I think the Wii-U will do well within its niche. The Wii-U is targeted at the non-gamer/classic gamer. The ones who enjoy platformers, the ones looking to relive some of those classics from nintendo, and the ones who like a quick game with friends or have young children. Nintendo just doesn't do bleeding edge graphics, but then again it does not have to. Nintendo's game focus on the gameplay and not on the ohh and ahh aspect of a game. That being said the Wii-U can play full out @ 1080p (1920x1080) the xbox 360 and ps3 can't even handle true 720p. Yes, you are playing at full on an hd tv, but guess what you are actually playing a scaled image to hd. The actual resolution they are giving you is 1280x704p for battlefield 3 and call of duty series. Most console gamers can't tell the difference till you set them infront of both a computer and console version and then go huh. Anyway, back to the topic, the Wii-U is actually a good bit stronger than the 360 and the PS3 graphically. For reference they are using an r700 amd (ati) chip. Which would put it in the 48xx series of radeon cards. The 360 uses an x1900 (this card didnt even use pcie it was an agp 8x card) and the PS3 uses a modified 7800gtx. Couple that with the nice memory boost and the wii-u is actually a pretty capable console. The main issue they had was the showing at E3. In my honest opinion it was a missed opportunity. They had nothing to really show off the use of the tablet, minus zombie-u, and they had no big name titles. It was a half baked presentation. They need to do a good roll out later this year prior to release and invite everyone to come enjoy the console. I think that will solve the bad press they got from their E3 presentation. Just some thoughts and comment not necessarily in a concise layout or flow.
I agree with you with one thing: Nintendo Wii is not made for the hard core gamers. But the way the Wii is set up is that no one above the age of 8 really enjoys it past the first couple months. A motion only console is destined to get boring especially with the lack of graphics and games. Outside of some of the Mario titles I can't really say I would know or enjoy any of the games. Now will it fail at launch and at sails? I can't really say I know. Look at the Wii. It's not a very good console. I can't imagine the Wii U that makes you carry a heavy bulky tablet in your hand. But did the Wii sell? Yeah it sold great. It smashed records. Almost all of my friends and classmates at school talked about having one. Now almost all of them say they haven't played it in a year or more. It just sits there collecting dust. As for the graphics I do have to argue one point. You are comparing a next generation console to a last generation console. Of course the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have worse specs. They were made 7 years ago. If you look at the speculated graphics and somewhat confirmed specs you will see that the Xbox 360 is using two modified ATI 7xxx series. Now still maybe the Wii U will have better graphics but it's not about the system as much as it's about the developer. Take the PS3 for example. The power of a PS3 is unmatched for it's era. It can create stunning graphics and keep it up at a steady FPS. It's the way the console is designed. But all because the console is designed that way you see limited games that actually use it's power. God of War, Uncharted, Watch Dogs, etc. But most developers and producers want to make the fat cash. To do that you make the game for as many consoles as possible. This leads to worse graphics as the games are ported over. Developers will still want to make fat cash. Sadly for the Wii U you can't port games from Xbox or PC to Wii U. This will lead to less games. Even the Wii U's biggest selling point is a turn off to alot of developers. A console that is solely based around motion and hand signals leads to very limited ideas when coming to make a game. The approach that Xbox took was the best. They wanted to create a hand motion display that can be turned on and off and can be controlled solely by your voice and motions. No bulky controllers or tablets. The Wii U may sell big but as for the long run I think it will have the same fate as it's predecessor - collecting dust somewhere in your basement.
Nintendo is on a different timeline than microsoft and sony. You won't be seeing a new console form them till Christmas 2013 or early 2014 as per their statements so I am assuming that does not count that they are coming out 2 years ahead of their competitors. As far as nintendo for only gamers age of 8, really? Nintendo's franchises have huge followings Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Mario, ect... As for people playing their xboxs and ps3s more, idk take a look at the forums members are bored with the same game repackaged times over. There are a lot of people who just put down their consoles in general. To the bolded no it isn't that powerful, the cell processor was a flop plain and simple. It shined in compute, but games do not care about compute ability. Second their failure to use x86 was a huge issue with developers. That shouldn't have to be explained. Now to the wii vs the kinect, well the kinect came out five years later than the wii. I wonder why it was that it was a more advanced tracking system?
What people focus on too much is graphics....people tend to buy games and ooh and ahhh at the graphics instead of the gameplay. Graphics are nice, but don't make up the entire game play experience. Nintendo has its strong points with games like Zelda, Mario, Metroid and StarFox. Also, alot of classics are being released on XBLA and PSN. Nintendo started the VC with Classic games and MS and Sony joined in. X-Men Arcade is a great game on PSN and XBLA that's a classic. People bought that game like it was a Call of Duty title. Speaking of Call of Duty, what's really improved in the games over the years? Slight graphics upgrade? Weapons and maps added?? Other than the graphics upgrade, all stuff that could be added to an older game like MW2 and sold as DLC rather than causing folks to fork out another $60....seems like Activision was able to do more updates with Guitar Hero than they can with Call of Duty games. Now, back to the Nintendo side, they introduced New Super Mario Bros U which looked basically the same as the Wii version but in HD....Mario games will sale. Graphics don't have to be top-notch, just have good solid game play and entertainment value. Will the Wii U be a success right away?? All depends on when the major titles get released. Mario, Pikimin 3, Zombi-U (or another good Mature rated title) will be a great start. Plus the fact that the Wii U allows you to transfer your old Wii VC games, play Wii games and use your existing Wii controllers is a big plus, there will be no shortage of accessories for sure! People getting the new Mario game may want to play the Wii version first or want it as part of their Mario collection, or something to play while waiting for the Wii U version to come out. Nintendo doing full backward compatibility (I believe) is a great move on Nintendos behalf for both the consumer and the company!
1st. They are on the same timeline. The Wii U will come out 1 year ahead of Sony and Microsoft. It is the exact same with the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The 360 was made 1 year before the PS3 but we consider them the same generation consoles. 2nd. I didn't say that Nintendo was for people of 8 and below. I said because of the lack of games and "only motion controls" of the Wii (only the Wii) gets boring for most people after a playing it for a little bit. Don't get me wrong, I love the DS. I still play it as well as my Gamecube occasionly. I love Mario, Donkey Kong, etc but the "Only motion controls" of the Wii gets extremely boring when there are no new exciting games out for people older than 8. Me and my neighbor use his Wii more for the gamecube support than we do for the actual Wii games. 3rd. Yes people do put down their consoles but if you also look on the forums and compare the PS3 and Xbox 360 users to the Wii users you will see what I'm talking about. 4th. The potential of the PS3 far exceeds the potential of a Xbox 360 game. It is harder to develop for but if you look at developers that know there way around the PS3 and know how to use it to it's potential then you will see what I am talking about. All you have to do is look at Uncharted 1, 2, and 3. The graphics are stunning. 5th. You compare the Xbox 360 and the PS3 to the Wii U which are 7 years apart then tell me not to compare two similar systems that are 5 years apart? But even the Wii U requires a tablet/controller where the Kinect does not. And correct me if I'm wrong but i believe the Wii U does not allow for voice commands where the Kinect does. This allows for partial Kinect integration such as what is being done with Skyrim. It lets people still use their Kinect but doesn't make the whole entire game depend on motion controls.
Going point to point 1. They are not, a year+ in tech terms is huge. So yes I still look at them on separate generations. Nintendo is off on its own. 2.How does motion controls limit your audience. As an american I can agree our country is too damn lazy to move much more than our fingers to play game and order a pizza for our fat asses. Even though moving has little to do with restricting you audience, less the lazy people. To the point of the original wii I agree they were cool for a bit, but they failed to build upon the success apart from a few releases. 3. There are few wii users on the site as it really isn't geared towards them to be honest. 4. Potential of what? Graphics? The modified gtx7800 is no more powerful than the 360's x1900, in face the 360 is slightly ahead. The processors for gaming don't really matter as long as they are not a bottleneck for the gpu. Most games, less Battlefield 3, are unable to take advantage of more than one or two cores. So those 6 gaming purpose cores of the ps3 will sit idle most if not all of the time. If you want a real test ask any pc gamer as to what part of their rig shows the most relevance in gaming. The answer unless they are running a p4 or a 64x chip will be gpu every time. 5. You are missing the real point you are comparing two different systems. Do you compare a Porche 911 and a Honda Civic. They are both cars, they both get you to where you are going, but they do it intrinsically differing ways. The 911 is a performance car, fast, flashy, and expensive. The civic is an economy car, can do 95mph, looks fine, and is affordable. Two items that do the same thing, but are entirely different. The point I am trying to make is you are trying to do an apple to apple comparison between the two when they aren't even in the same class. PS4 vs Xbox Durango is closer to an apples to apple comparison. The wii-u or even the wii were never meant to compete with them on performance, although for a while the wii-u is going to be far beyond the current consoles.
1. Yes in tech time that is huge but they are on the same timeline. They will use similar components on the inside and the games and technology will be similar. 2. It's not just the motion controls that limit the audience. The lack of quality and fun games is a big point. The games for the Wii almost never have a campaign/objective based story or multiplayer. They usually involve mini games that are played intro console against your other records. The closest you will get to competitive on most games against others is playing with people at your house and switching off. The online was there but was lacking a good structure and was worse than PSN (which is pretty hard to beat). Also the graphics were pathetic and I expect the same with the Wii U. People shouldn't and usually don't judge a game solely on graphics but with the other much needed components of a console not there then it is defiantly taking in to consideration. Lastly, the motion controlled only does for sure limit the audience because it limits games. There is only a certain amount of potential for games that only rely on motion controlling. With a controller the possibilities are limitless. Also for alot of people playing a game is relaxing and swinging your arms at a lackluster game is not relaxing or enjoyable. 3. I'm not going to even argue this. Ask anyone that bought a Wii if they use it anymore. Almost always they will say no. 4. It's not just the actual chip that gives the PS3 it's graphics capabilities. It's also the drivers, OS, and software inside that allows for the capabilities of the PS3. The way the software and games use the PS3 GPU is different than the Xbox and allows for better graphics. It is alot harder to achieve but developers have used it to create stunning games. Name one console game that has better graphics than Uncharted, God of War, or Watch Dogs. 5. I know they are different systems but they are trying to do the same thing and are competitors. If this year Microsoft releases a bunch more Kinect capabilities and upgrades right before the Wii U comes out it will defiantly affect sales. What I'm really trying to say is the Wii requires bulky controllers where the Kinect does not. Also the Kinect does not rely on only motion controls. It is more of an aid to the console and can achieve the exact same thing that the Wii does but it costs $200 less.
No, the Wii is just old generation tech (even it had a niche: uneducated noobs) on par with ps2, so perhaps in that regard it was 'two generations at the same time' (The previous and current) And now they try to excuse their lack new gen tech (basically current gen tech miniturised, like an Ipad 2) The reason $ony and M$ have put off their 'next gen console annoucements' is that there is very little tech that can qualify as a 'next-gen' If you have a look at the samaritan demo in 1080p, you can see an emergence (That's next gen!!) and consoles should be able to take it a step further with purpose-built OSes. But this will take sometime to get right and settle on the next standard. Nintendo cannot afford this luxury and needs to re-invent itself by releasing what it can in it's bread&butter dept: A handheld device, it barely qualifies as current gen unfortunately. Checkout the vita if you want to know what to expect from this latest offering. Fortunately nintendo has a die-hard following, that will follow them off any poorly-devised HW-cliff they seek to embue apon the gamming community. Good luck to them (I would hate to see them go-under) But they risk too much by allowing themselves to cease attempting to be competitive in the mainstream market, particularly now that kinect owns their motion-control demographic. They need to bring their HW forward into the new/next gen, (or get someone who can) and bring-out a Wii 2 (WiiToo?)
