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?

I don't know dates, but the concept behind the wii remote began during the Gamecube era as they were researching new add-ons to be used on the system. It was a likely candidate to be a gamecube add-on until they decided to let the system go and launch a new brand. Like I said, I don't know dates...but Sony was developing Move during the PS2 reign?

My sincere apologies for sparking a tirade of forum-cluttering facepalms.

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.

Guys with Quagmire personas tend to be easily distracted.

As for no upscaling...we were all pretty much doomed to have Wii's in our living rooms for eternity because the U doesn't have controller ports either. I don't even count its backwards compatibility as a feature like I did with Wii. It doesn't really make a big difference, but it would have been nice so that we could just rely on one box for all Nintendo goodness ever.

Remember that, even if its technically possible, a major bullet point of U's feature list is it's HD graphics. Nintendo doesn't want to let you play your old games with better eye candy -they want you to buy their new games with better eye candy. Mario Wii U may not look as huge a leap after playing your years-old Galaxy in HD.

When I first heard about the Wii U, I didden't want it...
Then I realized how epic it is. (nothing to do with grafix)

Get help.

Extremely improbable...I know it's hypothetical but a somewhat more viable circumstance would be a delay to move on to Wii U a la Twilight Princess to enjoy a graphical facelift.  I'm convinced that's not happening now, since e3 passed.  Had that happened, I probably wouldn't even buy a Wii U lol.  I'd play the game on a friends system or something and bum my way through the generation.  Would not pay full price again.

I am really, really sure that after what happened to TP, the only reason N didn't decide to move SS onto Wii U is because it wouldn't have accomplished the same goals as last time.  With TP, they were able to take a lot of work that was already done, and slightly alter it to showcase the positive benefits of their new controller.  It was also likely that, with the hype of Wii's launch, they'd sell more copies than on GCN over the long term.

Skyward Sword, on the other hand...is deeply fused with motion plus.  No way they can alter it to highlight the new controller...it's built for motion+ from the ground up and that's not changing.  They could still release it on Wii U, but there'd be no additional benefit other than graphics, and YEAH RIGHT that Nintendo would go back and redo allll that work.  And, unlike TP, SS is being released on a massively successful platform with many starving gamers looking to buy.  Gamecube wasn't really in the same position.

Starcraft on Wii U? NO THANKS!

Did they do it on N64? Yes. Was it stupid? Guess

More on topic though -I agree that this guy didn't really do all his research, but I think we're going overboard jumping on him for it. My opinion on the Wii U so far is that it's very unproven, and I understand where he's coming from as far as lack of excitement. However, if I had the same misconceptions as he did, I'd think Wii U sucked too.

He's on a Wii U forum. Instead of insulting him, can't we just offer the discussion he was looking for? Point out why the console is different due to what you know about it, and how what you know may alleviate his concerns. So what he didn't have all the details. This isn't politics people, it's video games lol.

It's good that the 3DS version is different because it means we get another game. However, then you'll be missing out on the console version, which I predict I'll enjoy more.

In these cases, I don't really look at it as "what version of the game is better" -they're really entirely different games that share a title and concept for marketing purposes.

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!

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 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.

The sad truth is that the more narrative in a game, the more linear it is and the less replay value it has. As we were talking about, Mario 3 had nigh infinite replay value for reasons discussed. Now let's take a very, very strong game with "just enough" narrative thrown in -Ocarina of Time. As brilliant as the game is, it has to get old eventually. It's not timeless. It ends, and it feels as though you've completed an epic adventure. You can go back to re-live it, but the more narrative, the more it's like just watching a movie over again. I've replayed the game many times, but I may end up with more play time in a game that can be completed in a half hour, Ikaruga.

Games with the "infinite lives" approach, starting in my mind (probably earlier) with Mario 64, allow more rich and compelling experiences, amongst them the storytelling. "Simple to learn, but hard to master" and "Deep and complex" games both have their distinct places I think, and should be developed independently.

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.

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.

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).

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!

Your blaming Capcom for 1 game, when the revenue from that game will fund countless other games, ones that will be far better?
Someone has no idea of economics

What game are you talking about?

You might want to read a little more than the title then, and not jump to crazy conclusions and assumptions.

I didn't assume anything about the content of the thread at all. I'm pretty sure it's about Capcom no matter what?

And Dementis, I'm aware -thus my "if I can't buy used" disclaimer! Ideas like that are exactly why I can't approve of Capcom anymore.

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.

Some funny info about those Zelda games. Back then, Nintendo was interested in releasing a CD add-on for the SNES and had the assistance of Phillips for development. They had a rather fleshed-out relationship and an agreement had been made where Phillips would supply CD drives. One of the stipulations of their agreement was that Phillips would be allowed to release several Nintendo games on their CD-i platform. Therefore Nintendo licensed their top tier IPs for several games! Nintendo was not involved in development at all (and it shows).

If you're wondering what happened to the CD drive: Nintendo eventually ignored their agreement with Phillips (Nintendo was even more arrogant back then than they are now) as they had in fact been in bed with Sony. Sony was very far along developing a CD unit for SNES due to talks, but Nintendo decided to tell Sony to go screw also. Sony's work in developing the add-on culminated in their release of the PSX. Yes, Nintendo's arrogance in fact spawned their own nemesis.

To get actually on topic, dear god Superman 64.

This game is going to rule. Seriously.

Will probably buy on 360, only to buy the slightly improved Wii U version a year later. Sigh.

I'm more interested in that sexy golden Wiimote the game comes with than the game itself.

Barring this game, I'm amazed that you have much to do with the golden wiimote.

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

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...