MorbidGod

^good post, makes sense.

By the way. Remember NDA people? Epic is not allowed to talk about Wii U.

I really hope for Metroid Unreal 4 or something.

Metroid? Unreal 4? Holy crap I hope!

mind you the wii was a next gen console and it didnt get unreal 3 support

And yet, if you combine the sales of GCN and WIi they sold 117 million (95 million of that Wii) and if you combine the 360/PS3 sales, they surpass Nintendo in sales by 14 million (131 million total sales). However, alone, 360 only sold 67 million and the PS3 sold 62 million. So, the Wii was weaker, yet sold more, and the hardware was developed back in 1998. So Nintendo clearly won, and they made a ton of money, considering the development of the Wii tech was paid for in the previous generation. The Wii sold more, was cheaper to develop, and now Nintendo has ton of cash to spend on ... what, exactly? Making GCN 3.0? Really? No, they are making a Wii U -- a next generation console.

To show more evidence of this point, Nintendo is not taking the Wii hardware and just upgrading it. They are going from a PowerPC G3 processor to a POWER7. Literally jumping four generations from what the Wii had. And two generations from whath the 360 is based on. To add to the point, the technology in the POWER7 is not a minor upgrade. The POWER6 was said to be a super computer on a chip, and people asked if Apple made the right choice going to Intel (clearly they did, Intel is way cheaper). POWER7 is leagues better than the PowerPC G5 processor (or Xenon, actually, which is not in the same family as the G5 but are similar in technology).

Sure, we still don't know what the GPU will be. We know it is part of the Radeon HD family. But why would the grandfather of video games -- the oldest still making hardware in the business (Microsoft and Sony are "new kids" on the block) -- choose a weak card when they are choosing such a great processor? It doesn't make any sense, at all. In fact, the first rumors were pointing Nintendo choosing an old card, sure, but one of the best ones from that time period -- one that AMD based for the newer models going forward. Basically, a good foundation for building a grand card for a company that was -- according to developers -- changing the specs constantly.

My final point, is that Wii U older dev kits were able to do the Zelda demo which was in 720p. It was outstanding. And it was older hardware. Unfinished, yet still able to out preform the other, last generation consoles (PS3/360). Don't get me started on that Garden demo, which was fantastic. Speaking of that one, look at the trees. Then go watch the Last of US trailer on PS3 . The environment clearly shows the age of the PS3 tech, yet the Wii U was able to outshine it on unfinished, older tech. Epic practically said in other comments that UE3 can do more on the Wii U then what that Zelda HD demo showed. (Samaritan video, anyone?) By the way, just because he said UE3 doesn't mean UE4 can't run on Wii U. In fact, the comment could indicate it will -- it's like saying, "Yeah, we can do better with out current tech, and our newest baby will smoke you." Remember, they are making a point OF NOT CONFIRMING anything at this point.

..... Need I say more?

@Kevin look that means nothing. I could say that the PS4 isnt confirmed to have UE4 support yet and no one will freak out. But the Wii U CPU is just ss powerful as any CPU on the market,and as long and they have a decent modern GPU they wont have any problems getting UE4 on ghe console (and from comments epic has said, that we arr going to be surprised by Wii U,, I dont think they will choose not to support Wii U)).

Amen, Boo, Amen!

I like to sit back, and watch things grow and expand. I use to write quite a bit for a web site, GuiltyGaming.com if anyone ever seen it (I'd be surprised if you did), but now I just like to sit back and watch. I believe Sony is an imitator, they perfect what others start (or try to). The PS Vita is actually a really great handheld, I like the idea of the touch buttons on the back. Really good idea.

Microsoft innovates with software. Look at Xbox Live. Thats a mixture of software and networking innovation. Thats what Microsoft does! Even looking at Xbox Kinect, sure thats hardware but the software behind it and the innovative thought that went into it is purely amazing.

Nintendo, now, they are the mixture of Sony and Microsoft. They have the ability to make great hardware -- NES, SNES, N64, GCN, and Wii. Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, DS and 3DS. All of these, regardless of commercial success (most of them were) can be described to be amazing hardware. The design is clearly going more modern, which is not a bad thing at all. And both the N64 and GCN were powerhouses on their own right. The Wii, obviously, wasn't. Nor the DS. But the 3DS, although not more powerful then the Vita, can produce amazing visuals, and I am sure the Wii U will be the same.

And I think, when we talk innovation, Nintendo is king. They are able to think of things no one else does. Or use an age old idea for new concepts. Shoulder buttons. Rumble feature. Joystick on a controller. Duel screen technology. Motion control. 3D (it pains me to put that on there, because they haven't really done anything NEW here from what I seen).

Now my friends, we come to the pinnacle of Nintendo's innovations, putting them all together and using them for new, refreshed idea's. Shoulder buttons, joysticks, duel screens, motion control ( I assume 3D is omitted, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that added in at E3). But these innovations are going to be used differently. Where duel screens on the DS/3DS are exclusive to one player per console, it limits what that screen can do. A developer can have one player on one screen and the other player on the second screen. No, one player, two screens. Here, we can have one console, two players, each with two screens or -- even better, one console, two screens and two players. This way we can have true a-symmetrical game play where one player is somewhere doing something and the other something else. Hell, with the power of the Wii U, we could have two players playing two entirely different levels on one console. Imagine that. Why wouldn't it be possible (I realize there could be technical limitations, but we do know the Wii U can generate different images on both screens -- so it's possible).

All of this adds up to an amazing gaming machine. But that's not the future, thats not the vision of Wii U. The idea behind it is this is a device connecting families with video chat, even when you're watching TV. Comcast, Microsoft and countless other companies have tried and are trying to do this. I believe most will fail, or have failed. Nintendo, however, won't.

The problem with the Wii was it was focused on casual games. People didn't purchase them, and didn't use the Wii all that much. The problem was Nintendo was thinking like a gamer, and trying to make their new audience think like one too. Then Apple came along, and showed them a new light. The App Store. You can make simple, fun games and release theme digitally. It's cheaper for you, people will pay for them, and you get rich in the process. This is how Nintendo will draw in the casual crowd. With their App Store. You like Hulu? Netflix? Wii have it for U. You want to see your grand kids in FL? Oh wait, doesn't my little darling have a Wii U? I heard it has a video camera. Lets get one so we can talk to them and SEE them. We can do this even though we have a TV show in the back ground, unlike the other options.

See where I am going with this? Have two entirely different ecosystems. One for the hardcore -- actual games you buy -- and one for the casual -- apps you download. And they better charge a fee for their Nintendo Network, it better be affordable, and their service better rock. If you have to wait years on a 12 Mbps connection Nintendo is screwed. They better have servers to back this service up, which is why I and millions others will be willing to PAY FOR IT.

This is the future of not just gaming and Nintendo, but the world. If Nintendo can get the casual audiance to buy into the Wii U at any point -- when it's $349.99 or when the price gets cheaper -- then they will successfully change everything. Nintendo can succeed where Comcast will fail with Video Chat. Comcast you are limited to Skype. Sure, anyone can have a web cam (but anyone can do that now). The idea of talking in your living room with Xfinity Skype though, is limited with Xfinity customers only. And you have to have cable. This, you have to have the Internet and the Wii U. Pretty easy, and anyone can do it (almost anyone, Internet is still limited in some area's).

I am excited, I don't know about you. Nintendo has to play their cards right. They missed a big opportunity last year, and they better not make the same mistake this year. They need a clear vision, they need a clear goal, and they need to cater TO BOTH THE CASUAL AND HARDCORE like I have described here. What is awesome, though, is it appears they probably will do this.

Which rocks, if they do.

Not the same game, no. But look at Star Fox Adventures. So many Star Fox fans hated that gaem, me included, because it wasn't a STAR Fox game. I personally didn't really like it period, but many did. It would be the same if they made a Zelda based in the future. People won't like it.

I don't think the Conduit rivals the PS3, however it's a good example that the Wii is more powerful then the Xbox. I mean, the GCN could rival the Xbox in graphics. Look at Metroid Prime, Twilight Princess for examples? And the Wii is more powerful than the GCN.

And the Xbox could not. Produce 1080i, I'm sorry. 480p was the highest it can go. I mean the Xbox 360 wasn't able to do 1080p when it. First came out. It wasn't until they updated the firmware. And I don't think it produces it natively, but upscales it. If I'm wrong show me a game on the Xbox that was in HD. You can't, but please try.

I don't know what your talking about, Metroid Prime 3 was a BEAUTIFUL game. Look at Zelda and Metroid to see just how great the Wii is graphically. Sure, it's no Halo 3 -- but it looks JUST as good as Halo 2, if not better.


Halo 2 (Xbox)


Metroid Prime 3 (Wii)


Metroid Other M (Wii)

Yes, the style of MP3 is a little cartoony -- but that doesn't mean the graphics were horrible. If you look at Zelda Skyward Sword, that is the most beautiful Zelda ever made. But it's somewhat cartoon style is vastly different from the realistic Twilight Princess. SW is, in my opinion, the better of the two graphically, and I think most people will agree.

Better then the Xbox, Metroid Prime 3 proved that. Better then or just as good as Xbox 360? They never said that. Nor did they say it would be in HD.

Honestly, i expected this. Didn't Epic say a couple months ago we will be surprised by what the Wii U can do? They didn't mention UE4 specifically, but why would they be impressed if it can't run their baby?

@That Guy I did not quote you, nor did I state that you didn't like Star Fox. What I said is generally if you liked Star Fix Adventures you weren't a Star Fox fan. The definition of generally means usually, most of the time, but there are expectations. Obviously you could be one, I have no Idea if you played every Star Fox game like I did. If you grew up on the Snes and N64 games. You didn't provide that info, nor did I suggest these things weren't true.

And what I said I wanted was an onrailes shooter. I did say if Retro could make a big, epic adventure -- something on the scale of Gears of War, and Call of Duty, or even The Avengers. Something that will make you fight like there is no tomorrow. Maybe what SFA should have been. If they can do that WITHOUT RUINING one of my favorite franchises then I am okay with that.

And to someone else... On my phone so I can't easily go back and see who.... I never said I didn't like Star Fox. I said I didn't like SFA. If you want a reason, I can give you one. It was boring. I didn't have a reason to care about what was happening. They tried to make a Zelda but failed.

Just go back and read reviews. Not all were terrible but I'd be surprised if anyone gave it higher then average. And for a Nintendo game, average isn't good enough.

Nhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_Adventures#section_4

Apparently the reviews were good, I didn't know because I didn't read reviews back then. However I do like what Ign said... It doesn't feel like a star Fox game and star Fox fans expecting one will be let down. Well, consider me let down.

I didn't really think about this game but man.... Splinter Cell would be a perfect launch title for the Wii U. Picking locks, your spy gadgets... All on the second screen!

Any ideas on how they would do this? Suggestions for the developers?

Star Fox Adventures was horrible for so many reasons, and the main tis its horrible. If someone liked it generally wasn't a Star Fix fan. Little known secret was it wasn't a STAR Fox game when they started.

And I would love another on-rails shooter, however if Retro can play it right Star Fox that was like Gears of War, Call Of Duty, and with Nintendo mixed in. A game that goes back and forth between first/second person shooter, mixed with flying and tanks and putting it all together in a beautiful package. That would be the Halo we are looking for.

If Retro can pull it off. If instead of Halo type of game we get another SFA.... Star Fox will be dead.

@Nin_Stream It happens all the time. A small company sued a large company called Sony (maybe you heard of it). Then they could not sell PS3 controllers with rumble until they ended up agreeing to a settlement. So yes, a company like u
UStream can sue and win a lot of money. What will end up happening is Nintendo will change it. Like Apple did with iTV (called Apple TV now).

It's more a question of the logo, not that it has an U In the name

As long as Nintendo doesn't release Zelda,pikman, Mario,metroid and f zero all at launch third parties will be fine.

As long as Nintendo doesn't release Zelda,pikman, Mario,metroid and f zero all at launch third parties will be fine.