Bert said:
Are you serious? Go watch the video I posted in the OP and tell me whether one button or a mouse would replicate that.
I just went through EVERY idea seen in this thread and ALL OF THEM can be replaced by 1 or more things -
A.
Online functionality. We have multiple screen games. They're called online games. They're full screen for everyone, not just one person.
We could have made a 1000 person hide and go seek game already (for example) but we haven't because it's a horrible idea for a game. And if it isn't, then they can go ahead and make it right now on any platform, even the platform the WiiU is trying to replace.
B.
Overlay - you can overlay things on your screen. Lots of things and all in proper context. You don't need a second mini tv covering your screen to be able to see things you couldn't on parts of your tv. It's redundant rendering and hardware at its finest. You don't need a second tv covering your first to play a ghostbuster/luigi mansion game or to see x-ray mode in metroid. You don't need a controller interface in the way of what you're looking at. You don't need to move your arm out like an idiot to look around in 3d space.
Also, when you create your own graphical overlay in a game, you can justify any shape, size and purpose for it, while the controller screen is a limitation for that and will force the player to stand and or hold the wiiU in a particular spot for the screen over screen illusion to work. It's gotta be the dumbest most ill conceived "feature" the WiiU has to offer.
C.
Motion controls - half the ideas here can be
replaced by a wiimote pointing, drawing, doing any interaction at the screen. Again, this goes with reason B a lot because the wiimote can already be pointed at the screen and queue overlays on the tv where you're pointing. You can do it with easier with 1 hand AND not have to cover your vision with the controller. Imagine the aggravation of playing metroid prime 3 with the WiiU.
D.
A Button (and I do mean one button) - About 95% of the stuff that already can be fulfilled by A,B, and or C can also be replaced by 1 button. You're transmitting an abundance of data constantly on the screen when the player is only looking at one. Why? So you can occasionally look down and do something with that screen. That functionality can be replaced by 1 button in every single scenario that idea is implemented. Be that to be able to see something from a birds eye view, to see UI, to see anything a game could ever want you to see or do when you press that button.
The button replaces looking down on a screen, instead of looking at the UI in your 50 inch plasma, you're looking down, refocusing your eyes on a small screen and for no real reason. That super sweet tv for the time being is useless until you look back up at it. You got no UI over your screen. Great, too bad you're not looking at it right now. Anything in a UI that's so unimportant that you don't need to see at all times can be put in a menu that shows up with the press of a single button.
Example: One button changes everything on one screen
and oddly enough,
D.
Nothing - buttons in video games are already context sensitive. You don't need a touch screen with changing graphics to change the context of what a button does. They've been doing that since the dawn of gaming. Would you rather have to look down to see what Link can do to particular objects by pressing A, or just look at the top right part of the screen you're already looking at to see? One maintains the flow of the game, the other doesn't.