issue with the Wii U has been Nintendo hasn't released any of those types of games on the system, along with really pushed it as they and other developers did the second touch screen when the DS first came out or motion controls with the Wii. They haven't released anything like Brain Training, Nintendogs or Wii Sports to make people take notice and they failed in implementing a working multiplayer that doesn't give two or more parties equal footing because only one GamePad works on one Wii U for most multiplayer games.

The concept is fine, two screens haven't hurt the DS/3DS development in anyway once developers figured ways to implement it into their gameplay or work around it, even Microsoft (LookinGlass) and Sony (VITA intergration) are dabbling in it. The problem is execution and as you put out is that Nintendo has failed to put out software that uses the GamePad in innovative or even unique ways. Even the other new features of the Wii U (Miiverse and Nintendo TVii) that Nintendo was hyping before its release are things that can or will be accessible on their competitors systems and they didn't have them ready at launch.

The concept is fine and for the most part proven successful with other systems to different degrees, Nintendo just botched it in nearly every way when it comes to implementation and presentation to the public.

I agree that the upcoming games will cause a significant turnaround but there is no denying they failed to execute. They had a plan to release exclusives consistantly throughout the first half of this year and failed to do so.

Both and then some.

Unlike the DS/3DS there are few advantages to having to look at two screens. The TV and gamepad are just too far apart for anything convenient. As a result local multiplayer is the only way to make things shine. The gamepad user however is almost always forced to stupid touch screen stuff and never as as much fun as other players. This is super similar to next gen games using tablets to call in air strikes and the like. The difference though, which is a big one, is the tablet play is designed only for gamers that are away from the system and can't play the full game.

Only thing about the Wii U gamepad that Nintendo has done flawless is off screen play. Heck my Wii U is plugged into the outlet in the closet with no TV for this very reason. However I feel what Sony is doing with the Vita is much smarter. Again it allows the feature to work away from the console but the big thing is that Vita is sold separate. Nintendo could and should have sold the gamepad separately just for remote play.

If the competition is using a NES prototype, how in the world does that mean the pad is liken to an Atari controller? Wouldn't it be more like a NES prototype with a touch screen? All it is is a traditional controller with a touch screen.

That second screen has been great for gaming. Every games uses it. Just not as much as others. Which is not a problem since all the whining about all the forced waggling from the wii's first year. Every game doesn't have to us it like Nintendo Land. It's just another tool for developers like more shoulder buttons.

I've said it before and will say it again, the concept was wrong from the start.

It may irritate a vocal minority to hear it, but Nintendo tried to ride the gimmickry wave twice while the water of that media sensation has already settled.

IMO innovation should add to the gaming experience without detracting from convenience and ease of use. And without re-directing much needed funds away from power and versatility of hardware towards extravagant, poorly received controller gimmickry.

Many people take Nintendo's recent obsession with innovation for innovation's sake in a very positive light. Unfortunately, I have become a bit more cynical as the years go on. The motivation for the Wii U isn't some great salute to artistic integrity, or some honourable philosophy of gameplay over graphics. It's all about money and speculation. It probably went like this:

Nintendo: "Our last console sold incredibly well, largely due to the publicity generated by the innovative control method, lets do that again"

*Thinks of idea*

Nintendo: "Tablets are popular at the moment, it will generate a lot of publicity if we throw this out early. Get to work on Wii U"
"What shall we throw in it?"
Nintendo: "Oh, any old shit, just get it up to the current standard, maybe a bit higher to give it room to breathe."
"What about third parties, shouldn't we make it easy to program for and power it up a bit to give third parties room to get creative?"
"No, think controller! Make sure the touchscreen looks impressive, emphasize innovation. We are BRAND NINTENDO, fuck everyone else! You just wait, the money will roll in - it will be just like the Wii all over again, don't even change the name - that will be the safest possible bet"...

...*No one's that interested*

Nintendo: "Fuck, what happened!?!? But that worked before! Shit. What are we going to do?".........


........Nintendo: "Yeah, well, so what? We don't even TRY to compete with the others, yeah. We do our OWN thing. Who cares about what third parties are doing? They don't innovate. And you lot don't have Mario so ner ner ner ner ner. You lot are SOOOO MAINSTREAM. I'm taking my ball and going home."

The End.

I'm not saying having a second screen can't be used or innovate gameplay; the problem is that it's got a very small amount of use cases.  But back to the 3DS/DS; I haven't seen too many game make great use of the second screen.  Every DS game I had/have could easily have been made without the second screen and the games would have played identically.  The success of the DS was because of The stylist.  Apple didn't come out with the iphone yet so the stylist interface still had its merrit; plus it was new for gaming.  Cooking mamma, trauma center, Nintendogs; all those gamesmade the DS a success for their stylist based gameplay.  This is also why the Wii was so successful, they took the stylist gameplay and implemented it in console form.  The problem with the Wii U is that it's taking the second screen idea, namely the aspect of the handheld that wasn't useful.  I believe this is the main reason why  the Wii U is struggly as much as it is; in both interest and gameplay ideas.  The usefulness for gaming just isn't there.

This is response is also for Aquietguy.