Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

Review WiiU.
On a GFX standpoint its the same game, but because of the lack of splitscreen because you can't use more than 1 controller and because the online is not that well integrated its an 7.0.

Why not... just use the same splitscreen that's on the other platforms?

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

Oh, they know. They're just not telling everything yet, choosing to give us info little by little. And this is how they have always done it.

Not giving away everything is just fine no problem.
But telling the basics and understanding what the limitations and useabilities are for the console should be your #1 priority I assume.

I assume they want the correct message out the door from day 1 and NOT go 6 months later
"well you all thought this was the way it worked well it turn out it works like this".

That is why you need to come out day 1 and say here is what nintendo is bringing to the table for our new vision.

And if we are confused by it how about "John Doe" "casual guy" going to understand it.

Do you listen to tech podcast or just podcast in general? (non gaming related)?
Or have you read the "main stream" news on what they say about the WiiU
THEY do not get it they have a hard time understanding it and explaining it to people.

its funny because until today local multiplayer was a second thought on most games, being online multiplayer the focus for most of them...

Well but nintendo wants to be on the same level as 360 and ps3 they want all the options that comes with those versions.
They want (at least that is their message at the moment). be the same on a 3rd party level.

You have an 360/ps3 and a WiiU?
Than you need to buy the WiiU version of GAME X because we are the same in GFX, controls and online.

But if its not the same than who is going to buy the WiiU version of that game? (if the WiiU is not the only console that you have obviously).

 

[Sammy Samusu]

Does he know anything about that fucking Zelda multiplayer game called Four Swords?

Multiple Wii U controllers is a must! I don't even know why they are still thinking about it.

*posting from the 3DS*

 

[HisshouBuraiKen]

The reactions to the multiple tablet questions dumbfound me. How can a company come up with this idea that they claim lets them do all sorts of things they couldn't before, then say, "Wow, uhhhhhh....we never really considered that" when asked if the system will support multiple controllers?

I'm not exactly broken up about it because I love the Wiimote and I'm not sold on the WUT (Wii U Tablet, ha), but damn. Talk about smh moments.

 

[bishopcruz]

It is also the first time you dont have to spend lots of money to play local multiplayer...

Only if you had a Wii in the first place. If you didn't you are still looking at the possibility of having to buy a bevy of devices in order to compete depending on the game. If the one new controller per console thing holds, then Nintendo NEEDS to create a wireless alternative to the classic controller. I don't care if it only works on the Wii U. The current Wii implementation of having to plug all its accessories into a WiiMote is absurd as hell now, I fail to see why it would have to continue in the future.

 

[Krowley]

So what you're saying is that for traditional multiplayer experiences the display on the tablet is completely and utterly superfluous? Awesome.


Unless you don't own any Wii Remote/Nunchuk combos. I didn't get one in my last Happy Meal so I assume they're just as expensive as when I still owned my Wii. More tablets, more wiimote combos, either way its more money.

Obviously it's not ideal, but you can still have asynchronous multiplayer (some of which seems very interesting) if you want to use the tablet.

What I'm saying is that you don't really lose anything by having a tablet controller compared to the traditional local multiplayer experience. The buttons are still there so the most popular multiplayer games can still be handled without difficulty.

The pad is an added feature for normal gaming. That's what makes it different than the wiimote. This is something that is applied on top of a fundamentally traditional gaming experience. It doesn't seem to be as much of a benefit for local multiplayer as it is for single player or online gameing, but since it has all the traditional controls available, and it supports peripherals that also have all those controls, you're not really losing anything either. And you gain the benefit of the asynchronous experiences that weren't really encouraged on other gaming devices.

The only thing that really bothers me about it at this point is the potential aggravation of having to order one from nintendo when I eventually break it, but I don't see any way around that. And I'm a little worried about the confusion the decision might cause if nintendo doesn't find the right marketing solution. They really need to design a CC that doesn't rely on the wiimote... They can call it the "Wii U multiplayer controller" or something.

 

[OniShiro]

Obviously it's not ideal, but you can still have asynchronous multiplayer (some of which seems very interesting) if you want to use the tablet.

Not really, unless the tablet has some sort of CPU/GPU to hold the image, etc.

 

[birdchili]

they really need to release a classic controller that doesn't need tethering to a remote.

i'm kind-of glad we might get another shot at seeing some neat remote/nunchuk games, which were really poorly leveraged this gen.

remote-on-its-side is an unergonomic mess.

nintendo has an steep uphill climb communicating what's going on with this system, and not including a remote+ in the box is probably crazy.

 

[Krowley]

Not really, unless the tablet has some sort of CPU/GPU to hold the image, etc.

there are games at the show where one player uses the tablet while everybody else looks at the screen while playing with wiimotes, and the screen is showing a different view of the action. It has the ability to send one stream to the tablet and another to the TV. It can also send a stream simultaneously to the TV and the Tablet, or send a map or some other interface element to the tablet while still showing stuff on the screen.

 

[thecouncil]

This is the first time in my memory, in which a console forces a player to use the previous controller due to limitations in the console design. That is horrible. Period.

Seems exaggerated. Your whole post does, really.
It's not forcing a player to use the previous system's controller. (psst. that thing with a screen on it is a new controller.)
If they include a Wii MotionPlus controller in the package (which most Wii owners probably don't have), it will be enough of an increase in controller tech.
If they don't, I don't see how the potential to reuse old controllers for local multi and saving at least $60 is a bad thing.
DS2 to DS3 wasn't that big of a difference and you actually had to pay for it again and nobody complained about that, right?
The crowd that bought a Wii will probably appreciate saving the money it would take to pick up additional controllers.

 

[OniShiro]

there are games at the show where one player uses the tablet while everybody else looks at the screen, which is showing a different view of the action. It has the ability to send one stream to the tablet and another to the TV. It can also send a stream simultaneously to the TV and the Tablet, or send a map or whatever else to the tablet while still showing stuff on the screen.

Yes, but the console is sending only 1 stream, it can't send 2 streams to 2 tablets, that's why unless it has a CPU/GPU to hold the image while the stream is sent to the other tablet async multiplayer won't be possible, unless you mean something else.

 

[Starchasing]

Does he know anything about that fucking Zelda multiplayer game called Four Swords?

Multiple Wii U controllers is a must! I don't even know why they are still thinking about it.

*posting from the 3DS*

he knows... thats why i think all this 1 remote per WiiU is because of how expensive the controller is

 

[Somnid]

Yes, but the console is sending only 1 stream, it can't send 2 streams to 2 tablets, that's why unless it has a CPU/GPU to hold the image while the stream is sent to the other tablet async multiplayer won't be possible, unless you mean something else.

There's nothing that says it can't.

 

[Soule]

I may play single player like 90% of the time, when I see some software I may not even care, but I have to say if you can only use 1 tablet that seems way fucking stupid. This is the most sceptical i've been towards a Nintendo console ever, long way to go but they're not filling me with faith :\

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I don't understand the 1 controller thing. Just turn off the streaming if it's a problem to 4 controllers. Will be difficult with multiple kids. Had a blast playing DKCR with my son and the asymmetric gameplay with Wii controllers is confusing. Unless it's $100/controller. I just don't see playing Mario Kart with more than 1 player. I understand you may be able to with Wii controllers but it seems undeveloped.

Imagine an on-rails sequence where you can move between two viewpoints at various times. Both firing guns in front and each has to take turns firing on one side/at the rear. Side and rear are displayed on the small screen but you can choose who depending on skills. Tactical shooters where you cover different sides and various skills help out. Main screen if focused on one side and different players cover the flanks. Take out the maps and make people really have to depend on skill and let sneakiness become a central aspect of the game. Remove radar from the equation but not force one 'special' player to hold the 'real' controller. Use the flaw as a tactical element.

I don't know but I believe devs can work their way around it. Using Wii controllers seems under developed. Why push the technology of the screen and not take full use of it. I hope they figure this out where it's easy to have 4 Wii U controllers going at the same time, even if it's limited in multiplayer. The Wii U controller should be the default so devs can develop for it, not some hodge podge of different controllers people may or may not have. It'll get confusing (you need this and that controller; nobody will develop for it and it'll not be useful.)

 

[Plinko]

he knows... thats why i think all this 1 remote per WiiU is because of how expensive the controller is

I'm actually at the point where I believe it's a hardware limitation, not a cost issue.

Nintendo saying, "Well, we want to make it affordable" is a great soundbite for consumers but realistically no game will require more than one tablet. It will ALL be optional--just like having multiple Wii remotes was optional.

Something just doesn't sound right here and my guess is that it absolutely can't stream data to more than one tablet without a MAJOR performance hit.

 

[Krowley]

Yes, but the console is sending only 1 stream, it can't send 2 streams to 2 tablets, that's why unless it has a CPU/GPU to hold the image while the stream is sent to the other tablet async multiplayer won't be possible, unless you mean something else.

I mean asynchrony in the sense that the two players are engaged in different kinds of gameplay.

for example, the ubi shooter game lets one player function as sort of a dungeon master using an interface on the pad, while the other player uses the CC for an FPS experience on the TV screen, trying to deal with the monsters and other obstacles that the pad using player sets up in the game world.

that's a very unusual and interesting multiplay experience that couldn't easily be pulled off with a traditional system. But, if they wanted, they could potentially also do split screen traditional FPS gaming with one player on the pad and the other using the CC, and set up the interface so that the screen wasn't utilized in that mode.

 

[Starchasing]

I'm actually at the point where I believe it's a hardware limitation, not a cost issue.

Nintendo saying, "Well, we want to make it affordable" is a great soundbite for consumers but realistically no game will require more than one tablet. It will ALL be optional--just like having multiple Wii remotes was optional.

Something just doesn't sound right here and my guess is that it absolutely can't stream data to more than one tablet without a MAJOR performance hit.

It may not be able to stream lagless full screen video to the 4 controllers... but i could at least stream static content, like an inventory which would work wonders for mario kart Mii

 

[brerwolfe]

I wonder how much those controllers are going to be alone, must be $80 at least.

understatement of the week.

 

[Zombie James]

Or the classic controller..

Does Nintendo have any plans on releasing a version that doesn't need to be connected to another controller? The idea of using a classic controller for Wii U games sounds like an appealing alternative, but I don't want to have to go out and buy a Wii Remote on top of that just to use it.

 

[TL4E]

Nintendo seems very unsure of where they're going with the Wii U. Sure the thing is over a year away from launch, but if they're going to show it at E3, they should at least have basic details like the number of usable controllers down.

 

[Krowley]

Does Nintendo have any plans on releasing a version that doesn't need to be connected to another controller? The idea of using a classic controller for Wii U games sounds like an appealing alternative, but I don't want to have to go out and buy a Wii Remote on top of that just to use it.

We don't know yet, but I think everybody is hoping so. It seems like an obvious way of lessening the impact of this situation.

Nintendo seems very unsure of where they're going with the Wii U. Sure the thing is over a year away from launch, but if they're going to show it at E3, they should at least have basic details like the number of usable controllers down.

I think they do know, and i think they're basically just dodging the question.

Before this thing came out, there were a lot of people who were sure that streaming full games to the controller would be laggy and technically unfeasible. They've managed to pull off lag-free streaming, but this "one controller per system" rule seems to be the sacrifice. I don't think the system can send out streams to two controllers, and it's probably got more to do with the actual network aspect than CPU performance. The network bandwidth hit may be too extreme for the system's wireless technology.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

Nintendo seems very unsure of where they're going with the Wii U. Sure the thing is over a year away from launch, but if they're going to show it at E3, they should at least have basic details like the number of usable controllers down.

Exactly.

And if nintendo wants to stay crazy and do all sorts of things different about the console I have no problem with that BUT:

Than do not expect to have the same experience for your console than nintendo with 3rd party games.
And because of the extra cost you can 100% expect 3rd parties to do crapware on your machine or just muliplatform games that just are not as good as your competitors.
AKA Wii all over again.

 

[Jocchan]

I'm actually at the point where I believe it's a hardware limitation, not a cost issue.

Nintendo saying, "Well, we want to make it affordable" is a great soundbite for consumers but realistically no game will require more than one tablet. It will ALL be optional--just like having multiple Wii remotes was optional.

Something just doesn't sound right here and my guess is that it absolutely can't stream data to more than one tablet without a MAJOR performance hit.

Streaming to more than one tablet doesn't affect performance by itself, but depending on the protocol they use it just may not be possible (unless they stream at a lower resolution, or alternating frames between two controllers effectively halving their framerate).

What affects performance is having to render to more screens, especially when each is supposed to show a different view of the gameplay. Simple 2D stuff like menus or gameplay wouldn't have a big impact on performance.

 

[Formless]

I think the best thing Nintendo could do is to make the hardware powerful enough to send all this information to multiple controllers, something that could not only render a lot of information but also enough signal strength/signal output capacity to handle this, without interfering with other devices. Pretty tough engineering task I think.

 

[Steroyd]

3DS doesnt have dual analog, 4 shoulder buttons, and a large screen.

You're right the 3DS doesn't, but it won't stop them releasing a 3DS4U model in 2 years time.

 

[Jocchan]

I think the best thing Nintendo could do is to make the hardware powerful enough to send all this information to multiple controllers, something that could not only render a lot of information but also enough signal strength/signal output capacity to handle this, without interfering with other devices. Pretty tough engineering task I think.

It's not a matter of horsepower, it's a matter of wireless streaming protocols. Each controller is just a dumb terminal playing video, the difficult part is sending said video at a decent resolution (and framerate) without lag.

 

[FoneBone]

It may not be able to stream lagless full screen video to the 4 controllers... but i could at least stream static content, like an inventory which would work wonders for mario kart Mii

Yeah, this should be a priority for them (although it's not a setup that games ought to require).

 

[Zoramon089]

You're right the 3DS doesn't, but it won't stop them releasing a 3DS4U model in 2 years time.

No

 

[Formless]

It's not a matter of horsepower, it's a matter of wireless streaming protocols. Each controller is just a dumb terminal playing video, the difficult part is sending said video at a decent resolution (and framerate) without lag.

That being said, would things like menus be any different from gameplay from a size-of-information standpoint? I think more static videos take up less space with the right compression methods, but I'm not sure how that applies to streaming content.

 

[mclem]

Yes, but the console is sending only 1 stream, it can't send 2 streams to 2 tablets, that's why unless it has a CPU/GPU to hold the image while the stream is sent to the other tablet async multiplayer won't be possible, unless you mean something else.

I think he means asymmetric, not asynchronous.

 

[Krowley]

I think he means asymmetric, not asynchronous.

Yeah, i probably used the wrong word.

 

[renitou]

feels like they announced this thing a little too early

Better than releasing the system itself too early, at least. See: 3DS

 

[VGChampion]

Well that's disappointing. I was coming around to the idea but my biggest joy of the Wii U was no more Wii remotes. Super disappointed at this news. Hopefully they release another type of controller for the Wii U that isn't as powerful for players 2-4.

 

[Plinko]

Streaming to more than one tablet doesn't affect performance by itself, but depending on the protocol they use it just may not be possible (unless they stream at a lower resolution, or alternating frames between two controllers effectively halving their framerate).

What affects performance is having to render to more screens, especially when each is supposed to show a different view of the gameplay. Simple 2D stuff like menus or gameplay wouldn't have a big impact on performance.

I was referring to streaming to more than one tablet, but you're absolutely right. With a menu or playcalling screen it shouldn't be a huge issue. That's why I'm puzzled as to why they haven't said it will work. One would think if it was actually possible they'd come right out and say so.

 

[Boken]

I'd be happy to pay for slightly expensive controllers if it means I can use all of them.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Everyone saying that the Wii 2's ability to support only U controller means the death of local multiplayer (MP) are overreacting. What it means is that the new possibilities opened up by the controller will not be available in local MP. The U will act as a normal controller in local MP. However, if designers are smart they will realize that despite this co-op games can still take advantagee of the fact that each player has their own screen. The streaming and touch features of the controller are still out though unfortunately.

The more important question is how Nintendo will ensure that developers can continue to include compelling motion control and/or local MP modes in their games. This is easier to ensure than many are making it out to be. First, Nintendo has to include a Wii-mote with the console. This isn't an option, it must be done to ensure back compatibility and casual migration to the new system. Also, it will allow motion control to be a continued mainstay of the Wii brand. Second, Nintendo needs to redesign and release a new CC-pro that includes all the features of the U controller with the exception of the screen. This would include a microphone, headphone jack, accelerometer, and gyroscope. To communicate what this new controller is for Nintendo would be smart to label it bluntly, Wii 2 MP controller for instance. It doesn't need to be included with the console, but it absolutely needs to be available day and date with the launch.

If Nintendo takes both of these steps (along with rebranding the console), I think most of the early complaints will be rectified.

 

[Vinci]

Everyone saying that the Wii 2's ability to support only U controller means the death of local multiplayer (MP) are overreacting. What it means is that the new possibilities opened up by the controller will not be available in local MP. The U will act as a normal controller in local MP. However, if designers are smart they will realize that despite this co-op games can still take advantagee of the fact that each player has their own screen. The streaming and touch features of the controller are still out though unfortunately.

Nintendo's little minigames they showed at E3 prove that the asymmetrical nature of the controller in a local environment can bring about interesting gameplay possibilities. Don't get me wrong: I'd prefer to have multiple WU controllers per system, but if I can't I think it's still interesting for such content.

 

[Starchasing]

And as you can guess, this new controller for Wii U is going to cost more than the other controller does, and that's why, most often, our focus on the software shall be the ones that can be enjoyed with the one Wii U controller.

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09...o-president-satoru-iwata-talks-about-wii-u/2/

 

[Medalion]

I've already pretty much concluded that Nintendo has no intentions for a PSN or Xbox Live type of network due to the fact they have no real hard disk drive in the system, just maybe a few GBs of Flash Storage and SD cards... I honestly think there model for online from the first Wii will still be the core for this new system and maybe some other additional things but it is more or less imported from the original Wii.

I also was thinking about the Wii U controller... I honestly thought the Wii U controller was meant to be a singular controller to the system, and then a bunch of backwards compatible Wii controllers and portables act as the other interfaces... that is why the system is called Wii U (meaning a single person controlling a main controller) instead of just Wii (we, implying plural, more than 1 to control the main controller)

 

[LegendofJoe]

Nintendo's little minigames they showed at E3 prove that the asymmetrical nature of the controller in a local environment can bring about interesting gameplay possibilities. Don't get me wrong: I'd prefer to have multiple WU controllers per system, but if I can't I think it's still interesting for such content.

I agree, the WiiU still has the potential for interesting local MP, but the lack of support for multiple U controllers will limit what designers will do with it. That is the unfortunate truth. That said the people in this thread assuming that Nintendo is abondoning local MP are very much overreacting, they haven't taken the time to think through how the limitations of the U can be worked around.

 

[jonnybryce]

Nintendo seems very unsure of where they're going with the Wii U. Sure the thing is over a year away from launch, but if they're going to show it at E3, they should at least have basic details like the number of usable controllers down.

This is what's surprising to me. It seems like they simply haven't thought of so much and that they just wanted to thrill with the controller - which is cool, but not enough.

When you (Reggie) come out and make such bold statements as (paraphrasing) "There were gamers who thought Wii was cool but not for them. This is our way of saying it's for YOU. Wii U" then you better have the ability to make such basic statements as "Yes. Absolutely, we've learned from Wii and our online will rival our competitors."

How difficult is that? We don't need screenshots, we don't need hands on, but stop dragging us along. Honestly if Wii U fails to have a respectable online network - if I have to juggle a bunch of friends lists and user names for every game or brand of game - I might just avoid it. Online gaming has become too large a part of my life and I'm long passed the "I must play every good game ever" stage in my life. I can stick with one or two consoles, Nintendo. Try me.

 

[Jocchan]

I was referring to streaming to more than one tablet, but you're absolutely right. With a menu or playcalling screen it shouldn't be a huge issue. That's why I'm puzzled as to why they haven't said it will work. One would think if it was actually possible they'd come right out and say so.

Of course streaming alternatively to two tablets at halved framerate (with simple 2D menus or maps with blinking dots no one would notice, not even at 15 fps) and/or at halved resolution would be basically equivalent to streaming to just one tablet at full res/framerate from a bandwidth standpoint, depending on the actual implementation/encoding.

The fact they're not confirming it's possible makes me think they haven't really researched the possibility. Perhaps they thought it wasn't needed? In that case, it would be kinda bizarre.

 

[Deku]

I think their experience with GBA>GC connectivity colored their design of the WiiU, that is, expensive controllers will have a very slow uptake. And they would be right to think that.

But considering they have been asked about using mutiple screenmotes may force them to alter the design.

But frankly, I can't see it feasibly supporting more than 2. They may 1) open it up to a 2nd screenmote 2) allow the 3DS to sub in for the 2nd controller.

 

[Oppo]

Well remember it's not network streaming, it's proprietary RF. Like UWB.

It sounds like a tech limitation to me but hard to say at this point.

 

[Vinci]

I agree, the WiiU still has the potential for interesting local MP, but the lack of support for multiple U controllers will limit what designers will do with it. That is the unfortunate truth. That said the people in this thread assuming that Nintendo is abondoning local MP are very much overreacting, they haven't taken the time to think through how the limitations of the U can be worked around.

Well, lets be honest here: The vast majority of 3rd party big name developers make single-player games and online multiplayer games. Local multiplayer has mostly been Nintendo's domain. So if it limits anyone, it limits Nintendo. So if they're still planning on releasing it, they find this asymmetrical aspect fascinating or able to be used on their grindstone, or they're making the best out of a compromise necessary to reach potential equilibrium (3rd party wise) with Sony and MS.

 

[Zoramon089]

I've already pretty much concluded that Nintendo has no intentions for a PSN or Xbox Live type of network due to the fact they have no real hard disk drive in the system, just maybe a few GBs of Flash Storage and SD cards... I honestly think there model for online from the first Wii will still be the core for this new system and maybe some other additional things but it is more or less imported from the original Wii.

Is it fair to assume you have no idea how online works on the 3DS?

 

[luffeN]

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09...o-president-satoru-iwata-talks-about-wii-u/2/

So that doesn't necessarily mean that WiiU can only stream to one WU controller.

 

[mutsu]

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09...o-president-satoru-iwata-talks-about-wii-u/2/

He is making it sound like you CAN buy another Wii U controller, but it will cost a lot of money, so he is encouraging developers to make games assuming there's only going to be one of these in the average household.

A bit like in the beginning of the Wii when they encourage developers to assume that people are only going to buy an extra Wii Remote, but not an extra nunchuck.

Hope it is true that you can connect more than one to the system, regardless of the cost of the controller itself.

 

[methodman]

He is making it sound like you CAN buy another Wii U controller, but it will cost a lot of money, so he is encouraging developers to make games assuming there's only going to be one of these in the average household.

A bit like in the beginning of the Wii when they encourage developers to assume that people are only going to buy an extra Wii Remote, but not an extra nunchuck.

Hope it is true that you can connect more than one to the system, regardless of the cost of the controller itself.

Yea. I'll buy a second regardless of cost if it can be used