They can remove online entirely, scale down the graphics, remove final smashes, have less stages, and call it Super Smash Bros. Nap Time. I don't really care, my only deciding factor on buying a new Smash is whether they fix the horrifically bad fighting engine in Brawl. I'm still playing Melee with my friends. And before anybody says anything: no, I don't use wavedashing. I remember Iwata saying that had Sakurai not accepted the project, they probably would have just polished Melee with some balance changes and added online. Oh how I wish.

I just totally LOL'd at the above rumor.

There's no way it will be $400...I'm thinking $350 tops...as far as all us die-hards are concerned, it probably doesn't matter that much where it falls between $300 and $350!

well, (for us brits... actually, I think I might be one of the only brits here)the 3DS was £220 at release (which is about $349), so I'm guessing the WiiU will be around £230-260, ($365-$413). That isn't actually that bad if you think about it: around £200 for the console, about £30-40 on the controller, and about £10 on the extra stuff (ie, cables, sensor bar(if the wiiU has one... I haven't thought about that actually), etc.).

Oh, and the thing I said earlier about MS and Sony, I take that back (a bit). MS do concentrate on Live, which is an awesome experience, some of the games are pretty good, but I think there are only mainly FPS, Racing and sports games on there (more of an RPG fan myself... and mario... and zelda... and, well you get the message). Sony only really concentrates on graphics, online is just as good, if not worse, than the wiis

Not that bad indeed.  In fact, do you guys realize that when you adjust for inflation, the Wii was the cheapest video game console released ever?

But I gotta call you out about the online.  The Wii's online is absolutely atrocious.  It's a feature that I think would actually be better off not being there.  If you're going to put online on the box of a game, make it a feature that works.  It's little more in my eyes than a pathetic husk of a network, pitifully trudging along to fulfill its primary directive of sending out old roms for ten dollars.  PSN is worse?  Please...I'd rather have my identity stolen a hundred times than to have to suffer through a single match of online Brawl.

Looking back, my favorite characters were an "official" tie between Sonic and Link.  Today, I might have to say Mario.  Mario is just so pure video gaming, and he's been around in full force since my very first game system.  He doesn't have much of a personality, but that's part of his strength -he's been that same guy, bomping goombas and collecting coins, for decades.  You can't say the same of Sonic, although I still love the character...in fact I have a 3' Sonic doll standing in my room, and a hand-painted 21st birthday gift of Sonic from my old girlfriend on the wall.  But all I can think of when I look at Sonic now is utter disappointment at his awful games.

Link is a serious contender but with Link I think it's because you can really identify with him -you fill his shoes in a lot of dicey situations in games, so he grows on you.  He has a design that's very cool -built like a lean and strong human, and packing loads of punishment from his sword and extensive equipment.  After being Link for a while, you start walking around your house and think about what it would be like to be him and hookshot your staircase railing.  It's not hard to like a guy you put your own feet into like that.

Ikaruga

Yeah, I have to express my sadness here -I was hoping that the game was well underway, and that it would make launch. I'm not sure why Nintendo doesn't feel it's important to start off their systems with a strong Super Mario game. They just don't seem to be able to plan their resources and teams right.

We got three legit Mario games on Wii, but for some reason neither the Wii nor its successor got one at launch. Meanwhile, the N64 was ready and finalized for a long time and got delayed just so Mario 64 could be completed to accompany it.

Maybe they do it on purpose? I would guess with N64 everybody bought Mario and didn't care about anything else, decimating third party impressions of the platform?

Galaxy was the right game for the right platform...the technique of many smaller "planets" allowed them to make a visually stunning game that still had its own new and unique addition to the series (the crazy outer space gravity). But I think it's done and behind us, and that Mario really needs to go back to exploration-based gameplay.

I don't think that a central hub is truly necessary, depending on how they structure the game. A Mario game on next (er...this) gen hardware could easily feature massive, open-world environments that branch out. I would not mind to see them come up with something new beyond the star/shine system also.

I don't know what they will come up with, but I have a really good feeling that I'm going to like whatever new Mario they come up with for U. I think it's going to be different than Galaxy, and with a massive increase in graphics.

edit: I'm content with the FLUDD staying in sunshine, and I don't think I'm alone...good luck Kuwait but no breath-holding!

I agree with you that their behavior is a big cash-grab, but I disagree that it's due to some altruistic strategy of building up enough money so that they can make better platforms and games later. People often point out that their competitors do business in many other areas, and as a result are more financially stable and better able to fund development and absorb ventures that tank. While true to an extent, it's simply not true that Nintendo doesn't have a lot of their own money. Nintendo does not need to "save up" each generation to fund the next one, nor is it out of the question for them to take a loss on hardware units (it was important for Wii because nobody buys games for it).

Furthermore, I think it's apparent that Nintendo did not decide to throw quality out the window and spam "casual" games. They did indeed try to fish in the blue ocean, so to speak -but they still brought to bear some megaton games such as Zelda: Twilight Princess and Smash Bros. Brawl, where they clearly spent the time and money to do it. I actually agree with this strategy. Why NOT make games that appeal to all different market segments? The NES had everything from Mario to Final Fantasy to Tetris to Barbie.

As I just finished saying though, the problem is that those megaton games were not nearly as good as they should have been. Zelda, Smash, Metroid were all just a bit too "meh" this gen, and I think they really needed them to be super-strong. As a company I think this was a massive failure for them. Some people may disagree with me of course because opinions on games are subjective.

Skyward Sword is actually a very important game. I've let them slide numerous times, now here's a Zelda game that's been in the works for five years. I think it'll be the perfect indication as to whether they can still throw down if they want to, so if it's not stellar, I probably won't buy a Wii U.

I think there isn't much more graphically that can be done past HD 1080i is the highest resolution that can be displayed at the moment i mean drastically more power than the Wii U would price MS or Sony out of the market.

Right now it's 1080p, but in fact res goes far higher that that, just look at a modern PC video card to see what is theoretically possible. However, output resolution is not an indication of graphics fidelity. It's just an indication of how sharp you see those graphics, however good (or bad) they may be. Higher res takes more processing power, but you also need lots of processing for effects (real-time lighting and shadows, etc), to draw all the polygons in the models, to apply better and higher-res textures to those polygons, etc. We haven't nearly plateaued in terms of graphics, and I also don't think that in a few years, systems substantially more powerful than their predecessors from Sony/MS would be THAT expensive. I mean imagine the machine you could have in 2014 for $350. It's absolutely insane what's possible there.

To be honest I would have prefered if Nintendo were out of the hardware business like Sega and we could play Nintendo games on more powerful Microsoft/Sony hardware but thats the way it is. If you want to play Nintendo games you buy Nintendo hardware and although the hardware is crap, the games are brilliant.

Thought that might be good to Sega, yet their games are now atrocious. The essence of that company died; it went through a purchasing and restructuring, and the people who were involved in the classics are long gone. However if you took Nintendo's development teams as they are and just told them to have fun and be merry with Xbox 360s we might be talking.

Another thing I want to note -Nintendo has only been behind in terms of hardware power for ONE generation. From 1985 right up till 2006 they remained competitive with specs. I wouldn't assume they've changed into the "weak" brand suddenly. Wii U may be behind its future competition but of course a system released later will be better. When Wii U is released it will be the most powerful console available and will remain so for a very long while. Hardly the "weak" hardware company if you ask me.

Nah it'll be a couple more years until the next generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony will be revealed, i'm guessing 2014.

2014 seems a little far. I would put an actual launch at 2014-15.

Have to agree with Narc here. Historically, power doesn't seem to correlate to success at all. There are ALWAYS other variables at play that turn out to be worth more. The N64 was more powerful than the PSX, see how that turned out? And I'm pretty confident that the PS2 was weaker than the GCN. The Game Gear ran circles around the Game Boy...etc. Of course, the winners in those battles won for very good reasons...reasons far aside their processing ability.

Nintendo's biggest problem is that they simply don't throw down with the amazing games like they used to. They built up enormous prestige in excellence in the 90s, and they're whoring it out to this day. Sometimes it's done deliberately, such as when they outsource projects (we were just talking about Star Fox in another thread), and other times their teams really give it their all, but for whatever reason, the game didn't come out as good as it should have (I'm going to get flamed, but Twilight Princess is an example). They do sometimes strike gold, like Mario Galaxy 2. But it's not enough to have a handful of games each generation to carry the torch. There was a time you could walk into a store to buy a game, not knowing what it was going to be, and choosing a Nintendo-made one was almost always a good choice. You could literally judge a Nintendo game by its cover.

Nintendo went from the "quality over quantity" mantra with N64, delaying games over and over that would end up masterpieces, to wanting to cash-in so fast that they can't outsource their own properties fast enough. They have a quality problem, and their control gimmick worked once. They can't pull it off again without delivering the goods, the TRULY amazing games. The problem started with GCN and got worse with Wii, so I have a bad feeling we're either going to see a drastic turnaround in quality...or it'll just slide further. Time will tell.

Too true... the hope for the Nintendo console has never been in its superior power.

It seems that the new system will be adequately powerful, and it is nice to have a system that is relatively up to par with the market... but the real question has always been about the games. Will Nintendo give us some real, quality 1st/2nd party titles (as well as new, exciting IPs), and will they adequately court quality 3rd party developers?

Second to this has to be the concern of the online functionality... Will they develop a substantial community network, and will the social buzz be attractive enough to establish a real, involved community of gamers?

I HAVE to think that the only reason you would choose Xbox over Nintendo if you had to choose would be because of these issues... am I right? Nintendo's hardware has always had impressive quality in terms of reliability and true control innovation (I, for one, would drop my Xbox in a second if there were anything worthwhile to play on my Nintendo systems). This reinforces to me that Nintendo really must put their focus on these areas...

I actually don't even want very much story in a Star Fox game, whatever it takes to come up with an excuse to have a bunch of forest animals flying space superiority fighters. Something fresh is fine, with some cool cutscenes, but I don't really want it to detract from the game...the priority should be constant shooting action

I had such amazing fun with Star Fox back on 64, there's actually no Nintendo franchise I want to see make a return more than this one. It's just been TOO LONG since a good game (and in my opinion, the last one worth buying was definitely 64).

I want to see a StarFox game but I don't want them to twist the knife already stabbed into my heart by making it as gay as all the other entries to the series. Cautious optimism.

So you want a half done story? You sound like a little child obsessed with shooting things. A space shooter? Yeah that shows the true capability of the system, not really.

Actually I'm 26 and I read books more often than I play video games.  If I want a good story, I'll read a book.  If I want to play a video game, let me enjoy the GAME without dealing with what will probably be a worthless story anyway.  Super Mario never has a story beyond rescuing the Princess and getting a cake, what's the difference?

The stories of games are most usually godawful and would be better off not existing at all.  A simple story that sets up the role playing aspect is all you need and any more than that is usually more than they can write without messing up.

Old Zelda, Mario, Starfox64, Phantasy Star Online, Ikaruga, to name a few off the top of my head, got it right.  The last time Nintendo tried in earnest with a real story, we got Twilight Princess, and it just made me laugh.

Even better example.  What would "show the capability of the system" better, a game with a simple concept like Sonic Generations, or the convoluted storytelling mess of Sonic Adventure 2?

You mean Star Fox SNES was outsourced? No way...

I played Assault, but it really seemed just very generic and corny. "Nintendo" feel was absent (Namco made it). I don't think I played it for more than an hour.

You can call it whatever you want, SF Assault 2, SF Command Wii U, SF Peppy Hares & Slippy Toads Hot Action Platinum, there's not much in a name, we're all talking about the same thing: the next Star Fox game that may come to Wii U. Do you really want to make different topics depending on what different people want to call the same unannounced game? lol

This thread is for SFA2 not SF642. You don't have to be on this page make your own Starfox thread if you want.
Sorry for your misfortune.

"Star Fox Assault 2" is just a placeholder name for the next entry in the series...which happens to be exactly what I was talking about. It could be Star Fox Command Wii U for all we know. What's the difference?

It seems a lot more relevant to compare aspects of older Star Fox games than to bring up, say, Battlefield 3. But hey, maybe I'm just wrong.

I just finished reading somewhere that Miyamoto stated that the series is not doing as well as Nintendo had projected. Sales are just not strong with it. I personally don't think it's any coincidence, the brand has an identity problem. It used to be just about flying in space blowing things up. Now you buy a SF game and you really don't know what you're getting.

I don't even count Adventures. It's really not a SF game at all, but we all know that.

I don't bother investing time in something that isn't fun. When I was a kid and had all the time in the world to burn, Star Fox 64 was awesome from the INSTANT I TURNED IT ON. Now that I don't have as much time to play games, I'm supposed to put up with lameness before getting a return on it? No thanks.

My impression is that its graphics capabilities are not far beyond the current competition. That is probably plenty enough power anyway, but at the same time they don't want to reveal specs because people would judge the system on the fact that the specs are similar to five year old products, despite that you shouldn't.

We're rapidly approaching a threshold where graphics across the board are going to be impressive and they simply won't matter anymore. There will still be improvements, but they won't be defining systems like they were a decade ago, when everybody was debating what system had the best capabilities.

The industry in the modern era is about marketing, software, and services. Hardware matters more in form than raw tech specs.

What's most important about Wii U on the technical side is its architecture. Work on the system to an extent carries over from the current generation. Don't expect visuals of Wii games to get much better than you see in their first year. Developers already know how to achieve results with the hardware because they've worked on the Xbox 360 for years. Of course they aren't identical, but they're going to find all the ins/out/tricks a lot faster this time.

Nintendo doesn't feel that the core RPG Pokemon gameplay is well suited for the living room. They felt that way ever since N64, and I doubt it will change any time soon. They might feel different if they were a US company, but in Japan, it's easy to see why they feel it makes more sense.

A home version would also require far greater development time and resources. Maybe with the Wii U being their first online console (Wii doesn't count) they will reconsider making it work.

Get help.

I'm glad that everybody is enjoying the game, but I remember when Nintendo released upgraded portable versions of older console titles just because, without treating it like the second-coming or as MAJOR release. The Game Boy Color enjoyed new Mario and Zelda games, while also getting old ones (Super Mario Bros. DX).

I feel Ocarina of Time is the most well-made adventure game ever, but I don't see the big deal. It came out over ten years ago. Let me know when they put out a new Zelda for their machine and I'll take notice.

One explanation may be that with Nintendo's designers finally getting some true high-calibre hardware to work with, the eight generation may see some of the most beautiful video games ever made.

THIS. Nintendo's best talent will be able to craft stunning games with greater ease than ever. At the VERY least, we're going to have a small handful of legends and masterpieces (but I hope it's a large handful).