Discussion in 'Gaming News' started by GeekyGuy, Feb 10, 2012.
wiiu cant run it ? why ?
I feel like I heard it won't be on there. Idk ._.
Epic has already said they don't care to port Unreal to the 3DS. But it'll be on Wii U.
IMO Unreal Engine was never really "Nintendo-friendly", so I don't think it's the Wii U. Perhaps it's the nextbox.
Unreal Engine 2 works for the 3DS though.
I think you're confusing it with Unreal Engine 3 not running on 3DS. There was an article a good long time ago saying Unreal 3 won't be on the 3DS despite it working on the iPhone/iPad. There was some uproar and hubbub as you might expect. But I haven't heard anything about Unreal on the Wii.
That...sounds about right.
Regardless, I think my point still stands.
Nintendo didn't want the WiiU named yet.
Microsoft/Sony paid Epic to not mention the WiiU until their console was also announced.
It won't run on WiiU and thus either both Sony and Microsoft have new consoles coming soon, or there's a new console on the horizon.
Is it just my impression or you people are not giving the Wii-U any chance??
There are facts that are already confirmed about it and the most important 4 are that it will not be cheap, addresses the freaks especially in the first years of sell, a lot of RAM and capable of full HD.
Even newspaper say that Wii-U will not be a pure gaming console but take the way of PS/XBOX with multi-functionality not that this make me somehow happy because I used all my console only for games and nothing other). Another little fact is that Nintendo is not ready to pay for patents for the game medium allowing to spend more money in other parts of the console.
What I don't know is in how many steps Nintendo want to grow up. If the Wii-U is to be seen as tergetting the "grow up/core" gamer, is Nintendo ready to throw away all "family/casual gamer" they just win with the Wii?? I think no so there are 2 ways to go here:
1)Wii-U will be top notch but there will be a "light" version of it for casual gamers or Nintendo has 2 different consoles in plan
2)Wii-U will be mediocre so that maybe loose part of the casual gamer but win some core gamers.
Anyway I believe Wii-U need a chance because it's the first step toward a "grow up" Nintendo (for all that want this).
I think the main issue is that everyone's been screaming essentially your entire first two paragraphs like a prophet but this stuff has been around for years. "Lots of RAM" and "full HD" are really unimpressive when two consoles have been sporting it for half a decade, three if you count the PC (which is more advanced on hardware). As for multifunctionality, I don't think anyone cares either since all these consoles can do it already. Web browsing? Wii or PS3. Or a computer like an sensible person. Or an Android or iOS device. Netflix? Like every device recently (so Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, PC, 3DS, Vita, PC). Plus with Sony and Microsoft having their fingers in multiple pies, they get access to more features. Microsoft has connectivity with Windows, Zune, and Windows Phone. Sony probably has something go with their control on Sony Pictures and Sony Music.
EDIT: Actually, if you wanted a Sony pro on that end, integration between their handhelds and consoles. One account is tied to the PSN across your consoles. You can purchase a PSOne game on your PS3 and play it on your PSP. The Vita is even larger on this respect but they've definitely been promoting their handhelds and consoles like peanut butter and jelly.
The controller is just honestly a stupid concept. Like a touch screen controller would be nice... But who the fuck would want something THAT big? It's just unwieldy. Why not have a smaller screen, like iPhone size? The device doesn't have enough features to be a standalone tablet either, so keeping a smaller screen for menus and touch based stuff would be fine, not to mention sleeker. Also why anyone would want dual slider pads when you can have two analog sticks is beyond me.
At this point, unless Nintendo can sell their console for $200 or less, I see no reason why anyone would pick it over a Xbox 360 (since that's the cheapest of the HD consoles currently). The Xbox 360 has a large library of games already, all these features everyone loves, good graphics, and its entire casual gaming sector is compartmentalized with the Kinect (meaning core players won't have to deal with a trade off of motion controls for their regular games). If you don't like paying for online, then pay $50 more for a PS3 and basically get all the same things.
I also find it funny that people go "OMG A HD NINTENDO CONSOLE INSTANT BUY" when every Wii diehard prided themselves on being "true gamers" and "didn't care about graphics". Well bullshit, everyone was like "OMG ZELDA IN HD I MUST BUY INSTANTLY" without seeing jackshit outside of a brief tech demo.
You gotta be kidding me under $200 and assuming you know the Wii U inside out. No reason for you, not anyone mate. Heck why should the console be cheap as that, you make it as the tech is from 2004, when you know nothing about the Wii U and its components. Yes Nintendo mentioned its new console will do HD graphics, that's the very least we expect from it. I haven't even even mentioned the controller yet, that's going to push the price way over $200.
If i were to take my stance, $299 sounds good both for Nintendo and the consumers. I will not be surprised if it launches around £350.
What I'm saying that they can't compete with a $200 console. They pulled almost the same exact thing with the Wii. It launched at $250 and sold a lot more than it's, what $400 and $600 competitors (I don't know how much the Xbox 360 launched at)? Now you've got a similar situation with the Wii U and Xbox 360, even the PS3. Difference is that these consoles are already at their prime with pretty much entire libraries of games and toned features to deal with.
Also, you say that something for $200 is basically trash but assume it'll be so much better at $300. Guess what, let's say the controller is $100. Congratulations, you have $200 worth of hardware. Same as the Xbox 360.
Yay, Texture Pop-in Engine 4!
While people would imagine the Wii-U having to compete with the PS3/X360 and may think they aren't getting anything extra out of it, they are basing it off of old, and technically invalid, information and new "rumored" stuff. Let's not forget the most important element when selling new hardware. The games. Who cares if people want to compare this new generation hardware with the prior one, when the prior one won't be getting what the newer generation will be capable of.
Yeah, try having the Wii U compete at launch with 5 years of amazing games already established
Also, if anything, it's pretty evident that the Wii U will basically just be getting multiplats like Arkham City and Darksiders to. I guess the older consoles "aren't capable" then, huh? The Wii U is not leaps and bounds ahead of the PS3 and Xbox 360, and I doubt devs will be jumping their PS3/Xbox 360 ship for the Wii U.
but the Wiiu can play wii games
I was wrong, you actually are really funny.
Xbox 360's can play most Xbox games and older PS3's can play PS2 games. I guess they're fucked.
And how did you come to this conclusion?
You make it sound like this is a first for the game industry.
And the next Sony and Microsoft consoles will be leaps and bounds ahead? We don't even know the final capabilities of the Wii U, considering it had evolved since the first public viewing at last year's E3. And who is to say that when the next Sony and Microsoft consoles get released, they won't get ports the same way?
Will be fascinating to see better graphics then the Wii-U since its already going to be running native 1080P games, whats left after that? How is Microsoft and Sony going to do anything better? I have yet to hear any sound technical explanation for how they could do better graphics.
I'm so confused. How does getting this gen's multiplats suggest it's on the same level as current consoles? That just... I don't even. If that logic worked, the PS3 and all modern PCs would be as powerful as the Xbox 360.
It's not as if the console won't be getting it's own exclusives, which will almost certainly be technically superior in one way or another to games on this gen's consoles.
Hell, you mention Arkham City? That game runs like shit on current consoles compared to the PC version. The console is reportedly pretty easy to work with, so as long as the devs aren't being lazy bastards, it should get more than straight 360 ports for the multiplats.
I think I managed to decipher Valwin's point. The Wii U will be competing with 5 years of established titles, but it its self has 5 years of titles under it's belt. Frankly, as long as it has some good games from the start, I don't see having to compete Gears of War II and MGS4 as a real problem.
Separate names with a comma.