Take a look at my other reply to this dude below. If anything, 2013 and 2014 (year one and year two for Wii U, respectively) were superb in terms of Nintendo support). 2015 was pretty good as well, although not as good as the first 2. It's only this year that will probably be absolute sh*t, because Nintendo is focusing on NX now.
Here are Nintendo's published games on the Wii U by year.
2012 (remember, Wii U launched in November):
- New Super Mario Bros U
- Nintendo Land
- Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge
- Super Mario 3D World
- Zelda Wind Waker HD
- Pikmin 3
- LEGO City Undercover
- The Wonderful 101
- New Super Luigi U
- NES Remix
- Wii Party U
"Always" is a long, long time, buddy.
4 years and 4 months, actually.
Wow. Thanks, man! Citizens of Earth, nice one. <3
"So too will you find out that Nintendo will deliver us a woefully under-powered console (as has been their modus operandi for as long as they have existed)."
NES = powerful.
SNES = powerful.
N64 = powerful.
Gamecube = powerful.
Wii = weak.
Wii U = weak.
So, to say they've always made underpowered consoles is a lie.
As for the NX, I don't expect it to be much more powerful...
Hell, I actually like Jim Sterling's articles and reviews a lot, and I often agree with him... but not on this one. He's way off the mark here.
It's clear by his blatant hate against Star Fox Zero and Kid Icarus Uprising (he gave it 5/10 back when he was in Destructoid) that Jim Sterling just can't wrap his head around unconventional control schemes in action games. I disliked Kid Icarus' controls because they were uncomfortable as all hell, but the game...
So, according to your own logic, Nintendo wouldn't delay a console launch because of competition, seeing how they have already launched hardware previously with competition. But then you say, in one of your own posts, that Nintendo would prefer to not announce the NX at the same time as Sony could show the Neo at E3 this year, and they'd rather wait. Despite the fact that Nintendo has, in the past, revealed hardware at the same time as their competitors.
Oh, please. We're talking less than a 4 month difference here. To me, this sounds like an intentional delay from Nintendo's original release plans simply because they don't want to compete against PSVR and (maybe) Sony's rumoured PS4 Neo. If those devices weren't a thing, Nintendo most likely would've gone for a November release, as usual... and they wouldn't waited as long as November 2017.
* Gives back plate of crow * No thanks, I'm fine.
@pcz: spoken like someone who hasn't played the game.
I really don't bother too much with the average reviews the game's been getting, because I can understand where most reviewers are coming from with their complaints. The controls are highly divisive, and I can see perfectly well why a lot of people could dislike, or even straight, hate them.
But that wasn't my point.
4/10, as I said before, is a score that should be r...
4 out of 10 is ridiculous. That's something reserved for broken games, and Star Fox Zero isn't broken at all. It just has a different control scheme, which is kind of hard to get used to, but works perfectly fine.
They didn't gave it 0/10. They didn't score it at all.
It's not a review.
I would put Command in dead last (I hated it, couldn't finish it). The rest of the list I can agree with, although I would take SF64 3D out entirely.
For the record, I played and loved all star fox games except Command, which I couldn't finish because I hated its controls.
Star Fox Zero is a Star Fox game through and through. It's a lot of fun. I don't love the control scheme, but it works perfectly; it's just different and takes a bit to get used to. The problem actually isn't in the motion controls, which are super fast and accurate. It's getting used to play with two screens that has a bit of a...
The graphics are actually kind of charming in their simplistic glory once you see and play it in your own TV. The game is very hectic, with lots of stuff going on at all times, so the simple graphics make it very readable and unconfusing to look at.
This won't win any "best graphics" award ever, but having played it, I can see why they went this route.
Graphically, the game's not ugly at all. The art direction works, and works pretty well.
You're comparing apples with hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) here. Lol.
Did you forget to add the price of oculus to that equation? Oh.
Social features probably not, but hardware comfort? That definitely will play a BIG part in the success of a VR headset, and so far, it seems PSVR has got the competition handily beaten in that area. If you're intending to strap a headset on your head for hours on end, it better be comfortable as all hell.
But... dude... the author was pretty clear that it WASN'T a review. He said that what he played so far was insufferable, so he commented on that, making it clear that it wasn't a review.
What exactly is the issue here? I think it's fair.
They should. I paid $10 for it, and it was a blast. I honestly would have paid even $30 or $40 for it and still felt satisfied with the experience. People give The Order way too much sh^t.
At 8 bucks, it's a no brainer.