Try our new beta!Click here

dedicatedtogamers (User)

  • Contributor
  • 10 bubbles
  • 14 in CRank
  • Score: 114200
"Your disagrees simply feed my Bubble Count"

It's Nintendo's fault we think the WiiU is underpowered

dedicatedtogamers | 1015d ago
User blog

I think we hurt Nintendo's feelings, guys. I remember when the DS and Wii were both enjoying the limelight. Sales were high. Review scores were high. Popularity was high. The number of games being released each month was high. And yet, I do recall several industry big-wigs (as well as gamers on our forums) saying - to the effect - "Nintendo is not a technology company".

That must've stuck with them, because during the Wii's waning years, Nintendo talked non-stop about their technological innovation. Gone was the focus on "blue ocean" and expanding the gaming market. Gone was the desire to bring all varieties of people into the videogame hobby. Pretty quickly, Nintendo began to think they were Christ walking on technological water, and their next two designs - the 3DS and the WiiU - show it. Recently, Iwata of Nintendo begged us (for the dozenth time) to "please understand!" He thought that we "misunderstood" the WiiU's power and if only we would be more patient, we'd see its true power. (article can be found here: )

Now, let's get something out of the way, first: the WiiU has some oomph to it. It isn't a "weak" system in any sense of the word. Granted, it's not going to be as powerful as the PS4 or (we can assume) the NextBox, but it isn't a weakling, either. Not only does the architecture make it very simple to port and program games for, but it boasts more powerful hardware compared to the 360 and PS3. The problem is, you'd never notice based on the games out on the WiiU.

There's a universal truth in the gaming industry: 1st-party games are meant to show off your system. After all, you can't expect 3rd parties to go above and beyond (especially nowadays), so it is up to the 1st-party crew to really put the hardware through the paces. It helps pave the way for future games and show 3rd parties what the system can do. When it comes to the WiiU, Nintendo ignored this universal truth. We all saw what happened with the DS and the Wii. We all know that 3rd parties typically ignore Nintendo's choice "gimmick" in favor of a more standardized gaming experience. We didn't NEED to see how to use the tablet, Nintendo. We've all used a tablet before.

That was Nintendo's huge mistake. Nintendo did a horrible job with the WiiU's first-part lineup. Nintendo Land certainly does a nice job showing off the WiiU's various gimmicks, but it does nothing to convince customers nor developers that the WiiU is all that different. In the eyes of the public, WiiU is still just a mini-game machine like the Wii. Granted, the mini-games are played differently this time, but they are mini-games, nonetheless. Iwata, here's the deal: Nintendo (and occasionally Ubisoft) is the only company that can get away with mini-game collections. Plenty of other companies have tried making them on the Wii and DS, and they rarely sell well. It is foolish to think you're "leading the way" with Nintendo Land when the graphics are simplistic and the gameplay is incredibly rudimentary. You're upset that 3rd parties are abandoning the WiiU so early? Perhaps you should've pushed your OWN console instead of just half-a**ing a mini-game collection and then expecting other developers to pick up the slack.

The bigger issue here, however, isn't control schemes. It's raw power. The WiiU has raw power. Don't let fanboyism or media impressions cloud the truth: the WiiU has some get-up-and-go beneath its shiny exterior. Again, I'm not claiming it will be able to compete - pixel for pixel - against the PS4, but if you're pleased by the graphics of games like Last of Us or Ni No Kuni or Gears of War: Judgment (just to name a few recent games), then the WiiU can also process graphics on the same level.

Yet, how can we know this to be true if the games never show it? Right now, the WiiU is selling based on one game: New Super Mario Bros U. Unfortunately, there isn't anything all that "new" about it. Yeah, it uses the gimmicky tablet pad. Yeah, the graphics are HD, but barely. I remember back to the days of Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64. All of these games pushed the hardware of their day. They looked GOOD, not just in terms of art style, but also in terms of raw graphical fidelity. Yet, somewhere down the line, Nintendo forgot that they were the house that Mario built. Was the high praise for Galaxy 1 and 2's graphics not enough of a clue that Nintendo know...try harder in the graphical department when it comes to Mario? After all, if you want NSMB-U to sell your system, it would be nice if you would show off the system's graphical power.

That right there is why we think the WiiU is underpowered, Iwata. You don't put in the effort. You don't SHOW us the power, and certainly if you aren't leading by example, 3rd party devs aren't going to pick up the slack and do it for you. New Super Mario Bros U was the perfect opportunity to - right off the bat - PROVE that Nintendo knew how to compete in the HD market. Instead, we got a barely-better-than-its-predece ssor title that was good (great, even) but didn't do anything to convince us the WiiU is a must-have piece of technology.

I don't want to "please understand", Iwata, and how F***ING DARE you imply that the WiiU's apparent lack of power is because we consumers just don't get it. No. You're lazy. You. Are. Lazy. You've gotten arrogant with the DS and Wii and now Nintendo fans are reaping the results. You're pushing out B-grade software that doesn't show us the true capabilities of your system. Sony got the memo. They went from this...

all the way to this...

Microsoft went from Halo 3...

to Halo 4, and look at the difference.

And yet, Nintendo went from this... this? I'm rubbing my eyes. Other than a prettier art style, what's the difference?

Sony pushed its system to the limits. Microsoft pushed its system to the limits. Nintendo, however, must've missed the memo. If you're mad people think the WiiU is underpowered, you only have yourselves to blame, Nintendo.

PopRocks359  +   1015d ago
Honestly, it seems to me Nintendo just put the Wii U onto shelves and just wanted to wait and see how the market would react. Their approach to the console's launch and marketing has been pretty unorthodox, to say the least.

I wouldn't say Nintendo's pumping out B-grade software (NSMBU is pretty good in my opinion), but as far as console graphics are concerned, I agree. They really have not shown much to prove it's stronger than the 360/PS3. I believe it is (more like a stopgap as oppose to on par with the PS4/NextBox), but there is no software imagery or media to truly prove it. My assumption is the new Zelda or Smash will prove me wrong, or perhaps X when closer to completion, but who knows. That's just me being optimistic.
SilentNegotiator  +   1014d ago
"What misconception?" I say. It still does 720p 98% of the time, we already know that it's only ~1.5x more powerful than ps3/360, and it's 2013.

It won't be able to keep up with the advances that the biggest of devs/pubs have been yelling for since 3 freaking years ago.

It's just another reason why Wii U will never resonate with the hardcore audience (and since they stepped much closer to traditional with their latest controller, thus several steps away from the casual audience that bought the Wii for the promises of exercise, that's a VERY significant issue).
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   1014d ago
I question why the hardcore audience are playing anything but PC.
slapedurmomsace  +   1012d ago
Because the power of a console/PC only becomes worth mentioning as a plus when it's in your favor.
For what Nintendo wants to do, the Wii U is plenty. For what Sony and Microsoft want to do, it is not, therefore it is wrong. As for the PC, it's only good for internet browsing, and transferring our music and music collections to our phones and tablets. Didn't you know that?
Qrphe  +   1014d ago
Nintendo was expecting the Wii U to be another revolutionary device just like the Wii was. No one had really done motion controls by the time the Wii had arrived while gaming touch devices are something that had been around for a while.
I don't really care whether the Wii U fails or succeeds or whatever reason many of you may find to troll or circlejerk each other. As long as I get Nintendo games (which we will) I know I'll be fine with my Wii U.
#3 (Edited 1014d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
Nicaragua  +   1014d ago
Good blog and i totally agree.
Jek_Porkins  +   1014d ago
Nice blog, I am glad it isn't a hate filled blog about Nintendo, we've seen enough of those lately. Anyway I basically said the same thing, most of Nintendo's franchises looked good in standard definition, and in high def they look clearer, but it doesn't show off what they can do.

They needed to release with their Uncharted or Halo, and I don't mean copies of those games, but rather games that look amazing and show off what the console can do. A Metroid Prime game could have very well been Nintendo's Halo as far as online play goes though, I could imagine a very competitive multiplayer mode. I wish they would have came out with a new IP that is a little more grown up looking, with more adult and real looking characters.

Hopefully when we see a new Zelda and Bayonetta 2, we'll get what we've been waiting for.
Dgamer  +   1014d ago
Just a Thinking point... People always use PS3 and 360 to compare to the Wii U to show how under powered the Wii U is. What they dont mention is that:

What they are showing is 1st gen Wii U games vs PS360 maxed out games.

The PS4 and New XBox will not have great leaps of graphical power. Most of the New-Gen power is going to go towards functions other than gaming.

Mario is not and has never been the Benchmark of graphics. It is however a Popular IP that has become customary in bringin new aspects to gameplay, which will continue with the gamepad.

And last but not least, Nothing Sony and MS have shown so far trumps the Gamepad. Nintendo wins every Gen in one key area of Gaming, the Controller. even when they make questionalbe controllers (N64, Gamecube, Wii) you see thier elements chanage the gaming world (Analog Sticks, Cross Directional Sticks, Motion).

SilentNegotiator  +   1014d ago
"And last but not least, Nothing Sony and MS have shown so far trumps the Gamepad. Nintendo wins every Gen in one key area of Gaming, the Controller. even when they make questionalbe controllers (N64, Gamecube, Wii) you see thier elements chanage the gaming world (Analog Sticks, Cross Directional Sticks, Motion)"

The N64 having a control stick (with annoying octagonal enclosure making the one advantage that the singular control stick had (more than 8-directions) a difficulty)....did NOT "change the gaming world". The Control stick made only minor functional differences for 3D games until Sony revolutionized them as two control sticks.

And you listed the Gamecube controller as a "questionable controller" that somehow changed the gaming world. Can't figure that one out. Because "A" was big? Did anyone have trouble controlling their thumb to 4 points? I sure didn't. Plus it had less buttons and kept the idiotic octagon enclosures for the sticks. The Xbox 1 and ps2 controllers made more dents in the gaming world than the Gamecube controller.

The Wiimote, well, that's a given. When it was relevant, it made a big impact. But then, Ps4 and Wii U don't use Wiimotes (primarily), do they? No, they moved on to the next gimmick; touch. It made an impact on the gaming world, but not a lasting one. Wii U supports wiimotes, but how many games require it? Ps4 will support Move, but how many games have they shown us that us that require it?

The whole "Nintendo invented gaming and everyone followed" crap really needs to stop. Sony and Microsoft have made just as many changes to the gaming world as Nintendo (in the times that they were all in the industry, at least).
dedicatedtogamers  +   1014d ago
"The whole "Nintendo invented gaming and everyone followed" crap really needs to stop."

Historically speaking, I've always been of the opinion that Nintendo invented quality and everyone followed. This comes mainly from the NES and SNES era, where the quality of a game was a total crapshoot, yet Nintendo not only brought their own licensing requirements to the table, they also brought their unquestionable quality of production and polish to their games, a reputation that (mostly) remains to this day.

And yet, they always did it with "inferior" hardware. The 3DS's glasses-free screen is the first time in Nintendo's history (that I can think of) where they were truly ahead of the curve in terms of actual hardware capabilities.
dedicatedtogamers  +   1014d ago
"What they are showing is 1st gen Wii U games vs PS360 maxed out games."

Agreed, which is why I mentioned that the WiiU is indeed a powerful machine if we can consider games like Last of Us and GoW: Judgement to be good-looking. Games like Wonderful 101, Pikmin 3, Xenoblade X, and the new Zelda (if that's really gameplay we saw) all look very impressive graphically, no doubt about it, but these games aren't out yet, and until we see them, we can only judge the system based on the games that are out.

"Mario is not and has never been the Benchmark of graphics"

That is patently false. On the NES, each Mario game had a brand-new game engine made for it. The SNES's Mario World was another leap forward in graphics. Super Mario 64 was obviously a huge leap forward, and it remained the standard for 3D worlds for years to come.

The first NSMB came out in 2006. Mario Galaxy was 2007. NSMB Wii came out in 2009. Galaxy 2 was 2010 It has been 3+ years since those games and yet the Mario games have not improved one bit in graphics or art style. In fact, except for the higher resolution, NSMB-U looks inferior to the two Galaxy games. The first NSMB is one of the best-looking DS games. The two Galaxy games are two of the best-looking Wii games. NSMB Wii was the first signs of Nintendo phoning it in with Mario, because neither Mario 3D Land, NSMB2: Golden Orgasm, nor NSMB-U have pushed the limits of their hardware like previous Mario games have.

And I'm sick of the excuse "It's a 2D Mario. People will buy it anyway". Well, no. NSMB2 on 3DS has sold okay, and NSMB-U isn't selling that great, and that's probably because Nintendo phoned in both of those games while working on pet projects like Nintendo Land and Pikmin 3.

"Nothing Sony and MS have shown so far trumps the Gamepad."

Yeah, and nothing Sony or MS have shown trumps the 3DS's 3D screen, or the Super Nintendo's Super Game Boy, or the DS's microphone...the thing is, it remains to be seen if they really NEED to "trump" the tablet controller.
#6.2 (Edited 1014d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
admiralvic  +   1014d ago
Just a better Thinking point... this "questionable" controller choice isn't going to change the gaming world and really is pretty lazy. On one hand it's basically a port of what they already accomplished on the DS. On the other hand, it takes a lot of the stuff we were seeing on the PSP and simply went a step further with it. In either case, Developers have admitted they don't know what to do with it, so how exactly is it changing the gaming world?
Qrphe  +   1013d ago
Although the N64 controller wasn't the first to use an analog stick, it was the first to use it in the 3D gaming era (by a few months) so I'll give you that one. There is no argument that the NES and SNES controllers were revolutionary since everything adopted their layout.
The Gamecube controller was comfortable and the favorite of many but it didn't revolutionize anything (it was a fixed N64 controller with a Dualshock layout).
The Wiimote didn't revolutionize the industry neither since we're not stuck on the 8th gen of gaming with wiimote-like devices as the primary user-end input.
Phi39582  +   1013d ago
The game pad is pretty damn family, as we've done with the Vita and 3DS, have bought the majority of titles to support what we feel are excellent platforms that need support. I primarily play PC, however, my son plays 360/PS3......I still feel the need to support the Tech, because as someone stated above, the Gamepad is better than anything to date.....I love it's uses and potential.
Dgamer  +   997d ago
The Gamecube controller is the blueprint for the 360 controller and Xbox, also the original PS controller did not have any analog sticks until after the 64, who proved it superior to the D-pad, also introduced bt Nintendo.

In the NES, SNES days, Nintendo was not top dog graphically. That honor went to Sega, then Turbo Graphix 16, then PS. The 64 graphics where never considered gorgeous, however the 360, 3D gaming and analog stick help it trump its way to historic Franchises.

Now days the way to advance a Next-Gen gaming experience is thru AI and Physics. Sony added power and Microsoft have added online to gaming, other than that, they have basically revamped Nintendo ideas and improved on blue prints laid out by the Big N.

In conclusion, under-powered, out-dated, gimick, what ever people want to accuse Nintendo of, they always manage and others copy thier models.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login