I think Nintendo learned from the Gamecube and the Wii that it's not profitable for them directly compete against Sony and M$ for the same market, so they knew they needed something fresh, something..."in." From there, it's only natural that they would try to expand on the "family funtime" concept of the Wii, while trying to recapture some of the "core" market they lost with the Wii. The U-pad is clearly their attempt at doing exactly that. It embodies and expands on the local multiplayer aspect of the Wii with it's (unprecedented?) ability to deliver 5-person multiplayer on a single console, and it adds another layer for hardcore titles with the expanded controls made available by the touchscreen. Well, it should, anyway.

So, in short, no, I don't agree with you. I'm sure that Nintendo, videogame developers that they are, went through several design choices and landed on the one that they found would make a substantial addition to their titles, and, of course, the one they thought would net them the most money.

I completely agree. The Wii U gamepad is in now way as innovative as the Wiimote was back in 2006. We all have tablets, Nintendo was late again.

The Wii U pad is not a tablet. It's a controller with a touch screen. A big difference.

^.^
tell em like it is.

But it looks like one and it has less functionality. And you wonder why Wii U isn't selling well.

The Wii U isn't selling because there are no games or at least original ones that make the most of the system besides Nintendo Land, ZombiU and a enhanced port of the year+ old Batman Arkaham City. Aside from some good games on eShop not all of which are exclusive there is nothing that you can call a unique system seller.

The gamepad isn't that Nintendo didn't have a better idea, it pretty much is just an attempt to complie the different issues people had with the Wii in one console. HD? Check. Dual Analog standard? Check. Potential compatibility with the current Nintendo handheld? Check. Offers something new? Check. Heck, the playing via gamepad could be seen as a way to address the complaint that parents or others that are tired having whoever is playing a game monopolize the TV.

Thought obviously went into the Wii U and their is plenty of potential within it, Nintendo just has failed to deliver the software in a timely fashion to detail that fact. Not their first time making this mistake (although it might be the longest they have failed to rectify it with a potential blockbuster) and not the only time in 2012 that a hardware producer made it. If anything, Nintendo just rushed it out into the market with the software to sustain a forward momentum.

I hate to quibble, but all products ever made were developed because the developer couldn't think up a better idea. If they could think of a better idea, they would have developed that product ever. Windows 95 was an amazing product, but MS still came up with it because they couldn't think of anything better to do.

What you're really saying is

"The Wii U gamepad was a bad idea, do you agree?"

No, I do not.

Go back under your bridge, troll.

Not true...nintendoland demonstrates some cool uses of the controller, as do some upcoming releases...I'll reserve my judgement until more 1st party games are released.

I'm going to have to say no, but it does seem like they were chasing the tail this time around by making the touch screen such a major distinguishing feature of the Wii U. Tablets were essentially reborn with the iPad in 2010, creating a viable new segment in mobile computing devices. Nintendo releases a tablet-like controller in 2012.

I actually prefer the standard controller layout the Game Pad has over the Wii mote/nunchuk set up that just doesn't work for so many of the games I prefer to play almost to the point where I might have preferred had it been the alternate control scheme rather than the primary control scheme. Not that it matters 6 years later.

They should have gotten rid of that gimmicky controller and used a boomerang-like one instead.

Now THAT is sexy!