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?

snyps said:
curl-6 said:

The other thing with the Wii U was while it did have some really good games, they were for the most part not the kind of thing you'd buy a console for.
Take Tropical Freeze; as excellent as it was, consumers tend not to want to buy a $300 HD console to play a 2D sidescroller.
It's first party games were mostly the sort of thing you buy for hardware you already own, it had very, very few killer apps.

That’s an excellent point. If you discount side scrollers and rehashes, it’s only (Exclusive) system seller was Mario 3D world. Even that was an inferior clone of Mario 3D land on the 3DS. 

I really (really) enjoyed the touch screen features on the games that maximized the gamepad. But the only killer app on the console was Xenoblade Chronicles X. 

Yeah Mario Odyssey for example is a much better system seller as its a more ambitious game in line with what was expected/hoped for by many as the first HD 3D Mario. 3D World played things safe with a more limited and conservative design, and again didn't come off as the type of game you buy a $300 HD console for.



Around the Network

Don't really have issue with the hardware itself necessarily. For me it's more the big bulky Fischer Price-esque controller and the cumbersome Miiverse interface at the startup.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

padib said:
psychicscubadiver said:

I would agree that Nintendo didn't think through the usability of the gamepad or we'd have gotten more games that used it in clever ways. As much as the waggle tech of the Wiimotes annoyed people, myself included, Nintendo got a lot of mileage out of that ability and yet the gamepad was underutilized.

On the second part I'd have to disagree that the games lack depth compared to Switch games. There's a reason Nintendo has ported over almost all of the WiiU's library and that's because they're good games. DK Tropical Freeze, Pikmin 3, Mariokart 8 Deluxe, Pokken Tournament, Capatain Toad Treasure Tracker, and New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe did not add any significant features compared to their WiiU counterparts, but each of them still outsold their predecessors because they were on much more desirable hardware. The biggest problem with the WiiU's games is how slowly they trickled out. The early droughts, where Nintendo hoped that 3rd party ports (like Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, etc) would tide people over combined with the poor marketing and unlikable hardware killed the system, and once considered a flop it was almost impossible to build that momentum back up.

Let's add in Smash Ultimate in your examples for good measure since it's clearly an upgrade o Smash 4 and I'll be down to concede the question that the U had decent, deep games but still even then they got the deluxe treatment on the Switch which enriched then and made then deeper. And still, Switch took those and added more, with IPs like Pokemon that never made it to a Nintendo home console before (it's a hybrid). 

So I guess the Switch not only had deep games, but it also included the deep games from the U and made then even deeper. It's an unstoppable combo.

The U only had it's own deep games and they were too few. 

What do you make of the fact that you could at best go to the toilet with the gamepad? Imho that's a pretty huge design flaw.

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.



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



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

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).



Around the Network
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.



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.



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.



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.