Shawn Long of GAMINGtruth.com tries to figure out why people care about the "specs" of the latest Nintendo system so much.
The Nintendo Switch is potentially nearing its lifespan, and several Wii U games haven't found their way over as ports yet.
I think it's better to leave games like AC: Amiibo Festival and Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash forgotten on the Wii U. Best case, they are mediocre games; worse case, they are very bad. It was a dark time for the Wii U, and the first only exists to sell Amiibo cards, whereas the second was put together in a couple of months with a shoestring budget, and it shows.
The rest of the list does have some really cool games, though. I would love to see a remake of Star Fox Zero with decent controls, and Xenoblade X doesn't require that much modification to work.
Same as Paper Mario color splash. One of the best wiiu games and getting even better with dual screen. Same reason why i prefer Splatoon 1
This article leaves out Nintendo's most controversial game to date devils Third.
I personally found the cover system really fun in that one compared to at the time most fps games completely lacking one.
Kirby is always ignored or forgotten by people, so good to see it mentioned here.
Play Kirby Canvas Curse on DS, and then play Rainbow Curse on Wii U, they're really fun and unique 'platformers' without any actual jumping.
Hanzala from eXputer: "The cruel hammer of Nintendo has fallen. Farewell, 3DS and Wii U, you surely brightened my life and many others; you won't be forgotten."
A new list goes over eight of the the most useless amiibo, ranging from the Shadow Mewtwo card to the Qbby figure.
Nice picture choice there, Shawny.
ppl who were lied too?
Well if my senses are correct we should be seeing them in this comment section any minute now.
Damn, haters gonna hate...
Well if memory serves correct the bit was really referring to what amounted as the choke point within systems at the time. I believe it was the bus at the time.
If you remember back to say the Commodore 64, it accomplished quite a lot, but the games took a couple of minutes to load up.
The thing consoles had over computers in the day was that they could immediately start games up. The NES was amazing compared to any PC of the day in terms of being able to display the game menu a second after you hit the power button.
So if my memory serves correct it was basically how much you could put immediately put to use at a given time which had more to do with the bit width then the processor speed.
Combined with 16 bit, Sega had it's 'blast processing' and SNES utilized Scaler 7. Each was a different trick to squeeze more functionality out of each.
But as time went on, it was abused as a marketing tool. The Jaguar did really sucked. My friend had it and while the controller is epic in terms of the amount of useless buttons it had on it, the games really did suck.
People want to buy something with a value to it. They want that value to mean something. But what people don't realize is that the measurement always changes, and someone is always trying to game the system to garner more sales and many times try to fool people that past is prologue.
But there is plenty of times the better piece of tech does not win because something else had the better games. But when people use their money, they want to buy the best. They also don't want to spend the time to actually figure out all that goes into it, so they readily accept some shorthand derived made up subjective metric, like a 'bit'.
Am I getting Top Sirloin or Chuck?
Then the fanboys always proclaim something that is better or worse is magnified by 100. So they are looking for some metric that for them they can then magnify in isolation as to why something sucks or doesn't.
They don't want to look at the games, or theorize what the games later on in the console's life would look like.(especially not wait...especially not on the internet)
So people talk about ram and mhz of gpu and cpu. But there's really alot more to it.
What has been obvious absent of all the other factors, has been that the Wii U is capable of the same type of FPS and other hardcore games people have grown used to loving the past ten years on varying platforms. Mass Effect is possible. Assassin's creed is possible. Black Ops 2 is possible. So the type of games you'll get on the Wii U is going to be similar to the others.
The sad thing is so many people overlook the obvious things the Wii U is showing us, and try to bash on information that is wholly incomplete. The article by slapshot 82 a little earlier was a good showcase of why so much isn't shown just by the raw MHZ numbers of cpu and gpu, or even the ram.
If a 100 mph car needs to go 1 mile per stop, it can make 100 stops. If a 100 mph car needs to go only 1/10th a mile per stop, it can make 1000 stops.
So if one wants to assess what the games are going to be, you need to look at what the Wii U is showing early on that it is capable at the basest of level and what type of games those are, as well as know what the actual machinations that make up the entire power argument. Then realize that both Nintendo and 3rd parties are going to make some really great games on the system.