Digital Trends: Even though the Wii U is scheduled for release in roughly five weeks, we still know next to nothing about what Nintendo has put under the hood. Sure, we can make a few educated guesses based on what we’ve seen (and we can flood the world with plenty of uneducated guess as well), but we haven’t heard much in terms of technical specs. And by much, I mean anything at all. For all we know, the console could be so high-tech that it becomes self-aware. Then, not content to simply play Mario games with you, it will hack into NORAD and then ask if you want to play a game. When it then displays “Global Thermonuclear War,” feel free to sweat.
0°
30°
30°
30°
Ad 
30°
over the generations to the point where we feel entitled to such information.
Many dont realize this but the reveal of specifics was meant to be a one up to the competition. Not the consumer.
Yeah I liked the days of specs on the genesis and snes, etc. But when it really comes down to the end of the day. All those numbers mean squat if the onscreen results do not meet expectations of the person playing.
My expectation is simple. i want a game that will entertain me for hours at a time. The graphics are just icing on the top but not an absolute requirement.
Seems the tech savvy people out there just wont settle for NOT knowing what they are getting. That is sad. The key to any platform is entertainment. If you feel you are getting that then it shouldnt matter where or how it gets there.
Console gamers... dont care about graphics.
The few that do can easily be fooled by comments like:
"so and so game will use 100% of hardware" except on release of sequel they will say oh we really mean it this time. Those sort of statments from pr reps are enough to fool most of the console gamers.
Nintendo knows most console gamers have no clue about hardware hence it doesnt really matter what they sell to the kids.
We all care about graphics, don't kid yourself.
Also, I apologize in advance to any real PC gamers who don't act like ****.
Yes it is about fun, but graphics help enhance that. Let's get one thing straight, if a Nintendo fanboy Cries "It's not about graphics or hardware" their argument just all legitimacy. Why? Maybe because they buy new hardware to play sequels? If Mario was fun in the 1980s why buy a Wii U or any other Nintendo system if you are already having "fun" (NOTICE: Sarcasm alert)? I'm just using your logic.
That was an old slogan used by sega stating it had more power than Nintendo. Nintendo still outsold sega because of one thing: fun factor. I believe the wii u will bring the fun factor along with the innovation, it doesn't need to be the most powerful. They have miyamoto instead, something no ultra super high end super computer can replicate.
Rated M for mature
But who's to say the Wii U isn't lacking? For Nintendo, this is a big step up from the Wii.
The only question is... Is the Wii U ready for PS4/XBOX 720? Two consoles notorious for pumping out great hardware.
Because that wasn't the case with Sony at all, until the PS3. The PS1 was weaker than the N64 (although it had some clear advantages thanks to it using CDs instead of cartridges), and the PS2 was weaker than the GameCube.
Just something I found worth noting. I expect the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft to be more powerful than the Wii U, but to what extent? I don't know. Many people seem to take for granted that they will blow the Wii U out of the water, but here's the thing... we don't really have any way to know until they're actually announced.
you do realize the playstation launched 2years before n64 the playstation was powerful for its time even then ps1 had superior sound bigger games and longer games more exclusives its competition was originally the saturn same with ps2 its comp was the dreamcast we know how that went the rest is history
What's your point? Nothing about what you said actually contradicts what I said. I didn't state that Sony's past consoles were the weakest of their respective gens, I stated they weren't the top dog when it comes to hardware until the PS3. Big difference.
And if you look at my post, I stated that the PS1 did in fact have some clear advantages over the N64 thanks to the CD format. By that I meant, yes, bigger games and superior sound and the other things you mentioned.
Also, the Wii U is going to be released a good year or two before Sony's and Microsoft's next consoles. So, it's not that different from the PS1 - N64 scenario in that regard, is it?
If thats all that matters to you, then I guess theres no reason for you to buy a Wii U. You can get a PS2 or a DS at a fraction of the cost of a Wii U and play hundreds of fun and enjoyable games.
"You can't really get Pikmin 3 or Rayman Legends on a PS2."
MNGamer-N said nothing about Pikmin 3 and Rayman Legends...all he wanted was fun/enjoyable games. Fun/enjoyable games aren't limited to the Wii U or Nintendo consoles.
For someone named LOGICWINS, you rarely seem to have use any logic.
Where in his comment did he mention anything about "NEW games"? Just curious.
"Console gamers pretending to be graphics whores makes me laugh."
Who said anything about being a "graphics whore"?
The core marlet talk about power all the time but the wold is a differemt place now as games are played by everyone now not just the core. Just like smart phones are used by everyone not just office workers.
I have never gone off specs for anything i have bought i buy what i want and that fits my life the best.
I cant wait tl get my hands on the wiiu as it has some interesting games coming out for it and imo looks more like a console i will like to use day in day out where the wii for me lost its way for what i wamted out of my systems.
..And Nintendo's are one cheap ass company that always relies on old technologies.
FYI:
Anybody that has had any experience with emulators knows that we won't see one for the WiiU right away. Those things take years.
If you wanted to get the full Wii experience on the Dolphin Emulator then you had to "come out of pocket". It was not free, thanks to the Wii remote.
Emulating the WiiU won't be quick, easy, or free.
SPECS? MEH!! A 3D Mario title for the Wii U would be a huge seller,
Nintendo's machine is already basically confirmed to be a barely more powerful 360/ps3. Any idiot that thinks it will be some next gen powerhouse, has not got a grip on reality. Nintendo sell all hardware at a ptofit, the wii-u will be no exception. The most worrying part is that the controller is a tablet type thing, which means a big chunk of production cost.
So, I mean really, what are nintendo seriously going to be able to put under the hood of wii-u in order to be able to make wii-u both affordable to consumers, & profitable themselves
gameplay > visuals
aesthetics > fidelity
Nintendo is really great at the first two :) can't wait :D
BTW once you get use to the button placement you wont be taking your eyes off the screen so much.
Lastly, you prefer controllers not because they offer you more option but because you are use to them. You are no different then someone who preferred radio to TV or REcords to cassttes.
The only thing you said I agree with is that it is all opinion and not based on any facts.
If I had to guess I'd say its 1.5x as powerful as xbox360. Not including the fact it has more than twice the disc space.
soooo blu-ray.
i highly doubt nintendo looked to the 360 for inspiration.
tell that to their designers.
the way the console is fundamentally constructed, ram for os, for gaming, etc., flies in the face of anything the 360 did.
I'm not getting a Wii U now, putting a plug into a socket is too much hard work for my little hands.
Thanks a lot Nintendo.
Mass effect gameplay, GTA IV world, etc. wouldn't have been possible on weaker hardware.. unless the visuals used are just stick people. (exagg.)
More powerful hardware also extends the boundary for easily adding new ideas (as opposed to weaker hardware).
I guess it's more than quite possible that the Wii U isn't gonna get those more "complex" (and much more graphically intensive) games w/c are prevalent on the PS360 ATM.
So I guess.. It's still Nintendo (w/ its decent exclusives) but still generally behind for the more "core" gaming.
Fun is fun regardless of how it looks. I still have a blast playing Ice Climbers and thats 8bit
Imagine a new Dead Rising game and it only has, like, 20 zombies on screen at any time, as compared to the HUNDREDS were used to. People would immediately cry foul. Or a Total War game without the huge armies of AI controlled soldiers duking it out individually. Ot, hell, look at Nintendo's own library. Have you noticed how EMPTY most of their games are? You see the Zelda games, for example, and you don't see bustling cities, or fields full of critters. Hyrule has, what, maybe 15 inhabitants at most at any given time? The fact is that graphics are a storytelling device, and when well-used, allow for much deeper immersion into your game's world.
I respect Nintendo's claim that graphics are not the be-all end-all of gaming, because it is true to an extent, but just as well-done movie special effects add immersion to the movie's story, so do game graphics. And the other gameplay factors that can be improved with stronger hardware(character count, AI, frame rate, etc.) are legitimate reasons for considering stronger hardware.
They survived the N64 and Gamecube days with low hardware sales because they still made money on the hardware and obviously their software.
And a HUGE part of Nintendo's success in those two generations was its handhelds. That has always been the one niche where Nintendo has proven practically untouchable. In terms of hardware, handhelds are dirt-cheap to produce, and developers can make games with both old-school methods and sensitivities, so software's plentiful. That's part of the reason Nintendo can experiment when they release consoles, that they have the handheld market holding them up allowing them to take risks.