Thoughts on Wii U? Thread

The problem with motion control is more that game designers often fail to use it properly to begin with. I've seen really crappy things on the Wii like a fighter game where you had to do awkward swings with the wiimote to carry out attacks and grabs. It's so counter-intuitive and slow your arm and ankles hurt in no time. Motion control is often used just so it is used not because it is needed. But that's a common fail in games on various systems.

Dragonlord wrote: The problem with motion control is more that game designers often fail to use it properly to begin with. I've seen really crappy things on the Wii like a fighter game where you had to do awkward swings with the wiimote to carry out attacks and grabs. It's so counter-intuitive and slow your arm and ankles hurt in no time. Motion control is often used just so it is used not because it is needed. But that's a common fail in games on various systems.

*looks at the use of the Sixaxis for PS3*

And then there's when they actually think about it...

Paradigmthefallen wrote: *looks at the use of the Sixaxis for PS3*

I don't think I have heard of a single game that used Sixaxis that was worth anything...

l0rdx3nu wrote:

Paradigmthefallen wrote: *looks at the use of the Sixaxis for PS3*

I don't think I have heard of a single game that used Sixaxis that was worth anything...

you clearly haven't heard of Flower, inFAMOUS, Uncharted, Little Bigplanet, or Killzone 3, then. And they aren't the only ones.

Paradigmthefallen wrote:

l0rdx3nu wrote:

Paradigmthefallen wrote: *looks at the use of the Sixaxis for PS3*

I don't think I have heard of a single game that used Sixaxis that was worth anything...

you clearly haven't heard of Flower, inFAMOUS, Uncharted, Little Bigplanet, or Killzone 3, then. And they aren't the only ones.

...My bad, I wasn't aware that any of those games used Sixaxis. Don't have a PS3, I was going off what I only knew.

Aside from Flower (which I can't comment on without playing it, I hear its good though), the rest of the games you mentioned didn't really put the sixaxis to use in any way that would counter what Dragonlord said. The games are all good, but the motion controls aren't really shining examples. Uncharted, for example, would mostly use it for the rare times your character needs to balance on a log, and for throwing grenades. The latter was one of those things that just ended up being awkward to do, and so it was removed by default in the sequel (reduced to an option for the people who didn't mind it). Killzone requires it for turning valves and planting c4, which are things that make it seem like it's being used solely for the sake of using it (which also seems to be angering people with disabilities, controllers that lack sixaxis, or people who just don't want to use sixaxis when buttons and sticks would have worked perfectly fine in the same scenarios). I think that might tie in with what was said earlier about some developers trying to design their games around the assumption that every player owns a certain kind of controller.

The result is that most games end up using it in a way that seem more gimmicky; finding ways to include Heavy Rain-like sequences or quicktime events where the player just has to shake the controller back and forth to shake critters off of them instead of hitting x repeatedly. Some games might try and find more clever ways to integrate it (like controlling a thrown weapon), but the result is typically no more useful than a stick and is optional (especially if the game is multi-platform and must work the same way without motion controls). Few exclusives seem to go balls to the wall with it in a way that actually ties it into the game (poor Lair) .

There are a few games that make good use of the motion controller however. The Force Unleashed on the wii was almost perfect(Controller wise), IMO. Swing the remote to swing the saber. Push forward with you left hand to do force push. Grip people/objects with a button, and fling them away with a flick, or smash other objects into them. Pus buttons and slam downwards to do repulse. Intuitive, easy to understand and above all, a heck of a lot of FUN.

Then guess what they did? The completely screwed up the controls for the second one. Actually, they screwed just about everything up in the second one. LucasArts just wanted to cash in again on a successful franchise Don't fix it if it ain't broken!

[End of rant]

Cryrid wrote: Aside from Flower (which I can't comment on without playing it, I hear its good though), the rest of the games you mentioned didn't really put the sixaxis to use in any way that would counter what Dragonlord said. The games are all good, but the motion controls aren't really shining examples. Uncharted, for example, would mostly use it for the rare times your character needs to balance on a log, and for throwing grenades. The latter was one of those things that just ended up being awkward to do, and so it was removed by default in the sequel (reduced to an option for the people who didn't mind it). Killzone requires it for turning valves and planting c4, which are things that make it seem like it's being used solely for the sake of using it (which also seems to be angering people with disabilities, controllers that lack sixaxis, or people who just don't want to use sixaxis when buttons and sticks would have worked perfectly fine in the same scenarios). I think that might tie in with what was said earlier about some developers trying to design their games around the assumption that every player owns a certain kind of controller.

The result is that most games end up using it in a way that seem more gimmicky; finding ways to include Heavy Rain-like sequences or quicktime events where the player just has to shake the controller back and forth to shake critters off of them instead of hitting x repeatedly. Some games might try and find more clever ways to integrate it (like controlling a thrown weapon), but the result is typically no more useful than a stick and is optional (especially if the game is multi-platform and must work the same way without motion controls). Few exclusives seem to go balls to the wall with it in a way that actually ties it into the game (poor Lair) .

don't.
dis.
Heavy Rain.

GarynDakari wrote: There are a few games that make good use of the motion controller however. The Force Unleashed on the wii was almost perfect(Controller wise), IMO. Swing the remote to swing the saber. Push forward with you left hand to do force push. Grip people/objects with a button, and fling them away with a flick, or smash other objects into them. Pus buttons and slam downwards to do repulse. Intuitive, easy to understand and above all, a heck of a lot of FUN.

Then guess what they did? The completely screwed up the controls for the second one. Actually, they screwed just about everything up in the second one. LucasArts just wanted to cash in again on a successful franchise Don't fix it if it ain't broken!

[End of rant]

Motion control wise... the Wii version wasn't that bad. Now if they made the gameplay balanced, re-included the platforming, and added more than a gimick of a multiplayer, then I'd be impressed.

And yes, LucasArts is screwing up like there is no tommorrow.

We all know this. I look to them whenever I think "what do I want to avoid if I ever lead a development studio...".

Paradigmthefallen wrote: We all know this. I look to them whenever I think "what do I want to avoid if I ever lead a development studio...".

You and me both. Along with LucasArts is Activision, EA and Bethesda.

Getting back to the topic at hand, IMO Nintendo had this planned from the day they ended the Gamcube.
"Reggie: It seems the Gamecube didn't go as well as we thought. We need a new plan.
Iwata: Oh, don't worry, I've got that under control.
Reggie: This isn't another Virtual Boy is it? The previous CEO loved it but I mean, well, it didn't do so well.
Iwata: It's nothing like that. This plan is cunning.
Reggie: As cunning as a fox?
Iwata: Quite.
Reggie: So what is it?
Iwata: While Microsoft and Sony make consoles focusing on high definition display, we'll make games with quirky motion controlls.
Reggie: Are you sure that's wise? Wouldn't improving the hardware be an im-
Iwata: Shush. A few years after making this console, Microsoft and Sony will worry that they've got the wrong market, and rush to make their own motion controlls.
Reggie: Ummm-
Iwata: While they focus on bringing games out for these new fangled controllers, they'll forget bout their original target audiance. At this point, we'll strike!
Reggie:Hmmm... Alright, it sounds feasible enough. What will we *strike" with?
Iwata: A console with high definition graphics and very few motion controls!
Reggie: Isn't that a round-about way of getting to a point we could get to sooner?
Iwata: Never mind that. Just focus on the success of my plan.
Reggie: What're we going to call this new console?
Iwata: You know how we've tossed about the idea of the Nintendo Wii for our next console?
Reggie: Yeah, about that-
Iwata: Well we'll call the next one the Nintendo WiiU!
Reggie: I'ts....
Iwata: Yes?
Reggie: I'ts........
Iwata: Go on.
Reggie: It's BRILLIANT!!! =D "

That probably didn't happen, but I'd like to think so.

GarynDakari wrote:

Paradigmthefallen wrote: We all know this. I look to them whenever I think "what do I want to avoid if I ever lead a development studio...".

You and me both. Along with LucasArts is Activision, EA and Bethesda.

Bethesda I've not really had a problem with... although granted all I got from them was Oblivion. EA may be idiots, but at least -most- of their PC games actually work rather well on PC (on a comp that originally couldn't handle Bioshock 2's multiplayer without during down the graphics considerably, I could run Deadspace at the highest level).

TCWelshy wrote: Getting back to the topic at hand, IMO Nintendo had this planned from the day they ended the Gamcube.
"Reggie: It seems the Gamecube didn't go as well as we thought. We need a new plan.
Iwata: Oh, don't worry, I've got that under control.
Reggie: This isn't another Virtual Boy is it? The previous CEO loved it but I mean, well, it didn't do so well.
Iwata: It's nothing like that. This plan is cunning.
Reggie: As cunning as a fox?
Iwata: Quite.
Reggie: So what is it?
Iwata: While Microsoft and Sony make consoles focusing on high definition display, we'll make games with quirky motion controlls.
Reggie: Are you sure that's wise? Wouldn't improving the hardware be an im-
Iwata: Shush. A few years after making this console, Microsoft and Sony will worry that they've got the wrong market, and rush to make their own motion controlls.
Reggie: Ummm-
Iwata: While they focus on bringing games out for these new fangled controllers, they'll forget bout their original target audiance. At this point, we'll strike!
Reggie:Hmmm... Alright, it sounds feasible enough. What will we *strike" with?
Iwata: A console with high definition graphics and very few motion controls!
Reggie: Isn't that a round-about way of getting to a point we could get to sooner?
Iwata: Never mind that. Just focus on the success of my plan.
Reggie: What're we going to call this new console?
Iwata: You know how we've tossed about the idea of the Nintendo Wii for our next console?
Reggie: Yeah, about that-
Iwata: Well we'll call the next one the Nintendo WiiU!
Reggie: I'ts....
Iwata: Yes?
Reggie: I'ts........
Iwata: Go on.
Reggie: It's BRILLIANT!!! =D "

That probably didn't happen, but I'd like to think so.

I really just seem them picking straws on what to do next. You've put more logic into their manuevers than I think even they did.

Paradigmthefallen wrote: Bethesda I've not really had a problem with... although granted all I got from them was Oblivion.

Play once Morrowind and see how much they drove the franchise against a wall... especially with the latest game to come (*urks*). Besides you heard maybe about the infamous "Horse Armor" and so forth.

don't dis Heavy Rain.

I've yet to.

Microsoft and Sony will worry that they've got the wrong market, and rush to make their own motion controlls.

I highly doubt Microsoft and Sony were worried about having the wrong market. They knew the kind of gamer they'd be targeting, and Nintendo knew it wouldn't be a wise financial move to try and compete against them (the market would be split 3-4 ways, and would require expensive hardware to stay on par with the competition). So their decision was to try and focus on a newer market; the casuals and the people who haven't really played games before.
The thing is that gamers expect to have a new console every 5 years because of the previous generations, which would be a big burden for Microsoft or Sony given the amount of money they've spent developing and marketing the current line. Developers are now getting fairly comfortable working with the hardware to produce better looking games, and there's no arms race going on with the competition. With no rush to pump out a new system, they can extend the life of the current ones a few more years while also trying to appeal to new market of gamers Wii created (the hardware is now cheaper too). This in no way means they're forgetting about the original audience, as they'll still be getting their 3d modern warfares, Battlefields, Uncharteds, etc.

I'd also disagree about the Wii U being a console with very few motion controls. It may have a touchscreen, but what I've seen of it at E3 it seems to be putting the system's ability to track the controller to good use (and still supports the wiimotes even). I'd take smarter motion controls over pointless waggling anyday.

Cryrid wrote: The thing is that gamers expect to have a new console every 5 years because of the previous generations, which would be a big burden for Microsoft or Sony given the amount of money they've spent developing and marketing the current line. Developers are now getting fairly comfortable working with the hardware to produce better looking games, and there's no arms race going on with the competition. With no rush to pump out a new system, they can extend the life of the current ones a few more years while also trying to appeal to new market of gamers Wii created (the hardware is now cheaper too). This in no way means they're forgetting about the original audience, as they'll still be getting their 3d modern warfares, Battlefields, Uncharteds, etc.

I read an article on GI which stated the Microsoft said that the Xbox has gone through only half its life. That kinda stinks if you ask me, I was expecting a new console sometime the next year or the year after... Also, I heard rumors of a PS4.

TCWelshy wrote:
Reggie: I'ts....
Iwata: Yes?
Reggie: I'ts........
Iwata: Go on.
Reggie: It's BRILLIANT!!! =D "

LoL

l0rdx3nu wrote:

I read an article on GI which stated the Microsoft said that the Xbox has gone through only half its life. That kinda stinks if you ask me, I was expecting a new console sometime the next year or the year after... Also, I heard rumors of a PS4.

I could frankly care less about a PS4 at this point. I also wait till the prices drop and the updates are made -- and games like the original Motor Storm are dropped all the way down to 5 dollars (seriously, that's what Gamestop has it at now).

As to the Xbox lasting longer... I'm fine with that. Means I can just wait until Reach, ODST, Halo 3, and Halo Wars for the price it would have cost to get one of them at launch. And even then, if I get an Xbox 360, I will still refuse to use LIVE until I have run out of ways to play with Forge mode and theatre mode.

What with Sony and Microsoft bringing out their Move and Kinect only last year, they're probably not going to change up to a new console anytime soon. There's a good 2 years left in the Kinect (first it's the influx of bad games testing the system, then comes the pretty good games that get the system right; fingers crossed ). I'm not sure about the Move though. As far as developing games for it, they've got a bit of a better model for it (all they've got to do is look at the Wii and say "how could we improve on that?", whereas the Kinect is in pretty unknown waters.
There's also the fact that, on the graphic and hardware front, things are getting (or have gotten) pretty damn good. It's going to be hard finding new ways to create entertaining experiences when we're getting close to near enough "perfect" visuals. 3D is the obvious route, but the only people that'll know are the heads at Microsoft and Sony.
Keeping this in mind, Nintendo (however strange their business model may have been) made a pretty smart choice. Sure, Mirosoft and Sony have already released HD consoles (and quite a bit sooner than Nintendo). However, this console is new for Nintendo, and for all the people that own a Wii. Even if you already own an Xbox or a Playstation, you have to admit it's going to be interesting to see what Nintendo do with the new hardware.

TCWelshy wrote: What with Sony and Microsoft bringing out their Move and Kinect only last year, they're probably not going to change up to a new console anytime soon. There's a good 2 years left in the Kinect (first it's the influx of bad games testing the system, then comes the pretty good games that get the system right; fingers crossed ). I'm not sure about the Move though. As far as developing games for it, they've got a bit of a better model for it (all they've got to do is look at the Wii and say "how could we improve on that?", whereas the Kinect is in pretty unknown waters.
There's also the fact that, on the graphic and hardware front, things are getting (or have gotten) pretty damn good. It's going to be hard finding new ways to create entertaining experiences when we're getting close to near enough "perfect" visuals. 3D is the obvious route, but the only people that'll know are the heads at Microsoft and Sony.
Keeping this in mind, Nintendo (however strange their business model may have been) made a pretty smart choice. Sure, Mirosoft and Sony have already released HD consoles (and quite a bit sooner than Nintendo). However, this console is new for Nintendo, and for all the people that own a Wii. Even if you already own an Xbox or a Playstation, you have to admit it's going to be interesting to see what Nintendo do with the new hardware.

Frankly, I just want them to make it easier for indie devs to use Wii U. If they were more open to indie games, then if you add in the motion controls + dedicated small development teams, then you'll have something to rival XBLA.

I doubt Ninty opens up their consoles to Indies. They have already enough troubles with piracy. Allowing Indie on the console increases potential loop-holes. Remember save-hacks is one of the ways Ninty consoles have been hacked so far.

Nintendo probably is not going to make it with the WiiU. Why? That screen controller looks to expensive and using wii remotes like they said with it is just plain dumb. I think it will sell a few hundred thousand units, then stop. If they don't change thier console right now, it could be bad for Ninendo. But who knows? It might get sucess. This is quite a gamble for nintendo and their buisiness.

Edited by: Steven582

Dragonlord wrote: I doubt Ninty opens up their consoles to Indies. They have already enough troubles with piracy. Allowing Indie on the console increases potential loop-holes. Remember save-hacks is one of the ways Ninty consoles have been hacked so far.

And yet another reason why I don't support Nintendo. I dislike most of their brands to begin with... especially Metroid and Mario.

Sad thing is, if they do release the WiiU with it's "iconic" controller, I doubt they would package it with the console itself. You're going to have to buy it seperately (much like the Wii Motes and the Nunchuck). If it does happen like that, it's going to leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Dragonlord wrote: I doubt Ninty opens up their consoles to Indies. They have already enough troubles with piracy. Allowing Indie on the console increases potential loop-holes. Remember save-hacks is one of the ways Ninty consoles have been hacked so far.

Totally agree. It's sad (but understandable) that some big companies are worried about opening up their consoles to everyone. It would definately help get a more varied (and just plain better) selection of games, and help get small dev teams noticed.

Paradigmthefallen wrote: And yet another reason why I don't support Nintendo. I dislike most of their brands to begin with... especially Metroid and Mario.

I don't like their games either, I just like some of the other games that come to the wii, like TFU and PoP3.

Edited by: Garyn Dakari

Paradigmthefallen wrote: And yet another reason why I don't support Nintendo. I dislike most of their brands to begin with... especially Metroid and Mario.

I like Zelda (how can you not?), Smash Bros., Metroid: Prime, and that's about it. I'm Mario'd out from the past 12 years or so.

I have nothing against any of those games, and I have played a few(Just not Zelda or Metroid), but I'm not a fan of any of them.

I guess the proper definition is the "first" version of said franchises had been nice but everything after it is milking it to death. I don't know how many of you ever played the original Zelda LCD game. I certainly had one of these green beasts (more precisely my sister had it) back then and I'm not fond to see how it's milked to death. Same with Mario or Pokémon. Only good change has been the last Mario where they made Bowser fully playable. That has been something for a change. The rest is milking. That said Ninty is well known for milking their franchises extensively so you should not expect something else from them than YAMG (Yet Another Mario Game)