| Gamerace said:
What's surprising is Nintendo is making that the centrepiece of the WiiU. This baffles me because this is the tech they rejected in 2004 and the reasons they rejected it then, are still here today. I've played several games on it now (don't own one, just at displays) and I'm still not sold that the touch screen in any way enhances the games I've played. Dont' get me wrong, it's nice. It's another option. It's cool to have a constant map without it sucking up screen space. The ability to take your game up to your bedroom or bathroom without interrupting gameplay is very cool. Wii TVii is a very nice feature. There's a lot to like. But at the end of the day, WiiU is just another HD console just one 6 years late to the party. The screen doesn't really change that. I've no problem with the screen, it's a nice enhancement. But it's only an enhancement, not a revolution that the wiimote or Kinect was. That's would be in and of itself, just to enhance, but my problem is, instead of enhancing what Wii did - visercal, intuitive, accessible, family-friendly gameplay with motion controls - WiiU reverts back to the dual analog controller and loses a big chuck of what Wii did right. As a casual player myself, there's still no reason for me to upgrade to a WiiU. My kids are core and mid-core players and they don't feel any reason to get a WiiU because they can play the same games on 360 now. If anything, I'm a little resentful NSMBU and Pikmin are on a new console. There's no reason for a new console to play those games. They'd play perfectly on Wii so why aren't they on Wii? |
I don't know. If Microsoft is going to release their "720" next year, I think it would have been leaked by now if they were going to have a touchscreen controller at launch. And if Sony is going to try and obliterate the Wii U graphically, I seriously doubt they can afford to add a tablet controller packed-in with the console. They have to know after PS3 that the average gamer is not interested in plunking down over $400 for a console no matter what is capable of (I thought Trip Hawkins had already taught the gaming industry that lesson, but now we have another reminder). A touchpad, as you pointed it in Ouya's case, yes I could see Microsoft or Sony possibly implementing that on their next consoles. But, a full on touchscreen the size of what Nintendo has provided, I doubt it.
Yes, touchscreens have been on handheld gaming consoles for years, but that's more natural because the handheld is exactly what it implies, the screen is already right there in your hands, why not be able to touch it? But, for consoles, it's very new. And, there are so many ways it can be implemented to provide the player an experience that will be unique to the Wii U. Watching the most recent Nintendo Direct, I'm actually excited to see Panorama and Google Street on the Gamepad. To be able to look at the view on the gamepad and as you turn it, your view turns with you as if you are really there is a more immersive experience than clicking buttons. And, look at what Arkham City did with Armored Edition to make a year old game fresh on a new console. In the Miiverse, you can go into a forum for each individual game available for Wii U. A person who owns the game that the forum relates to has an icon checked right on their post, so you know if the person talking about the game has actually purchased it or not. Anyways, I was in the Arkham City forum last night and saw nothing but positive remarks from those who have actually played it. Even from people who have played it on 360/PS3 say it is worth the purchase price of the Wii U experience. I also saw overwhelmingly positive reviews in the Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty Black Ops II forums. And in Call of Duty's case, players specifically remarked that they prefer to play it with the Gamepad or Pro Controller as opposed to the Wii mote since all 3 are compatible with the title. So, I think there is already evidence that Nintendo can in fact attract hardcore gamers to the Wii U now that they have a console that offers the polished hardcore titles that were absent or poorly implemented on Wii. The Wii U has at least a year on it's own to attract this type of player before it has to compete with any competition for it's new generation. So, I disagree with your thinking that this is a useless strategy. If the casual gamer who picked-up a Wii this past generation has in fact moved on to mobile gaming not to return to consoles this new generation as has been said, then wouldn't a failed strategy be to release another console that focuses only on motion controls and hope that those casuals might come back? No, Nintendo is wisely giving themselves a better position in the Wii U's generation by supporting motion controls for the casuals while also catering to bring the hardcores back, all the while providing a unique experience for both.
And, you keep referring to the touchscreen as discarded tech, but I think that viewpoint is skewed. When something isn't cost effective, it gets shelved for future development. A touchscreen controller was not cost effective for the Wii and would have killed it's pricepoint, which was one of the Wii's advantages compared to it's $399 and $599 competition.
And I understand your feelings on NSMBU and Pikmin 3 not being released for Wii, but with one year of the new generation to themselves, Nintendo isn't going to want to blunt the sales of the Wii U or it's software with simultaneous Wii releases (I overheard the clerk at the Gamestop I was in yesterday say that he is only going to get a Wii U for the next Rayman that comes out). I personally haven't played NSMBU because my wife bought it for me for Christmas and I have promised not to play it until then, so I can't yet say if it would have been the exact same experience if done on the Wii as it is on Wii U.
