Not really, it would make more sense for the arrangement to be dual-purpose. The standalone controller functionality would be a downgrade from the console capability. Ala the Dreamcast and VMU. The difference is the wireless console display connection between console and controller screen. That's a hub model, the mobile units are not going to be where the nice tech things are centralized. If so, then why bother with the base? It would make no sense.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
If it's really just the controller to the new system then it will have to be wireless...What about battery life for the controller??????
I can completely understand your concern. I'm somewhat there as well. The one thing I keep coming back to is, for full screen local multiplayer this is a kick ass solution over 4 HDTV sets and 4 consoles - If the single hub-box can handle streaming that much. It's like a PSOne w/ mobile screen really. Plenty of potential for so much win... I'm hopeful, at least.Originally Posted by c0ldb33r
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 06-06-2011 at 01:56 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
What are you talking about with 4 HDTV's, 4 consoles, and a hub box?
It sure sounds like these screens are going to just be fancy VMU's with touch screen functionality. Each screen isn't going to be a independent Wii HD system (Although rumors make it sound like it will be capable of some basic stuff when out of reach of the console, just like the VMU was) and the console is still going to be the console. It isn't there just to handle the network between the controllers.
The controllers are certainly not going to be the console.
Agreed, this is not going to happen. Even if there is some form of touch screen on the controller (which seems likely given the rumors), it's not going to be a 6" screen capable of HD resolution for replacing your HDTV as a monitor. Heck, the biggest screen Nintendo sells is around 4" on the DSiXL and that's still by far the most expensive component of their handhelds. There is no way they are going to go beyond a $60-$70 retail controller product if you need to buy one for each player as nobody would buy it which means something more similar to one of those color touch screens on a smart remote for your home theater system.
Last edited by Bojay1997; 06-06-2011 at 04:19 PM.
What I said (post #21). So what are you talking about?
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Just watched Nintendo's E3 presentation. I guess we'll finally be able to get a home port of Silent Scope that actually works.
I want to see a head-strap attachment. Head tracking HMD...
I'll concede that you were mostly correct. It does not, however, appear that multiple WiiU controllers/screens can be used simultaneously, so your example of four player games with each player having a separate WiiU remote isn't accurate.What I said (post #21). So what are you talking about?
There has to be some kind of 3DS+WiiU functionality. That would eliminate the need for another locally rendered display... sorta.
No word on price in the keynote. I don't see it doing well at above $349. That's probably the upper ceiling for the family market, and the sweet spot for core gamers that want something new.
Alright, so now I'm not sure what to make of this. Wii U. I was actually kind of excited about it before. My expectation was something of a new standard kind of console from Nintendo, sure the controller had a screen - big deal - at least it looked comfortable and familiar on IGN. After seeing this thing displayed at E3 I can't help but think that Nintendo is just going to keep making gimmicky crap. And it makes me sad. That's all this thing feels like to me. First the Wii and now this. The focus is the screen on this monstrous ipad looking thing. It all just feels so unnecessary. Of my favorite games I can't once think of a time where I was playing and thought to myself, gee this is fun, but if only I had a 6.2 inch screen on the controller so I could play it on that instead of my actual tv, control it with a touch screen/motion, and send images of myself to other players etc. then it would really be awesome. Nintendo is just doing whatever they can to be different, solely just to be different. Someone cheer me up please; tell me its going to be a decent system because I want to like this thing.
The controller is an extension of the Nintendo DS design, as I was hoping for before. Basically, it brings everything new that the DS brought with its release to console gaming, as well as some new features.
If the peripheral focus doesn't draw you in, consider this: it's (probably) going to be an incremental upgrade over PS3 and 360, so for a time it'll be the best console hardware on the market for visual quality and processing power.
If this thing can do RTS and FPS well in a console format, I won't have a reason (need?) to upgrade my PC.
A speculative guess not accurate!? I'll have myself flogged!
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
I'm excited and think the controller is impressive.
What I'm most disappointed about is their statement that this thing won't upscale Wii games. And I hope they just didn't bother to mention GCN compatibility because they were focusing on the most important points of the system.
And I'd love confirmation on being able to transfer our Wii DLC to this thing.
Mostly I was puzzled that you even thought such a thing was going to happen. Thankfully, they put your thoughts of the controllers being the console to rest today (The 4 HD TV's and 4 consoles line made me believe that was what you were thinking). It's just a screen on the controller that streams what the system sends to it (Which I think is a pretty nice looking console from the pictures I saw).What I said (post #21). So what are you talking about?
And it sure doesn't sound like more than one can connect to the system. But I have trouble imagining that actually being the case. Nintendo not having multiplayer gaming (Besides with last generation controllers) just doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps you can use 4 controllers at once, but streaming video is limited to just one?
Have you played any first person shooters on the DS? I think you're in for a rude awakening if you think a touch screen is going to be a big advancement for the genre (I think you'd find it was actually a step backwards from dual analog control).
And while using a stylus works well for RTS games on the DS, are you going to want to spend your time watching the 6" screen on your controller? You'd basically be forced to if that's the control method you want to use. And I wonder if it would even be comfortable to hold one handed while using a stylus (Using your fingers to control a RTS game with a touch screen isn't going to get you very far).
Last edited by Leo_A; 06-07-2011 at 05:58 PM.
Why would I want or need what the DS brought with it to console gaming? The whole reason any of us use handhelds and why they aren't necessarily ideal is that it's a compromise designed to allow for portability while compromising on screen size, weight, battery life, user input options, etc....The whole reason the DS has two screens is because portables are as a result of cost, power consumption and weight concerns limited to how big they can realistically be. The second screen was a means of expanding the play area by moving non-essential screen action to the second screen.
I have literally never once thought, "wow, I sure wish I had a touch screen to play this console game or I wish I had a tiny screen right in front of my face that would interact with my 46" HDTV. Personally, I think the Wiimotes made the whole touch screen thing obsolete and I truly enjoy using them for point and click applications. I can't imagine why we would want to go back to a less intuitive form of user access.
Having said all that, I do agree with you that to the extent this brings first party Nintendo games into the same arena as the 360 and PS3 with regard to HDTV output, I support it. I just hope we don't get into the same situation we had with the early Wii games where various game elements were tacked on simply to take advantage of the controller.
If you look at where user interface design is going, "point and click" is on the way out. Touchscreen devices don't have cursors, and people are becoming more familiar with that method of input. As simple as it sounds, using a d-pad to select menu options is beyond a lot of people.
The Wiimote is good for pointing, but I wouldn't call it great. A touchscreen with a stylus adds precision to a very imprecise arena. It's more elegant than trying to use a mouse while you're sitting back on the couch.
Of course, we're not going to know just how well it all works for anything until we see retail games on the shelves. Tech demos are all fine and good, but the real benchmark of a console is what developers can make for it. There will be third-party developers that really push the controls to make something new and exciting, and that's when we'll know if this console is a gimmick or something important.
What little I saw of the Wii U has left me with mixed feelings. Part of me likes the neat tricks Nintendo is doing with the controller screen, like giving a first-person view while holding the controller in front of the TV in the baseball game. That's something that's never been done before and adds a new element to video gaming. I'm excited to see what other clever surprises Wii U developers will bring us via the 6.2" screen.
And no, I never thought a separate screen on the controller would make a game better, but then again up until now, games haven't been created with that in mind. I hope developers use it in creative ways.
However, as much as I appreciate Nintendo trying something bold and new, I really hope it doesn't cause the price to skyrocket. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I can't imagine paying more than $250 for a home video game console, no matter how cool and full-featured it may be. And the name "Wii U" is terrible. For real. It's the worst. I could see "Wii Ultra," or "Wii 2," but "Wii U"? Come on.
And the lack of Wii game upscaling is inexcusable.
Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic. This was a nice teaser.
Last edited by Rob2600; 06-07-2011 at 09:16 PM.
Weren't we supposed to see stuff like that with the GC-GBA link?
I'm very disappointed. All I wanted was a standard controller, like the Wii Classic Controller Pro, with a small screen attached to it. It didn't need to be any bigger than the standard DS or maybe PSP screen. I certainly didn't want an iPad with controller implements on it.
I was foolish to believe the hype of Nintendo wanting to appeal to so-called "core" gamers again. This thing is just another gimmick fest.
And that line about wanting to appeal to everyone? Usually when you try to do that you wind up appealing to no one. Most of your average Joe, frat boy "core" gamers aren't going to give a damn about this thing, especially with that horrid name! Nintendo needed to ditch the "Wii" branding completely and just rely on their name.
What's most sad is that your average "casual" or "family" centered gamer, the moms and such who bought Wiis to play bowling on, they won't care about this either because they already have a Wii. They pull it out of their closet every couple of months or so to get in some bowling when their book club meets, or what have you, and that's all they need. They're not going to want to drop any amount of money for the latest version, especially with a controller that's so much bigger and different looking.
I know it's early, and I could easily be wrong, but I think Nintendo truly shot themselves in the foot here. They're going to push the "core" gamers away even more with this thing, and the casuals won't see the need to buy it. This thing could wind up being another Dreamcast.
That said, though, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft and Sony try something similar in the next couple of years.
I only need 2 more NES games (US)!
I appreciate Rob2600's optimism but I still have to say that my feeling was best put by Rev Link...what were they thinking? A nice simple GCN controller with a little screen would have been kinda neat and practical. To be honest I've gotten over the size and shape of the wii u controller, it may not be so bad. What bothers me is all of the stupid implementation that's going to go into Nintendo games to utilize its new features (i.e. sometime you have to shout/blow into the ds microphone to progress). There's a point where after so much "interaction" with a game it removes you from game play, and no longer engrosses you in it. Worse still, I hear that most likely GameCube compatibility is gone - damn it. How I would trade all gimmicky tricks for some gd GameCube. Or even just the controllers at the very least. I don't have a GCN component cable because they're rare and expensive. Also there are only so many systems I can have hooked up at one time. The wii has been serving as my way to 480p GameCube play and I wanted to replace it with this new system. I actually figured there would be GCN compatibility but I suppose in a world with led monitor controllers with gyroscopes, microphones, cameras, motion crap, worthless wii remotes, and soccer mom wii fit boards that it's just too much to ask. Nintendo supposedly wanted to appeal to traditional gamers. The name I knew for superior video game entertainment as a child has once again let me down.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
