padib said:
The console was not well thought out and probably lacked usability testing, either that or the person making the decisions lacked foresight.
You don't make a portable, screened controller only to have it tethered to a few feet away from the console. That was a bad move.
The innovation of the dual-screen setup was also badly tested or decided, as most experiences that made use of it were not as interesting as promised on paper. We fans were excited but we didn't have years of R&D on the thing.
Moreover, the UI and hardware design was unprofessional and lacked quality and precision.
Finally, the games were mostly lacking content or just generally unappealing. While some games may have been innovative, it doesn't make them interesting. Games like ZombieU, NintendoLand, Wii Party U, all these games continued the general shovelware trend of the Wii, and missed the mark since that boat had already sailed. The only game that survived the Wii trend was Just Dance, everything else is dead. Labo and Ring Fit Adventure are decent game experiences that don't lack depth, so they are more of an evolution than a continuation of the trend.
The switch fixes absolutely all of these issues. It's sleek from a hardware perspective, its use case is solid and easy to understand and use. The UI is clean and snappy, the games are deep and offer high replay value (often thanks to ultimate versions of WiiU games ironically, or to IPs that were reserved to portables before), the marketing was clear and appealing.
Overall the WiiU was unexciting and unappealing, while the Switch is a smash with the mainstream. The WiiU offered some experiences that I wish still existed like Art Academy U, or the graphic chat feature which was a lot of fun. Still, those features can return with a stylus in the future, and all the bad stuff is gone. |
