RolStoppable said:
You know the Wii U's controller, right? It's basically a classic controller with a screen put on it. That IS going backwards. Also, as of right now it seems like there will only be one controller per system which is equally stupid. The Wii was about equality instead of segregation between different kinds of gamers. However, the main point is that the Wii U can't do anything of note that the Wii cannot. It's as if I have to buy a new console simply because Nintendo decided to cater to hardcore gamers now. With the example of Zelda HD it becomes obvious how silly it all is. If the Wii U controller is used, you'll lose the motion and pointing combat. If it's not going to be used, then it will be restricted to some gimmicky use while mainly playing with the Wiimote/Nunchuk setup. So the question is why do we need a new console in the first place. Nintendo tries to sell the concept by saying that it's about bringing hardcore and casual gamers together, but that's utter nonsense and that's why it's not going to work. The system is designed based on a wrong premise. A successor to the Wii should have improved on what the Wii did. Like eliminating the cord between the Wiimote and the Nunchuk while at the same time improving the motion capabilities of both. The 1 and 2 buttons could have replaced by four buttons set up in a diamond shape to increase the possibilities for d-pad controlled games. There's obviously more that could be done, but the controller is the most fundamental part of a video game system. Nintendo got that wrong with the Wii U. |
Was the goal of the Wii to introduce motion controlls or to create a more accessable controller for games?
If the goal was to create a more accessable controller would moving away from the exclusive focus on motion controlls be bad if it translates into games that are more accessable for end users?
