Wii U

No, I'm just going by experience. Remember, Nintendo did absolutely nothing to further their own online experience and by the holiday season of 2004, GBA connectivity had reached it's nauseating height. Since both are forms of playing multi-player, it's natural to see them as competition in the marketplace, just connectivity being a very poor and stupid man's online play. I do know that they paid developers to further the connectivity experience, such as with Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles (which was a massive let-down, as it was hyped as Square's triumphant return to a Nintendo console and also one of the few original RPG's for the system...what a waste).

That whole time period boggles my mind...Since 2000, I kept thinking how much I couldn't wait for Nintendo to "get it right" with the Dolphin/Gamecube and then I see things like the GBA Connectivity, Wind Waker and the near-total library halt post-2004 and is like, "what the hell are they DOING!?" Then I see controller wiggling and full-price mini-game compilations supposedly pushed as the way of the future and I start to think Nintendo has completely lost their mind. To me, it has been a painful decline for them over the last 10 years and I lay the blame on Iwata's shoulders.

I'm not saying I want to see Wii U fail, I just want to see them actually fulfill the initial promise of the original Gamecube. Then again, if they try the same stupid schemes they tried with the original Wii, I hope it fails with flying colors. We don't need another overpriced shooting gallery/Zumba console on the market, hopefully the casual audience is as sick of buying that garbage as I am of seeing it. With Iwata at the helm, I feel like the latter is more likely than the former though. I mean, Nintendoland is NOT my idea of a killer app pack-in...

Last edited by GoldfishX (Oct 20, 2012)

Promise of the original Gamecube: Dispense with the myriad of issues the N64 had (library problems, controller, blurry graphics, DD vaporware fiasco) and get back to SNES-style dominance (okay, so SNES had vaporware issues too with that CD drive). The buzz was that GC was easier to develop for (meaning more 3rd party games and less development time), was more powerful than PS2 and the controller was much more manageable. That first year of the PS2 was downright brutal (and I wasn't crazy about the mega-hyped MGS2 release coming down the line) and Microsoft had ziltch besides Halo (one could argue that was pretty much the storyline of the first Xbox), so I was expecting Nintendo to just break out and go. Their games-first philosophy was actually pretty refreshing at the time, as Sony and MS had their eyes set on consoles being basically entertainment hubs.

You can tell in general, that whole console generation isn't one of my favorite times for videogames.

GoldfishX wrote:

I'm not saying I want to see Wii U fail, I just want to see them actually fulfill the initial promise of the original Gamecube. Then again, if they try the same stupid schemes they tried with the original Wii, I hope it fails with flying colors. We don't need another overpriced shooting gallery/Zumba console on the market, hopefully the casual audience is as sick of buying that garbage as I am of seeing it. With Iwata at the helm, I feel like the latter is more likely than the former though. I mean, Nintendoland is NOT my idea of a killer app pack-in...

The funny thing is, I think the Wii game library is simply stunning, and I still agree with you about the Wii U. Wii has games like Muramasa, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series, No More Heroes, A Boy and His Blob, MotoHeroz, WayForward's Batman game, Sin & Punishment 2, The Last Story, the Klonoa remake, and it just goes on and on. Even if you don't like Wii Sports, Just Dance or Rayman Raving Rabbids, there's a ton of stuff there for you to play. There's variety, just a huge selection of different games for different tastes, and you can put in thousands of hours of playtime without ever touching motion controls if you're so biased against them.

Now, the Wii U... as a big fan of the original Wii Sports, I just don't see the appeal of Nintendo Land. Maybe it will appeal to me if I get to play it sometime, but the games just look horribly boring. That Donkey Kong game? An Animal Crossing minigame? No no no.

Then there's New SMB U. I can already play New SMB Wii if I like (and it is in my backlog for a replay), so having more of the same for a console launch isn't a big deal for me.

Third-party games like Arkham City, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed I could already play on my other consoles, if I didn't have ZERO interest towards such games.

In my opinion, the Wii U needs more of that Wii goodness. EXCITE TRUCK! Trauma Center! A sequel to the "My Life as..." WiiWare games. Craziness like Muscle March and Hard Working People. The unique, stand-out niche titles like Muramasa. Good motion control games like Wii Sports. The list of announced Wii U games is pretty short now, and I'm seeing pretty much none of that Wii uniqueness in there. Sure, there are sequels to some Wii games, but not the ones I care about. And this is why I'm not too keen on the Wii U: it doesn't seem to deliver the promise that the Wii did.

Qui-Gon Joe wrote:

My friends and I have sunk FAR more time into the likes of Crystal Chronicles, Four Swords Adventures, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii than into any online games.

I was actually interested in those connectivity games, but the hurdle of getting enough GBAs and especially those link cables together with enough people just made it practically impossible. With the Wii, the console is so small and the wireless controllers are highly portable, so it's easy to take it around and have four-player games even in places where there isn't a Wii ready. With the Wii U, the console is again bigger and the tablet controller adds bulk, so ironically, it might not be as portable as the Wii was, as long as there was a TV wherever you were going.

Found a quote of that connectivity strategy:

"Nintendo -- remained upbeat that games in the works that will link the GameCube with Game Boy Advance will continue to raise revenue."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbi … 0000112846

This was in 2001. It seems they really believed in that, but it just didn't work out. With the Wii, it seems they got the multiplayer aspect together without the hassle of the connectivity strategy.

Sami wrote:

vert1 wrote:

Wii didn't even have any good Wii games at launch (they had to steal Twilight Princess, a Gamecube game) and it sold because swinging controllers around in mini-games appeals to those enlightened gamers who didn't buy Gamecube because of its poor game selection. *rolleyes*

Wii Sports, Excite Truck, Trauma Center, Metal Slug Anthology, Rayman Raving Rabbids and WarioWare: Smooth Moves (JP launch) disagree with you. And the SUPERIOR version of Twilight Princess, as well!

Wii Sports is crap. Excite Truck is okay. Trauma Center is cool. Metal Slug Anthology is just ports. Wario Ware is just minigames I stopped caring about long time ago.

Twilight Princess with it's Wii stuck game ending bug and swinging the controller every time to do a sword slash are NOT superior to the Gamecube version.

edit: I can tell you right now we have a cosmic disagreement on not only what is a better game but what is even a good game. There are very few things one could write that would leave me with more extreme disgust than the Wii library being close to the quality of Gamecube's or better. We can't continue this discussion here without being wildly off-topic. This is a topic (Wii versus Gamecube) I'll definitely be starting up one day.

Adam Corn wrote:

For a lot of people (casual gamers especially) I think the appeal in shared-room multiplayer for Wii was seeing people moving and flailing that controller around almost as much as it was the gameplay itself.

I agree. It's weird how Sony's Eyetoy didn't really inspire this desire; it wasn't extreme enough. Watching people play Kinect games or Wii Dance/Sports/Whatever games has become a "just something to do" like smoking than something of real substance. Kinect games even take pictures of you so everyone can remember your wild enjoyment of jumping and ducking so now no moment goes by unwatched (a picture lasts forever). Then you also have the health freak / productivity people who get in on it because they think healthy games are better (started with DDR) and socially acceptable since apparently gaming is a lowly activity.

Nintendo were ahead of their time with getting people to "lighten up", cut wild, and be stupid. It's some that weird social attraction where people are all like "I'm being weird or different and I'm totally cool with it so that makes me a cooler more sociable person" (Article: example #1). Like people who make fools of themselves at karaoke.

Last edited by vert1 (Oct 21, 2012)

You guys had friends that owned a Gamecube that didn't have GameBoy Advances? I disagree with the impracticality since most Nintendo fans had GameBoy Advances or even arguments that portability has any factor in deterring multi-player. LAN with XBOX could easily be viewed as impractical with all the wired controllers, link cables, and the heavyweight XBOX systems needed, but I don't remember people complaining then. If people want to do something enough they will. If Gamecube had PS2 popularity we would have even have seen regular LAN Mario Kart: Double Dash and Kirby Air Ride matches.

Last edited by vert1 (Oct 21, 2012)

vert1 wrote:

You guys had friends that owned a Gamecube that didn't have GameBoy Advances? I disagree with the impracticality since most Nintendo fans had GameBoy Advances or even arguments that portability has any factor in deterring multi-player.

What is a "Nintendo fan"? The trouble is, you've got one guy who's got a Gamecube, and the people with GBAs are scattered all around, and nobody has those GBA-Cube link cables. Then you're supposed to have a game that everybody's interested in, and organize times to play that game too. It's just a logistical nightmare. This is probably why Nintendo is trying again with the Wii U and what is basically a GBA deluxe that only works in range of the main console. I'd actually be interested if they had Pac-Man VS. or those other games ported to the Wii U.

Sami wrote:

What is a "Nintendo fan"? The trouble is, you've got one guy who's got a Gamecube, and the people with GBAs are scattered all around, and nobody has those GBA-Cube link cables. Then you're supposed to have a game that everybody's interested in, and organize times to play that game too. It's just a logistical nightmare. This is probably why Nintendo is trying again with the Wii U and what is basically a GBA deluxe that only works in range of the main console. I'd actually be interested if they had Pac-Man VS. or those other games ported to the Wii U.

First off, how many owners of GBA-GC games DIDN'T own the necessary cables to play them? The overall cost was just more expensive; those cables became worthless quite fast.

Weird that everyone thinks the GBA connects didn't work. I've had a blast playing Four Swords Adventures minigames with just one friend. That didn't require much. And really, who on earth didn't own a GBA?! There were over 100 million sold IIRC. Anyway, it only takes 1 Gamecube to play with GC-GBA connect. And I finally have found someone with two GBA-GC cables, so we're going to have a nice setup with 2 cables of mine and 4 GBAs total.

Also, I doubt the Wii U's success is depending on the success of this kind of multiplayer again. It is obviously more focused on the single player. Not only that, but any two people that own Wii Us can use 2 controllers on one system for some easily-ready multiplayer fun. Then, if there are additional players around and a lot of money in someone's pocket, one of them might buy another controller, making Nintendo $60 or however much they're gonna cost (I'm thinking more, like $65-70).

Anyway, the Wii U's multiplayer success/failure won't have much of an effect on the single player userbase. Look at the PS2. How many multiplayer games has anyone played on that? Very few. Still immensely successful. Multiplayer is simply an extra gamble with not much to lose and some possibility for success.

Lastly, the Wii U controller is ten times better as a controller with a screen, compared to a GBA. I can imagine playing an RTS on the Wii U controller screen, but not with a GBA.

I have no idea how much the multiplayer ruined the potentially-good single player in Crystal Chronicles, but I think Four Swords Adventures was still quite good even solo play. Obviously, I couldn't find anyone willing to play the whole thing with me, and the resulting game was pretty profound and astounding...my only complaint is that, yes, it would be much better if simply single player, because all of the puzzles which require multiple people makes it extremely tedious. Getting 4 players together to play it is one thing, but 4 experienced Zelda fans??! I suppose that's its greatest fault. Being a Zelda fan though, I stuck to it and made it all the way through, and damn it was long! I think it's something of a lost gem in the Zelda library.

I disliked playing Four Swords and FF:CC multiplayer intensely.  Most of us usually ended up trying to screw each other over all the time, which gets tiring after a couple afternoons.  That and no one could seem to keep their GBA's in either batteries or charged.  Cables? no problem.  I had plenty to go around.  Those games were also waaaay too long to keep us consistently getting together to play it.

I greatly enjoyed playing single player.  Four Swords I liked because it was pretty much like Link to the Past.  However, like it was mentioned before I don't remember a single thing about how it played out.  FF:CC is more memorable in my books but I disliked the magic system used in the game and how you couldn't really get the good stuff by yourself.  I only just recently youtubed through to the end of it because i was curious as to how it finished.

As for how Wii U will turn out.  Who knows?  I didn't pre-order one.  Myself I would want the deluxe version but I don't want to pay that much for it.  I haven't plugged in my Wii in about 3 years.

avatar! wrote:

I played Zelda Four Swords single player all the way through to the end, and I remember almost NOTHING about it. That is not a good sign. It was a 100% forgettable game in my opinion. Of course, I don't like playing RPGs or adventure game multi-style, so maybe it's more memorable with other players, however I would definitely rank it as a weak. I also consider myself a Zelda fan, but not a fan to the point where I can just overlook poor quality. Anyway, just my thoughts...

I felt the same with A Link to the Past the first time I played it. It was overwhelmingly long, and felt repetitious at times (I wasn't aware of how much the gaming public loved it, so I was just going by my own standards), and I basically didn't like it that much. I think the same applies to FSA. It had way too many enemies (to feed the competitive force gem system, which wasn't all that great), but when it had puzzles, they were pretty clever. Maybe my memory's shot too.

I played ALttP on the GBA. I was around 13, and thought it was simpler a lesser form of the current Zeldas (particularly the Oracles and Link's Awakening, which were then obsessions of mine), and to this day I haven't changed that view a bit. I can kind of see how someone playing it for the first time in '92 would've felt, but I think the series has made significant progression since. Far below my favorite Zeldas as well. I like nostalgia, but it's overrated to me.

The GameCube Four Swords game was amazing as a single-player game. It was basically The Legend of Zelda: VR Missions. I loved every minute of it, and I would glady welcome a sequel as long as it follows the GameCube game's single-player style and avoids any and all connections to the awful GBA/DSiWare game.