How is the Switch what the Wii U was meant to be? They're going for completely different things. The Wii U was meant to be a dual-screen experience, the Switch is meant to be a single-screen experience.
The Wii u was meant to move you outside if the TV space and have you play outside, but at its time the tech would've meant it would be much more expensive. The dual screen experience was obviously just an interesting side effect seeing as how few games used it to the best of its ability. I remember an interview with Miyamoto where he said the key focus of the Wii U is the gamepad, not the console.
But... move? Really?
I can't even go into the next room and the Gamepad/Tablet Craptroller loses connection.
The Wii U was flawed, we wanted it to float but, well... it kind of didn't.
I still love it, I still keep it behind my TV, I still play MK8 on it. I still wish there was something else to play (well, shit, Splatoon is also great)
You seem to be projecting your desire for what the Wii U should have been for what it meant to be. Nintendo Land was the game designed around the idea of showing what the Wii U is, and that game made a lot of varied use of the gamepad that the Switch does not provide. Just because there weren't a ton of other games to do the same does not mean that it was never the intention of the console; it just means that many developers didn't care for/couldn't think of how to use the feature, and that other games just didn't have a need to make use of its features. And there are many more features that make the Wii U what it is that are unrelated to what the Switch is. The motion controls were integrated in a fashion to allow for using the gamepad as a dynamic window into the virtual world. Touchscreen capabilities (of course rumors state the Switch has touchscreen, but I have my doubts as that feature wouldn't work when docked) open up for different kinds of interaction, as well, allowing games like Kirby and the Rainbow Curse to work. So far, the only similarity I see between the Switch and the Wii U is that some games can be played without a TV.
When did I say anything about Wii u emulation. I don't care about wii uor backward compatibility.
I want to be able to use the Wii u gamepad when the console is docked as a second screen.
Thats the thing though, this "innovation" was quite obviously a side effect of the idea of a second screen. We saw developers slowly stop backing nintendo after they tried to add more to the wii u other than just off tv-play. Now you talk about kirby but that game was basically a 3ds title with better graphics and really wasnt some insane use of the gamepad.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Then maybe be a bit more clear. Also this wont happen as the switch will require many different mechanisms to get this running and its not worth it at all for most users.
Last edited by TheDarkGreninja,
how about you learn to read.
It would literally take the wifi transmitter to be put in the console and some software. And this would be worth it for all wii u owners
Yeah because when you read this:
definitely doesnt sound like youre talking about BC (btw i never read the comment that came before so i assumed you were talking about BC since this thread is about BC.)
Its not worthwhile as that would mean you have to own a wiiu which only 14 million do so already some users are left out, its best for nintendo to keep things simple and add features that dont undermine the gameplay which the wii u did with the gamepad.
The one feature that actually had merit (in the gamepad) deserves to live on with better implementation on a more powerful console instead of just getting lugged away.
here I bolded all of the parts you didn't read.
Also, to your retarded view, nintendo could just release the gamepad as a peripheral. coming from wii to wii u, people got to use their peripherals, i assume wii motes and wii/u peripherals will be implemented with this console as well, no sense in not, they're just a Bluetooth device.
Last edited by geishroy,
Well then i stand corrected however i stand by the fact that the idea of the gamepad coming back is just useless.
Has this actually been confirmed yet? I thought most of the specs were purely speculation (pun not intended, but still awesome).if they do go with IBM architecture, CPU emulation takes a LOT of resources. Not to mention, ppc has more registers to work with than x86/x64. Back wards compatibility would be pretty bad, at least in the beginning, like it was when m$ first started the BC on Xbox one. Sure its much better now, but it took a lot of time and effort to get there....
Nope its using ARM as theyre working with Nvidia who are using Tegra which has always been ARM.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
It's using a Tegra chip, confirmed my nVidia themselves, meaning it uses the ARM architecture
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/
PPC is so outdated and a pain for developers, ARM is much easier to work with.
As well as the fact its much easier to port from x86 to ARM.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
I'm glad they're ditching it, they've been using PPC since 2001, and before that, MIPS.
But but but...
Backwards compatibility creates a large launch library at very little cost and expands the potential userbase, and also makes it easier for people to afford the new console (because they can sell the old one), but it prevents the console from switching (ha!) to a completely different architecture and/or concept without making huge compromises. You're either forced to stay on the same compatible architecture even when there are better alternatives available, or are forced to tack on additional hardware at extra cost to run another console's titles. Consoles are forced to make compromises as it is, portable consoles doubly so, and backwards compatibility is an added cost and complication that isn't really necessary.
Firstly, starting your argument with stating the idea of a second screen is not helping you, as that goes along with the whole "Wii U is a dual-screen experience; Switch is a single-screen experience", but assuming what you meant to say was that it was a side effect of needing a screen for off-TV play... no. No, it is not "quite obviously" a side effect of that; that is, once again, just you projecting your opinions onto Nintendo. There's much more tech involved to get all of those other features working than just a screen which, if anything, would imply the capability for off-TV play is the side effect here.
Similar threads
