the guy's quote is far less of a troll than the thread title would suggest.

what i got out of this is that customers will be compelled to buy a wii U because of the tablet and as such will expect games that utilize that tablet in a meaningful way. currently, the games being developed (announced) hardly use it. moving the equipment screen or having a touch screen button in place of a physical button doesn't really count because it doesn't actually innovate the gameplay.

he's not saying the gamepad can't be innovative, he's saying publishers aren't being innovative. from what i've seen announced so far i can hardly disagree. nintendoland seems to be the only game truly designed for the wii U.

So that's what he meant then when he said WiiU games "sucked". He means the devs did a poor job at using the tech. Hmm, I feel dumb not to have understood that from the start.

At the same time though, it really isn't a 400$ xbox that's late. Maybe the games we see for it right now give that impression, but we know it's much more capable. Also, there are many people who didn't play xbox360/PS3 games (Oni and I rounded that out to 20m Wiis exclusive to households), so the improved graphics and Nintendo brand name are enough to warrant a sale.

I see where he's coming from but on that I still disagree, the WiiU's gamepad doesn't make it or break it, the console in and of itself has a value: better graphics and a promising software ecosystem.

@full interview. I agree, everyone should read it it's very interesting.

Wii U price leaked!

I 100% agree that the Wii motion controls were a gimmick and that the Kinect and PS-Move also feel like a gimmick and give under developed gameplay experiences compared to what we call traditional dual-analog controls.

However, that is more a function of how long dual-analog has been around and how much more refined it is and since controls are not the attraction, the game itself has to have the competitive differentiating qualities to set it apart from other games.

Basically when Halo, CoD, Battlefield, and countless other shooters have the same controller layout and configuration, they compete with each other on rest of what the game has to offer. That is why those games are overall better quality than more shallow experiences centered around new play control type offers.

To Nintendo's credit, if they don't try to re-invent the game or create potential with new game types, you will be stuck with just a few solidly established game genre with a few franchises competing for audiences and not much truely differentiating gameplay. Nintendo doesn't want to compete on budget and risk.

Nintendo wants to offer something unique that will still manage to make you smile and enjoy. They also want more people to enter and enjoy the video game market. You who are happy to play CoD each year are already satisfied, so they see no reason to make efforts to pull you away, they would rather address the market that is not served by CoD and are open to new experiences. They did that very successfully with the Wii after first having done something like that way back with the NES. Now with the Wii U, they want to continue that while offering deeper experiences to those that entered the market with the Wii. Think of it like Wii people finally getting the SNES.

*smiles*

It's like hearing the birds singing when the winter has passed.

A brand new Nintendo system is waiting just around the corner!!

this dude don't know what he's talking about. And the game sucks? Thus far the PS360 version is at 85% at metacritics. He's full of shit. Fuck him.

The WiiU is designed for Nintendoland. That's how Nintendo works.

i say no

and i laugh if he will work on a wii u game anytime soon and if it's in three years or later^^

You must not have seen Rayman Legends, Rabbids Land, ZombiU, Project P-100, and a few others you can find on Nintendo's own website

Please... do yourself and Nintendo a favor by learning to look beyond just what Nintendo is publishing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA