1) There was nothing simple about the Wiimote, although it did (by design) appear that way from the user's perspective.

2) The fact that they've gone from a product whose appeal and possibilities are clear and obvious to a product whose appeal needs to be explained and understood is a glaring sign that it's a large step backwards.

Against.

Its potential use in games is questionable to say the least. Furthermore, sacrifices in hardware quality(CPU, GPU etc.) had to be made, for the system to stay within budget. What they end up with, is a weak system with an expensive controller.

Yes, you're right. Wii Sports sold the Wiimote and sold the Wii. Absolutely correct.

But as someone else said, "then what"? The GamePad is hardly a "bad idea". Because it's not a gimmick. It's a regular controller with extra functionalities. The Wiimote/Nunchuck setup, as much as I enjoyed it for some games, and as much as I resisted/argued the notion that it was a gimmick......let's be honest. Motion controls are not "the future", and I wouldn't want them to be. No Wii game really made a stronger case for motion controls than Wii Sports did. Ever. As I've said in the past, the Wiimote/Nunchuck setup for FPS games (or any kind of aim and shoot game) is fantastic, better to me than mouse and keyboard. And if Wii U ever has a shooter of any kind that I'd actually be interested in playing, I'm very glad that it also used the Wiimote for that.

But as I said, at the end of the day, I'd rather NOT waggle around to control my games, for the most part. I'd rather just use traditional controls. And I happen to like the design of the GamePad a hell of a lot more than the design for the so-called "pro controller" they came up with. That design is worse than the Classic Controller Pro design, which was at least solid. If they had just had a Classic Controller Pro type controller, and that's it, for Wii U, it would be fine, but it would also be kind of average. The GamePad gives the Wii U a regular controller that does everything the Pro does, and then a hell of a lot more. That is added value, and to me worth every extra penny that it makes the system cost. If the Wii U had just a regular, small controller, it would have nothing that really set it apart from the PS4 or Xbone, except for Nintendo franchise games that are finally in HD. If it still used the Wiimote as it's prime controller, it would just be an "HD Wii". I absolutely think with the GamePad they reached a happy medium, and absolutely feel they went in the correct direction.

It's a regular controller, so we're not forced to have tacked on waggle in everything we play, yet it's also got all these added abilities which give it so much more depth and potential. As I said, just having those things available, that by itself is nice, and feels worthwhile. Not every developer HAS to use them, and that, to me, is also great. I don't WANT every game to use the touch pad, I certainly don't WANT every game to make me move the GamePad around like a sensor or camera. But if certain games make some use of that kind of thing, then great. And I think THAT is the point I'm trying to get across about why it's such a great design. With the Wiimote, it was nice in some respects, but it was also lacking in buttons, even WITH the nunchuck attached, and a lot of times the forced motion controls detracted from the game experience, not added to it. Soul Caliber Legends was a great example, of a game that could have possibly been a lot more fun if the fucking controls had just WORKED. And even if the motion controls had been better designed, more responsive, quite frankly swinging your "sword arm" around to attack, or even just constantly flicking your wrist, isn't really good for you, and can get rather tiring and bothersome. Just ask Skyward Sword. That game was great in many respects. But the thing that REALLY held it back, was that they used the motion+ tilting shit for EVERYTHING, things that didn't even need it. That game would have been 100% more fun to play, just using traditional controls. There were several Wii games I bought and later got rid of, specifically because the controls just weren't fun to use, or even got bothersome to use. Even Mario Galaxy would have been 5% better if I didn't have to flick my wrist to make Mario spin all the time. That could easily be done with a button press, and you could easily draw star bits to you some other way than pointing. And the other uses that game made of motion controls could get a bit tedious, just the same as Skyward Sword did for swimming (REALLY?), flying, rail cart tilting, etc.

The GamePad, on the other hand, is unforced potential. A lot of developers felt forced to tack on shitty motion controls because not everyone might own a classic or GC controller, etc., so to "justify" putting a game on Wii, they had to "justify" utilizing the Wiimote. I can't tell you how many times I read some developer say they didn't put a game on Wii because they COULDN'T "justify" the controls. Couldn't figure out how to make it work. With the GamePad, they have a perfectly normal, perfectly functional controller, so there is no immediate control firewall, they have the exact same input device that the other systems have to work with, but then they ALSO have those added bells and whistles at their disposal, if they WANT to use them. Off-TV play alone is almost worth the price of admition. But then when you add it (hopefully limited use of) the motion sensing, the touch screen, the "second screen" capabiliies, the camera, the NFC, etc., all those are things that developers don't have to feel OBLIGATED to tack onto their games. But those things ARE there to ENHANCE the games, if they see fit to do so. And that, to my mind, is a hell of a lot more attractive, both to gamers and to developers, than the limited Wiimote concept was.

Don't get me wrong. I don't HATE motion controls, anymore than I hate touchscreen controls. And I salute Nintendo for exploring new terrain and trying new things. It's nice to have both of those options available on Wii U. But that doesn't mean I want to have to play games only using motion controls, or only using a touch screen. Just not totally my thing. I dealt with it, and as I said, sometimes really enjoyed it, on Wii, because people just tacked it on. But in most games, llke Mario Kart for example, that game me an option to use the GC controller or classic controller, I often used them, because like I said, I'd rather just control a game normally. Motion controls have a finite amount of appeal. I would never want to use a Kinect game, even one that worked brilliantly, because I don't WANT to "be the controller". I don't want to flail around like a moron, or blow into a microphone, or flicky my wrist till it practically breaks. Motion controls are a nice idea, in doses, for CERTAIN games. But I'm personally very glad that Nintendo went the route they did. And as I said, I firmly believe it will prove itself to those like you who aren't "sold" yet, in due time.

No offense, but even if Nintendo had made a system with hardware closer to PS4, and had a "normal" controller, we'd just be dealing with the N64/GC all over again. Anyone insenuating that somehow the system would be better off or would sell more if it had more powerful hardware, is deluding themselves.

There are people who are going to buy an Xbox no matter how shitty the new one is, or people who are so brand loyal to Playstation that they would never consider getting a Nintendo console (at least a home console). IE there are people who, for whatever their reasons, just aren't going to buy a Nintendo system. I think having the GamePad concept, while also retaining the ability to use the Wiimote for certain games, was the right move. It gives you everything, regular controller, DS type functionality, Wiimote game functionality. You have the works for Wii U. It provides a more broad range to attract a broader range of potential buyers. Because as I said, there are some "hardcore" gamers that Nintendo is simply never going to convince to buy their console instead of the compeition. End of story.

The N64 sold 33 million units. I don't see the Wii U going anywhere near that. Right now, it is barely moving any units. A competitive system in terms of specs, would have at least secured some third party support. Along with their exclusive 1st party line up, Nintendo would stand a chance.  As it is now, they are struggling to sell a million/year. It couldn't possibly get any worse.

noname2200 14 hours ago
1) There was nothing simple about the Wiimote, although it did (by design) appear that way from the user's perspective.
2) The fact that they've gone from a product whose appeal and possibilities are clear and obvious to a product whose appeal needs to be explained and understood is a glaring sign that it's a large step backwards.


Now, now, this is really confusing.

With the Wiimote people just had to point at the screen and press one or two buttons, and sometimes no button at all. How can it not be simple ? Even Kinect takes a certain time to get used to the menus and lack of buttons. Wiimote was just about pick and play, it was very intuitive.

As for the gamepad, you´re implying then that coming from a simple concept to a most comprehensive and advanced one was a bad move. So advancing and implementing new things is a bad thing at all. I really think gamers should think the opposite

That was a long read, DevilRising, but I do agree with you

Developers don´t need to use all Gamepad features. Just give their games an off-tv play option and that´s enough. Like Injustice, Assassins Creed 3 and a few other games. If they want to explore the possibilites, then better. If they don´t, just play it safe. WiiU owners will be pleased either way

Sometimes I think this matter of "using Gamepad features" is just a cheap excuse for some developers to not launch their games on the WiiU. They could stop all this bullshit talk and tell the truth: they don´t want to spent more money on adapting their games for a system that it´s not selling well yet.

That couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that except for a small blip in March (MH3, Lego City, etc.), the Wii U had an unprecedented lack of software coming out for it during the first half of the year, could it? Fact is, the system sold rather well AT LAUNCH, and even into December. But as soon as the holidays were over, and there were no major games coming out in January onward, sales kind of hit the brakes. It's not rocket science. A lot of people were:

A) Waiting to see when the new Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, etc. were coming out.

B) Waiting to see what the competition was doing and how much it was going to cost.

C) Waiting for the Wii U to get more games, period.

Before they decided to go and buy a console. The Wii U had a pretty solid launch, on paper one of the best actually. The PROBLEM was that no one could have forseen just HOW barren the release lineup looked for the first half of 2013. Nintendo fucked up BIG TIME when it came to that, and they've more or less admitted this. They put FAR too much focus into 3DS development, when the 3DS is selling great and actually has, if anything, a surplus of software coming for it last year and this year. Games like Luigi's Mansion 2 and Paper Mario 4 should have, no question, been Wii U titles. They not only would have been better, but could have given the system SOMETHING beyond a handful of March third party releases. The other issue was how shitty Wii U's initial ad campaign was. There was no major tv ad build-up before release, and the launch commercial was god awful: shitty dubstep and a bunch of shit that told people nothing about the console or why they should want one. With the system FINALLY getting games from June onward, and really picking up into the fall/holiday season, along with what will inevitably be a "Second launch" style ad campaign, along with what one would imagine will be some kind of new bundle deal for the console, sales will absolutely pick up. I've heard a LOT of people say they were waiting for Mario, or Mario Kart, or Smash Bros, or the Wind Waker remake, etc. 

And as for your mention of 3rd party support, again, if you go back and bother to look at the launch lineup, it was stacked with a lot of 3rd party releases of the kind that Wii never got. Assassin's Creed, Darksiders, Batman, Mass Effect, etc. etc. Plenty of Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc. support. The issue has been, after they saw how the sales dried up so quickly, companies like EA cut any plans for 2013 titles. But not all. COD is coming out, Watch Dogs, Splinter Cell, Batman, ACIV, etc. Several of the publishers have said that their support for Wii U will pick back up when sales pick up. And that is guaranteed to happen. Nintendo isn't stupid. If they wind up needing a price drop, they'll do it. Special bundles, they'll do it. Making more exclusive deals like with Sega (which I'm willing to bet they're already looking into), they'll do it. They done goofed with the first half of 2013. I seriously doubt they're going to let that happen again.

So no, I don't think there's any way that they could fail to hit 30 million lifetime sales. Not with Zelda U, and Mario Kart 8, and Smash Bros. coming out, etc. And the GamePad, getting back on topic, as I've said is an assett to the console, not a hindrance, and the mere fact that the system is Wii compatible and also uses the Wiimote, is also a huge assett. It's the best of both worlds, and it will work out fine in the end. If anyone thinks the Xbone is going to outsell the Wii U this gen, they're crazy.

Agreed. I also think one thing a lot of people are ignoring is the huge amount of smaller indie devs that have been lining up to get their content on the eShop. Indie gaming in general tends to take more risks and be a lot more creative, and Nintendo is really pushing the digital bit, even with their own games, so I could definately see a lot of the more eShop games doing interesting and creative things with the controls.

200+ thinks it has big potential!? What can you do with it that you can't already do with other tablets?