| iLikeEggs said: awful name, poor marketing, similarities to Wii (consumer confusion), lack of big-name AAA games, etc. I like the console, but it was a huge mess, and I am glad that the Switch is a massive massive improvement. I still don't know WTF Nintendo were thinking when designing the U. |
It seems they wanted to make the Switch, but it wasn't possible yet, so they went with a handheld for the livingroom...
| mutantsushi said: Because humans can't focus simultaneously on two screens, thus the tablet controller is a waste of $. Any functionality it offers, can be approximated via gyro or button control of modal information display. (i.e. instead of changing head angle/ eye focus, tilt controller to bring up alternate view window on screen) The same budget could have gone towards more GPU/CPU/RAM and all that enables. Or simply a cheaper price. Yes, young children like the simple games Nintendo tends to prioritize, but that was true on previous conventional Nintendo consoles as well. |
They should have advertised and focused on off-screen play much more, and the advantages it has in multiplayer. The thing is that my kids prefer to play on the wiiU together when given the choice of the same game on ps4 and WiiU.
But yeah, the whole asynchronous gameplay idea was a flop. Nobody wanted to be the odd man out doing 'chores' on the gamepad in Rayman Legends and New Super Mario U. Nintendoland had a few nice minigames yet that was it.
While it was nice to have touch screen control on your inventory it wasn't really a game changer. With Pikmin 3 I ended up playing on the gamepad and ignoring the tv in favor of the touchscreen controls. Same for Super Mario Maker.
My kids mostly use it as a handheld. I guess that's what the WiiU was. A very akward handheld.
