Wii U

[Tatsujin]

They were rumors at first, then they became reports - and finally they were confirmed. The console supposedly to be more powerful than the PS3 (and the 360) and it's already been showing to third parties. This is, to me, good news. I love powerful machines. I'm all in to purchase this if Nintendo seriously delivers a hardcore machine. I wonder what data format is it going to hold. Hmm?

Release date seems to be slated for 2012.

Iwata confirms non-DVD or Blu-ray playback for Wii U. [6.15.2011]

[vuzedome]

A complete package, this looks good.

[Bloodfox]

I almost bought a Wii because of Donkey Kong Country Returns. The reasons I didn't were because it didn't support HD, the console lacks a good library of games (at least when compared to PS3/360) and the motion controls, which I'm not a big fan of. According to the rumors, Nintendo is going to try to appeal to a more hardcore crowd with the new console. The addition of HD, a new controler and the retro-compatibility will probably be enough to get me to finally buy a Nintendo console. I never owned one but I used to play Snes a lot with a friend as a kid and I just love Donkey Kong.

[Twiggyay]

Ironic, me and a friend had a 45 min long Conversation as to why Nintendo doesn't do exactly this and flaws and strengths about Nintendos systems, games etc. today.

 I'd buy it but i fear it's going to get really complicated and the games are gray and soulless as most of Xbox and PS3's games are.

[Sosseres]

I probably won't buy it. Bought both a 360 and a ps3, basically only the RPG, adventure games and hero vs mass enemies were fun, everything else was a bit meh. Especially shooters was boring. Not being able to jump...

I basically will skip next generation of consoles, so isn't anything against Nintendo.

[Havoc10K]

I suppose Nintendo tries to catch up to HD with the new one, but if they can actually pull that off, PS3 and 360 will have a good partner to compete with.

[Bloodfox]

I'd buy it but i fear it's going to get really complicated and the games are gray and soulless as most of Xbox and PS3's games are.

While there is a great deal of gray-brown games out there for the 360 and PS3, there is also a a great deal of colorful games on both systems. The Bioshock games are a good example of this along with everything Capcom puts out. Sega also puts out some good and colorful games like Valkyria Chronicles and Bayonetta.
Also Fallout 3 is as gray as a game gets but nobody would call it soulless.
One shouldn't look at thee latest generic shooter and just ignore the existence of games like Uncharted, God of War, Mass Effect and Ratchet and Clank.

[Khundes]

Consoles get compared to PCs too much. Nintendo aims for a new market by making their consoles gimmicky. Unfortunately then they only feature heaps of shovelware.

Touchscreen controller, with Wii compatibility, and HD graphics?

Tape a Wiimote and a DS and hook whatever comews out on an XBox 360.

Other thing to consider is that we've reached a technological highpoint for which it is economically suicidal to aim higher then. Case in point no game taxes the PS3/XBox 360 to the limit, because it isn't worth it. The most demanding commercial game to date was still Crysis last I checked, and that was made a few years back.

Don't expect consoles with much more computing power then what we currently have, but do expect more annoying gimmicks to keep being tacked on our consoles as time goes by.

For this specific case, I'll get it only if there's a game on it I can't pass up. Just like with every other console I've gotten, ever.

[Havoc10K]

I don't really remember any very serious release on wii, the only things on wii I saw was some cutesy looking kids or family games, I did see only a very few really serious titles, something RPG, but mario pretty much defined Nintendo, no matter what they will do, it will always be compared to the latest mario release, they made a poop, and the stick follows, i'm not saying mario games are bad, but that is what defines what the type of a console wii is, PS games are mainly defined by heavy RPG games, with shooters on occasion, 360 is reverse to that I suppose, although 360 also has a lot of RPG games, PS3 defo has them more, if the new console can actually change the way customers approach Nintendo, by all means, be my guest, but please, don't make the games at the price of 1/3rd of the console price. (Wii and DS are funnily expensive games lol)

[TiYlER]

I have always been rooting for Nintendo. They came way before Microsoft or Sony did, and in my opinion, Nintendo has had the most advancements (Hendheld Games, 2 screen handhelds, motion control, etc.). I would definitely buy the NintenGO.

[Havoc10K]

I'm not against it but there are problems for me:
1- games for Wii and DS are hilariously expensive, why ? I dunno but they don't sell well in Poland, ppl hack consoles and download the games.
2- in Europe, or at least in Poland, very little serious titles, I really want to see something better, and not something that has a cute MMO graphics with >_< emotes, seriously.
3- Nintendo doesn't have the best advancements, lack of HD in their current Wii is an irk, a lot of games don't go there, probably the reason why the game doesn't have that many serious games, and why the games are expensive ?

Nintendo does have ideas, but they don't do the best of their ideas very effectively, Wii would have been a much better product if it wasn't rushed, if they gave it HD support, damn I could even play Mario in HD graphics lol, a lot of people would consider buying a game console then, but only if the price wasn't 1/3rd of the console price lol

[TiYlER]

Wow, i would hate to live in Poland. Here, (in Florida) Nintendo games (for wii, NDS) are the least expensive. They come out usually at 29.99 - 39.99 depending on how beast it is. The price stays around the same, maybe dropping 10 - 20 $ on age. As for Pokemon Platinum though, it is still about 5 $ less then Black and White (which came out at 39.99). For PS3 and Xbox360 the games ALWAYS come out at 59.99+ and eventually lower depending on how popular the game is. Modern Warfare 2 is still about $50 and World At War is now like 29.99- 39.99. (I have no idea why we dont just make prices to the dollar, it always has odd cent amounts)

[TMRNetShark]

I have always been rooting for Nintendo. They came way before Microsoft or Sony did, and in my opinion, Nintendo has had the most advancements (Hendheld Games, 2 screen handhelds, motion control, etc.). I would definitely buy the NintenGO.

As a company? Yeah, they are one of the oldest fucking companies in the country of Japan let alone the world... they were founded back in 1889 (that's not a typo, really... Nintendo was founded in the 19th century). Got Sony beat by 50 some odd years (and Microsoft by almost 90 years).

[TiYlER]

^yeah, I know. They started off as a card game company.

[Havoc10K]

30-40 $ ? that is cheap for Wii here lol, fucking expensive here. You can get a really good deal with Games in my store for nearly all consoles like 360/PS2/PS3/Wii and PC, but all nintendo games are expensive nonetheless, PSP games are cheap though.

[Gangster301]

If it's stronger than the PS3, I doubt it will play anything except Blu-ray. Unless, of course, they decide to go the PSP GO route and make every game downloadable and basically ruin the console before its release.

[vicious796]

My real concern comes with the controller. Touch screen LCD? At least that's what I've heard so far. I've used enough touch screens in my life to know that's not gonna fly well and it's going to be f'ing expensive. I already think 50-60 for a controller is stupid, what'll that be? 75?

[Sosseres]

Other thing to consider is that we've reached a technological highpoint for which it is economically suicidal to aim higher then. Case in point no game taxes the PS3/XBox 360 to the limit, because it isn't worth it. The most demanding commercial game to date was still Crysis last I checked, and that was made a few years back.

A simple thing to push a console to the limit. Multiplayer. The more players, the more it pushes. They have all the textures, the network code, the tools. Everything is there for it, except the computing power. A simple example of this is Bad Company 2. The gameplay could easily support 64 players, yet the limit for PC is 32 and the limit for consoles 24 players. Battlefield 2142 which is a much older game has several servers still running at 64 players. A game such as Joint Operations has had over 200 players on at the same time (was great fun).

What you think is not pushing the envelope is them ramping back in some areas in order to ramp up in others.

edit

When places start saying things like "support for a massive 64 players" you know that the limiter is there all the time.

Not many of the newer FPS games give you that war feeling. They instead give a feeling of a skirmish. :/

[TMRNetShark]

Other thing to consider is that we've reached a technological highpoint for which it is economically suicidal to aim higher then. Case in point no game taxes the PS3/XBox 360 to the limit, because it isn't worth it. The most demanding commercial game to date was still Crysis last I checked, and that was made a few years back.

A simple thing to push a console to the limit. Multiplayer. The more players, the more it pushes. They have all the textures, the network code, the tools. Everything is there for it, except the computing power. A simple example of this is Bad Company 2. The gameplay could easily support 64 players, yet the limit for PC is 32 and the limit for consoles 24 players. Battlefield 2142 which is a much older game has several servers still running at 64 players. A game such as Joint Operations has had over 200 players on at the same time (was great fun).

What you think is not pushing the envelope is them ramping back in some areas in order to ramp up in others.

edit

When places start saying things like "support for a massive 64 players" you know that the limiter is there all the time.

Not many of the newer FPS games give you that war feeling. They instead give a feeling of a skirmish. :/

I agree, multiplayer is something that is GREAT in games, but only if it's worked in properly. I don't see the real need to have 64 players in most games (Battlefield series needs it, but that's an exception) unless the gameplay dynamics play towards it. For example, you all remember the opening scenes to Star Wars Episode III, right? If not, it was just a big space battle that was erupting with dozens of battle cruisers and star ships. A 32 v 32 game with space battleships would be sweet as hell (Reason why games like Eve Online exist where hundreds of people battle), the only pitfall... lag. If one person's connection isn't up to snuff, everyone suffers. As latency times with internet become non-existent (where everyone in the world can get under 30 ms to and from any point in the world) we can then have massive 100 vs 100 matches and war in videogames can become a reality.

[fohfoh]

More powerful than Xbox360 or PS3 means nothing to me. PS2 was the shit. Both aforementioned consoles were also units that spec wise blew the pants off the PS2. I found many games moreso than the PSX and PS2 era lacking in soul and focusing on superficial things like graphics. Don't get me wrong... I like graphics. But overall, it felt like the soul of gaming went into hibernation.

I would hate a touchscreen controller. No feeling IMO. Amalgamate the two, there's a possibility there... but not solely touchscreen.