Tre

In an interview with Swedish website Aftonbladet, translated by our Swedish brethren Eurogamer.se, Ubisoft mega boss Yves Guillemot said it's "for the future".

Here's the exact translation:

"We saw something about a new Assassin's Creed for Wii U. What can you say about that?" asks the website.

"Our next edition of Assassin's will be in a Wii U version," Guillemot replies.

"Assassin's Creed: Revelations?"

"No, not Revelations. For the future."

"So it's Assassin's Creed III? Or is it something else?

"I can't tell you that."

So the Wii U version will not be Revelations. I'm fine with that. The argument over old ports will not be valid for this game. So what do you think of UbiSoft's decision to make a New Assassin's Creed for the Wii U? Of course if it is Assassin's Creed III then it will be on all systems but if it is a spin-off it could be an exclusive.

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. The original Mass Effect was exclusive to the Xbox 360 only because Microsoft was the publisher, and the same goes for the Gears of War trilogy. There's a reason why third party exclusives are practically non existent on the PS3 and Xbox 360. You can't expect third party publishers independently to spend millions upon millions of dollars to create exclusive games for a system and therefore miss out on a TON of potential revenue.

What needs to set the Wii U apart is its control scheme. Third parties should enhance multi-platform games sold for the Wii U by incorporating the uniqueness of the touchscreen, and the potential it holds. That would set the Wii U apart from the PS3 and 360, and would give gamers a reason to purchase a Wii U. The situation with the Wii is much different for 2 primary reasons: 1.) The system is significantly less powerful and therefore unable to handle most third party content. 2.) The motion controls are much more gimmicky then the Wii U's touch screen, and didn't do much to enhance the core experience.

I was with you until you said gimmicky motion controls. Every console, controller, and game is a gimmick. Consoles (great power, beautiful graphics, DVD/Blu-ray, and online capabilities) are a gimmick. Controllers(buttons, pad, sticks, motion, and touchscreen) are a gimmick. Games (FPS, RPG, Platformer, Movie based, storytelling, and action/adventure) are gimmicks. The talk of third party support makes no sense. All consoles have third party support or all games would be by first party and the rare second party companies. It isn't whether Third party support will be on the Wii U but what kind of third party support.

The term "hardcore" has lost its meaning over the years.  A hardcore gamer is someone who puts a lot of their time into games.  Playing them, researching info about them, you name it.  They generally have a wide knowledge of games.  It is NOT someone who just sits there and plays CoD online all of the time.  

A hardcore game can be anything that isn't a family/party game.  So yes, games like Super Mario Bros., Pikmin and Donkey Kong are all hardcore games.  A game doesn't have to have a lot of blood and violence to be hardcore, it just has to be a game that takes a lot of skill, is really challenging and isn't just a one-time thing.  

So if you aren't into the games that you mentioned, that doesn't mean you don't like hardcore games.  It just means you aren't into those sorts of games.  

Anyways, I'm sure there'll be some casual games on the Wii U like Wii U sports and Wii U play.

I wish more people will realize that and I hate the hardcore word. To me it should be experienced gamer or avid gamer. Hardcore means nothing to me.