By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Do U Hate Wii U (or Nintendo)??

Tagged games:

oniyide on 18 August 2012

@happydolphin Resistance looked better than any FPS released on PS2, Motorstorm looked better than any racer released on PS2 those are just off the top of my head, not big on Xbox so ill have to actually think about that one. I'm comparing Wii U to the PS360 because it is supposed to be the start of a new gen, and every start of a new gen, you have a console that launches with games that look MUCH better than the last and im simply not seeing MUCH better with WIi U and ive never had to wait years before.



Around the Network
oniyide on 18 August 2012
Kenology said:
oniyide said:
1 @Kenology Ill give you SNES but i was talking more in line with the recent consoles. N64 needed a RAM pack, the fact that you need that when no other console b4 or after has needed it, is kind of a bad thing. GC, i think it was around long enough, especially since the Xbox came out and had even better looking games, Wii most of those early games were straight PS2 ports with little more added to it than motion controls. Mario Galaxy 1&2 looked the same, where was the leap there. Skyward Sword doesnt look better than TP, and to be frank I havent seen a game on WIi that looked better than the best Xbox1 did.


2. im sorry but ports of games that are coming out and just adding some more pixels is not impressive, not after six years. Thats not a generational leap. MGS1 to MGS2 thats the difference i want to see. Tekken3 to Tekken Tag, etc.

1.  I think now you're moving goal posts, oniyide.  You said there were no graphical leaps on Nintendo consoles for the most part.  The N64 certainly did - what does it matter that Nintendo made RAM expansion available to get better performance out of the system?  As for Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, I was comparing them to early GC games, not each other, lol! 

2.  You didn't answer my question.  What does the Wii U have to do in your opinion to be a significant leap over current gen?  Ok, so increased resolution isn't enough.  That's a start.  So what does a generation leap entail to you? 

1 I said their hasnt been any large leaps on one console. IE from SMB1 to SMB3 on NES, SMW to Yoshi's Island on SNES, didnt see that much on there later consoles. I used Mario Galaxy to show that WIi games looked roughly the same throughout the entire gen, not counting the PS2 ports which were just down and dirty ports for the most part to begin with.

I answered the question multiple times. A generation leap is PS1 to DC, PS2, that was a hell of a leap and no I didnt need to wait awhile to see if devs would take full advantage of hardware. Tekken Tag Tournament was a launch game and it looked much better than Tekken 3 which released toward the end of PS1's life hell I doubt that it even had the ram to allow switching between characters.   NES to SNES, it was apparent that Mario World looked better than Mario 3. 16bit era to 32bit, we got full 3d games with that leap. PS2 to PS3 that was not a traditional leap so I wont berate that one. Now can you compare those to PS360/WiiU and really tell me that they are one in the same? Ive yet to see anything on Wii U that made me say "holy crap, that cant be done on systems that I already have"



Stefan.De.Machtige on 18 August 2012
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
I loved their games. But Nintendo began down a different path after GC. Somewhere I couldn't follow. They used push the envelop of control and graphics. Now they don't. They let Rare get destroyed. A developer which was better than Ninty from my point of view.

So unless Ninty have top level visuals again, I'm not theirs anymore.

I was an old school ninty fan. Someone who was wowed as much by their graphics as I was by their gameplay.

Nintendo was always about control in the first place. In the second place, it was style, not graphics. To them they are not the same thing.

Oh, yeah, they were forced to sell their Rare stock. By Rare itself. They wanted to go with microsoft. Their mistake and their downfall.


No Nintendo also built the Nes, Snes and N64. Snes and N64 were very powerful in graphics and at te front of their respective generations. Nintendo were the ones to decide not to make Wii a powerhouse. A path I coould not follow.

As far as I remember the stamper Bros. at Rare didnt want Rare to be sold. Which is the real reason they left.

1. That was a decision made by the market. The GC was most likely the most powerfull of the generaton and it sold the least of any Nintendo console. Nintendo recognised this and chose a different path with the WII. Ironicly it was the market which could not follow Nintendo's path, and forced a change for the company.

2. The brothers left Rare five years after microsoft took them over. They obvious didn't leave on principle upon the sale. And even if it got sold without their consent, it was still a choice by the company Rare. Their chosen downfall.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Ajescent on 18 August 2012

People took this thread seriously? umm...okay, I don't hate either the WiiU or Nintendo, I just hate Mario....*flee*



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

theARTIST0017 on 18 August 2012
BasilZero said:
kljesta64 said:
people hate nintendo because most of them this days grew up on playstation and they ignore the fact that NINTENDO IS THE FATHER OF TODAYS VIDEOGAMES.


Actually Nintendo saved the industry but it was Atari who is the father of video games.


Well Atari may have been there first, but Nintendo persevered more, so to most gamers, they are more of a father than Atari ever was.



NINTENDO

nintendo forever . . .

Around the Network
selnor on 18 August 2012
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
I loved their games. But Nintendo began down a different path after GC. Somewhere I couldn't follow. They used push the envelop of control and graphics. Now they don't. They let Rare get destroyed. A developer which was better than Ninty from my point of view.

So unless Ninty have top level visuals again, I'm not theirs anymore.

I was an old school ninty fan. Someone who was wowed as much by their graphics as I was by their gameplay.

Nintendo was always about control in the first place. In the second place, it was style, not graphics. To them they are not the same thing.

Oh, yeah, they were forced to sell their Rare stock. By Rare itself. They wanted to go with microsoft. Their mistake and their downfall.


No Nintendo also built the Nes, Snes and N64. Snes and N64 were very powerful in graphics and at te front of their respective generations. Nintendo were the ones to decide not to make Wii a powerhouse. A path I coould not follow.

As far as I remember the stamper Bros. at Rare didnt want Rare to be sold. Which is the real reason they left.

1. That was a decision made by the market. The GC was most likely the most powerfull of the generaton and it sold the least of any Nintendo console. Nintendo recognised this and chose a different path with the WII. Ironicly it was the market which could not follow Nintendo's path, and forced a change for the company.

2. The brothers left Rare five years after microsoft took them over. They obvious didn't leave on principle upon the sale. And even if it got sold without their consent, it was still a choice by the company Rare. Their chosen downfall.

1. Show me  1 site that claims the GC was more powerful than Xbox. Ironically I think the market are calling for more power, and the decision with Wii U will be a mistake. I think Nintendo should have stuck to their guns in that case.

2. I'm sure  Nintendo ad the ability to keep a company that sold as many copies of  games as they did. 



pokoko on 18 August 2012
Nem said:
Theres really no reason to hate nintendo, except if you're a fanboy. I used to be a SEGA fanboy so i know the feel.

 But, today i see clearly. Nintendo is actually the greatest hope there is in the game industry because they keep trying new things instead of engaging in costly graphical power wars that in the end dont bring much benefit. 


I would very much argue with the idea that Nintendo is, by itself, the "greatest hope" for gaming.  They might be doing things differently than the other two, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is more significant.

 Nintendo pioneered motion controls as the main input method for a console, but they also fell far, far behind in online capabilities.  Are motion controls really more important than online networks or cloud usage going forward?  Even with motion controls, Kinect is probably closer to the path that the technology will take.  And, truthfully, Sony was actually the innovator here, though they completely failed to use it in a meaningful way.

When it comes to games, while Nintendo is extremely good at polishing games and perfecting formulas, it's pretty rare that they do anything innovative.  In my opinion, Sony's World Wide Studios is at the top with the way they work together, share technology and knowlege, and even help each other out with personel.  There is some incredible stuff coming from that group, even if you don't like the games personally.

I also take exception with the idea that increasing the computational power of gaming consoles is all about graphical output.  Personally, I'd be content if the visual quality of gaming never moved beyond what it is now.  However, I very much WOULD like to see AI systems improve, interactive environments improve, the number of possible events happening at once increase, and the number of possible enemies per event increase.  Those are the real reason devs are wanting new consoles.

 My point is that you have to take all of that as the future of gaming.  All three companies are doing stuff that will move gaming forward, even if a good portion of it will fall away.  With technology, there will always be more misses than hits.   What Nintendo does is important, but I don't see how it's more important or significantly innovative than what the other guys are doing.



man-bear-pig on 18 August 2012

How long did it take you to think of that title?

OT: I hate Wii U because it has a tablet controller, and i don't like the idea of using a tablet AND a TV when gaming



My prediction threads:

Wii U will sell under 40m units (made on 14th September 2012)

PS Vita will sell under 20m units (made on 30th September 2012)

Wii U will sell under 7m in 2013 - I was right

Halo 4 first 9 weeks sales prediction

PS4 to be down YOY in 2015

DRAE_nmhar on 18 August 2012

Lol people always find something to hate about Nintendo. Now that Nintendo is finally in HD, a Mario game at launch, and has great third party support, etc, people still manage to find something wrong about those.



Wii U Demos in *FPS* View  ;)
http://www.youtube.com/user/PxDxI

Stefan.De.Machtige on 18 August 2012
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
I loved their games. But Nintendo began down a different path after GC. Somewhere I couldn't follow. They used push the envelop of control and graphics. Now they don't. They let Rare get destroyed. A developer which was better than Ninty from my point of view.

So unless Ninty have top level visuals again, I'm not theirs anymore.

I was an old school ninty fan. Someone who was wowed as much by their graphics as I was by their gameplay.

Nintendo was always about control in the first place. In the second place, it was style, not graphics. To them they are not the same thing.

Oh, yeah, they were forced to sell their Rare stock. By Rare itself. They wanted to go with microsoft. Their mistake and their downfall.


No Nintendo also built the Nes, Snes and N64. Snes and N64 were very powerful in graphics and at te front of their respective generations. Nintendo were the ones to decide not to make Wii a powerhouse. A path I coould not follow.

As far as I remember the stamper Bros. at Rare didnt want Rare to be sold. Which is the real reason they left.

1. That was a decision made by the market. The GC was most likely the most powerfull of the generaton and it sold the least of any Nintendo console. Nintendo recognised this and chose a different path with the WII. Ironicly it was the market which could not follow Nintendo's path, and forced a change for the company.

2. The brothers left Rare five years after microsoft took them over. They obvious didn't leave on principle upon the sale. And even if it got sold without their consent, it was still a choice by the company Rare. Their chosen downfall.

1. Show me  1 site that claims the GC was more powerful than Xbox. Ironically I think the market are calling for more power, and the decision with Wii U will be a mistake. I think Nintendo should have stuck to their guns in that case.

2. I'm sure  Nintendo ad the ability to keep a company that sold as many copies of  games as they did. 

1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1

In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.

2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.

Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.