I mean the whole thing. Xbox did something different with the Knect, as it HAS no controller, but PS3 out right copied it. This all kind of adds up, as the PS1 COULD have been a Nintendo console, as Nintendo and Sony were working together, but Nintendo later left the project. I still think Nintendo will do good.
The kinect (or however its spelled) is a rip-off of the original playstation eye. And reason Sony uses "wands" is because their version of it is extremely accurate (for todays standards), and people prefer buttons. So, yes, it looks like the wii controller, but it is completely different hardware wise.
I' just saying, those better explain my opinion then me retyping what's basically the same thing. I was going to look up wii u will succeed after it kept getting suggested by Google, but I got distracted and watched Freeman's Mind instead.
Your remarks prove that you have a simple mind that is reluctant and fearful of change. Innovation is what progresses society. If our distant ancestors lacked the progressive thinking that led to the invention of the wheel, humans would still be living in caves and smashing things with rocks. Hell, if you despise innovation and progressive thinking, go join an Amish community and forget about everything that you know now.
Nope! If you think that the changes that nintendo made to gaming consoles were "innovation", you need to start looking words up in a dictionary before posting anything on the internet.
I started a long rant including Darwinism and killing the ignorant who will overpopulate the earth faster than the intelligent who focus too much on gaining knowledge and fail to produce offspring to balance or even counterbalance the scales. Basically, Idiocracy is a very accurate portrayal of the potential future of society is where I was heading in my rant.
I took the liberty of doing the research for you since you obviously are incapable of understanding grammar or how to perform a simple search for information. Here is the official definition of innovation from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Definition of INNOVATION 1: the introduction of something new 2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty See here in definition 2, the more specific identification of "something". Well guess what, the Wii U is a new device and the functionality of the control is a new method of controlling the console. Thanks for trying and failing to correct my grammar.
Nintendo uses invention to capture peoples attention. Sony and M$ use innovation to create better hardware, which is needed to run better, more complex, and bigger games.
I read why the Wii U will succeed, but I don't really feel compelled. The Wii U is, in fact, not the first thing to use multi-screen play, as demonstrated by the Gamecube GBA adapter. While this is the first time multi-screen gameplay will be emphasized, it's functionality will be surprisingly annoying and limited. I've seen gameplay of ZombiU, and I found it surprisingly poor, with the touchscreen being used for what pretty much ammounts to a mingame, but also requires you to take your eyes of the screen. Batman: Arkham City gameplay is much less intuitive using the touchscreen. When it says core gamers will love it, we must remember that lately, the core audience has been ignored by Nintendo, with any new games that have come out lately being surprisingly lackluster (Newest Metroid game for example). While I do hope this changes, we must take into account Nintendo's strategy in this. I can't argue against the oncoming lack of crappy ports, so they have me there. Also, once again, re-releasing old games for Xbox and PS3 is not a feature, and most gamers are going to have them already. Plus, you have to look at the casual audience. When you combine the likely exorbitant price of the controller, and the console itself, your looking at at least 500 USD. The casual gamers already have a Wii, already, this console isn't getting the medias mega-attention that the Wii got. Casual gamers rarely play their Wii, they don't see why they need a new one. Also, Nintendo has a dangerously unstable online plan. Miiverse has added picture chat, if I'm not mistaken. Now, what will young boys use that for, it's not good. It's disgusting, an d quite frankly, not even appropriate enough to say by name on this website, if you ask me. And while Nintendo seems to be trying harder to get 3rd party support, it seems unlikely it will happen considering Nintendo's past. Lastly, Nintendo won't have exclusivity this time around, there's Xbox Smartglass, and PS4/PS Vita compatibility to contend with. It doesn't look too good for Nintendo this time around.
You point this out as if this is the first time that "little boys" will have access to a camera... If they are going to act out in a perverted manner, the Wii U is not going to be their first chance to do so. I had access to a camera long before I started using the internet and I even acted in a juvenile manner. This is not a valid argument. To bring it up to date, 360 has a camera. PS3 has a camera. Computers have cameras. Cell phones have cameras. Hell disposable cameras are still for sale to this very day. If a young boy or girl wants to capture a photo of their genitalia and share it with the world, nothing is stopping them and the Wii U is not going to be the catalyst that drives them to do it.
I don't know about running right out and buying a Wii U considering the email I got from GameStop said it was going to be around $300 for the smallest GB set and then $350 for the largest GB set. Most of the games I have seen are around 59.99. I usually don't jump on the new system bandwagon until the price has dropped. Yeah looking at specs it has some nice things about it though. Didn't get my first GameCube until we found a package deal of the basic stuff you get plus an extra controller, memory card, two games and an extension cord. Sam's Club had that package marked around $110 and dad bought my sister and I each one. Didn't get my first PS1 until way after they had been released and it was the tiny one. Same goes for the Gameboy Advance, DS, PSP and didn't get a 3DS until my 1st anniversary back in March. Other than that anything else I buy used or refurbished.
I can assure you, I'm not- Ohh! A butterfly! But really, I look down on teenagers my age because they're so, well, stupid. I think it was pathetic that I was the only person in the entire Freshman class who knew what a pimp really was. I'm the only one who doesn't spend class talking as if they needed to, or else they'd lose the ability. I may be conceited, viewing myself as smarter, but I don't see anyone else demonstrating signs of intelligence. I focus so much on school, and my other hobbies, that I view myself as inhuman compared to my peers. I have so little in common with most people, it's downright ridiculous. True, but I guarantee, as a teenager, that when I was a kid, that was the sole purpose of PictoChat. I've been surrounded by nearly 40 kids with DS's at once, and everyone in PictoChat was doing THE. EXACT. SAME. THING. The Wii U is not the catalyst, it's yet another output. I'm glad I have someone to debate with at least, debate is fun if you ask me.
Lol fail. Look at BF3 for PC. Its online matches are larger compared to the console version, because PCs have BETTER HARDWARE than consoles. Look at SupCom2 for PC, it has the ability to have larger skirmishes when compared to the xbox version, because PC's have BETTER HARDWARE. Better hardware=the ability to run more complex games smoothly. Doesnt take a genius to figure that out. And if i was a "simple minded individual" who cares mainly about graphics, then why am i a minecraft player?
You used FPS games to point out why the PC is better than consoles for gaming and then cited the wrong reason for why it is a better platform.... The hardware that you would be accurately describing is the INPUT HARDWARE. Mouse and keyboard trumps console controllers when it comes to FPS and RPGs, not when it comes to sports, action/adventure or fighting games. The other advantage of PC over console gaming is that you can MODIFY your game without having to depend on the developer to provide official content. Also, another point that needs to be made here: Gaming on the PC has to function across many more pieces of hardware which does not allow everyone to have the exact same experience playing the game. With console gaming you have a closed system and so the developers can squeeze every bit of performance capability out of the hardware without having to worry about incompatibility for newer GPUs or CPUs or Motherboards or anything else that effects the functionality of the system. Now, take the time to understand the subject before you come out and spout your OPINION as if it is FACT. Nothing you have said has yet to prove me wrong. If you decide to absorb truth rather than rhetoric, then I will stop pointing out your foolishness. I can't take credit away from you for making you look like a fool, your are doing it with such stubborn determination. I like you. You are fun to debate and discuss things with. You are willing to accept differing points of view and you do attempt to provide an intelligible dialogue. At this point, we have come to an agreement and so I have no reason to argue with you.
Lol. So what you are trying to tell me, is that i can play in larger matches because of my mouse? Well then, i sure put my money into the wrong parts! I should have bought a $120 keyboard, and a $90 mouse. Thank you for pointing out my flaws in my understanding of why PC games have largers matches in FPS games. Also, thank you for pointing out to me that SupCom2 ( http://www.supremecommander2.com/ ) is a FPS game, i always thought it wasnt!
No, you said better hardware. I pointed out the hardware that differentiates PC gaming and console gaming. If you chose to ignorantly dwell on larger groups of players in your FPS and RTS games, that is your fault. I didn't recognize SupCom2 as an alias for Supreme Commander 2, I thought SupCom2 was just another FPS I never played but turns out it is an RTS I have never played. However, RTS was the one genre I forgot in my list of games that are much more suited for PC gaming. Ever play Starcraft 64? Yea, my point exactly. And yet you still prove my point that the INPUT HARDWARE is the more appropriate focus and not the GPU, CPU, mother board or Ethernet port. The console online matches for BF3 specifically are explained by DICE CEO Patrick Söderlund: “A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it. We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players. And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven’t done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there’s no point in going higher than 64.” - Gamerant.com This logic can easily extend to the other multiplayer games on consoles. Yet again, you are wrong.
