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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What people dislike about Wii U hardware?

psychicscubadiver said:

Oh, I'd never argue that the WiiU was better than the Switch on any front, software or hardware. I just disagreed with your original sentiment that ZombiU was shovelware and then your reply that the WiiU didn't have good games. It did have good games, they were just too few and tethered to a hardware that was not good.

Although, I would argue that Smash Ultimate is not an 'upgrade' of Smash 4. The two are different games for a multitude of reasons. The only reason you seem to think they are the same is that the physics engine was changed slightly instead being utterly overhauled like between the previous titles in the series. That one difference does not a 'port' make.

It all boils down to the question of what level of effort justifies calling a game a deluxe edition, a remaster, a remake, a port. How I see it, only one change in Ultimate could warrant calling it a new game (new campaign mode). But like I argued, it could also fit in the definition of a deluxe edition (example: brand new maps like the Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut). All the rest (level texture and background quality, balance changes, new characters), all that is in line with the patterns of the DLCs or other remasters that were never called new games. So I, esp. having played Smash 4 a lot, don't feel like we can call it a new game, like I can't call Ocarina of time 3D a new game just because they remade ALL the textures in the game (yes, all, that's a lot of effort).

As for the WiiU, I don't remember saying it only had bad games. But in contrast to the Switch, even its best games got better and deeper versions on the Switch, which proves how much stronger the Switch is to the U, and so the U, with a lower amount of appealing games, with a depth that could be improved upon, shows that even the library, while good, had a much weaker punch than what is expected from a successful console like the Switch.

Last edited by padib - on 11 July 2021

Around the Network
mZuzek said:
Acevil said:

Honestly, the same reason I started disliking my PS4, it took too long to do stuff.

From my time with the PS4, I agree the slowness was painful. Even moreso than the Wii U in my experience. I hated the thing.

But the PS4 outsold the Wii U almost ten-to-one, so I wouldn't say this is the reason for most people.

The ps4 is the best of all three. Xbox one have bad start and Wiiu hava much problems( gamepad, small amount of games, marketing, etc).



psychicscubadiver said:

Oh, I'd never argue that the WiiU was better than the Switch on any front, software or hardware.

While Switch definitely has the better library, I do feel it has yet to catch up to the Wii U in terms of original first party games. That said, it likely will by the end of its lifecycle.

Leynos said:

Wii U is less powerful than Switch so it would be silly to try and argue the hardware is better than Switch.

Well, I mean there is more to hardware than just power, but you are right Wii U is less powerful, and I personally consider the Switch far superior hardware, as clearly does the market.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

padib said:
psychicscubadiver said:

Oh, I'd never argue that the WiiU was better than the Switch on any front, software or hardware. I just disagreed with your original sentiment that ZombiU was shovelware and then your reply that the WiiU didn't have good games. It did have good games, they were just too few and tethered to a hardware that was not good.

Although, I would argue that Smash Ultimate is not an 'upgrade' of Smash 4. The two are different games for a multitude of reasons. The only reason you seem to think they are the same is that the physics engine was changed slightly instead being utterly overhauled like between the previous titles in the series. That one difference does not a 'port' make.

It all boils down to the question of what level of effort justifies calling a game a deluxe edition, a remaster, a remake, a port. How I see it, only one change in Ultimate could warrant calling it a new game (new campaign mode). But like I argued, it could also fit in the definition of a deluxe edition (example: brand new maps like the Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut). All the rest (level texture and background quality, balance changes, new characters), all that is in line with the patterns of the DLCs or other remasters that were never called new games. So I, esp. having played Smash 4 a lot, don't feel like we can call it a new game, like I can't call Ocarina of time 3D a new game just because they remade ALL the textures in the game (yes, all, that's a lot of effort).

As for the WiiU, I don't remember saying it only had bad games. But in contrast to the Switch, even its best games got better and deeper versions on the Switch, which proves how much stronger the Switch is to the U, and so the U, with a lower amount of appealing games, with a depth that could be improved upon, shows that even the library, while good, had a much weaker punch than what is expected from a successful console like the Switch.

New characters, new stages, new fighters, new moves, new single player campaign with new animations and an RPG element based on the spirits, new music, new textures, new side modes to play and removal of old modes like Smash Run and Smash Tour don't make it a new game?
What exactly does a fighting game have to do to be a sequel in your book? Or do you consider every Street Fighter since 2 to be a port as well, lol?


In regards to the library you certainly implied that the WiiU games were bad when you said "the majority of the games didn't have the depth and finesse that we see in Switch games?" I'd call Tropical Freeze a better 2D Platformer than anything original to the Switch, but if 'bad' isn't what you're trying to say about the games, then that's fine and I've got no reason to argue there.



psychicscubadiver said:
padib said:

It all boils down to the question of what level of effort justifies calling a game a deluxe edition, a remaster, a remake, a port. How I see it, only one change in Ultimate could warrant calling it a new game (new campaign mode). But like I argued, it could also fit in the definition of a deluxe edition (example: brand new maps like the Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut). All the rest (level texture and background quality, balance changes, new characters), all that is in line with the patterns of the DLCs or other remasters that were never called new games. So I, esp. having played Smash 4 a lot, don't feel like we can call it a new game, like I can't call Ocarina of time 3D a new game just because they remade ALL the textures in the game (yes, all, that's a lot of effort).

As for the WiiU, I don't remember saying it only had bad games. But in contrast to the Switch, even its best games got better and deeper versions on the Switch, which proves how much stronger the Switch is to the U, and so the U, with a lower amount of appealing games, with a depth that could be improved upon, shows that even the library, while good, had a much weaker punch than what is expected from a successful console like the Switch.

New characters, new stages, new fighters, new moves, new single player campaign with new animations and an RPG element based on the spirits, new music, new textures, new side modes to play and removal of old modes like Smash Run and Smash Tour don't make it a new game?
What exactly does a fighting game have to do to be a sequel in your book? Or do you consider every Street Fighter since 2 to be a port as well, lol?


In regards to the library you certainly implied that the WiiU games were bad when you said "the majority of the games didn't have the depth and finesse that we see in Switch games?" I'd call Tropical Freeze a better 2D Platformer than anything original to the Switch, but if 'bad' isn't what you're trying to say about the games, then that's fine and I've got no reason to argue there.

I wasn't trying to say bad I had a WiiU and liked it, so we don't meed to argue, we're just talking about why the U failed.

As for Smash, the DLCs had new music, new stages,  new fighters, balance changes, new characters (not sure why you mention that twice), new moves. Removal  of modes don't count, only really new feature is canpaign which already existed in 3DS version and most probably reused a lot of the work.

SFIV in all its iterations is a good example of what a new game is not. 



Around the Network

How is Smash Run a campaign? Not only does the whole thing take just a few minutes, but it's a multiplayer mode. I can't fathom any comparison between it and a 15-hour single-player mode with an actual story and cutscenes.

If Smash Ultimate is not a new game then Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, and Soul Caliber haven't had new games in many years either. By that standard the last new Smash game was Melee.



padib said:
psychicscubadiver said:

New characters, new stages, new fighters, new moves, new single player campaign with new animations and an RPG element based on the spirits, new music, new textures, new side modes to play and removal of old modes like Smash Run and Smash Tour don't make it a new game?
What exactly does a fighting game have to do to be a sequel in your book? Or do you consider every Street Fighter since 2 to be a port as well, lol?


In regards to the library you certainly implied that the WiiU games were bad when you said "the majority of the games didn't have the depth and finesse that we see in Switch games?" I'd call Tropical Freeze a better 2D Platformer than anything original to the Switch, but if 'bad' isn't what you're trying to say about the games, then that's fine and I've got no reason to argue there.

I wasn't trying to say bad I had a WiiU and liked it, so we don't meed to argue, we're just talking about why the U failed.

As for Smash, the DLCs had new music, new stages,  new fighters, balance changes, new characters (not sure why you mention that twice), new moves. Removal  of modes don't count, only really new feature is canpaign which already existed in 3DS version and most probably reused a lot of the work.

SFIV in all its iterations is a good example of what a new game is not. 

Okay either this is bait and I've been dumb enough to fall for it this long or you made a bet before Ultimate released that it would be a port and are just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.



psychicscubadiver said:
padib said:

I wasn't trying to say bad I had a WiiU and liked it, so we don't meed to argue, we're just talking about why the U failed.

As for Smash, the DLCs had new music, new stages,  new fighters, balance changes, new characters (not sure why you mention that twice), new moves. Removal  of modes don't count, only really new feature is canpaign which already existed in 3DS version and most probably reused a lot of the work.

SFIV in all its iterations is a good example of what a new game is not. 

Okay either this is bait and I've been dumb enough to fall for it this long or you made a bet before Ultimate released that it would be a port and are just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

It's not a bait, so if you don't want to talk about it that's okay, but don't call me stubborn since I could say the exact same thing about you, that you refuse to understand what to me is crystal clear. Anyhow if you actually play it, next time you turn it on you might think about what I said and change your mind, like all the others here who insist Smash Ultimate is not a glorified DLC or Deluxe Edition or Director's Cut or whatever we call things these days thats add a good amount of content and even some modes but don't change the underlying game. I gave tons of reason and examples so don't insult.

Your insults and refusal to put any water in your wine is why I absolutely hate talking to people when it comes to Nintendo games on here. It's always so cut and dry and, quite frankly, a complete bore.

Please reconsider your attitude, I've been quite gravious with you, conceding at times when I considered I may be wrong, and you my friend are being rude.

However you slice it, the U can't hold a candle to the Switch, or to any serious console for that matter, from both a hardware and software point of view. At least the gamecube had sound hardware. The U was Nintendo's biggest blunder after the virtual boy. At least it had some untapped potential which led to deluxe editions on Switch, I'll give it that.



JWeinCom said:
Leynos said:

Wii U exclusives were pretty great overall with some exceptions like Amiibo Festival or Starfox Zero.

There's a difference between great games and system selling games. For instance, NSMBU, the big launch title for the Wii U. It was a fine Mario platformer, and a great overall game, but it wasn't doing anything exciting enough to entice people to want to buy a new console for it. 

The Wii U's first couple of years were very sparse, especially the first year where there wasn't anything major from launch until Pikmin 3 (which itself isn't a huge title), a 9 month gap. By the time the Switch actually started getting some more ambitious titles the system had already been labeled a failure and it was too late.

There were some major turnoffs when it came to the game, most didn’t have anything to do with its content, but the core of what the game it was and the platform it was on.

1. The Wii U’s primary selling points were HD and Asymmetrical gameplay, and NSMBU didn’t really say anything about either.

2. It came out about 3 months after the mediocre NSMB2, it wasn’t really a game people were demanding.

3. It wasn’t a fresh concept. The game didn’t really do much of anything new or groundbreaking, it was a throwback like the other NSMB games before it. That’s why it lacked the excitement surrounding NSMB and NSMB Wii which were fresh throwbacks.

4. It came out for the wrong platform. This ties a bit into point 1, because the game didn’t look like it needed the Wii U, and should have been on Wii. There was low interest in buying an expensive new console to play a game that looked like it could easily be on the one they already owned.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

padib said:
psychicscubadiver said:

Okay either this is bait and I've been dumb enough to fall for it this long or you made a bet before Ultimate released that it would be a port and are just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

It's not a bait, so if you don't want to talk about it that's okay, but don't call me stubborn since I could say the exact same thing about you, that you refuse to understand what to me is crystal clear. Anyhow if you actually play it, next time you turn it on you might think about what I said and change your mind, like all the others here who insist Smash Ultimate is not a glorified DLC or Deluxe Edition or Director's Cut or whatever we call things these days thats add a good amount of content and even some modes but don't change the underlying game.

They changed the underlying game and drastically so. As I said, more changes to mechanics than there were in Smash 4 compared to Brawl. You just have no idea what you're saying, is all.