> Oh ok, the console has got a gimmick. Maybe two. Maybe three. Oh my god, too much gimmick always means it's terrible. Yeah, 'cause we better have some more RAM, or a better processor. I mean, we always need better processing stuff, even when the graphics benchmark was already reached. By the way, what the <img src="smileys/smiley35.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> is awesome gameplay Nintendo famed itself with? That is probably yet another gimmick.
Or, you could have a great game system with great graphics, great games, and no forced gimmicks like the PS2 or original XBOX, or the NES, SNES, and so on. I see where you were trying to go with the sarcasm, but it falls flat by not acknowledging that it has been done great without gimmicks many times before.
I understand the original Wii was a hit, and good for them. But, that was lightning in a bottle, and lightning is not likely to strike twice. Sales of the Wii U indicate that principle repeating itself.
> I heard they made once a console that only had a few buttons with games that had awful graphics, but a lot of this gameplay stuff! Super Nintendo, was it? Those were the dark ages of video game history.
That's way off. For starters, the Super Nintendo had excellent graphics, in fact they were the best of any 16-Bit system that ever existed. Secondly, spec-wise, the Super Nintendo was superior to it counterparts in almost every way. And, it just so happened to have tons of great games, too.
The Super Nintendo was a great game system. It was a beast. One of the best of all-time. Nintendo has since had greater successes sales-wise, but they've never since matched the across-the-board quality of the Super Nintendo in my opinion.
> I don't think all those gimmicks just randomly thrown into one console without thinking. At least to me, it seems that they were picked with some mind. Even if they all are useless, it's still a Nintendo console! We will have great games anyway. Not those repetitive FPS.
I'm sure plenty of thought went into the Wii U. But sometimes, companies think wrong. After all, the people running it are still human like the rest of us.
Actually the NDS and Wii weren't lucky. Nintendo had there backs up against the wall. They realized that competing against the big boys who could do a better job at the same product and where they were in last place was a losing situation. They understood that.
Thats why when they released the NDS they thought simpler controls, new experiences. They spent the time with testing, lots of testing to see if the way humans interacted with the device had merit. When they announced they got a lot of flac. The NDS didn't look like the next version of the Game Boy line. The important factor was that the inclusion of the touch screen was by chance, it was by design to bring a universal, easy, versatile control to gamers. Result, big hit.
Ninentodo understanding that human behaviour in how we interact with our devices. Decided to go with it's idea to bring a more simpler, universal, flexibal, immersion, intutive controller to the console. Rather than compete, they moved everything where they wanted to push a different style of gaming into the house. Result success.
Wii U. I made this claim before release and I will make it again. the Wii U is the true inheritor of the game cube.
It focuses on Power, classic controller design, old SNES/GC/PS360 market gamers. Unfortunatally all of those aspect don't represent anythign in regards to mass market or house hold penetration. Those values only affect early adopters who have interest. Which is always a smaller market.
Wii U is terrible. Nintendo ran out of ideas.
It's possible that Nintendo, Sony or MS could get a mas market device, but they need to focus not on throwing stuff in, but by examining how humans behaviour and how they interact with the Hardware.