Wii U Observations...

[Howard_Casto]

I'm not even going to try to do a review because it's waaaaay to early for that and there are always people unappreciative of my effort that ruin it for me, but for those that haven't gotten one yet I thought I would post some things I noticed while trying it out today. 

It's a strange little device to be sure, strange in a good way imho, but still strange. 

The controller is awesome, let's just get that out of the way.  I was really worried about the weight and size of the thing, but it feels suprisingly natural in one's hands and it's actually slightly LIGHTER than a standard 360 controller.  The tilt sensors and such seem very precise but I'm not sure if that is because they are more accurate than those in the wiimote, or if it is because it's a larger controller, so it's easier to tilt with precision.  It has a camera, but it kind of sucks.... it's webcam quality. 

You'll need to install an optional system update to use most of the online features... that takes and hour, which sucks, but isn't terrible.  Console setup is suprisingly quick despite it's complexity... mostly due to the fact that you have a virtual keybaord for typing in stuff now. 

The system menu takes some getting used to.  Now all of your controls are on the tablet, so the stuff viewed on the tv can be pretty and uncluttered.  Otherwise, it's very similar to the Wii system menu. The thing takes a while to load though..... a second or two too long imho.  Miiverse (nintendo twitter) is suprisingly well implemented, allowing such things as posting a video of a course you are having trouble with along with your message.  Lots of console standard apps like hulu and youtube are on the main channel menu, but they don't work yet.  It looks like they are still ironing out the details of the system menu. 

The use of the speakers on the tablet is suprisingly my favorite feature.  Objects near you or shown on the tablet screen have their sounds pumped through the tablet, other noises and background sounds are on the tv.  It's a very immersive version of surround sound.

Nintendo land is about what you would expect, but the games are suprisingly long and fun.  I doubt they will have as much replay value as Wii Sports did, but the games are much much longer.... Not a must-buy by any means, but since the deluxe model is the one you'll want to get, you'll get this game anyway. 

The tablet doubles as a universal remote.  The TVii app hasn't been released yet, so functionality is extremely limited, but it is nice to be able to turn your tv to the proper av input with the gamepad.  You can access the remote at any time, even while playing.  So you can use it to quickly change the volume or whatever.  I've got a feeling this feature is going to be awesome once it's fully implemented. 

The charging cradle that comes with the deluxe model uses the cable that you would normally charge the gamepad with.... you plug it into the back.  That's great and all, but this is also the "charage and play" cable, similar to the one microsoft uses.  So if you want to use the gamepad with low power, you would have to unplug the cable from the back of the cradle and plug it into the top of the gamepad tablet.  Kind of annoying. 

The Wii compatability is completely virtualized..... much like the gamecube functionality was on the wii.  You start it up and you have the old wii menu, your tablet won't work, ect.... I hope they fix this because there's no reason the tablet couldn't be used as a classic controller. 

Any harddrive will work as storage, much like it currently does on the 360, which is awesome.  Nintendo suggests staying away from thumb drives though.  Drive partitions have a 2TB limit, which basically means they are limitless.  This is a good thing because the rumor is that the system update took up 5 gigs on the flash drive.  If you bought the standard version that means you only have 3 gigs left, which isn't enough to hold a single commercial game.   

I took a quick glance at the new shop channel.  There aren't any virtual console games on sale at all, which struck me as odd.  Also nearly every physical game out on the Wii U is also available for purchase via download.  They cost exactly the same though, so I'm not sure why one would pay for a digital copy when they could buy the disc which will have a nice case and manual.  A few indie games are on there as well. 

Internet connectivity is much much faster than on the wii, which is certainly a good thing.  The internet browser included is much improved and seems to handle most sites just fine.  The fact that you can have the internet just show on the tablet might make this useful as well for looking up stuff while you are watching a program, ect...


So good stuff, odd stuff and bad stuff.  Again I'm just posting what I've noticed, no judgment either way on this one.  I will say that any doubts about the system being a dud are gone for me.  It might be a runaway success or not, but there is potential and the touchpad immediately makes sense for gaming once you play a few games with it. 

We probably need to start a Nintendo ID page for our friend lists after more people get their Wii U's 

[TPA5]

Once I have money after Christmas, I wouldn't mind purchasing a WiiU. The Wii in our household got a fair amount of play, mostly because my dad likes the adventure games, and more family-friendly titles. Personally I didn't play the Wii that much, I am more of an action, driving, and shooter guy. But the WiiU looks promising in the gaming line-up. It looks like Nintendo is trying to grab some of the mature crowd, while also holding to the family-friendly crowd as well. It'll be interesting to see how well that works. Thanks for the preview of the system, any chance you'd have time to add a couple videos or pictures?

[hypernova]

Issues that they'll need to address.  Fast.

I won't be diving into this system until these issues are fixed, and prices drop.  And I've gotten all of them at launch since the N64 as a teenager with disposable income.  Although admittedly I had to wait until the Wii was actually available four months later to get it.

[northerngames]

does it still run GC games?

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah I don't think that this is a console that people need to run out and get immediately, and understand that I'm the guy saying that.    Normally I would suggest it, because Nintendo needs the sales to keep it afloat, but they sold a metric ton via preorders, and the japan and uk launches haven't even happened yet, so I think they are good.  I guess if you are a hardcore bayonetta fan or really want to play zombiU, but right now, while all the games are top-tier, they aren't system sellers.   

hypernova:  I looked at the list posted and 2, 6 and 7 are the only valid complaints.  The other issues are vastly exaggerated.  Just for example I keep hearing people complain about the battery life, but I've yet to have the thing run low on me and I've played for hours on end.  I suppose if you were going to play massive 8 hours sessions or something, but I'm too old for that stuff anymore.  The wii transfer is definately annoying, but it's impossible to do it any other way.  The wii shop channel never kept track of which games you bought (thus why it was hacked so easily) so the only way to get those games is to pull em off the system.  The other stuff is just nit-picky. 

northerngames:  They removed the GC portion of the disc drive and their aren't any gc controller ports, so for right now the answer is no.  They are supposed to release the gc games on the virtual console though.  I know that isn't the same though, especially if you already own the games. 

TPA5:  What kind of pics do you want?  I can take pics of the console, but those are readily available on the net.  System menu?

[hypernova]

northerngames:  They removed the GC portion of the disc drive and their aren't any gc controller ports, so for right now the answer is no.  They are supposed to release the gc games on the virtual console though.  I know that isn't the same though, especially if you already own the games. 

You mean we'll get to pay again for the same game?  It's seems to be their business model lately.  Nintendo's so nice when it comes to multiple billings...

[TPB]

You mean we'll get to pay again for the same game?

No.  To play GC games, just use your Wii.  Or your old GC console.

It's unrealistic to expect the Wii U to support the games from "every prior console" that Nintendo have ever launched.

To be fair on them, the Wii U is fully backward-compatible with Wii games.  So they've maintained one generation of backward compatibility.  Not a bad effort.

The Wii itself, also has one generation of backward compatibility.  It's fully backward-compatible with GC games.


Compare that to the PS3 :

Almost all releases of the PS3 (excluding some of the earliest FAT models) have lacked compatibility with PS2 games (being that console's prior generation).

[rCadeGaming]

I've got a question.  On that list it mentions how playing Wii games requires restarting in Wii mode in 480p.  The Wii was actually capable of displaying real 240p for virtual console games (I think It's the only console capable of less than 480i since the PS2), can the Wii U do this as well?

Obviously there's no point in 240p on a flat screen that will upscale it anyway, so what other video output options does it have besides HDMI; I'm assuming it at least has component right?  Any word on RGB?

[ChadTower]

To be fair on them, the Wii U is fully backward-compatible with Wii games.  So they've maintained one generation of backward compatibility.  Not a bad effort.

It's not the policy that annoys people.  It's the fact that the Wii U is in fact backwards compatible with the GC in software.  It has to be or you would not be able to buy GC games in the store.  There is a full on GC emulator there so it would have been entirely possible to put in a drive that is capable of reading GC games.

I would not be surprised if that drive is capable of physically reading GC games and they disabled it.  There is no real physical difference in the PC drives that can read GC games.  It's all in firmware.

[Howard_Casto]

To be fair on them, the Wii U is fully backward-compatible with Wii games.  So they've maintained one generation of backward compatibility.  Not a bad effort.

It's not the policy that annoys people.  It's the fact that the Wii U is in fact backwards compatible with the GC in software.  It has to be or you would not be able to buy GC games in the store.  There is a full on GC emulator there so it would have been entirely possible to put in a drive that is capable of reading GC games.

I would not be surprised if that drive is capable of physically reading GC games and they disabled it.  There is no real physical difference in the PC drives that can read GC games.  It's all in firmware.

Hold up now.  Nintendo has stated that sometime in the future there is a strong possibility that you'll be able to dl gc games via the shop channel.  That is NOT the same thing as having a ready made gc emulator in the Wii U. 

Also a special drive is needed to play gc games.  If it were a sliding tray system sure, but because both the Wii and Wii U used a slot-based drive, it requires a special drive mechanism to center the gc discs, which are physically smaller than regular discs.  Also   These hybrid drives originally used on the wii cost more and led to issues like worn out drives, so they even ditched them a few years before the wii U came out.  The Wii didn't have a gamecube emulator either, it had a fully working gamecube, hardware and all, built in.  Because the Wii U lacks game cube controller and memory card ports, it would require an additional level of emulation on the Wii U and in all likelyhood button mappings would have to be modified for individual games. 

This is probably the main reason aside from drive issues that GC games are not supported.  Now they could do all of this I'm sure... add in another hybrid drive and emulate all of the lost hardware, but why would they?  You can't buy GC games in the store anymore, so they aren't making any money off of all of this effort.  It would be like adding a snes slot on the top.

I'm all for backwards compatability, but it is completely unreasonable to expect a hardware manufacturer to support software that is two generations old.  Compare that to say, the 360, which stopped backwards compatability with xbox discs after only a year or two or the PS3, which re-sells select PS1 titles even though the psx would be easy to emulate on the ps3 and a dvd drive can also read cds.  I'm just saying.... apply your same argument to the other two companies.... they don't do it either. 

[RandyT]

I'm all for backwards compatability, but it is completely unreasonable to expect a hardware manufacturer to support software that is two generations old.  Compare that to say, the 360, which stopped backwards compatability with xbox discs after only a year or two...

Hold on there, cowboy.  Not making more games backward compatible is not the same as "stopping backwards compatibility".  If the wiki is correct, the current number of original XBOX game which are compatible with the 360 stands at about 478, which is quite a few games, and includes most if not all of the most popular titles.

I agree with what you are saying, but you have to get the facts right .  It's also important to note that in systems where hardware from previous generations is incorporated, that hardware is often used where possible for lesser functions on the new games, such as the Z-80 in the GB Advance.  Not only does it provide the processing compatibility for Gameboy titles, but I understand that it also does audio processing for the Advance titles.  A manufacturer needs to weigh the benefits of all of this, including whether the addition of backwards compatibility makes the system more attractive to prospective purchasers.  And now, with the popularity of direct downloadable content, whether the inclusion of this feature cuts into future profitability.  Unfortunately, I tend to believe that nowadays, the latter is weighted the most heavily in the decision making process.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't use it, I still have my original xbox, but the last time I checked it didn't work anymore. You used to be able to put in a disc, it would get the id from the disc and if compatable it would dl an emulated version of it.  I don't think you can do that anymore.  Now you can purchase the games, but that is a different animal completely. 

Regardless, they did stop it as in they were supposed to add support for all games, but they stopped.  I didn't miss-spoke, you miss-read. 

That doesn't matter anyway.  My point was that the 360 isn't even fully compatable with the xbox titles, which are only one generation old.  Even assuming all 478 titles work, 478, is not all the xbox titles, and the Wii U is 100% compatable with all Wii games, just as the wii was with the GC. 

[RandyT]

I don't use it, I still have my original xbox, but the last time I checked it didn't work anymore. You used to be able to put in a disc, it would get the id from the disc and if compatable it would dl an emulated version of it.  I don't think you can do that anymore.  Now you can purchase the games, but that is a different animal completely. 

Well, if there wasn't an emulator to make those games compatible, they won't work regardless of when you tried it.  I do wish it was 100%, but that's what the compatibility list is for.  If you have a large library, just segregate the titles which work and you can play them on the 360.  About 70% of the titles I purchased for the XBOX, work on the 360.   MS really should be commended for going through the effort to make those 478 titles compatible, given the resources involved in doing so.

But I just realized that I now have the same problem you have.  Did you by any chance replace the hard drive in the unit with a "non-Microsoft" drive?  I have, and now it doesn't work for me either (did with my smaller, original drive.)  According to MS's own site on the subject and various other comments on the web, there is a special partition on the original drives for this functionality.  If it's not there, it breaks the backward compatibility.

Regardless, they did stop it as in they were supposed to add support for all games, but they stopped.  I didn't miss-spoke, you miss-read. 

Again, deciding to not continue beyond those 478 titles, isn't the same as "stopping backwards compatibility".  They could easily do that with a firmware update, and they haven't.  They aren't crazy .  And I never saw anything which stated that they would add support for all games.  The official statement was compatibility with "the most popular Xbox titles."  I think they followed through on that promise, where it was possible, and reasonable to do.

That doesn't matter anyway.  My point was that the 360 isn't even fully compatable with the xbox titles, which are only one generation old.  Even assuming all 478 titles work, 478, is not all the xbox titles, and the Wii U is 100% compatable with all Wii games, just as the wii was with the GC.

It looks like the Wii-U is still using a PowerPC processor and AMD graphics (was ATi), the platform used by the Wii, so unless there were some major architectural changes in the system, it may not have been that difficult to achieve.  The fact that one needs to "re-boot" into Wii mode, indicates that the original system code was likely tweaked a bit for the upgraded hardware base, and for all intents and purposes, looks just like a regular Wii when in that mode.  While good for backward compatibility, it may not say much for how far the Wii-U has progressed, architecture-wise, from it's predecessor.  The 360, in contrast, has an architecture which is different enough from the original XBOX that software emulation was necessary.  This is why not all XBOX games are compatible, and why it's such an endeavor to even support those which are.  From a hardware standpoint, this is a good thing, as it untethers the new system from the bottlenecks of the older architecture.  The Gamecube also used a PowerPC processor, but outside of that, I don't know how the GPU was handled for BC in the Wii. 

Regardless, if the Wii was able to handle GC games, and the Wii-U can "wake-up" as a Wii, then one would surmise that not offering compatibility for the GC on the Wii-U was a marketing decision.  There is a lot of speculation in that last sentence, because nobody but Nintendo knows the real reason.  But I imagine it won't be too long before the new system gets picked apart to find out more.

[TPB]

Randy,

Your're bagging Nintento's new system because it doesn't support a console released over a decade ago (11 years actually ... GC is a 2001 system).  This is despite it providing full support for the few thousand games from their console released 5 years ago (Wii, 2006).

And yet you sing the praises of MS for having a console released in 2005, which can't even properly support their console from a mere 4 years prior (XBox, 2001) ?  Wow, support for 478 games ... out of how many ?  That'd be well below 50% of released titles.

if the Wii was able to handle GC games, and the Wii-U can "wake-up" as a Wii, then one would surmise that not offering compatibility for the GC on the Wii-U was a marketing decision.

That's a harsh statement, give you've nothing to back it up.

As Howard mentioned, the Wii doesn't run a GC emulator.  It had GC hardware components built into it, adding considerable production expense to the console.  It needed a custom DVD drive for those small GC discs, and dedicated GC controller and memory card ports.

But that's just the start.  You talk of the Wii as if it "seamlessly" supports GC in its native Wii mode.  It doesn't.  It needs to boot into a special "GC mode" to support GC, and in this mode, the Wii's USB ports are unusable (because the original GC lacked USB support), and the SD card is unreadable (all game saves must be to a GC memory card - again, because the original GC lacked SD card support).

The Wii U has been designed to boot into a special "Wii mode" to offer full compatibility with the games from that system.  The Wii itself, also needed to boot into its "GC mode", to likewise offer full compatibility for that system (but even then, only made possible due to the GC hardware incorporated into the Wii, at Nintendo's production expense).

There is a lot of speculation in that last sentence, because nobody but Nintendo knows the real reason.

That's for sure.  But Randy, if you concede that, then why make such a big deal about it ?

When rumours of the Wii U first surfaced a couple of years ago, and you wondered what features it'd have, what'd you think ?  Was the first thought that popped into your head "if it doesn't provide full support for their 11 year old system from 2001, then forget about it, I'm not interested ?"

Is there nothing that interests you about their new system ?  Your comments come across as having a "wet blanket" vibe to them.   

[DaveMMR]

This is really nothing new with Nintendo. They typically only go back one "hardware-step" with regards to backwards compatibility with their handhelds. The GBA could play Gameboy (and Super, Color, etc.) games but while the orignal DS (and Lite) could play Advance games, it can't play GB games. Finally, with the 3DS, Advance support was dropped.

It really does not seem feasible - even when physically possible - to keep supporting numerous generations of software. Really it's more of a marketing strategy to get people to buy the new console. That is, consumers aren't suddenly worried that their game investment from the prior is suddenly useless (not everyone keeps a bunch of consoles connected to their TV like I do.) They're lest hesitant to "replace" the old console knowing their favorites are still playable.

For me, I've learned to stop worrying about BC like I used to as I've found that the software plays best on their original hardware anyhow - and I don't have qualms about keeping a GC or old Gameboy around.

 

[RandyT]

Your're bagging Nintento's new system because it doesn't support a console released over a decade ago (11 years actually ... GC is a 2001 system).  This is despite it providing full support for the few thousand games from their console released 5 years ago (Wii, 2006).

Not sure where you see in that post that I am "bagging the system".  There was discussion as to whether the Wii-U could be backward compatible with the GC.  From a hardware standpoint, it looks as though it could.  If the only barrier is the controller hardware, then an MS approach to patching the games would work, but would require the same considerable effort.  Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much which couldn't have been made to support it....the drive, as was already stated, could support reading of the discs.

And yet you sing the praises of MS for having a console released in 2005, which can't even properly support their console from a mere 4 years prior (XBox, 2001) ?  Wow, support for 478 games ... out of how many ?  That'd be well below 50% of released titles.

Again, it takes effort and resources to do this.  They didn't have to make it backward compatible at all.  Sony made the PS3 compatible with PS2 for a short time, and as a cost cutting measure, dumped it rather quickly.  One could even surmise that doing this slowed the adoption rate on the new system, even though it it was priced lower.  You can still play those 478 XBOX games on current hardware.  It's about 51% of the library, or at least that is what I have read.  Not all games can be emulated, and those which were poor, or had low sell-through numbers, were probably omitted.  It cost them money, and probably no small amount, for each game they made compatible, so I am appreciative of them for doing it.  What's wrong with that?

That's a harsh statement, give you've nothing to back it up.

Again, how is that "harsh"?  If they can sell you the same game you already purchased on a download, why not sell you the emulator and let you plug in the disc you own?  Better yet, why not include it?  The Wii is a slot loader, so it's not the physical format which is the barrier.  Why not use a compatible drive like the one in the Wii?   It's optical technology, and even cheap Blu-Ray players can still read DVD's, CD's, etc...  If the drive is able to read a Wii disc directly, then it must also be able to physically read a GC disc, as the technology is basically the same.  If you take these reports to be factual, and the ability is not included, then if not a "marketing decision", what else is it?

As Howard mentioned, the Wii doesn't run a GC emulator.  It had GC hardware components built into it, adding considerable production expense to the console.  It needed a custom DVD drive for those small GC discs, and dedicated GC controller and memory card ports.

There are inexpensive adapters for the mini-DVD format, so that's not the barrier you might believe it to be.  It's also very feasible to play the games through an emulator which only converts the controls.  How do you think MAME makes an original game which used a trackball work with a Joystick?  Same principle.

But Randy, if you concede that, then why make such a big deal about it ?

I don't think I'm making a big deal about it.  It's an interesting topic of discussion.  Stalwart Nintendo fans would probably see such a discussion differently.  The one thing to consider in this case is that the Wii had a pretty abysmal library (personal opinion) and I suspect that a good number of folks not only used the BC of the Wii, but actually sought out GC games to "fill out" their library.  If Nintendo is hoping to get Wii owners to dump the Wii in favor of the Wii-U, as the inclusion of the Wii BC would seem to imply, they are asking those same consumers to give up their GC games, or re-purchase them as DC.  Somehow, I have a feeling that neither of those two options are likely to make them happy.

Is there nothing that interests you about their new system ?  Your comments come across as having a "wet blanket" vibe to them.   

I tend to be a "nuts and bolts" guy.  Aside from playing games, I also enjoy looking at the background, marketing, specifications, etc. and the effect it has on the gaming populace.  Not only did I enjoy Super Mario 64, but I knew immediately that it was a bellwhether game that would define generations of games to come.  As a concept, I felt the Wii had similar potential, but it didn't really live up to it.  The novelty ran out and gamers lost interest, even in the Sony version.  But I'm not seeing this type of potential with the Wii-U.  As a gamer, the dual screen concept doesn't do anything for me.  In a handheld, where the two screens are right in your line of vision, I can see the benefits.  But looking between the screen on the controller, and your TV, or swiping at things on a touchscreen every so often in the middle of a game, seems like a disjointed experience which I don't find appealing.  The idea that the kids can play the system on the controller is an interesting one, but with kids having their own TV's in their rooms, and usually their own consoles attached to them, or their own tablets, handhelds, cell-phones, etc...to play on instead, one has to wonder if this is actually a selling point.  The one thing which I find intriguing is the integrated media remote possibilities, but even that is not something which provides a great benefit over what is currently in use to perform these functions. 

Down the road, and with good developer support, it could be nice system at a nice price, and even the system of choice for those who aren't looking for the cutting edge experiences offered by the true "next generation" of consoles.  But out of the gate, even GC compatibility would have been a valuable addition to it's marketability, as it would make the Wii to Wii-U transition less painful.  But as Dennis Miller would say, "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

[M.Lanza]

The Wii itself, also has one generation of backward compatibility.  It's fully backward-compatible with GC games.


Compare that to the PS3 :

Almost all releases of the PS3 (excluding some of the earliest FAT models) have lacked compatibility with PS2 games (being that console's prior generation).

Unless you count the newer wii's produced around the
time that the wii u was announced which are not
game cube compatible.

[northerngames]

I just wanted to know becuase if it did I was going to cash in all my wii and GC stuff for one.

so for now I wont be buying one of these until there $99.99 like the GC and wii was when I got them new at the store lol.

thats another problem with today's industry I have such a backlog of games I want to play that I could play till I am 90 and by next week they will release more to last until I am 100.

I just dont see a need or reason to buy new games or systems anymore when there is still so many last gen titles I still have to play or want to play or have still etc. and still handfull from that prior gen etc.

me I am in no hurry.

I have a whole shelf of boxed pc games I never even played yet another shelf of ps3 games anotehr of 360 another ps2 etc why so many becuase I get 5-6 of them for the price most pay for 1 new release so I just play my $10 titles now and by the time I am done them $50 new relaease's are now $10 games just months or less then a year later.

save's me hundreds or even thousands compared to some that gotta have that pre-order and have that special code becuase of the $50.00-$70.00 pre-order and down the road yeah I got that game too or played that one but I did not pay full retial.

actually I got that same game for $10.00 and that same code for $3.00 off ebay 4 months later.

again for that kinda money I am in no hurry 

now people pay for virtual games with no garuntee of reimbursment of the money in full or an an actual new physical copy if it were ever to be lost somehow is all a joke to me to and none will get a cent from me like that.

when that crash's everyone loss's millions of hard earned money for something they never even owned toched or seen  Na not interested thanks anyhow.

[rCadeGaming]

+1 on everything Randy said (including the Wii's crappy library, there's a few standouts though).

On the topic of backwards compatibility, the only console I have from this generation (the one ending now I guess) is a PS3.  I specifically got a backwards compatible one on eBay, only to find out that the backwards compatibility is pretty useless to a serious gamer.  Not only is the PS3 incapable of displaying proper 240p (very important if you're playing PS1 games on a CRT), it adds input lag to PS1 and PS2 games.  So now I'm back to a real PS2 for PS1 and PS2 games.

Does the Wii or 360's backwards compatibility have any problems with adding more lag compared to the original system?  More on-topic, does the Wii U?  Since I don't have a Wii, I was considering skipping it and going straight to the Wii U to play Wii games, provided it's properly capable.

Also, I know that the Wii was capable of 240p for correct native res in virtual console games.  Is the Wii U? 

I just dont see a need or reason to buy new games or systems anymore when there is still so many last gen titles I still have to play or want to play or have still etc. and still handfull from that prior gen etc.

+1 on this too, I still have a long list of games to play for my favorite system, the Super Nintendo.

[northerngames]

could be a age era thing for me too I suppose like above with the snes I still get a itch here and there for some nes or other classsic's and I play them just as much if not more then the current gen.

probably why I am still so far behind it took me about 26 years to recently beat the original castlevania straight up on the nes for the first time 

wich I might as well add also for snes that super castlevania super metriod and act raiser were the best versions of them series on any console for me.

I would play them through again over any of the current one's for gc wii 360 ps3 etc..

dont think they did anymore act raisers but a bummer they did not. 

[rCadeGaming]

If you really like Castlevania, I'd recommend Rondo of Blood (Akumajou Dracula X: Chi no Rondo).  I think I might prefer it over IV on the SNES as my favorite, it's a tough call.  The graphics and CD quality music are amazing for the time.  It doesn't have the 8-way whipping, but the gameplay has it's own charm, and a good level of difficulty.

It only came out Japan for the PC Engine CD (Japanese Turbo Grafx CD), so you have to import it.  I got a deal on a mint copy on eBay, it's usually over 100 USD.  It can be emulated, but it's not the same.

ActRaiser is decent, finally picked that up a few years ago.  There was an Act Raiser 2 for SNES, but it wasn't nearly as good.

Anyone have any ideas about my questions above?

[northerngames]

 I am and played them all I thought until I now I just thought that was the jap name for a US title of the same game.

now I am geeked not only do I have another castlevania to play through but from what your saying it is one of the better one's and I missed it somehow.

the older 2d's were way better then any of the 3d's.

same for the metriods.

same with megaman's I would rather play a long seem's like never ending 2d then a short silly 3d.

[rCadeGaming]

Yeah, Rondo is one of the best.  It's between that and IV for me.  Symphony of the Night is okay, but not challenging enough.  You can always level up, or get better equipment to get through the tough spots (or just turn into a bat and fly right over, haha).

They "kind of" ported Rondo to the SNES as "Dracula X," but it was awful in comparison.  The 3d ones all suck, including the newest one.  It's just another God of War clone with a pseudo-Castlevania theme.

Ever play Castlevania Bloodlines on the Genesis/Megadrive?  That's another lesser known one, but it's decent.

Metroid Prime 1 was okay, didn't play 2 or 3.  Fusion and Zero Mission were outstanding on the GBA, especially if you like Super.

Haven't played a lot of Mega Man (travesty I know), but the original series and the X series is on my list, really looking forward to it.  I'm gonna play them on my cab.  They're so demanding of tight control, I think arcade controls will really help.

What a derail!  Who wants to start a Castlevania thread?

[Howard_Casto]

Your're bagging Nintento's new system because it doesn't support a console released over a decade ago (11 years actually ... GC is a 2001 system).  This is despite it providing full support for the few thousand games from their console released 5 years ago (Wii, 2006).

Not sure where you see in that post that I am "bagging the system".  There was discussion as to whether the Wii-U could be backward compatible with the GC.  From a hardware standpoint, it looks as though it could.  If the only barrier is the controller hardware, then an MS approach to patching the games would work, but would require the same considerable effort.  Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much which couldn't have been made to support it....the drive, as was already stated, could support reading of the discs.

And yet you sing the praises of MS for having a console released in 2005, which can't even properly support their console from a mere 4 years prior (XBox, 2001) ?  Wow, support for 478 games ... out of how many ?  That'd be well below 50% of released titles.

Again, it takes effort and resources to do this.  They didn't have to make it backward compatible at all.  Sony made the PS3 compatible with PS2 for a short time, and as a cost cutting measure, dumped it rather quickly.  One could even surmise that doing this slowed the adoption rate on the new system, even though it it was priced lower.  You can still play those 478 XBOX games on current hardware.  It's about 51% of the library, or at least that is what I have read.  Not all games can be emulated, and those which were poor, or had low sell-through numbers, were probably omitted.  It cost them money, and probably no small amount, for each game they made compatible, so I am appreciative of them for doing it.  What's wrong with that?

That's a harsh statement, give you've nothing to back it up.

Again, how is that "harsh"?  If they can sell you the same game you already purchased on a download, why not sell you the emulator and let you plug in the disc you own?  Better yet, why not include it?  The Wii is a slot loader, so it's not the physical format which is the barrier.  Why not use a compatible drive like the one in the Wii?   It's optical technology, and even cheap Blu-Ray players can still read DVD's, CD's, etc...  If the drive is able to read a Wii disc directly, then it must also be able to physically read a GC disc, as the technology is basically the same.  If you take these reports to be factual, and the ability is not included, then if not a "marketing decision", what else is it?

As Howard mentioned, the Wii doesn't run a GC emulator.  It had GC hardware components built into it, adding considerable production expense to the console.  It needed a custom DVD drive for those small GC discs, and dedicated GC controller and memory card ports.

There are inexpensive adapters for the mini-DVD format, so that's not the barrier you might believe it to be.  It's also very feasible to play the games through an emulator which only converts the controls.  How do you think MAME makes an original game which used a trackball work with a Joystick?  Same principle.

But Randy, if you concede that, then why make such a big deal about it ?

I don't think I'm making a big deal about it.  It's an interesting topic of discussion.  Stalwart Nintendo fans would probably see such a discussion differently.  The one thing to consider in this case is that the Wii had a pretty abysmal library (personal opinion) and I suspect that a good number of folks not only used the BC of the Wii, but actually sought out GC games to "fill out" their library.  If Nintendo is hoping to get Wii owners to dump the Wii in favor of the Wii-U, as the inclusion of the Wii BC would seem to imply, they are asking those same consumers to give up their GC games, or re-purchase them as DC.  Somehow, I have a feeling that neither of those two options are likely to make them happy.

Is there nothing that interests you about their new system ?  Your comments come across as having a "wet blanket" vibe to them.   

I tend to be a "nuts and bolts" guy.  Aside from playing games, I also enjoy looking at the background, marketing, specifications, etc. and the effect it has on the gaming populace.  Not only did I enjoy Super Mario 64, but I knew immediately that it was a bellwhether game that would define generations of games to come.  As a concept, I felt the Wii had similar potential, but it didn't really live up to it.  The novelty ran out and gamers lost interest, even in the Sony version.  But I'm not seeing this type of potential with the Wii-U.  As a gamer, the dual screen concept doesn't do anything for me.  In a handheld, where the two screens are right in your line of vision, I can see the benefits.  But looking between the screen on the controller, and your TV, or swiping at things on a touchscreen every so often in the middle of a game, seems like a disjointed experience which I don't find appealing.  The idea that the kids can play the system on the controller is an interesting one, but with kids having their own TV's in their rooms, and usually their own consoles attached to them, or their own tablets, handhelds, cell-phones, etc...to play on instead, one has to wonder if this is actually a selling point.  The one thing which I find intriguing is the integrated media remote possibilities, but even that is not something which provides a great benefit over what is currently in use to perform these functions. 

Down the road, and with good developer support, it could be nice system at a nice price, and even the system of choice for those who aren't looking for the cutting edge experiences offered by the true "next generation" of consoles.  But out of the gate, even GC compatibility would have been a valuable addition to it's marketability, as it would make the Wii to Wii-U transition less painful.  But as Dennis Miller would say, "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Randy there is nothing wrong with a differing opinion, but there is something wrong with backing it up with bad logic and one-sided arguments.  My response was to point out that Nintendo's backwards compatability is significantly BETTER than Microsoft's and Sony's and yet you completely ignored that part and just complained that it didn't have a better degree of backwards compatability, even though my point was the other two don't have any either.  You say that it takes effort and resources for Microsoft to do B.C. and yet you act like it wouldn't take any at all for Nintendo to do it.  This just isn't true at all. 

You say the Wii had and "abysmal library" well even considering your opinion, the Nintendo produced Wii games, sold better on average than a game on any other system as well as being higher rated than a typical game on any other system.  It's ok if you don't like the wii's lineup, it's just the majority of the gaming population disagrees with you and thus using a "poor library" as an excuse to add support for a 11 year old console defy's logic because the wii's library, again, by the books, not by my opinion, is so much stronger and more popular than the game cubes. 

The gamecube library was extremely short in terms of first party titles, and that is what sells a nintendo console.  Aside from party games and ect, you had Sunshine, the worst Mario ever, Wind Waker, a highly controversial zelda title that didn't sell quite as well as the others and the only true successes of the console... Metroid Prime 1 and 2.   Twilight Princess doesn't count because it was also released on the Wii and it was literally released at the end of the GC lifecycle.  The Wii had around 10-20 first part titles that did really well, not including party games and mini games.  Considering Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are available on the Wii and oddball games like Luigi's Mansion and Sunshine will probably be some of the first downloadable titles, it doesn't really make any financial sense to support the gamecube. 


So like I said, a difference of opinion is fine, but when you use that unpopular opinion to support or refute logic, it doesn't work. 



Btw it's a tie between Rondo and IV for me but nobody has ever played Rondo, so I always mention it first.  The newest Castlevania for the 360/ps3 was awesome, I suggest you try it again...  also it rips off Prince of Persia, the sands of time, which God of War ripped off.... I hate it when people suggest that it was the first game to use that format. 

Mega Man games, as you said, rCade, need tight controls... aka a gamepad, they'll play awful on a arcade cab.  Arcade controls are NOT better or more precise than gamepads... in most cases the opposite is true. 

[RandyT]

The gamecube library was extremely short in terms of first party titles, and that is what sells a nintendo console.  Aside from party games and ect, you had Sunshine, the worst Mario ever, Wind Waker, a highly controversial zelda title that didn't sell quite as well as the others and the only true successes of the console... Metroid Prime 1 and 2.   Twilight Princess doesn't count because it was also released on the Wii and it was literally released at the end of the GC lifecycle.  The Wii had around 10-20 first part titles that did really well, not including party games and mini games.  Considering Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are available on the Wii and oddball games like Luigi's Mansion and Sunshine will probably be some of the first downloadable titles, it doesn't really make any financial sense to support the gamecube. 


So like I said, a difference of opinion is fine, but when you use that unpopular opinion to support or refute logic, it doesn't work. 

Howard, an unpopular opinion isn't inherently without merit.  In fact, sometimes the unpopular ones have the most.  I read an article a couple of days ago where the author, interestingly enough, had almost the same "unpopular opinion".  The author seemed to be trying his best to find selling points for the system, and listed the bright points where he was able.  His reasoning, similar to mine, was that lacking any "killer app" for the system out of the gate, backward compatibility with the GC would have helped ease the transition for current Wii owners. 

My point regarding the 360 BC was simply that adding support for 478 XBOX games required a huge amount of effort on the part of MS, due to the dissimilar hardware.  This doesn't seem to be the case between the Wii and the GC, so adding that "full compatibility" with GC games was apparently quite a bit easier to accomplish.  The simple fact is that MS gave you this ability, where it could, while Nintendo will be charging you to play games you may already have in your collection.  Whether the Wii-U is similar enough in hardware to offer GC BC without tweaking every game is anyone's guess at this point, but the hardware base is still pretty similar.

BTW, it doesn't seem to bother Sony that the PS1 system is 18 years old.  Plug a PS1 game into your PS3 and it lets you play it, even with upscaling.  The PS2 requires extra hardware, so that went out to lower the cost/price.  My question is whether the Wii-U isn't BC with GC because of a real hardware incompatibility, or because Nintendo is looking to again tap into the pocketbooks of current owners of those games.  If the latter, it might be another decision which returns to haunt them.

[rCadeGaming]

Howard, I'm not going to attack your overall message on the Wii U debate, as you both make valid points, but there are some specifics that bug me.

You say the Wii had and "abysmal library" well even considering your opinion, the Nintendo produced Wii games, sold better on average than a game on any other system

How well a game sold has almost NO RELATION to how good it is.

as well as being higher rated than a typical game on any other system.

I'd have to see some facts backing this up.  Outside of first party titles, much of the Wii's library was shovelware, and it was reviewed appropriately.

It's ok if you don't like the wii's lineup, it's just the majority of the gaming population disagrees with you

No they don't.  Just because the Wii may have outsold other consoles, does not mean it was the core gaming population buying them.  The biggest success of the Wii was that it managed to tap into the larger non-gamer market.  This market has no clue about what a good game is, they purchase based on marketing and superficial gimmicks.

The gamecube library was extremely short in terms of first party titles, and that is what sells a nintendo console.  Aside from party games and ect, you had Sunshine, the worst Mario ever, Wind Waker, a highly controversial zelda title that didn't sell quite as well as the others and the only true successes of the console... Metroid Prime 1 and 2.   Twilight Princess doesn't count because it was also released on the Wii and it was literally released at the end of the GC lifecycle.  The Wii had around 10-20 first part titles that did really well, not including party games and mini games.  Considering Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are available on the Wii and oddball games like Luigi's Mansion and Sunshine will probably be some of the first downloadable titles, it doesn't really make any financial sense to support the gamecube.

Super Smash Bros. Melee was hugely successful.  F-Zero GX was great.  Twilight Princess was arguably better on the Gamecube because you didn't have to deal with crappy waggle controls.  There were plenty of great third party titles like Viewtiful Joe and Super Monkey Ball.

The newest Castlevania for the 360/ps3 was awesome, I suggest you try it again...

Sorry, IMHO it's crap.  Endless waves of mindless repetition and button mashing.  Bland level design.  Stupid quick-time events.  None of the challenge or tight controls of the 2-D games.  The only thing that makes it similar to a Castlevania game is the theme, which is kind of weak and slapped on.

also it rips off Prince of Persia, the sands of time, which God of War ripped off.... I hate it when people suggest that it was the first game to use that format. 

I didn't suggest that it was the first game to use that format, I just used it as an example because it's on of the most well-known.

Mega Man games, as you said, rCade, need tight controls... aka a gamepad, they'll play awful on a arcade cab.  Arcade controls are NOT better or more precise than gamepads... in most cases the opposite is true. 

What in god's name are you talking about?  A proper arcade panel will be much more responsive than any handheld controller.  You may be confused about this because your big clunky American stick is not as responsive as a controller.

Two genres that are arguably the most demanding of control are 2-d fighters and Shmups.  Do you see any serious players using controllers for them?  No, it's laughable.  In fact, the great majority of players at EVO or anything like that are using arcade panels.  There are a handful that use controllers, but they have even admitted in interviews that it's their preference and they're used to it, but they understand that arcade panels are technically superior.

Well, at least we agree that it's a tough call Rondo and IV.  Just stop winking at me!

[hypernova]

Mega Man games, as you said, rCade, need tight controls... aka a gamepad, they'll play awful on a arcade cab.  Arcade controls are NOT better or more precise than gamepads... in most cases the opposite is true. 

What in god's name are you talking about?  A proper arcade panel will be much more responsive than any handheld controller.  You may be confused about this because your big clunky American stick is not as responsive as a controller.

Two genres that are arguably the most demanding of control are 2-d fighters and Shmups.  Do you see any serious players using controllers for them?  No, it's laughable.  In fact, the great majority of players at EVO or anything like that are using arcade panels.  There are a handful that use controllers, but they have even admitted in interviews that it's their preference and they're used to it, but they understand that arcade panels are technically superior.

I think this point can be argued.  I can say that I've NEVER seen a Smash Bros player utilizing an arcade stick, even if they used an analog one.  I could make one, and I have absolutely no desire to do so.   I've also never seen a person using an arcade stick for a FPS.  Now THAT would be crazy looking.

Take note of the part I italicized/underlined.  When playing Smash, I'll take a controller.  When I want SF or MK, I'll take an arcade stick whenever possible.  When dealing with controllers, you deal with less movement, and thus more efficiency, so I would think a well designed controller is the superior choice.  We just don't want to use controllers for games like fighters because the arcade stick is what many of us used when first exposed to the game, and it's just what feels right.  I've played Mario Kart on the Wii with someone who preferred the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo instead of an available GameCube controller.  I personally thought he was crazy, but it's what he learned it on, and he was dang good with it.

SNAAKE, do a majority of EVO players use arcade controls?  I would assume you would know and could corroborate here.

[TPB]

I'm not even going to try to do a review because it's waaaaay to early for that and there are always people unappreciative of my effort that ruin it for me

Howard,

You shouldn't have bothered devoting your time to provide us with your Wii U observations.  Thanks anyway, mate.  But it's apparent no-one reading this thread has any interest in Nintendo's new system.

What a shame that people could be so narrow minded as to dismiss a system because it doesn't support 11 year old, 2 generation old, Gamecube games.  I bet the people levelling such criticisms, haven't even played a single Gamecube game in the past 6 months (on either a Wii or Gamecube system).

They don't care about the Wii U having 100% compatibility with all games and peripherals of the 6 year old Wii console, itself a stunning success with almost 100 million units in circulation.

There's plenty of Nintendo haters out there.  If they're not interested in purchasing the Wii U, that's fine, but I don't know why they get such pleasure out of bagging it.  Even if they weren't picking on the backward compatibility, they'd find something else to pick on ... you can guarantee it.


BTW, we've purchased the Wii U console for our eldest child, which is sitting under the Christmas Tree.  We won't use it until the kids open it on Christmas Day.

[rCadeGaming]

I can say that I've NEVER seen a Smash Bros player utilizing an arcade stick, even if they used an analog one.  I could make one, and I have absolutely no desire to do so.

Smash Bros. is a different case, as analog control is mandatory for proper play.  That's not a traditional fighting game though.  There are practically no 2D fighters in which analog control provides any advantages, and it doesn't in most 3D fighters either.  For example, it can be used in Soul Calibur but it's not really useful.

When I say an arcade control panel will be superior, I mean for games with non-analog controls (I thought that would be apparent), including 2D platformers, such as Megaman.

I've also never seen a person using an arcade stick for a FPS.

No, and serious FPS players generally choose a mouse when possible, as it's superior to a controller in that genre.

In fact, the great majority of players at EVO or anything like that are using arcade panels.  There are a handful that use controllers, but they have even admitted in interviews that it's their preference and they're used to it, BUT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT ARCADE PANELS ARE TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR.

Take note of the part I italicized/underlined.

I never said there was anything wrong with a preference, but Howard tried to shoot down my preference by saying that a controller is ultimately better.  If you want to get down to which is the best possible option, meaning which has the least physical limitation and which will provide the maximum capability for effective play, it's the arcade panel in this case.  There are pro players who will admit this, even if their current preference is a controller.  Take note of the part I capitalized.

You may be better with one or the other at the moment because it's what you're used to, but you can relearn either way.  Ultimately, the game is not connected directly to you brain, and the physical input method you're using will define a limit in what can be achieved.  That limit is much lower and more restricting with a controller. 

Furthermore, a more capable input method can convert whatever skill you have into results more efficiently, even if you're not anywhere near the limit of what's possible.

When dealing with controllers, you deal with less movement, and thus more efficiency, so I would think a well designed controller is the superior choice.

The nature of a joystick is that you're able to articulate directional inputs with your entire hand, rather than just your thumb.  This is what allows faster and more accurate inputs.  If you're using a well designed joystick, the pivot quality and engage sensitivity will be miles beyond what can be achieved with a d-pad.

Try having a race.  Using a controller, input left, right, left, right, etc., until you've reached one hundred inputs.  Then try it with a joystick.  For each one, don't do any tricks, just hold it and use it as you would when actually playing a game.  Unless you're purposefully trying to skew the results, you'll find the stick to be much faster.

For accuracy, load up Super Street Fighter II Turbo, which is pretty strict on exact inputs.  Try performing twenty Shoryukens in row on a joystick and a controller.  You'll find out pretty quick which is more capable.

As for buttons, it's actually the arcade panel where you need to move around less.  You have five different fingers that each can be dedicated to one button and not move too much, whereas on a controller you have to move your thumb around to different buttons constantly.  You can get some support from shoulder buttons, but that's not going to give it the edge.  A proper arcade pushbutton will also be a lot more responsive than what can be achieved in the limited space on a controller; and the nature of pressing straight down on the buttons of an arcade panel lends itself to quicker actuation than pressing at odd angles with your thumb.

I'm not even going to try to do a review because it's waaaaay to early for that and there are always people unappreciative of my effort that ruin it for me

Howard,

You shouldn't have bothered devoting your time to provide us with your Wii U observations.  Thanks anyway, mate.  But it's apparent no-one reading this thread has any interest in Nintendo's new system.

Several people, including me were interested.  In fact, I posted some legitimate questions that no one seemed to notice.

[Howard_Casto]

The fact that you have to use your entire hand instead of just your thumb is the very reason why it's less accurate for certain games.  Any efficiency expert will tell you that if you are going to have to do quick repetative movements, the quickest and best way to do it is with as little movement as possible. 

I'll take your example and throw it back at your with this:

In that race how many times did you hit UDLR dead center and how many times did you accidentally go towards the diagonals?  With a dpad you are going to hit the right direction 100% of the time.... with a arcade stick, not so much.  I can actually do UDLR tests faster on a dpad.... put your thumb in the dead center and rock it in the desired direction.  This is what that dimple that nintendo had on their dpads for the longest time was for.  I often play that way for certain games.  Even ignoring this trick, pressing a dpad direction is obviously faster than doing a stick movement, because there is less travel.  Again, efficiency. 

We use arcade controls on this forum to recreate and experience from our past, much like we (or at least the ones of us who have any sense) use gamepads to recreate a similar console experience, using the wrong tool for the job is always a bad idea... it really doesn't have a lot to do with which is "better". 


If you guys want to discuss it more, let's start another thread and I'll be happy to continue, but we really need to get back to the point of this thread now. 

[Howard_Casto]

I'm not even going to try to do a review because it's waaaaay to early for that and there are always people unappreciative of my effort that ruin it for me

Howard,

You shouldn't have bothered devoting your time to provide us with your Wii U observations.  Thanks anyway, mate.  But it's apparent no-one reading this thread has any interest in Nintendo's new system.

What a shame that people could be so narrow minded as to dismiss a system because it doesn't support 11 year old, 2 generation old, Gamecube games.  I bet the people levelling such criticisms, haven't even played a single Gamecube game in the past 6 months (on either a Wii or Gamecube system).

They don't care about the Wii U having 100% compatibility with all games and peripherals of the 6 year old Wii console, itself a stunning success with almost 100 million units in circulation.

There's plenty of Nintendo haters out there.  If they're not interested in purchasing the Wii U, that's fine, but I don't know why they get such pleasure out of bagging it.  Even if they weren't picking on the backward compatibility, they'd find something else to pick on ... you can guarantee it.


BTW, we've purchased the Wii U console for our eldest child, which is sitting under the Christmas Tree.  We won't use it until the kids open it on Christmas Day.

I appreciate the support. 

A few more things that are interesting about the console that I didn't pick up on before:

The home menu for the gamepad now has "apps" on it much like a tablet.  Why would you care?  Well you can use them at any time, even when playing a game. 

So if you are stuck in ACIII you can pause via the home button, fire up the internet and look up a guide on gamefaqs.  If you are trying to reach a ledge you can point the game camera at it and go to the MiiVerse... a screenshot of the game will be waiting for you to attach when you post your question.  The games are good and they all make good use of the touch screen for the most part, but I think the innovative part of the console is where Nintendo is attempting to integrate the entire gaming experience, from the game, to asking for help, to bragging, to the social aspect, all on the console in real time.  I wouldn't mention it, it's been tried before, except for the fact that thus far Nintendo seems to actually be succeeding at it.  And in a very un-Nintendo move, you aren't losing anything that the other consoles offer either.  Want to send instant messages to friends like on the 360?  Yeah you can still do that via the MiiVerse.  Voice chat?  Yeah it's there for the "hardcore" games that choose to support it.  Even video chat, something that requires an add on for the other two consoles is supported via the gamepad camera and an optional stand they include. 

Microsoft especially has been pushing the idea that their console is isn't just for gaming but it's a media hub.  Something always felt a bit off with it though.  It's ironic that Nintendo a "games and just games" company seems to have did a better job in almost every respect and I don't even think it was their primary goal.  That isn't to say that it doesn't have issues though. 

The YouTube channel for the Wii U is just awful... it looks like it's based on the ps3 version (which kind of sucked anyway) and it makes no use of the touch screen other than to display the description webpage for the video.  That would be ok exception for the fact that the inteface is cluttered with obscure buttons and icons and if you press ANY button while a video is playing, all of these icons are put on top of the video!  Why not just put the controls on the gamepad?  That's what it's for!  Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon thankfully don't have these issues and their apps appear to be made mostly from the ground up. 

Also there's no music store.... but I never did get why people would download music to their game console anyway. 

Nintendo seems to be focusing on polish this time instead of grand changes, which is a good thing because polish is what Nintendo is best at. 

It's little touches, like being able to use the gamepad's camera to auto create your Mii which makes it feel like a lot of thought went into everything.

TVii has still yet to be released and it's rumored that a os overhaul will come with it.  Until then I reserve the right to address some of the minor issues regaing the OS (mainly slowness when launching some of the games/apps).  Thus far though there are a lot more things right with the console then there are wrong with it, which is always a step in the right direction.

[hypernova]

I am really not seeing any other games like Metroid, Zelda, 3d Mario anywhere close on the horizon.  New SMB Wii U is the only major first party game I see for awhile.

I've also read they've had disappointing sales so far.  I don't know if that's being based on the original Wii's sales numbers, though.

[rCadeGaming]

Howard, I really think your perception of this is skewed because you're stuck on clunky overstiff American arcade controls; and again, there's nothing wrong with preference, but you kind of made it about what the actual best option is, and I think there is a lot of validity to this:

You may be better with one or the other at the moment because it's what you're used to, but you can relearn either way.  Ultimately, the game is not connected directly to you brain, and the physical input method you're using will define a limit in what can be achieved.  That limit is much lower and more restricting with a controller.

Furthermore, a more capable input method can convert whatever skill you have into results more efficiently, even if you're not anywhere near the limit of what's possible.

I never had much experience in the arcades because there weren't many near where I grew up.  I had been playing consoles on a controller almost exclusively for almost twenty years before I got into arcade stuff a few years ago.  Nevertheless I relearned with arcade controls, and went with what made the most sense in terms of the best possible gameplay, regardless of any prior bias.

The fact that you have to use your entire hand instead of just your thumb is the very reason why it's less accurate for certain games.  Any efficiency expert will tell you that if you are going to have to do quick repetative movements, the quickest and best way to do it is with as little movement as possible.

Just limiting it to as little movement as possible being the final answer is only true when all the other variables are equal.  This isn't the case here, so it's a little more complicated.

Given the amount of well coordinated and strong muscles in your hand and wrist, you can affect the movement of a quality joystick much more efficiently than with the relatively smaller and weaker set of muscles just in your thumb.

Furthermore, a joystick doesn't necessitate an excessive distance of travel.  Different sticks have different engage distances, and you don't have to push the stick all the way to the restricter to actuate a direction.

A good stick setup for shmups requires very little movement.  This will be good for a lot of genres, but for something like a fighting game a slightly wider range of movement is a good thing, as spacing out the engage zones allows for more accuracy in reliably hitting the intended direction.

In that race how many times did you hit UDLR dead center and how many times did you accidentally go towards the diagonals?  With a dpad you are going to hit the right direction 100% of the time.... with a arcade stick, not so much.

I don't see how this can be true unless you're talking about a sloppy joystick.  A good stick will be much more accurate in hitting the desired directions than a D-pad which is limited to a tiny unlubricated pivot, a mushy rubber switch pad for actuation, and tiny, overcrowded, and poorly defined engage zones.  Just try the SSF2T Shoryuken test.

We use arcade controls on this forum to recreate and experience from our past, much like we (or at least the ones of us who have any sense) use gamepads to recreate a similar console experience, using the wrong tool for the job is always a bad idea... it really doesn't have a lot to do with which is "better".

Again, you are the one that's tearing down the idea of preference, and saying that those who don't agree with yours don't have any sense.

To me the best tool for the job is what functions best, not just whatever tool was commonly used due to availability.

Don't get me wrong I love certain controllers, like the SNES controller or the original playstation Dual Shock.  I'll stick to my SNES controller when I'm playing a RPG's, but when I fire up something physically demanding like Hagane, I'll get out the arcade stick.

If you guys want to discuss it more, let's start another thread and I'll be happy to continue, but we really need to get back to the point of this thread now. 

You're right about that, this isn't what you made the thread for.  Just want to conclude my thoughts on what was already brought up.  Let me know if you make another thread to continue the discussion.

As for the Wii U, I am interested in impressions and details and such.  Now that it's out I'm wondering if I should pick up an original Wii as their prices drop, if the combination of the Gamecube I already have and a Wii U will eliminate any possible need for an original Wii.  Anyone have anything to say about this:

Does the Wii or 360's backwards compatibility have any problems with adding more lag compared to the original system?  More on-topic, does the Wii U?  Since I don't have a Wii, I was considering skipping it and going straight to the Wii U to play Wii games, provided it's properly capable.

Also, I know that the Wii was capable of 240p for correct native res in virtual console games.  Is the Wii U?

[marioxb]

Anyone have anything to say about this:

Does the Wii or 360's backwards compatibility have any problems with adding more lag compared to the original system?  More on-topic, does the Wii U?  Since I don't have a Wii, I was considering skipping it and going straight to the Wii U to play Wii games, provided it's properly capable.

Also, I know that the Wii was capable of 240p for correct native res in virtual console games.  Is the Wii U?

I have a Wii U as well and I love it. I play Nintendo Land or NSMBU every day.

Haven't played any VC or Wiiware games on it yet, because my original Wii is hacked, mainly so I can play Japanese games (downloads such as Pole's Big Adventure, for example). So that's a reason I need to keep my original Wii.

By the way, don't anyone forget that you can download BOTH SNES Castlevaina IV AND TG16 Rondo of Blood on the Wii (and by extention Wii U).

[rCadeGaming]

Well, I already own real copies of Rondo and IV. 

Anyway, nobody knows about lag or 240p on the Wii U's BC?

[Howard_Casto]

I am really not seeing any other games like Metroid, Zelda, 3d Mario anywhere close on the horizon.  New SMB Wii U is the only major first party game I see for awhile.

I've also read they've had disappointing sales so far.  I don't know if that's being based on the original Wii's sales numbers, though.

No they aren't afaik.  They sold 100,000 more units in their first week than the wii did, which as a runaway success. 

[Howard_Casto]

Anyone have anything to say about this:

Does the Wii or 360's backwards compatibility have any problems with adding more lag compared to the original system?  More on-topic, does the Wii U?  Since I don't have a Wii, I was considering skipping it and going straight to the Wii U to play Wii games, provided it's properly capable.

Also, I know that the Wii was capable of 240p for correct native res in virtual console games.  Is the Wii U?

I have a Wii U as well and I love it. I play Nintendo Land or NSMBU every day.

Haven't played any VC or Wiiware games on it yet, because my original Wii is hacked, mainly so I can play Japanese games (downloads such as Pole's Big Adventure, for example). So that's a reason I need to keep my original Wii.

By the way, don't anyone forget that you can download BOTH SNES Castlevaina IV AND TG16 Rondo of Blood on the Wii (and by extention Wii U).

What he said, I have no reason to fire up the emulated mode because I still have a Wii. 

Nintendo Land is impressing me a lot, I might have to write up a full fledged review because suprisingly, I think it might be that big first party title everybody says is missing from the lineup.  Let's just put it this way.... you know where I always complain that AAA games are too short?  Well I've had this thing since launch actively trying to beat it (about 1-3 hours per day) and I'm still not even close.  Aside from the one or two party games, all the other games have multiple stages.  I would go so far as to say that Pikmin adventure, Zelda and Metroid are full fledged games in their own right, with each one having 13-20 main stages and then a "second quest" with bonus stages and different gameplay mechanics after you beat them.  Mind you they are snes quality games, not the modern games we are used to, but still... they are huge.  Even games like DK crash course... there are only 4 stages, 10 areas in each stage, but the stages are unbelievably hard, I've been trying to beat the FIRST stage for 3 weeks now.   

[rCadeGaming]

Howard your review of Nintendo Land is encouraging, sounds like something I'd like.

There's no doubt I'll get the console eventually, but I just looked at Wii's on eBay.  There are tons in great condition going for like $60, so it's the time to buy.  I think I'll do that, so I won't have to worry about backwards compatibility.

[marioxb]

Nintendo Land is really fun, I keep finding new things every day. Can't play Metroid multiplayer yet because I can't find my nunchucks. Zelda is pretty cool, both with a sword (wiimote) or bow and arrow (gamepad). I really like Mario Chase and Luigi's Mansion as well. Heck, all of em are cool. Not very good at Octopus Dance, but it's interesting.

And yeah, like Howard said, it (along with NSMB) are must buy, unless you hate Mario and other Nintendo franchises. And if that's the case, you have no business buying a Nintendo product.