Narcidius

They do need a generic First Person Shooter, I agree.

Sarcasm, anyone?

... but really, I think the OP was talking about a game that filled the function of Halo (solid, complex mechanics, cool visual styling, and a decently rich narrative structure with the opportunity for deep lore).  Uncharted does SOME of this for the playstation (the basic mechanics are a bit unpolished, the play is a bit linear, and there's very little opportunity for lore), as does killzone, infamous, and god of war... but I think that a lot of sony's difficulty (other than prohibitive price) has to do with the lack of that one title that really nails all three aspects.

I agree that Nintendo needs this.  Their internal focus has always been on play mechanics - which really makes sense as a bedrock starting point for game design.  But to really capture nerddome in its entirety (I'm not talking about the so-called "graphics whores" or kids that just want to look cool, here), you need a world that offers everything in one package.

I agree that Retro is currently the best candidate to do this, from many angles... but I have yet to see them foray into the realm of a truly new IP...

I guess the title of the topic is broad enough to post usage ideas for games... right?

I'm thinking...

- tablet screen for endoscopy in surgery games (or robot/nanoprobes fixing circuitry or spying) while the main screen can keep an eye on vitals...
- LOVE the build management in rts games (or minimap/unit grouping management) idea
- LOVE the persistent sniper-scope idea (oddly enough, this also allows for the most precise aiming possible, given that there would be the sticks for movement and camera as well as the controller positioning for pinpoint aiming on-screen, potentially eliminating the complaints with both bounding boxes and fixed-center dual-stick or mouse aiming... though the whole system of movement together might prove disorienting or overly complicated)
- tablet player controlling a gunning turret on a vehicle, while the main screen player drives/flies
- dashboard for complex simulators, with flipable switches and pushable buttons represented on the tablet screen.

Surprisingly, I am NOT as tired of this kind of earnest plea from gamers as I am from Ninty fanboys pretending that they don't know what people mean by "hardcore", and then insulting them or insinuating that they are immature for pointing out the obvious fact that the majority of people who spend money on and play games enthusiastically (in the US, at least) are FAR more excited about Xbox360 games than they are about Wii games.

COME ON... everyone knows that when someone says "hardcore gamer" they mean "gamer that likes the games that it is currently fashionable to like" - games like Call of Duty.  And for whatever reason, these really are the games that people want, and the games that they will pay for.  There is nothing inherently WRONG with liking Call of Duty - just like there is nothing inherently immature about preferring a beautiful, rich aesthetic experience to... well, what the Wii offers.

Now, if someone comes out and says "Skyward Sword is a terrible game, and its graphics suck... I much prefer Modern Warfare 3 because its graphics are better" then please go ahead and school them for their obvious inability to appreciate artistic styling and depth of play experience.  Otherwise... can we please be charitable to the intention of the poster?

I think he was trying to be as diplomatic as he could with that statement, and you're taking it too hard.
He said wait for e3, which is where he will, along with the rest of us get some actual news about third party support.

agreed... i like to bash on the guy as much as anyone, but they were some of his more moderate statements.  3rd party support really is a key issue with this console's success (as well as a key determiner of how 3rd parties will develop games for the 'next gen'), and i am waiting for e3 with a fair bit of earnestness because of this very issue.

Wasnt direct X for Microsoft only?

well, technically DirectX is just a set of APIs that allow software to communicate with hardware... but yes, it was developed specifically by Microsoft for Microsoft, and is proprietary.  To my knowledge, Xbox/360 is the only console to actually use a version of DirectX.  Sony and Nintendo have their own libraries, optimised specifically to suite their graphics cards (and OS).  When people (well, me at least) talk about a console "supporting DirectX11", they are probably talking about the set of features supported by that version of Direct3D (the graphics API in the DirectX suite)... things like tesselation, multithread rendering, and some advanced blending modes.

Some of these features are really revolutionary, but they depend upon the GPU being able to receive certain kinds of programmable instructions...

I just hope that Nintendo's GPU is better than what we're being told!

I'm glad someone brought up this topic!  I am personally a big "trophy hound" on Xbox... but I'm also clear-headed enough to admit that this seriously contradicts my stated love of immersion in story and love of gaming for gaming's sake.  The two loves are kind of parallel, but I find myself enjoying both pursuits almost equally.

I think that Nintendo should include an achievement system (even if it only tracks progress in the background, or only for online play), and I like the idea of using upgradeable medals with associated coin values.  Achievements serve a social networking function, if nothing else, and they provide a fun incentive for replaying the game far past its standard life (in this case... the more outlandish the requirements for the achievement, the better).  Playing games is fun, regardless of any "rewards" doled out for playing.  But everyone likes a little swag to pin on for bragging purposes, even if you're only bragging to yourself.  It's like tally marks on an airplane cockpit, or button-collecting at Disneyland...

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.

Of course I would buy it!  Sure I don't have a load of cash lying around... but that's what kidneys are for, right?

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.

Ok, so... does anyone feel up to explaining what, exactly, made the original Mario so great?  I mean, it is GREAT.  I played it into the ground when it came out, and I love it to this day.  But why?  It's not like the jumping is just that much fun, or that everyone identifies with a fat plumber, or that the environments and challenges were all that awe-inspiring.  WHAT IS IT?

Looking over the true classics, it's pretty universally difficult to explain the appeal.  In plenty of ways, there have been more "interesting" block games than Tetris... but Tetris is still the best.  There have been more varied, nuanced, and deep experiences than the old text-based dungeon adventures, but I would go and replay those (or even King's Quest) long before I would replay, say, Fable III.

Recently I downloaded Superbrothers:Sword&SworceryEP for my iPhone, and it reminded me about the awesomeness of those 8-bit days... and reminded me that we've been pretty much stuck in a gaming box for many, many years, still playing by the rules that Miyamoto and others like him helped to write back in the 80s.  It wasn't the particular presentations that made those games great... it was something else.

It seems that we're still trying to make games either more like movies or more like carnival games or more like a very interesting pop-up book... but is there something else we could be doing with them (and isn't it something else that those early creators were tapping into, albeit unconsciously)?  Couldn't we be messing, somehow, with interactivity itself - with the fact that we are both manipulating and being manipulated by our environment in electronic media?  Couldn't we make a game that lived in the tension between narrative (what the story is doing to you) and personal responsibility (what you are doing to the story and the characters), and asked us to find a real equilibrium with that dynamic through our in-game actions?

Maybe this is just too "heady" or esoteric for the average gamer... but if we aren't asking ourselves what makes games great, then don't we simply run the risk of games hitting the same cultural arc as film (basically peaking early as art, then becoming a special effects arms race, then devolving into formulaic blockbuster attempts in the interest of making money)?  If NO ONE cares about this question, then I'm afraid that, like the film industry, the games industry will soon be left with nothing but the polar opposites of Call of Duty blockbusters and tiny indie offerings like World of Goo... and I, for one, find that a depressing prospect.

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!

I would be all over a full 3d version of a link to the past, but with OOT and star fox its now time to focus on new things again.

This is where I'm at, too... I have genuine love for the classics, and playing them again really takes me back.  But there has been a LOT of remaking lately, and precious little progress into new realms.  If a company relies too much on repackaging and re-selling to me games that they've already sold me before, eventually it starts to feel less like a service for the fans and more like a lazy way to make a buck, or even (and I flinch to say this) a lack of good ideas.

Nintendo is actually worrying me... I feel that they might be in the place that Disney got to be in, when Walt got old, endlessly combing over the old man's old ideas, looking for a note or a scrap of paper to turn into a full-length feature. I don't think Miyamoto is there... but I think that everyone could use a Pixar-like infusion of fresh genius - someone with really NEW ideas for a new generation, and an organic vision of future gaming that syncs with where the market's at.

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...

A gritty RPG with mature characters could really give us something fresh and less predictable.

You know, I think you're really right about this.  People tend to think of RPGs as either very cartoon-y (or at least very stylized), or as RPG-lite (like Mass Effect, which really doesn't deserve the word RPG appended to its action genre category, IMO).  Even something like Monster Hunter is far more action game than RPG.

I would LOVE to see a gritty, brooding RPG with tons of atmosphere and deep character development.  I think it could be awesome.

Yeah, the terms "casual" and "hardcore" are very ambiguous.  While I affirm the posters above who define "hardcore" as people who play games often or buy a lot of games, I think a helpful distinction in software would be between games that are complex (or "deep") experiences with a LOT to do, a lot to learn, and a lot to master, and games that are intentionally created as simple (or "shallow", but not in a pejorative sense) experiences (i.e. easy to understand, easy to play, not overwhelming in terms of scope).

The hardcore gamers that are not just whining incoherently are usually asking for DEEP experiences - for games that are difficult to master and have a lot to discover (by this definition, even Pokemon could count, and I think it does, but Monster Hunter is a better example).  Lots of hardcore gamers also happen to want their games violent and gritty (for personal taste reasons), but I don't think this deserves to be included in the category as part of the definition.  I love me some Resident Evil... but I've logged FAR more hours into Pokemon.

I think that Nintendo has already proven that they will have great support for casual gamers.  There are the Mii apps (Chase Mii and Battle Mii) demoed at E3, as well as the inevitable WiiSportsU, Mario Party U, etc.  I hear your worries, OP, but I think you can rest assured that Nintendo will not ignore you.  They have a lot of new fans who want to play casually, with friends and family or just for some quick entertainment in the evening, and they will not ignore that fan base!