The Nintendo conference was an embarassment

Nintendoland was the main focus and showed absolutely nothing. Basically slapping a nintendo on any old generic Carnival wii, and seeing if they can convince people its a necessity.

I mean the Wii U was a joke we literally were demonstrated games that were mainly multiplats. The added features, basically suggested that Nintendo players suck at games and can't play them for shit. I mean giving batman an attack boost? Really was that needed AC isn't even that tough a game. Aside from that we were shown, how a game controller that costs around $100 basically can have a gyroscope installed doing basically what the six axis and PSP have already demonstrated, and adding nor additional gameplay to it, just repackaging, it almost like it was zelda.

They demonstrated how there Wii U can only display graphics on an equal level of current generation consoles and will be charging people the price of a new console. Exactly what have they been doing the past 7 years. Honestly I don't know how nintendo fans effectively get turkey slapped on a regularly basis and ask for more. Effectively acting like an army of Pikmin.

The only positive was that they weren't selling out even more with Zelda.

I think the Mario segments were pretty decent to good. The Wii U Mario looks stunning graphically. Reminded me a lot of Rayman Origins and how fantastic that looked.

On the bright side, this year's Nintendo conference was better than last years. Last year's was downright embarrassing.

E3 is seldom the showcase for software these days. If there is any, it's mostly focused on the Western developers. Most of the games appear at conventions like TGS, or GDC.

Strider Zero wrote:

I think the Mario segments were pretty decent to good. The Wii U Mario looks stunning graphically. Reminded me a lot of Rayman Origins and how fantastic that looked.

There's nothing that really seperated it from super mario brothers Wii. The HD graphics were wasted on such pathetically simple characters and on top of that AC didn't even look better despite being on a newer console and having more development time. Rayman origins looked better and thats on machines that are 6-8 years old.

I'm not criticising the gameplay it still looked fun, but hardly looked like a step forward in any respect. We should at least have a significant graphical improvement, be it just more lively backgrounds.

Prince Doebler wrote:

E3 is seldom the showcase for software these days. If there is any, it's mostly focused on the Western developers. Most of the games appear at conventions like TGS, or GDC.

This sounds completely baseless. They displayed 23 games. Several of these were Nintendo IPs, if you're going to contribute to a discussion at least bring facts with you.

Did they say how much a Wii U cost Superbuu?

The graphics can take a back seat if the games are fun. Although not my personal preference, I think the Wii showed this. But if the system is at or higher then XBOX/Playstation price range, and has sub-par results. It could go badly for them.

There's no price range on Wii U yet. I'm guessing around $500.

Nintendo's always stayed behind with the graphics. Why do they do this? They figure that they'll be better off working with current technology on the market as opposed to working with the new stuff that's out there. That way, to take full advantage of their systems, you won't need to buy the latest TV on the market.

And those software titles took a back seat, didn't they? While the games that were given a longer showing were Nintendo IPs, they were merely tech demos of what the Wii U is capable of in terms of control. They weren't a showcase for the games themselves. It was a big showoff of the Wii U.

Also, I love how Nintendo is ripping off of Sony instead of vice versa. And here you are giving them flack for it. As expected.

justinlynch3 wrote:

Did they say how much a Wii U cost Superbuu?

The graphics can take a back seat if the games are fun. Although not my personal preference, I think the Wii showed this. But if the system is at or higher then XBOX/Playstation price range, and has sub-par results. It could go badly for them.

Thats exactly my point. Why charge more when you are not giving current technology.

Strider Zero wrote:

There's no price range on Wii U yet. I'm guessing around $500.

Most likely they've already said the controllers themselves would cost around the $100 mark in E3 2011, i dont think they stated one as yet.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Nintendo's always stayed behind with the graphics. Why do they do this? They figure that they'll be better off working with current technology on the market as opposed to working with the new stuff that's out there. That way, to take full advantage of their systems, you won't need to buy the latest TV on the market.

And those software titles took a back seat, didn't they? While the games that were given a longer showing were Nintendo IPs, they were merely tech demos of what the Wii U is capable of in terms of control. They weren't a showcase for the games themselves. It was a big showoff of the Wii U.

Also, I love how Nintendo is ripping off of Sony instead of vice versa. And here you are giving them flack for it. As expected.

So your defence isn't even going to explain at any point exactly what nintendo did well, because normally thats the thing you do if someone has. Unless you know there's a lot of truth to my original statements.

Are you ever actually going to bring facts to the table? Sony preempted the kinect and the Wii with the eyetoy and even made explaining there concepts regarding motion controls circa 2004, which is before the Wii.

Also as you are apparently a game developer, are you actually stating here that a consoles graphical processor will change how a game is programmed, because that in itself is an interesting view. Are you also stating matching the bar of 7 years ago is using current technology. Are you also stating that nintendo's own IPs were using tech demos? You do know what that means right. Tech demos normally demonstrate graphical prowess beyond what a current console is capable of. If that was tech footage then the Wii U is an even bigger embarassment.

As expected? Exactly how long have you known me, do i know you? I don't think so. So this comment seems fairly douchey. There doesn't seem to be any basis to you previous statements and now you are attacking me. There is so much ignorance in your post I don't even know if i covered it all.

I should also point out mods, I made a topic here and i bought facts to the table. I'm sure no one will be happy if they have to fork out twice what there current consoles are worth just to be playing on something that could've come out more then 2 years ago.

As far as the prices are concerned, a PS3 controller costs just more than half of what the Wii U tablet is slated to be. Seriously. The controller costs as much as a new game does. That said, it is very unlikely that the system and controller will be sold separately. We'll likely get one tablet with the system. But we don't have a final price yet, so I won't say anything about this console's price

Tech demos normally demonstrate graphical prowess. In this case, the focus was on the tablet controller, and what could be done with it, in terms of gameplay, and control. Why is that a problem.

Also, in terms of the graphics, I was referring to that from the perspective of the consumers. Wind back the clock to when the Wii was released. It was designed for SDTVs, which was what was more common at the time. HDTVs didn't pick up the steam (and drop in price) until a few years later. The prices of HDTVs were anywhere from 5 to 16 times the price of the console. For the consumers to get the most out of the system, they wouldn't have to shell out a couple grand for it.
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2006/08/hdtv-almanac-hdtv-prices-drop.php
This was when Sharp dropped prices on their HDTV line-up back in 2006, months before the Wii's release. Why would anyone justify spending 1,000 USD for a 250~400 USD console? Nowadays, TVs are moving toward 3D, but the cheapest one I'm seeing out there on Best Buy is 700 USD. And it's a plasma. Even if PS4 and the XBOX 720 only cost 200 USD, I'm not paying an extra 700+ for a new TV. Both consoles can sit on the sides until the prices of 3D TVs drop to a reasonable level.

Also, are you seriously implying the PS3 Move was not a copy of the Wii, but the Wii is a copy of the Eyetoy? Give me a break. The latter connection is a loose one, at best. On top of that, look at these lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_compatible_with_EyeToy
The first one is a list of games that require the Eyetoy. The second one is a list that allows photo avatars in your game. The third list is a list of games that are "enhanced" by the Eyetoy (i.e. minigames and more graphics of yourself in the games). What happened to the main Sony franchises? They couldn't be bothered to release much more than

As for the "As Expected" crack, you created a topic solely for Nintendo's conference, while there was an E3 topic already open. That, and your initial comments made direct comparisons to the PS3 and PSP. It was pretty easy to see your stance.

Prince Doebler wrote:

As far as the prices are concerned, a PS3 controller costs just more than half of what the Wii U tablet is slated to be. Seriously. The controller costs as much as a new game does. That said, it is very unlikely that the system and controller will be sold separately. We'll likely get one tablet with the system. But we don't have a final price yet, so I won't say anything about this console's price

Yeah, and the PS3 controller is pretty pricey in itself. So something double that price is just fucking retarded. Nintendo always markets it's games so that the family can play together, exactly how can that be a realistic option when the controllers cost twice as much as a new game?

Quote :

Also, in terms of the graphics, I was referring to that from the perspective of the consumers. Wind back the clock to when the Wii was released. It was designed for SDTVs, which was what was more common at the time. HDTVs didn't pick up the steam (and drop in price) until a few years later. The prices of HDTVs were anywhere from 5 to 16 times the price of the console. For the consumers to get the most out of the system, they wouldn't have to shell out a couple grand for it.
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2006/08/hdtv-almanac-hdtv-prices-drop.php
This was when Sharp dropped prices on their HDTV line-up back in 2006, months before the Wii's release. Why would anyone justify spending 1,000 USD for a 250~400 USD console? Nowadays, TVs are moving toward 3D, but the cheapest one I'm seeing out there on Best Buy is 700 USD. And it's a plasma. Even if PS4 and the XBOX 720 only cost 200 USD, I'm not paying an extra 700+ for a new TV. Both consoles can sit on the sides until the prices of 3D TVs drop to a reasonable level.

3D tvs are gimmicky at best, there's a reason they aren't in every household despite having been around for a while, and it isn't just the price. I wouldn't worry about needing one for a next gen console. Of course they'll be able to use them, but the PS3 is able to use them now anyway, and I assume the 360 and wiiu can too. The point is even without a 3d tv, you won't really be missing anything unless you want 3d, and if that's the case you should buy one anyway, surely.

Quote :

Also, are you seriously implying the PS3 Move was not a copy of the Wii, but the Wii is a copy of the Eyetoy? Give me a break. The latter connection is a loose one, at best. On top of that, look at these lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_compatible_with_EyeToy
The first one is a list of games that require the Eyetoy. The second one is a list that allows photo avatars in your game. The third list is a list of games that are "enhanced" by the Eyetoy (i.e. minigames and more graphics of yourself in the games). What happened to the main Sony franchises? They couldn't be bothered to release much more than

Well it's really no use bringing up compatible games like that, because the wii can have as many games as you like, you'll still have 'waggle the stick as the main gameplay feature regardless of the game, just like the eyetoy had 'wave at the screen'. So naturally Sony, seeing that this wasn't going anywhere, focussed on the PS3 and then revisited it later with the Move and made such an improvement that it just completely outclasses the wii, and it isn't even the main selling point of the console. So please don't continue to embarrass yourself by saying the sony ripped off the wii.

Quote :

As for the "As Expected" crack, you created a topic solely for Nintendo's conference, while there was an E3 topic already open. That, and your initial comments made direct comparisons to the PS3 and PSP. It was pretty easy to see your stance.

It not only was a bit presumptuous but also completely unnecessary. As you might have seen in the E3 topic, he attacked sony and microsoft as well for messing up. Notice how he's never said that your arguments are typical of a nintendo supporter? Instead he's constantly asked you to produce facts. The reason being he doesn't need that sort of thing to fall back on because he does in fact have an argument.

Raz wrote:

Yeah, and the PS3 controller is pretty pricey in itself. So something double that price is just fucking retarded. Nintendo always markets it's games so that the family can play together, exactly how can that be a realistic option when the controllers cost twice as much as a new game?

Remember, the conference also stated that only one tablet would be needed. The others would be using other control methods. I'm guessing that those are going to be variations of the Wii Remote.

Raz wrote:

3D tvs are gimmicky at best, there's a reason they aren't in every household despite having been around for a while, and it isn't just the price. I wouldn't worry about needing one for a next gen console. Of course they'll be able to use them, but the PS3 is able to use them now anyway, and I assume the 360 and wiiu can too. The point is even without a 3d tv, you won't really be missing anything unless you want 3d, and if that's the case you should buy one anyway, surely.

While the games on the market do have 3D compatibility, almost nothing in this generation is geared towards it. My concern is with the future generation. If the consoles start pushing 3D as the main attraction of their hardware, we've got a problem. I know there's no mention of that from any of the developers. I was comparing 3D TV prices to consoles to relate the prices of HDTVs in 2006 versus console prices.

Raz wrote:

It not only was a bit presumptuous but also completely unnecessary. As you might have seen in the E3 topic, he attacked sony and microsoft as well for messing up. Notice how he's never said that your arguments are typical of a nintendo supporter? Instead he's constantly asked you to produce facts. The reason being he doesn't need that sort of thing to fall back on because he does in fact have an argument.

Her criticisms of Nintendo are no worse than Sony or Microsoft's. Worse, as in, they more or less make the companies look about the same. If she's going to create a topic for a company, then she should at least make an effort to make greater criticisms towards that company.

Superbuu3 wrote:

justinlynch3 wrote:

Did they say how much a Wii U cost Superbuu?

The graphics can take a back seat if the games are fun. Although not my personal preference, I think the Wii showed this. But if the system is at or higher then XBOX/Playstation price range, and has sub-par results. It could go badly for them.

Thats exactly my point. Why charge more when you are not giving current technology.

Strider Zero wrote:

There's no price range on Wii U yet. I'm guessing around $500.

Most likely they've already said the controllers themselves would cost around the $100 mark in E3 2011, i dont think they stated one as yet.

$500 is a bit much if it's not top of the line. This was Sony's issue with Playstation 3 at launch, they priced it to high and lost out big time. After price drops the consoles started selling better. With rumors it wasn't on par with 360/PS3, I expected a launch of around $300 -$350. Even $400 maybe if they showed off something truly special. But I dunno about $500, sounds a little steep if you as me.

Then again I missed E3 and are going by you guess comments.

That's not the final price, though. Also, bearing in mind the initial flop of the 3DS and Sony's PS3 launch failures, I sincerely doubt they'd launch the console at $500. I'm expecting somewhere in the $300~$400.

Well one thing we have to credit Wii U for is that it has more launch titles announced than PS3 did. Granted some/many of them are multi-platform, but it's not a bad thing to have the options on launch.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Her criticisms of Nintendo are no worse than Sony or Microsoft's. Worse, as in, they more or less make the companies look about the same. If she's going to create a topic for a company, then she should at least make an effort to make greater criticisms towards that company.

The point i'm making here is Nintendo are making a new console. Sony and MS literally had nothing to talk about, which is why they were embarassing. The fact Nintendo had something to show and failed to impress was what the problem was. In theory they could do a lot with their tech yet they didn't show any particular uses for any add ons and it seemed gimmicky.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Her criticisms of Nintendo are no worse than Sony or Microsoft's. Worse, as in, they more or less make the companies look about the same. If she's going to create a topic for a company, then she should at least make an effort to make greater criticisms towards that company.

I'm not sure the point you are making but i justified my comments about Nintendo as there was a lot. Also in regards to the Wii controller i was talkinga bout those vids which showed Sony were already exploring motion tracking. I should also point out the wii does not motion track AT ALL its a pointing device with basic movement sensors. Its nowhere near the quality of the move and i'm reviewing sorcery as we speak.

justinlynch3 wrote:

$500 is a bit much if it's not top of the line. This was Sony's issue with Playstation 3 at launch, they priced it to high and lost out big time. After price drops the consoles started selling better. With rumors it wasn't on par with 360/PS3, I expected a launch of around $300 -$350. Even $400 maybe if they showed off something truly special. But I dunno about $500, sounds a little steep if you as me.

Then again I missed E3 and are going by you guess comments.

PS3 offered a lot more new tech though (blu ray players were stupidly expensive at the time, everything was lithium ion and PSN was free). Wii U the controller is the tech, the console itself isn't anything special game wise. I also think a price around $350 would be more appropriate we'll find out soon what they'll charge i guess.

Strider Zero wrote:

Well one thing we have to credit Wii U for is that it has more launch titles announced than PS3 did. Granted some/many of them are multi-platform, but it's not a bad thing to have the options on launch.

Thats questionable, all the games mainly coming out are just games that are already out. If pikmin 3 and a mario game is available at launch that will be alright. But if i have to pay $60 for batman AC they are taking the piss.

Both are available at launch.

http://www.sidequesting.com/2012/06/e312-the-complete-list-of-wii-u-launch-titles/

Doesn't look like there are too many ports from existing or long since existing games here.

Didn't care much for the confrence but looking forward to Pikmin 3 whenever it does get released...

Are you fucking serious right now? Nintendo was incredible this year. The Wii U is the best console ever. Everything announced at E3 was amazing.

Spoiler:

Relevant: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-know-nintendo-has-lost-its-mind/

Nintendo did worse, I mean look at the conference with Wii Music. When you top that, you really fucked up.