Not sure about anyone else but I've tried watching tv with a tablet for info and I just can't do it, not sure how I would play on this but looks like I would be better off turning off the tv and just playing on the remote instead.
It's been widely discussed, dissected and generally accepted that E3 2011 was something of a misstep for Nintendo; last year's unveiling of Wii U was met by much scratching of heads as press and public alike tried to fathom what we might expect from the gaming firm's Mario Wii U console. How were we meant to hold such …
Not sure about anyone else but I've tried watching tv with a tablet for info and I just can't do it, not sure how I would play on this but looks like I would be better off turning off the tv and just playing on the remote instead.
You might want to avoid driving a car then. Checking your mirrors may prove to be equally challenging.. ;-)
Speaking of which, I recall Sony had a stab at this, using the PSP as an auxilliary screen for the PS3? Don't think anything came of it though. Only example they came up with was the above - using it as a rear-view mirror.
The only advantage I can think of having a personalised screen on the controller is during multiplayer split-screen games, where you have no private information available. On regular consoles it's trivial to see at a glance exactly where your opponent is and what they're doing.
You generally don't refocus while checking your mirrors.
In fact, if you're looking at the mirror for long enough to refocus, you're doing it wrong.
'cos I'm playing through Mass Effect 3 at the moment, several things occur to me.
A switchable inventory/map/mission objectives screen - a "heads down display" if you would. Much as it's saved my life many many time, the whole "pause when entering inventory/map" thing I find does detract a little from the gaming experience - put it on a different screen means you have to find cover before you can chug health packs/switch weapons/ammo/etc.
Comms/team orders/team-mate status/position screen. Be nice to be able to quickly glance down and see where your guys are and how they're doing.
@Sorrythathandleisalreadytaken no idea how long it takes you to refocus your eyes, but had a go on the way home - I tend to refocus your eyes in all three mirrors depending on traffic (there are 3 adjustments your eyes have to make when changing the focus of what you're seeing).
But that aside, no idea how you cope with your speedometer then...
I should have clarified that by pointing out that regardless of how long you're looking at the mirrors, you're not focusing on the mirrors themselves, you're focusing on the objects in the mirrors, which are optically much further away than the mirror itself. Additionally, the point of the rear vision mirrors (and head checks) is to momentarily check for the presence of objects that may become obstacles. Continually changing focus from at a gaming device at less than arm's length and a television screen some metres away is very much different, and hence I agree with the original commenter in that such exercises may well cause eye strain in a statistically significant proportion of the population.
Also, as far as the speedometer is concerned; firstly, the speedometer isn't the mirror, so it's irrelevant to my original comment. Secondly, unless the numbers have moved since you last looked at it, it doesn't take long to check where the needle is without necessarily having to study it in detail.
"you're not focusing on the mirrors themselves, you're focusing on the objects in the mirrors, which are optically much further away than the mirror itself."
What? Maybe you need a refresher course on basic physics/optics.
"momentarily check for the presence of objects that may become obstacles."
Objects behind you becoming obstacles? How quickly do you drive in reverse?
I remember playing a zelda game (4 swords I think) on the gamecube which used a gameboy as the controllers, worked really well actually. You ran around on the map using the TV and ever time you entered a cave it switched to a side view on the gameboy
What like holding a Wii U in front of my face, mirrors are in my field of view why would that be an issue?
People like you who put their ipads on their windscreen blocking your view should get off the road, I certainly will avoid driving anywhere near you if you are on the road.
I remember talking to a friend during E3. We basically came to the conclusion that all nintendo had to do was stand there for an hour and keep to franchises they know people love.
Just dance came on, and it was downhilll from that point onwards.
The one complaint I had, and still have about the wii-etchasketch is that it doesn't look comfortable. No matter what people tell me a quick 20 minute demo isn't enough to prove whether long term the controller will be comfortable or not. Its just the position it puts your wrist in. Every controller since sega has kept your wrests at a natural angle, with them resting kinda / \ that sort of angle. The wii U puts your wrists more vertical which, although okay short term, can't be comfy for hour upon hour of gameplay.
And the second point is just the games they've shown, ZombieU great I approve 100% with its use, but batman? Yeah great you can use it to choose weapons in the middle of combat... except you have to look away from one screen at another, let go of the controller to choose which equipment you want, and then grab hold again.
I just... I'm not sold, and until I have used it myself I don't think I ever will be.
Every controller since sega has kept your wrests at a natural angle, with them resting kinda / \ that sort of angle. The wii U puts your wrists more vertical which, although okay short term, can't be comfy for hour upon hour of gameplay.
But the wii U controller is a lot wider than the joypads you are talking about. Holding it at a "kinda / \ that sort of angle" would mean you'd have to stick your elbows out to do so. Now *that* would be uncomfortable!
Well the controller with screen looks like a win for living room multiplayer.... racing and fps games without split screen cheating :) The main screen could show "highlights" from fixed cams like that pass to take 1st place or kill shots making it something for a party audience to watch.
It was in the memory pack you plugged into the controller
Also I'm pretty sure they aren't calling it "Mario Wii U console".
you could get 'extra info' in the screen while playing the main game, or even get small standalone games that ran on the memory pack when you unplugged it from the controller.
A bit more flexible than the 'tether' Nintendo tried with the GBA and GC.
Yeah, the VMU had 128kB of flash, a 48x32 monochrome screen (yes, those numbers are two digits each), and used an incredibly obscure 8-bit microprocessor called the LC8670.
When plugged into the Dreamcast controller it acted as save game storage and a slave screen for the Dreamcast game, but you could also download standalone games onto the VMU itself and play them disconnected --- it had the world's smallest dpad and some game buttons. Search for VMU on youtube for thousands of videos of people doing this.
If you're into exotic assembler programming, they're easy to hack, and you can get new ones off ebay for silly money; although in order to get games onto the damn things you either need to use the Dreamcast web browser or else buy a Chinese off-brand VMU emulation device with PC connectivity. This all happened a decade ago, so the hacking communities have largely imploded, but there's some info here: http://www.deco.franken.de/myfiles/myfiles.html
Wii U GamePad. Really catches the imagination, doesn't it?
I suppose WiiPad was out of the question. Big risk of being sued by Tena
Well presumably the Wii-like thing under the telly in the pics is a Wii U and the gamepad controller for it is the, er, Wii U GamePad.
"Wii U WiiPad" would be even more weird a name.
I thought that 'joke' got overused on the iPad.
My opinion (that's not been clouded by Nintendo sweeteners) The is that the hardware seems very last (current) The gen, and more akin to where the ps3 was in 2006.
I'm also underwhelmed by the controller with display, and doesn't the PS Vita already do all this when it's paired up with a ps3?
Judge by name, Shitpeas by nature... show me the Vita doing this Barry! I know it has a few similar features, but it isn't as advanced by the look of things. I like Wii U, but as previous commenter said, will withhold my opinions until I actually get my hands on the darn thing.
Hmm, exactly the same criticism levelled at the original Wii: "OMFG everyone else has HD graphics, this thing's dead".
Then it pwned the market, leaving Sony and MS looking rather puzzled to find that gameplay actually trumps eyecandy.
The mass market for consoles is those bought for kids to have fun with rather than serious gamers to count pixels on. Who knew?
I dont think the Vita can be used as an interactive controller.
You can stream things onto the VIta, but I havent seen an option to use it as a controller. Maybe Sony will add this feature to the PS3 nearer to the release of the Wii U, who knows.
You can also control parts of a PS3 with a Vaio laptop, but not by much.
The most interesting thing about the Wii U is the transference of the display from the TV to the joypad. If you can do this over the Internet, then Nintendo may have just scored the winner for the next generation.
The PS Vita can be used as a interactive controller and screen in conjunction with the PS3 (or obviously standalone as a fully fledged gaming console) The functionality is called "Cross Controller". LBP2 will be the first titles patched to use it.
"Cross Play" is where you can start on one console save to the cloud can continue on the other. Taking your game with you. This trumps ANYTHING else shown at E3 in my eyes, and is the holy grail of gaming.
The fact you buy one copy of the game, and it comes with both a Vita and a PS3 copy is killer.
It's probably the most innovative control system I've ever seen to jump about collecting coins.
If anyone can make a decent stab at doing 2 screen play it's them. They've pretty much designed the whole console around this, and will likely set some stunning examples of how to use it to make some pretty unique gameplay. Their problem, as ever, is getting 3rd party developers to make full use of the console, when they've all grown fat and lazy with Sony and Microsoft simply pushing more power under the hood.
Justification will some once Microsoft unveil a 2 screen strategy for either the current XBox or the next one. Perhaps using WinPho or Tablets?
Didn't the reg publish an article last week that said the next gen xbox could turn winpho7, android and iOS devices into touch screen controllers by way of an app MS are developing? I can't remember if it was rumour mill nonesense though and cba to check using a phone's web browser.
Come on guys....it's a piece of shit. This is exactly what they did with the Wii, and I don't care how well that thing sold, it was a piece of shit too. Already I'm hearing the dreaded phrase "mini-games", and you can bang on about the AMAZEBALLZ controller as much as you like; the games will just be another Mario, another Zelda, and another Metroid, all crammed full of as much flow-breaking gimmickery as possible. Oooh, Mass Effect 3, eh? Wow! Only a year late, too!
A second screen I can use to select weapons with? Yep, that's what my games were missing! Every game should have a weapon-switching mechanism that completely breaks your immersion and requires you to use an inaccurate touchscreen, as opposed to, say, pressing a button. Man, when I'm playing Killing Floor with half the wave bearing down on me, I find myself wishing that it was necessary to look away, locate myself on a screen, locate the item I'm looking for, tap it, tap it again because it didn't like my first attempt, and then throw it across the room in frustration.
Nintendo are building consoles one generation behind, and throwing every gimmick they can think of at the controllers to try and convince people that they still have anything resembling a clue.
In Nintendo's defense, they did the N64 with marketing focused on being the most powerful console on the market, and it got beat by the competition (I wouldn't call it a failure, they still seemed to sell well).
Then there was the Gamecube, which again I believe was fairly powerful. It certainly seemed powerful compared to the PS2. Same thing.
Then there was the Wii, underpowered, focused on gameplay, not power, and it sold more than the competition, and they made profit on the units when their rivals were making a loss..
That is all anecdotal and from the top of my head, not checked or researched, but I believe it to be a fair description of the last three generations.
So if you were Nintendo and about to release a new console, what would you do? I know what I would be selling and it wouldn't be cutting edge.
100m sales tell me that you're in the minority with your opinion and, even despite that, who cares? You don't like it? Don't buy it. I don't come on here and troll every Sony review, for instance, because I don't like them, I just don't buy one.
There's a lot you can do with the second screen but without games already using both screens you wouldn't really know. Hell, it's not hard to imagine an FPS or RPG where your inventory is kept private so you can compete against others in the same room without them knowing what you're about to throw at them. The second-screen worked quite well on the DS, for instance. And seriously, pressing a button to have your character pack the shotgun into your backpack and pull out and load a pistol doesn't break your "immersion"? You're a gamer, through and through.
Nintendo are building consoles NOT FOR YOU. So don't buy them. Meanwhile the 100m (at least) of us who have a Wii in the house will probably be looking at the next version just to play a silly party game once a year with friends (hell, that's the only reason I have a Wii, it's the only physical console of "this" generation that I own, and I've been gaming since the Spectrum).
Not everything is about pixel-perfect shooters. In fact, I can name at least four people in my family who don't play games on anything but the Wii because, and I quote one of them, "all those other games are too fast and need me to do stuff too quickly and I like to look around and work things out rather than have to jump perfectly in a split-second all the time". Sounds like some of us can have fun with the Wii or Wii U, then, and that - after everything is said and done - is all that matters to anyone with a games console.
Hell, I'd probably end up with one when they got to a sensible price just for the semi-annual Christmas / birthday gatherings where friends come over and we end up playing Wii Bowling. This from someone who, personally, has poured 50 hours into the CS:GO beta and considers that merely "casual" gaming for myself.
Did you actually SEE the tonnes of shovelware on the Wii?
They only decent Wii games were from Nintendo themselves, and I can list everything worth playing for more than a hour on one hand.
All Nintendo did, was they managed to brainwash a nation of grandma May and grandpa Joe that buying a Wii for Xmas will make Xmas day a whole lot of fun. Imagine seeing granny playing tennis where absolutely no skill or accuracy is needed at all, , and blimey think how much fun little Jimmy will have throwing bananas from that karting game, and how if they bought that game where it trained your brain to be a rocket scientist (allegedly, according to some Nintendo experts), Little jimmy could eventually earn enough to pay back the Payday loan used to buy it..
I wonder what percentage of Wii purchases are now gathering dust.... 80%? More? I don't know of any the people I know that have them still use them. (Xmas day possibly excluded).
Ah, the fanboy presumptions. The sweet sound of denial. OK, let's dive in:
"Awwww. Greg is just pissed because the Nintendo handed Microsoft's arse to them on a plate, before skull-fucking every gaming device that Sony have put out in the last 5 years."
Ummmm...what? I don't even own a 360. I *do* own a Wii, and a PS3, and having owned both, the Sony console is far, far superior in every notable respect. But then, my PC beats the shit out of all of them, and is actually where I prefer to game. Better luck next time.
(Incidentally, I own or have owned *every* Nintendo console to date. I'm just not a fanboy.)
"100m sales tell me that you're in the minority with your opinion"
Argumentum ad populum. Completely worthless.
"You don't like it? Don't buy it."
I thought that was the point of my post. But then, I forgot how Ninty fanboys work. Dissent is not allowed!
"I don't come on here and troll every Sony review, for instance, because I don't like them, I just don't buy one."
Who's trolling? I was presented with an article on a new console, I read it, thought about it, and concluded that the console in question is going to be another gimmicky piece of shit populated with shovelware and aged ports. But I don't agree with the majority, so clearly I'm trolling...
"The second-screen worked quite well on the DS, for instance."
Did it? The 2nd screen on my DS seems to be used either for arbitrary crap or not at all. And switching input systems all the time is infurating. Did you see the "accessory" they shipped with Kid Icarus? JHFC!
"And seriously, pressing a button to have your character pack the shotgun into your backpack and pull out and load a pistol doesn't break your "immersion"?"
As the great and powerful Yahtzee has pointed out far more clearly than I, immersion is about minimising the link between thought and process, not maximising it. When I play a first person game with mouse and keyboard, looking around is so ridiculously natural to me now that my brain processes it on instinct alone. The motion controls I've used to date have exaggerated this link, not removed it, and I fail to see how spending my entire time re-orienting myself between different screens, input systems, and even physical areas is going to help.
"Not everything is about pixel-perfect shooters."
I never said it was, but I used FPS games for two reasons:
1) They are a prime example of a flaw with the Wii U's control system. Casual games can be played with a pad just fine, but action-oriented games on touchscreens and styluses are shit.
2) The Wii U is apparently getting them. DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Anyone else want to have a crack at extending my post out Glenn Beck style to encompass my entire life? I don't like the Wii U! Come on, shun the non-believer!
This reminds me of when I called the Wii a fad on these very forums some years back, and the fanboys downvoted me to Hades then too. Pity I was right, wasn't it? Unless some fanboy on here wants to try and argue that the Wii *hasn't* been dying on its arse for the past few years?
"That is all anecdotal and from the top of my head, not checked or researched, but I believe it to be a fair description of the last three generations."
I wouldn't say it was unfair, just incomplete. The N64 was difficult to develop for, and games were relatively expensive next to the PS1, with which I honestly believe Sony took the old MS position of "we don't give a shit if you pirate this." It gave them massive market share because half the games people bought were copies from the local car boot sale. I knew people who bought a Playstation and then never gave another penny to Sony, but they sure as hell weren't spending money on an N64 instead. Kind of ironic when you consider that the Playstation was a spin-off from a development project with Nintendo. The console that beat the N64 into the ground was their own fault! D'oh!
The GC was roughly the same power as the PS2, IIRC. Where Nintendo went wrong (and did again with the GameCube+, sorry, Wii) is not including DVD playback. The PS2 released at a time when DVD was very much desired, but the players were still expensive. It was the same price as a player or cheaper, and more importantly, it was £100 cheaper than the X-box. Lots of people bought it because it was two devices for the price of one, had really impressive backwards compatibility with the PS1 catalogue, and was a genuinely great console. It went on to be the biggest selling console in history, so I don't think that was down to power, or the Xbox would have won out.
The Wii is just a GameCube with a gimmick attached. From what I remember, the What it did was prove to console makers how strongly the public will latch on to a gimmick, so they all started including them. These days, to me, the Nintendo strategy appears to be: take something popular in the early 90s, give it a graphical overhaul, add gimmick, release, and I'm just utterly tired of it.
But are all your family going to go out and spend another few hundred quid to do the same again? I doubt it. Casual Wii gamers aren't gunna get the Wii U as there is no incentive for them to do it.
I'm not sure, but I'm not going to rule it out yet as many did that with the Wii and they were proven wrong.
What I really want from a console is fun games that look good, good developer support, I'd like it to do multimedia (Netflix, DVD, and playing back files from a USB or local harddrive are essential, Bluray would be nice, PVR functionality might be nice if done well). As far as social networking, I like to see when my friends are online and what they are playing, being able to play a game with them if they own the same game is essential, but it all needs to be unotrusive and optional.
The whole package should be realistically priced, of course.
I'm not sure what the multimedia capabilities on this are like, and from what I've seen, it looks like the social networking is a bit too 'in your face', but I'll have a closer look when they arrive and see where we stand. I don't expect this one to be for me though, and I say that as a fan of the original Wii*.
*which does hardly any of the stuff I listed. But that was okay in 2006.
Doesn't the PS3 deliver all that today?
Blu-Ray - yup
PVR - yup
Netflix - yup
Lovefilm - yup
iPlayer - yup
4OD - yup
5 - Yup
MUBI - yup
DLNA - yup
USB playback - yup
seeing what game friends are playing and join them - yup
fun games - yup
great looking games - yup
affordable - yup (£150 will get you a PS3)
no recurring fees - yup
The Wii didn't even play DVD's, so I wouldn't be waiting for Blu-Ray on the Wii-U.....
The ps3 does do all that, I never said it didn't. That's why it was ok for a console not to do all that in 2006, but its not ok for a console not to do that now, because we've seen consoles do these things and we expect it. But we aren't talking about the ps3, we're talking about the Wii-U. Try to keep up, mate.
I see a great potential for the tablet style controller, if they use it right... My first thought was good old fashioned RPGs. It used to be a PITA to switch to your inventory, map, spellbook, etc... Now you can have all of that on the tablet and keep the gameplay on the screen... Think of Fallout 3 with your pip-boy on the controller all the time...
Also possible are social multiplayer games that couldn't previously be done on a console.. Like Texas-Holdem... I think it's kinda pointless on a console, but none-the-less you could have your hand on the controller and the community cards on the TV.... Now a creative sort could come up with all sorts of fun games where there is a private element and a shared public element like this that could take advantage of the tablet.
It'll still never appeal to hardcore gamers... and so what? The market is casual gamers like myself who love to play simple mario mini games with friends and family and have never 'fragged' anything in my life... The truth is, we outnumber the gamers in the big wide world and make Nintendo a lot of money, which is the objective of business.
Quite. Well said old chap.
When I want to game, I turn on my PC.
When I want to play, I turn on my Wii.
They fulfil very different functions.
So tired of people complaining about shitty graphics, and gimmickry. Remember - only casuals and children game on consoles anyway. Ha.. only winding you up, xbox and ps3 aficionados... But creating consoles aimed primarily at the casual gamer seems to me to make a lot of sense, as these people aren't going to spend hundreds or thousands on building a gaming PC and keeping it up to date, and the ranges of console-specific titles for the other two doesn't really scream "family casual" to me for the most part. Sure, there are exceptions to this. But with 'tendo it seems to be the rule these days, with "proper" games being the exception. Just because something's targeted at a market you're not a part of doesn't make it shit. To the aspiring racing driver an MPV may appear to be a piece of shit. But to a family with 3 kids and a dog it's perfect. Different strokes, different folks.
Hmm - I use a digital photo frame as a second smaller monitor for my photoshop toolbars and i totally concentrate when photo editing. Also when I am at work I use a dual monitor setup. One for actual work and the other for mainly keeping the internet alive.
Bringing this to a game console is awesome, just surprised that no one has done this before and made it work!
DS - both next to each other at same distance
Same with multiple monitors
Wii U and (PS3+Vita & Xbox + Smartglass)
One nearby one far away - could be eyestrain there.
I like the journo's strategically placed hand to hide his burgeoning erection
We shall see hopefully by the end of the year how Nintendo fair with this Wii U console, personally I am trying not to be biased about it's potential success.
As an existing owner of PS3/XBox360*, even if this consoles turns out to go on to have the exact same market and success as Wii I can still see positives for the games market overall, as the hardware is in the same category (roughly) as existing PS3/XBox360 consoles your more likely to also get more support for the existing consoles for longer (yes, I'm sure the next Sony/Microsoft consoles will be stupendous but it will still take time for them to get significant publishing market share).
* I did not become an owner of the Wii (even though I had previously owned every prior Nintendo home console) due to it's at least initial focus on a new family friendly casual games market which wasn't for me, also Nintendo annoyed me by what I saw as deliberate profiteering of the console price [considering how close it was to the gamecube hardware] and the way they handled the distribution (yes a few months after release there may be production demand problems, but not years later!). However I'm over that now and fortunately I will be able to catch up with any good Wii games if I do purchase the Wii U due to the backward compatibility :)
If the Wii U console fails to make a significant market impact quickly (which I think it would need to do before the onslaught of marketing by Sony/Microsoft of their next consoles), I see Nintendo going down the Sega route (supporting all other platforms with their range of valuable game I.P.'s) which I think would be a positive move for all games players anyway.
In the same way the WII was aimed at family, older generation etc., the Wii U is aimed at the same market.
Saying 'this is shit' or 'this won't work for me' or 'switching weapons with a second screen is dumb' - heck, your *completely* missing the point.
This is social gaming, but not 'remote' social, rather, you play it with your mates, or your family - they aren't aiming at a market that expects awesome graphics and extreme gameplay.
I'm not sold on the idea at all - I got a WII and sold it 2 months later - but I was clever enough to understand I wasn't the target market.
The comparisons made to controlling a car - RE focussing on different things - are complete bullshit.
If you have any problem looking in the mirror of your car and effectively instantly refocussing, heck, best you stop driving immediately and get your eyes checked. The human eye is capable of refocussing at such speed, it's a moot point.
We do it *all* the time for crikeys sake - DUH.
In summary, this isn't aimed at your hardcore gamer - which doesn't mean they can't get involved anyway - it's throw away fun, competitive and social - and heck, I can see some amazing uses for the kit.
I think Nintendo has a clear winner on their hands in this, it's probably not for me, but then I'm an anti-social gaming geek.
"In the same way the WII was aimed at family, older generation etc., the Wii U is aimed at the same market."
See, I hear this crap all the time, and it's still crap. If the Wii was only aimed at kids and grannies, why did it (later in life) get HOTD Overkill, the most profane video game ever made? Why did they continue to make shitty ports of Star Wars Unleashed and CoD for it? Why does it have Ghost Squad, the best twitch-shooter light gun game of the last decade? What the fuck was the Conduit about? Red Steel? How about feckin' MadWorld? No More Heroes? (OK, that last one's actually pretty damn good.)
And if the Wii U is only for kids and grannies, then why does the preview talk about Arkham City and CoD?
In summary, please stop reciting this BS that we can't criticise Nintendo consoles because they're not aimed at the people they're clearly trying to include.
"Only for..." != "Aimed at"
A console can be aimed at one market and at the same time have games made for a different market.
Nintendo defines what market the console is meant for, while the game studios decide if they want to sell their game for that console (sometimes despite the core market of the console)
OK, so Nintendo demoed the thing with Arkham City and Mass Effect. It was their event, they're defining the market, and it can be criticised accordingly.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017