*Nintendo didn't "invested in massive R&D". Unlike the PS3's Cell, the tech already existed, they only streamlined it.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize cells ppe and a xenon core are the exact same product right? They are both stripped down, crippled, crapped out p5's, with a high theoretical flop throughput that looked incredible on paper.
Accelerometers existing, and developing a massive framework around how to interpret their data into usable, meaningful packets that can be converted into game inputs are two entirely different things.
And no, the technology didnt already fully exist that would enable the motion controls nintendo were planning. Triaxial Gyroscopes didnt yet exist that met nintendos size, accuracy, power draw, and reference retention Nintendo needed. Which is why motion + came years later as a peripheal.
Except motion control sucks for racing games.
No, you only played racing games that sucked.
I played racing games with absolute control, that enabled me to do things analogs and analog triggers could never dream of doing because they lacked the precision. Like weaving in and out of a forest at over a hundred miles an hour, or having complete control of my vehicles pitch yaw and roll (impossible on analogs, a 2d control method) So I can do things like create my own shortcuts by steering through a hole in a bridge midair, or line up my landing no matter the ground angle so all 4 wheels hit at the same time for a speed boost.
and only games like Mario Kart are any good without analog triggers. Even playing GTA V I extensively use the analog triggers when carefully navigating between cars. Now I haven't played Need for Speed on Wii U to compare (I have been meaning to but as I have it on PS3 and 360 I gave up on the idea), but I'm pretty sure the difference is going to be obvious and impair the control scheme.
This is a load of garbage. The only game that ever made decent use of analog triggers was rouge leader, and that was because of the manual over ride. dual shock controllers have garbage analog triggers anyway. Their physical breadth of movement are entirely too small. Its an inconsequential convenience and nothing more. Its also completely pointless as you are trying to use it when the game pad has several superior methods of applying the same manuever, such as slightly tilting the gamepad forward or back.
Like I said, the Wii didn't need the analog triggers as it was focused on motion gaming. The Wii U on the other hand is meant to be an all purpose console and without the analog triggers it simply isn't.
Analog triggers are a linear control method. The game pad has very precise motion control. It can do everything analog triggers can with an infinitely higher rate of precision and a completely user custom breadth of movement. And then still have many other axis to put to use.
I still don't get your argument about achievements (not gamerscore, ignore that). They motivate me to go back to games I might not have played in months or even years, remind me of things I might have missed in that game that otherwise I would have forgotten as you can only tell by booting up the game. Its the sole reason I have actually collected everything on LEGO Batman 2 and had a lot of fun exploring the game world, where without achievements I might not bother. Basically, its a competitive element to an otherwise single player game and also reminds me to go back to old games. How are those things bad for gaming?
Thats because, however good you think those acheivments are, video games used to be much, much, much much much better. So far beyond the insulting, disgusting, slap in the face bastardization. And it wasnt a long time ago either. An 'acheivment' USED to be finding an optional dungeon, and beating it, and they USED to give you something WORTH the time you spent doing it, like ice arrows that froze crap when you shot them. And pretty much anyone here can tell you, i dont even really LIKE that entry to the series.
Todays 'acheivments'are a form of mental conditioning. To publishers good single player games with high replayability are BAD. That means gamers spend time on those games discovering all the little secrets. REAL secrets, not an acheivment for sharting in the batmobile 10 times. So, certain platform holders decided all games should have a list, so even the stupidest gamer (gornolizt) could see everything the game had laid out in front of them and they could sysematically check them off one by one. Making sure there was no surprises, nothing the simpletons could miss, as they can just look at the list. Do everything on it, and spend their money on the next clone of the same exact thing as swiftly as possible.
The culture, lead by the game review culture, latched onto this, because it was a system tailor made to be digested by gamz girnalizt. Games were clearly categorized into their well established classes, and a check list was provided for each game so the simple minded gamz girnoliz could literally track how much of a game they had digested, in record time. Games that checked the checks and fit the mould got high scores and a high metacritic. Games that fit the mould but didnt check the checks got marked poorly. The problem with this system is its only effective if the game is another clone of pre established playstyle, or does nothing unique. Anything new or different automatically gets crapped on. This lowers the meta critic score, which publishers actually fricking have surgically grafted to their brains, which means anything thats not a clone of a pre established style thats been done to death for over a decade, that cant easily be summed up by a checklist of worthless crap to do, ie what used to be a GOOD game is actively punished for being new fresh or different, ensuring the garbage continues on its path to stagnation.
