Let me take this example and go against it. In the end I'll explain if it was valid or not.
The single touch is an inconvenience, when I was in the plaza thing I immediatly assumed to zoom in and out with the usual multi touch gestures, instead zooming happens with the +- buttons and moving up and down with the right stick.
So what's the problem, smartphones don't have buttons so everything's cramped into touch, this is subjective as to what a person is used to. Specifically, WiiU is primairly a game console intended for games, smartphones are mobile devices intended only for short periods of simple tasks. There is no God's law or a written stone that says that all screens need to have double-touch, the GamePad does not support it, but the Zooming feature is still operational, thus no functionality was lost. Your complaint is therefore invalid.
How much time do people spend on a demo unit? Will they even realize it is more than just a themepark and consists of many small games? Nintendo should customize the game, chop the minigames out and make them available as small apps. It doesn't provide a good demonstration, wasn't very clear what the game was about.
So, your first impression about WiiU is bad, because it's not good enough for casuals? You have spent almost a half of your post writing about how casuals will percieve nintendo land. Something that is a total non-issue, it's only an issue for nintendo if they want more sales, otherwise nobody cares, there are way more important things to worry about. Your solution is also biased to the smartphone side, Apps. So because there's no a menu with lots of buttons to enter any of the games, basing on this you have a negative impression. Well, the game's functionality is still intact since it offers what it promises, the way to get there may not be the usual but still it is operational. If you did not figure out how to operate the software it is solely you're own problem. Therefore this argument is also invalid.
You also seem to figure out the thing afterward, that it is a themepark with lots of games, you're now analyzing yourself what you thought beforehand and basing your current status on the previous knowledge, which is ridicolous, it's weird. Does that mean any other guy won't figure it out after trying and looking. If you researched and got the information you needed why would you care about others at all.
You seem to be a type of a consumer who thinks things will be thrown at him on a silver plate, who is easily duped by commercials, well, welcome to reality, google it, do the research your self, that's everyone's moral duty before they go criticise something.
With both games I was confused at which screen to look, people who own the system might say "you'll get used to it", but you won't on the limited time spend on a demo pod. I reckon it will be even more confusing to the casuals.
Yes, people who know way more information than you do, know that it is worth buying the system, and they also give a chance to use the system enough and see if it does work, that's how a proper analysis is made. These demo units are obviously not meant, but why didn't you try to use it long enough hmm. If the games (that are in the demo) don't interest you, then that has nothing to do with the system it self and therefore the system it self should not get the blame.
Again. Who cares about the casuals. If a game is great to the hardcore, it's great. If casual says it's not, he's not taken seriously and has no relevance to the feedback, because he's a casual who has no idea what he's talking about and is usually lacking information, doesn't try enough before he speaks, has much less skill with playing games, doesn't understand the industry ...etc. If a causal uses the "too hard game" argument, again, the game obviously is not meant for him, he doesn't need to play it, let us enjoy what we want, so their opinions aren't taken into account.
Ofcourse companies in an non-self-sustainable fractional reserve monetary system have to sell as much as they could, so their quality sacrifices are justified beacuse their primary goal is profit. Nintendo takes quality very seriously, a rarity.
Going out of apps... why does it take so long? I know it has been discussed a lot, now that I experienced it myself, wtf Nintendo? This for me is the biggest drawback and I will wait with my purchase until this has been addressed.
Overal, I'm of the opinion the demo didn't provide a very good look of the system. Its slow, it lacks content (only 2 games to try out) and its confusing. Nintendo should do a better job showcasing their new system.
So in the end, you conclude that the system doesn't have a good look, basing that on a walmart demo. For any experienced user, this is a joke.
But, you didn't decide to never buy WiiU. So why the hate, thus there should be a lot of good things about it. Why is the conclusion and tone of it negative, if it was already weight on the positive side?
If one of your valid arguments is the Slow OS issue, for the decision to delay the purchase of WiiU, why is then all of that other debate needed.
So, all you're actually saying is, that the slow OS is a big issue, and you're delaying the purchase. Same thing I'm doing. (but there's also a big problem of supply in my geolocation)
There is a psychological lesson to this, people evolve, learn, grow, why do all of the first-impression people need to proclaim their 5 minute moments of what it was in some store demo. No serious gamer cares about some early dev-kit software that was clearly made for the utmost casuals who's opinion never matters it's only bait to get as much sales as possible.
What is out there, that matters, the whole experience of it, Nintendo fixing the slow OS, that matters, Nintendo fixing Full RGB over HDMI, that matters. Things that can be fixed is what we must focus on, supplying proper feedback is the easiest and best thing to do.
