what's the point of dual analogs, shoulder buttons, and everything else we see on today's traditional controller? This is in response to the "what the uses of the pad" thread.

The point of those is to play the software.

The same as the pad.

Very little of that needs the gamepad, though.  A few of those uses are slight improvements, yes, but they're mostly side-grades.  Toggling a button to see a map isn't really that much worse than refocusing between two different screens at different distances.  Asynchronous multiplayer isn't really a unique feature as much as it is a limitation--other systems can do that if they want but the Wii U has no choice without another gamepad.  The gamepad in no way has reached the level of necessity.

That's not to say it can't, however.  Before the Wii U even came out, I was saying that the gamepad represents all kinds of possibilities in terms of strategic and tactical games and, especially, in terms of adding selectable options.  A game like WoW, for instance, can't be replicated on a home console because it requires as many hotkeys as you can possibly program.  A standard controller completely fails at that but what about the gamepad?  What if the touchscreen was actually used for something game-changing, like adding more rows of virtual hotkeys?  Dragon Age is probably the same--though I haven't played it on console, I can't imagine it being close to the PC in terms of ability control.  Functions like this aren't flashy, they aren't gimmicky, but they are possibly very useful.  Which is why they will probably be ignored by Nintendo.

Just assigning standard features to the gamepad screen won't make it a necessity.  Just adding gimmicky controls for no real reason won't make it a necessity.  Re-thinking what a controller can offer and using it to solve real controller/gameplay interface problems ... that's another story.  I won't hold my breath, though, as third parties aren't going to take the risk and Nintendo probably won't develop an IP so complex that it inherently needs the gamepad.

They have it to make the software gameplay more diverse.

You mean THIS thread I created?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=169093&page=1#

And you are asking about the more general features of it, or just trying to play cute and make a point about my thread?

Historically, the videogame market drove to have all the standard features added over time.  When doing polygon and 3D movement, Nintendo and others decided to add what they had to it.  As time went on, more and more was added.  Even now, you see with the PS4, that they added a touch pad in front to enable mouse controls.  Desire to have more stuff, as seen during play added this, and the features have become standard and expected.  You saw Nintendo added dual analog sticks (rather than the disks) on the Wii U controller, because the market demanded it, brought up by third party to Nintendo.

As far as the second screen goes, Nintendo added it to the Wii U and pushed it hard as a differentiator.  There wasn't a strong call for a second screen being added to a home console, but Nintendo did it anyway and added somewhere between $50 to $100 to the cost of the Wii U.  Nintendo must of had something in mind when they did it, and it wasn't just about the software.

In keeping with this thread though, maybe you can explain what the heck is the point of THIS controller:

Or this one:

The purpose is an added touch screen which allows for inovative ways to interface. Many people have already given examples of those inovative ways. If it hasn't sunken in by now it never will. The screen is just another evolution of the tridtional controller. As long as gaming exist this will happen.

Name 10 things console games don't do now that call for the second (touch) screen.  You just don't roll out features, at an added cost, without sane reasons for doing so, and expect it to be so.

Also, you must of missed the point of my original post, asking what I did.  I asked, because Nintendo MUST have ideas in mind, or why would they of added the second screen?  Something new, without sound reasons for being there, is merely an attention grabbing gimmick.

I still love how everybody says "What's the point of the Gamepad?" and now every controller besides Xbox One has a touch device on the front.

There is never a 'strong call' for innovation.  That's what makes it a NEW idea. 

You couldn't have named any games that 'needed' an analog stick until Mario 64 launched with one.  It's clear that games didn't 'need' analog sticks at the time, or else the playstation would have had them.  Even though it wasn't needed, it had a clear benefit of improving input.  The gampad also offers the benefits of improving input as well as interface.  If any company has the creativity to show us those benefits, it's Nintendo.  They usually design their hardware to facilitate a specific software idea which couldn't be implimented otherwise.  I have a feeling we'll see some interesting uses for the gamepade in their bigger titles.