mostly to comfort others, that tessellation is not a microsoft protected thing... it is free for all, and wii U, will use that.  As many people think that this feature appeared in direct x 10-11, so it belongs to MS.. Its not true.. (direct x made use of it..)  Nintendo can update their api's and use it also.. simple as that.

ah... yes, good point.  i guess people do seem to think that tessellation was invented with DX11, lol (as if breaking polygons into smaller pieces was anything new)... and I definitely agree that Nintendo developers will be able to make use of some of these advanced processes (after all, many devs admitted that they could have pushed the wii a lot farther if they wanted too, even with the gpu's "fixed" pipeline, by emulating shaders using the wii processor's existing tools).  out of curiosity, do you personally think that the gpu Nintendo chooses will be a capable piece of hardware, able to support the kind of demanding processes that make cutting-edge graphics really "pop" these days?

Man, I have to register a pretty emphatic "no" to this thought, for a few reasons.

1st, while the game is fun... it's pretty much one of those games that, I hate to say, is "good for a Wii game"... Conduit 2 was not a significant improvement in terms of story, features, tone, or game engine either (and I think that's why it suffered from fairly universal "so-so" reviews). The scale of the game is hardly "epic", the premise is neither original nor particularly compelling, and the play dynamics are not really anything to write home about in terms of innovation or deep immersion.

2nd, and this perhaps helps to explain the first point, High Voltage has said in interviews with IGN (GameScoop) that they really had (and have) no interest in making a "killer app" for Nintendo - that they were not out to make the "Halo killer"... rather, with the Conduit, they were just trying to "have fun" and to push the limits of the Wii's hardware.

With this in mind, I think that the Conduit is hardly the franchise to be Nintendo's flagship FPS. High Voltage may, indeed, produce something great for the big N... but this doesn't seem to be their goal... and I don't think that what they make will be on par with Halo. The studio does good genre pieces... but nothing genre defining (and they seem to be okay with that).

I like The Grinder.

Hey,ya... I was gonna mention The Grinder, too. From the look of it, at least, I'm likin' that game a lot.

The Conduit will NOT bring anyone to a system. People are right when they say we only accepted it because we had no alternative on Wii. It is a pretty fun game when considered as a "Wii game", but it is a lackluster, boring game on pretty much every level when compared to sci-fi FPS on other systems.

So everyone pretty much agrees on this front (that the Conduit simply cannot fit the bill of flagship FPS franchise for a Nintendo system)... but I'm actually rather interested in the Individual "why's" (especially the ones people are reluctant to mention). Some seem to think that Nintendo is incapable of courting a real "hardcore" FPS at all, while others simply object to the Conduit as an individual franchise.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I think Nintendo has been home to some of the greatest FPS of all time (Goldeneye/Perfect Dark) in earlier console cycles, and I see no reason at all why they cannot do the same thing this next cycle. The Conduit, while fun, is a copycat game on every level, from story to play mechanics and everything in between. This does not mean, however, that Nintendo could not court a real quality, innovative studio - one that could produce the "next big thing" in FPS gaming. Lots of people are afraid to use "hardcore" on these boards as a descriptor, because the reaction is often so severe (for one reason or another)... but really, people, we know what is meant by the term if we are being even slightly charitable. Halo is a deep, innovative experience. It is well crafted and well polished. It does a lot of very interesting and very unique things with online multiplayer, and with open-world combat. People that play competitively and spend lots of money on services and DLC are VERY into this game. It's fun to play, in part and as much as it pains us to admit it, for the same reason that Facebook is fun to use... because it's "cool" enough that everyone uses it. I think that Nintendo can, and that Nintendo SHOULD, play host to a game that does just this - captures the hardcore market with a fresh, innovative approach to the stale FPS formula, and provides the market with an experience that IT thinks is "cool". I know this is distasteful to a lot of people... but entertainment companies really do have to pay attention to what consumers want in terms of theme, tone, and style.

That doesn't mean that Nintendo should sell out on the kind of game that they want to make (that would make for some really clunky and awkward gaming), but it sure as first-person-shooting does mean that they need to court a studio that does want to make this kind of game.

And there's really no good way to make a platformer more mature...

I think this ^ is obvious, and I totally get your point. I know that "hardcore" is a term that tends to provoke flames, but there is SOMETHING to the pervasiveness of the view that Nintendo is not hard core - meaning, at least to some extent, that the perception is that Nintendo is not listening to those that consider themselves to be dedicated, intense gamers.

Certainly, you can play (almost) any game obsessively... I think the real question is, what does the demographic that buys the most games and logs the most hours WANT to play, and is Nintendo making that kind of game?

Every time I pick up a Nintendo title, I LOVE my experience. But sometimes I don't WANT to play those games... it's just a shift of aesthetic taste and thematic preference, really, but nonetheless, I am the kind of consumer that will drop $100 a month on games and online connectivity. I want a company to make games that I want to play... not just games that they want to make.

Crysis 3 use's DX11(microsoft).NINTENDO is not going to pay for anything Microsoft

the game doesn't REQUIRE the use of DX11, it is simply built to take advantage of the features afforded by DX11 on PC.  It also gets a lot of performance out of GL-based APIs such as that on the PS3 (though I admit that the porting wasn't as good for that platform)... and it COULD be built to get significantly MORE performance out of the WiiU's hardware than out of the other two consoles, one would presume (either by using APIs provided in Nintendo's dev kits or by writing their own hardware coding).

bottom line, crytek LIKES to build games that push the limits... .  wiiU won't give them this opportunity to push into undiscovered territory when compared to the horizons offered by PC development, and it won't YET (unlike xbox/ps) fulfill the other possible business motivation of assured profits to offset the cost of porting.  if it won't push them (what they want), and they can't even be sure that it will bring in money (what they and their publishers need)... then what is their motivation to make it happen?

yeah, none of the info on these links is new, and it's STILL just rumor and speculation!  this disparity between reports is really starting to wear my nerves thin... especially as my personality is disposed to believe the doom-and-gloom "not-even-as-powerful-as-the-current-gen" reports over the rainbows and unicorns reports of a mega-machine that will soar confidently into the next generation of technology.

I mean GOOD exclusives:P

LOL... yeah, the Conduit was fun for a playthrough, but High Voltage is not the studio to turn to for a bit hit.

Nintendo does not need third party exclusives. Their plethora of first party content is all that they need to ensure that their console stands out.

I respect your point, but I really gotta disagree with you on this one... the 1st party content appeals to a certain type of gamer (mostly, the kind that was perfectly happy with the Wii, as well), but not to the audience of gamers currently on other systems, or about ready to go to other systems - both those that have left the Wii because they felt it ignored them, and those that never took Nintendo seriously in the first place.

The real problem is this. With the much lower install base of a newly launched system, and the recent memory of abysmally low sales for 3rd party games on the Wii, developers will, naturally, be hesitant to make anything truly original for the WiiU. 3rd parties need either big sales numbers or big Nintendo support to justify design risks. If all that the WiiU gets from 3rd parties is bland ports of games available on other systems, the WiiU may be looking at a repeat of the Wii situation, where 3rd party support evaporates and Nintendo is left with the only content on the system. Cross-platform games are okay... but they don't help the system itself succeed if there's no wide install base to buy them.

This is what Nintendo needs the 3rd party exclusives for. 3rd party exclusives draw wider ranges of new people to a system - get them in the door - and that allows all cross-platform games to sell well. If you can make a Sony fanboy break down and buy a WiiU for those two or three cool exclusives (like I bought an Xbox for Mass Effect and Gears of War), then you've got them for the cross-platforms, too. If you don't have them, then the cross-platforms don't sell at all.

The people who are all OMG'ing for a new Animal Crossing are NOT the same ones obsessing over the latest COD zombie mode DLC. The difference makes a big difference in a systems financial viability...

I think some third party devs are being a bit narrow-minded in saying the Wii U is not their kind of platform and, seemingly, planning on ignoring it, not because of what it can do, but because of Nintendo's reputation as a "family gaming" company. Silly.

Yeah, I agree with this... but are the devs really saying this? The only devs I've heard turning up their nose at the WiiU are those in the pocket of one of the other brands (Sony or MS), and they turn up their noses at each others' systems too.

I think that the WiiU does direly need 3rd party exclusives (and good ones), but I don't think they should buy them. They need to organically generate them. People who don't think Nintendo can do this must have very bad memories... I don't know how anyone could forget what Rare did with GoldenEye, and I don't think it would take too much to get a studio like Mistwalker (of recent Last Story ire), Eurocom (new GoldenEye, Dead Space:Extraction), or Remedy (Alan Wake for Xbox360, who hasn't yet signed with MS for a sequel or followup and could probably be turned) to come to Nintendo with a genuinely fresh, deep experience that really turns some heads.

Also... what in the world is Silicon Knights doing these days (other than whining about Epic's tech support)?

Why not an mature version of Mii Hunt, set in a dystopian, SF, nightmare scenario, the "second-screen" player as the alien and the rest as the bug-hunters? I could even see this translating to a kind of deadly 'tag' where you hunt down and take the "second-screen" controller from the player using it, in order to access other game targets.

Hey, this is pretty much what Ubi demonstrated with a Killer Freaks mode, lol... "great minds think alike, eh"?

The options are definitely there, for sure... the question is, will the system get the games it deserves? I think it can...

If Nintendo wanted to make those types of games exclusive to the Wii U then they would hire a renowned studio and publish the games themselves.

I'm pretty much cool with this, too (as you pointed out with my examples) - and honestly kind of assumed that it was what the OP meant by 3rd party exclusives (i.e. games made by 3rd party studios, using those studios' own IPs, which are only available for one system).

I agree that it seems to be a raw deal for the publisher - missing out on millions of dollars of revenue by agreeing to exclusivity on one platform - but Epic Games insists that they couldn't be happier with the arrangement, as does Lionhead (of Fable fame).

I would hope that you would be right about the draw of the new controller in pulling core gamers from other systems (and I like this tack on the issue)... but I have grave concerns about the likelihood that publishers will put such innovative functionality into their WiiU ports unless the install base is ALREADY there and demanding such unique consideration with hands full of ready cash.

As Nintendo doesn't seem really likely to pull in any 3rd party exclusives, however... I am going to hope that you are right in your estimate of the controller's power to draw new people!

Nintendo lost a lot of third party support on the N64 when it kept cartridges instead of switching to discs.

*cough* FFVII *cough*... seriously, man, the wound's still sore...

Well wow! What the heck have they been doing now a days! Can't be much since I have never heard if them!!!!!

LOL... I thought you were joking in your first post. Rare used to be Nintendo's Golden Boys - the go to studio for everything awesome and cutting-edge on the big N. It's really Nintendo who dumped them, not the other way around, because the big N execs said they didn't see much promise in the studio's future. Might have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it sure seems like they were right.

Rare has mostly been pumping out so-so Xbox Live Arcade games for the past few years. Some of their best talent left early over artistic differences, and they haven't really found their way since... one of the saddest stories for core gamers ever.

I'm actually pretty intrigued by Killer Freaks, as well... though I won't be exactly waiting in line to buy it on day one.

The third party "love" that I'm looking for is mostly potential, rather than actual. I would love to see what 2K is cooking up, and I'll be paying close attention to Rockstar for something like Red Dead or GTA (though I like the former better). Even more than this, however, I'm excited about studios like Remedy, who have made great games in the past, have a history of producing exclusives, and are currently un-signed for their next project. Nintendo needs to snatch those games up!

As far as multi-platform games, I like that Ubi Montreal is working on a new AC game for WiiU (whether that means an updated Revelations or a new title altogether). I'm also waiting to see if Dead Space 3 hits Wii because of EA's strong show of support.

WiiU-ware perhaps? For a few bucks it would be fun... I'm honestly hoping for a big breath of fresh air on this console... some new franchises to fall in love with. I only have so much nostalgia!

I'm sorry but it does matter. ok we know most people on this site loves nintendo exclusives. but if exclusives weren't an issue why pay im sure what will be 350-400 price for a new console that barely does what a ps3 can do.

er... barely does? I'm sorry, but this is a bit unfair (though I get that you're shouting because you feel that people are ignoring your point).

I agree that graphics matter. Crisp, detailed visuals (within any art style) absolutely add to the experience of gaming, on multiple levels, from story immersion to raw impact of the events in which you are participating. I bought an Xbox 360 because of the new gameplay experiences afforded by the more powerful system... and though I have argued in the past that graphics are not the most important thing about a game (and, indeed, still believe this to be absolutely true), I must say that visual power is a major component of the impact that games can have on a person who plays them.

The fact is, however, that the WiiU will certainly be more powerful than the current consoles on the market. This is not in doubt. That it mostly likely will not double or treble their power does not concern me, for reasons stated ad nauseum elsewhere and by everyone else here. The fact that it offers an innovative new controller, the most power on current market, and the support of some excellent franchises (1st, 2nd, and 3rd party) makes it a very appealing prospect to me, as a gamer.

Now, if you are one of those who INSIST that MS and PS have uber-awesome next-gen consoles - super machines 1000x more powerful than their current consoles and able to run spectacular game engines beyond any current developers' wildest imaginings - just waiting to be announced, well then, I just can't think of what to say. I don't think that this is likely, and I'm not even sure that it is possible from a technological/marketing point of view... but I could always be wrong, and I guess that we'll have to wait until something is actually announced by those companies to know for sure.

If such an announcement happens... good on them, and well wishing to those who can afford it. Personally, I am not ready to put down the $1000 that such a tech-beast would have to cost!

So far, I like what Dementis says best (as in please, people, can we just kill this family of "will the WiiU be powerful enough" threads?)... I think a LOT has been said about this topic already, in a lot of different places... and I think that if people have real, legitimate doubts about the system's power or its value or its ability to perform, that it would be VERY worth their time to find and to read those threads in their entirety.

So as not to be a kill-joy, however, I'd love to add my two cents to this particular flavor of the old rant... Alex makes a great point about the Wii's graphics being distracting - not just "not as good" as the other systems'. The generational gap will, by all accounts, not be as noticeable this coming generation (that is, if you don't listen to the insane people who expect top-tier PC performance from a console for under $500). He has VERY reasonable requests of the new system, and I think that, from the most reputable sources I've read, the WiiU will certainly be able to do what he expects it to do.

Tre also makes a very reasonable point when he says that it is pretty much impossible to consider all the factors that go into consumer choices... and honestly Tron isn't doing himself any favors, because I find it utterly impossible to decipher what he really cares about. Is he one of those Nintendo fans he admits will be fully satisfied with the system? Is he one of the "PS360" fans who would definitely (*read with sarcasm*) switch from making fun of Nintendo to shelling out the cash for one of their consoles if it ONLY offered them blu-ray and a copy of the games they can already buy on their own systems, but with marginally better graphics (how many die-hard console fans choose to buy multi-platform releases on their PC because the graphics are better, anyway)? Whichever of these camps he's in (or even if he's in a totally different camp), it would be pretty hard for him to argue that he has an accurate bead on Nintendo's consumer prospects.

I would love to see cold, hard sales data on who spends the most money on games per year - and on what those people want to play, and what would make them buy a new system. Even then, however, predicting what people will actually buy is near-impossible. As others have pointed out, no one in sales and marketing knew that what EVERYONE wanted was an iPod until Apple made one (and honestly, I doubt that even consumers knew it until Apple made it... there were plenty of cheaper mp3 players on the market at the time, with just as much storage or more and a sizable online music library). It's hard to tell what will change the game... but I think that Nintendo's approach of interface over horsepower makes about as much sense as any strategy out there, especially at this juncture, where processing power is an issue that developers have pretty much universally discounted as a factor holding them back from doing what they want to do. Can you afford a $1000 console just to have the satisfaction of running BF3 with DX11 at 60fps? The jump just isn't that spectacular...

It does have triggers.....

Er... no, they mean analog triggers with graded pull (for variable acceleration)... the ones on the current version of the controller are on/off buttons.

Maybe we will be able to stream other things into the controller...  Like a Blu-Ray player maybe?

I could definitely see this as a possibility.  But Nintendo has, strangely, been known to include mysterious ports that never get used... remember the expansion ports on your SNES and N64 (the ones on the bottom)?  Some of those get used for Japan-only releases (like the Famicom disc-drive)... but this?  I can only assume that it's a way to link the WiiU to another player, or a yet-to-be-named peripheral like a video camera... weird.

I actually like your idea too, but my vote goes "yes" simply because I LOVE Capcom. If it weren't for them, I would have given up on my Wii long ago. They are a company that just astounds me with the quality of their titles almost every time I pick up something they make.

Ya, there really need to be more answer options in this poll.  The jump will almost certainly be more noticeable than the indiscernible difference between 360/PS3 (which I defy anyone to truly demonstrate via video sample with commentary on specific visual features), but it will not be NEARLY as big as the truly embarrassing gap between Wii and PS3/360.  

So as not to be a hypocrite, here is a video from IGN detailing some of the exact differences that I think will exist between the WiiU and its future competition.  The video outlines the differences between Crysis 2 running in DirectX9 (WiiU will be able to push 10.1, so it will be capable of doing slightly more than 9, but none of the advanced tesselation or real-time reflection mapping) and DirectX11.  It seems likely that Sony, at least, will wait until they can produce hardware that will run DX11 (though even this would be prohibitively expensive if attempted right now... the commentators referenced major framerate issues at points, and this was a top-of-the-line gaming rig).  Still, say what you will about Sony, they spring for the best stuff out there.  The PSVita is a good example of that, and evidence against the people who keep saying that Sony has "learned their lesson" with the PS3 and its lack of profitability.  And please, for the love of God, don't throw that one quotation from the windbag Sony rep at me... let's look at concrete decisions the company has and is making, not off-hand comments.

Now, I say this looks pretty good for the WiiU.  I'm no Sony fan (in fact, most days I think I would open a bottle of old bubbly if the company went under)... but I think they will make a top-of-the-line machine with their next console, and I still say that, even this being the case, the jump is not that big of a deal.  Do I like real-time reflection mapping and advanced particle tracking with motion blur effects?  Sure... but I can wait six or seven years for them to find the hardware to run them cheaply and efficiently without losing any sleep at all (and my wallet will thank me).

Thanks for the heads up on this! someone said something the other day about halo "paving the way for the modern fps" and I almost blew a brain gasket, lol... Goldeneye was amazing.

Dementis, man, you make consistently intelligent points on these forums... but at this point you're pretty much just picking on Koopa (and often, purposely it seems, mis-hearing his points).

It seems valid to say (as Koopa clarified to be his original point) that successive Activision iterations of Goldeneye would NOT be what the WiiU needs to move forward... Goldeneye itself would not make a good serial (as you point out), but even worse than a bad serial would be a bad serial produced by an Activision B-studio.  Don't get me wrong, Eurocom did a great job with Dead Space: Extraction, for what it was.  But honestly, this is not the studio to produce the next big thing in gaming.  The thing I really agree with here is that Nintendo needs to look to a GREAT studio to make them a GREAT new IP... what they manifestly don't need is another CoD clone.

As far as the whole Sci-Fi FPS thing goes... I don't think that Koopa is really sold on the genre ideas he tossed out there at first.  He was just providing an example of what he was looking for, and happened to have Halo in mind.  There is nothing "mindless" or particularly "gory" about Halo (or have you, perhaps, not played it?).  I found even Reach to be gripping, exciting, and just plain fun.  Metroid Prime is amazing for what it is... but it is definitely not what Koopa is looking for (nor I).

Interestingly enough, as I'm sure you know, Prime was not what Retro studios developed their engine for in the first place.  Metroid was tossed their way when Nintendo didn't particularly like the direction they were taking with the FPS that was in development at the time.  This adds credence to your suggestion that Nintendo is not really interested in a typical FPS experience from their first parties... so ultimately, I agree with you when you say that if such a thing is to appear on the new system, it will have to come from a non-1st party source.  

This being said, I have seen fruitful collaborations in this vein between Nintendo and a 3rd party studio, such as the Eternal Darkness project, in the past.  So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Nintendo could work with a talented studio to make a real, quality FPS for its new system... and I, for one, hope that it happens.

I would really Prefer The Nintendo Fps to be made by Nintendo and not ActiVision and for it to be a Scifi themed Shooter like Halo instead of Modern like Cod because it would seemed more like Nintendo and it would make the stages alot more funner than lets say Cod and more creative .

Even though I can't get behind the grammar of your post ( ), I couldn't agree more with your sentiment! Nintendo needs to push a new IP, made by an in-house or 2nd party studio, and it needs to make something distinctive (i.e. not another CoD clone). I'm done with companies trying to cash in on my nostalgia by offering me "pretty good" reboots, or trying to cash in on my love of great franchises by offering me mildly entertaining clones.

Where all the mad creativity at?! (Ok... so grammar really isn't that important...)