PlayStation Vita Beats Wii U In Game Critics Best Of E3 Awards

[machomuu]

I'm not surprised. The Vita is a tried and true formula but with a big power boost and is only $250. The Wii U, however, is again another risky innovation that people aren't sure about, much more so than the Wii was as the idea of motion controls sounded exciting, while the Wii U is more in the interesting/unique side.

 

[Hielkenator]

Well, the Playstation Vita looks like the better system from the consumer's point of view after that E3. I learned almost nothing about the Wii U (price, launch titles, etc.) while we learned a ton of things about the Vita. For all I know, the Vita will have better graphics than the WiiU.

Me? Vita = launch buy. WiiU = Nope.

You are very very wrong....Wii u acctually has more power than current High end consoles.
I will absolutely blow the vita out of the water if it comes to graphics, lol!

Do a little research. It's about 50 % more powerfull than ps3.
Also this award is'nt for best graphics, or for best console.

I consider myself harcore, ( been playing for nearly 32 years..)
I made the step to Wii. I can't imagine a world without similar controls.
It's the most intuitive control possible in combination with a TV.
The Wii U will be NO different.

50% more power != 50% better graphics.
The same was said for the PS2/Wii comparison.

In any case, this "intuitive" and "innovative" control scheme just doesn't cut it anymore. If Nintendo put half the effort on their software rather than making different control schemes, they would being doing much better. Because that's all they're doing at the moment. Just different control schemes. Not better, just different.

Possibly all treu, but why are sony and Microsoft folowing the motion control paths?
Trust me when you have played a WELL made game on Wii with it's controls utilized in full potential, you know what I mean.
When you are playing games for so many years it's nice to acctually have something "new" to look forward to.
And I don't mean graphics, I mean I still love the 8-16 bit era graphics and will be my favourite for the rest of my life.
I could'nt care less.
What I do find interesting is how you control games, how things can be manipulated.
With standard controls I know how to do that allready. By pushing buttons and combinations of that.

Wii U will bring FAR more intuitivity as wel as innovation to the way games are being played.
It's basicly a second tv with al the motion and touch function imaginable.

+ it will have zelda, mario etc. Those game are always good for many hours of original gameplay without being repeatitive.
Hoping third party devs will bring games with devotion and originality, this system will bring a new era of possible game genres.
INSTEAD of beter graphics, I don;t think that is a bad excuse towards the gaming audience.

 

[awssk8er]

Well, both right now don't have enough games announced to make my decision.

But, Nintendo's first party is always amazing. So the WiiU will be worth my money eventually. Maybe not at launch.

The WiiU definitely brings a new experience to the table... the PSV brings... an analog stick... and a touch pad.

 

[machomuu]

Well, the Playstation Vita looks like the better system from the consumer's point of view after that E3. I learned almost nothing about the Wii U (price, launch titles, etc.) while we learned a ton of things about the Vita. For all I know, the Vita will have better graphics than the WiiU.

Me? Vita = launch buy. WiiU = Nope.

You are very very wrong....Wii u acctually has more power than current High end consoles.
I will absolutely blow the vita out of the water if it comes to graphics, lol!

Do a little research. It's about 50 % more powerfull than ps3.
Also this award is'nt for best graphics, or for best console.

I consider myself harcore, ( been playing for nearly 32 years..)
I made the step to Wii. I can't imagine a world without similar controls.
It's the most intuitive control possible in combination with a TV.
The Wii U will be NO different.

50% more power != 50% better graphics.
The same was said for the PS2/Wii comparison.

In any case, this "intuitive" and "innovative" control scheme just doesn't cut it anymore. If Nintendo put half the effort on their software rather than making different control schemes, they would being doing much better. Because that's all they're doing at the moment. Just different control schemes. Not better, just different.

And I don't mean graphics, I mean I still love the 8-16 bit era graphics and will be my favourite for the rest of my life.
I could'nt care less.

But the mainstream does, and that has been a target of games and systems lately.

 

[Nujui]

I'm not really surprised at this, I kinda expected it really.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Possibly all treu, but why are sony and Microsoft folowing the motion control paths?
Trust me when you have playes a WELL made game on Wii with it's controls utilized in full potential, you know what I mean.
When you are playing games for so many years it's nice to acctually have something "new" to look forward to.
And I don't mean graphics, I mean I still love the 8-16 bit era graphics and will be my favourite for the rest of my life.
I could'nt care less.
What I do find interesting is how you control games, how things can be manipulated.
With standard controls I know how to do that allready. By pushing buttons and combinations of that.

They're going into motion controls because they sell to casuals, and selling to casuals makes you a lot of money. And I don't see what's so innovative about the WiiU. Innovation can just as easily come in gameplay as it can in some silly control scheme. Sony has kept literally the same controller layout for their entirety of home console gaming but there have still been some games that people mark as highly influential and even innovative on their consoles.

Wii U will bring FAR more intuitivity as wel as innovation to the way games are being played.
It's basicly a second tv with al the motion and touch function imaginable.

Who gives a shit if it provides nothing outside of that. People get so hard over innovation that they forget that gaming is actual about, you know, games.

QUOTE

+ it will have zelda, mario etc. Those game are always good for many hours of original gameplay without being repeatitive.
Hoping third party devs will bring games with devotion and originality, this system will bring a new era of possible game genres.
INSTEAD of beter graphics, I don;t think that is a bad excuse towards the gaming audience.

Many hours of original gameplay? I lol'd. They're fun and all but the game time is usually under 20 hours. I can easily play a game like Fallout 3/New Vegas or Oblivion for 100 hours and then want to replay it.

I hope you realize if any of what you said was true, then it wouldn't have been what happened on the Wii. Third party devs realized their "core" titles were flopping and have since been moving them elsewhere. MadWorld's spiritual successor is on the Xbox 360/PS3. House of the Dead: Overkill is getting a HD port. Dead Space: Extraction came bundled with Dead Space 2 for the PS3. No More Heroes (both games) have gotten/are getting HD ports (No More Heroes 2: Red Zone Edition is releasing in Japan in July).

 

[machomuu]

Possibly all treu, but why are sony and Microsoft folowing the motion control paths?
Trust me when you have playes a WELL made game on Wii with it's controls utilized in full potential, you know what I mean.
When you are playing games for so many years it's nice to acctually have something "new" to look forward to.
And I don't mean graphics, I mean I still love the 8-16 bit era graphics and will be my favourite for the rest of my life.
I could'nt care less.
What I do find interesting is how you control games, how things can be manipulated.
With standard controls I know how to do that allready. By pushing buttons and combinations of that.

They're going into motion controls because they sell to casuals, and selling to casuals makes you a lot of money. And I don't see what's so innovative about the WiiU. Innovation can just as easily come in gameplay as it can in some silly control scheme. Sony has kept literally the same controller layout for their entirety of home console gaming but there have still been some games that people mark as highly influential and even innovative on their consoles.

Wii U will bring FAR more intuitivity as wel as innovation to the way games are being played.
It's basicly a second tv with al the motion and touch function imaginable.

Who gives a shit if it provides nothing outside of that. People get so hard over innovation that they forget that gaming is actual about, you know, games.

QUOTE

+ it will have zelda, mario etc. Those game are always good for many hours of original gameplay without being repeatitive.
Hoping third party devs will bring games with devotion and originality, this system will bring a new era of possible game genres.
INSTEAD of beter graphics, I don;t think that is a bad excuse towards the gaming audience.

Many hours of original gameplay? I lol'd. They're fun and all but the game time is usually under 20 hours. I can easily play a game like Fallout 3/New Vegas or Oblivion for 100 hours and then want to replay it.

I hope you realize if any of what you said was true, then it wouldn't have been what happened on the Wii. Third party devs realized their "core" titles were flopping and have since been moving them elsewhere. MadWorld's spiritual successor is on the Xbox 360/PS3. House of the Dead: Overkill is getting a HD port. Dead Space: Extraction came bundled with Dead Space 2 for the PS3. No More Heroes (both games) have gotten/are getting HD ports (No More Heroes 2: Red Zone Edition is releasing in Japan in July).

So much truth. Though...it is possible that we will have longer play time in games on the Wii U. I do expect Skyrim to be ported over, and possibly Fallout 4, though I don't know if Bethesda will be working on it so it might go back to it's original formula.

 

[mister_C]

It seems the main criticisms of Nintendo are that they are "gimmicky", they give the consumer "underpowered" consoles, and that they ignore "hardcore" gamers.

For home consoles, Nintendo was the first company to bring L/R shoulder buttons (SNES), a joystick (N64), force feedback (rumble pak - N64), motion controls (Wii), touchscreen (DS) and now 3d gaming (3DS) to a mass market.

I am NOT saying Nintendo invented any of these technologies or was even the absolute first game company to release it, but what I am saying is that they implemented them well enough to gain mass market acceptance.

OK fine, maybe you would argue that the mass market shouldn't decide what direction gaming goes in. Most people are sheep and idiots right?-_-..Look, remember, all these companies (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, SEGA, Atari... etc... through gaming history) want to make as much money as possible. Nintendo isn't really making these new control schemes just to be unique.. they are releasing these products because they think it makes for a new, interesting, fun gaming experience that a lot of people will pay MONEY for.

These companies are not benevolent... they are not out of the goodness of their hearts going to specifically cater to consumer groups that won't maximize profits... I honestly think (for better or for worse) Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all generally comfortable with the markets they control..

It seems Sony and Microsoft cater to the tough guy gaming image of FPS games ---> more PCs-esque in their game catalog selection. Nintendo appeals more to kids and people old enough now to remember playing Mario on NES or whatever.

Nintendo's appeal factor is that it's more quirky, and they have historic gaming franchises with international name recognition (every kid knows Pikachu, Mario and Donkey Kong) Should Disney stop making Mickey Mouse movies and should Coca-cola stop selling cola simply because they've been doing it for so long? Why should they? It all prints money... These are all companies with shareholders and employees to pay and profits to make..

The GBAtemp community for all its diversity, is at the core a group of people who collectively love video games and have very high standards.. that is a GOOD thing, but we need to remember that blockbuster world-changing games don't surface as often as maybe we all would like. It isn't every day or even every year we see a SMB3, Halo or FFVII released...

I'm not saying we should accept shitty games or lower our standards, but as gamers we need to remember these are companies that will generally only produce what sells (AKA why most Japanese games will never be translated for western audiences -- yes they are cool and unique and do sell in Asia, but most western people would thing they are bizarre and never look twice at those types of games--I have spent time living in the far East and the US and have thought about this)

In the end I think it really is once in a blue moon (hardware/portable/homeconsole/3d/hd/whatever aside) any of these companies release something that is truly a gaming masterpiece.

 

[chris888222]

I really hope we all stop arguing.

Although I'm hyped for vita, I really enjoy my 3DS as well.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

So much truth. Though...it is possible that we will have longer play time in games on the Wii U. I do expect Skyrim to be ported over, and possibly Fallout 4, though I don't know if Bethesda will be working on it so it might go back to it's original formula.

Analysts have said that pretty much any port of an older game will flop on the WiiU. Odds are people who were dying for Skyrim will buy it on launch for the Xbox 360/PS3/PC, not wait months for the WiiU and even longer for a Skyrim port. Fallout 4 is pretty much just "it'll happen" with no info on it. Plus none of these games are exclusive and if people found these to be console selling points, I'm sure they'd pay less for a PS3/Xbox 360 than paying more for a WiiU.

QUOTE(mister_C @ Jun 29 2011, 04:24 PM) For home consoles, Nintendo was the first company to bring L/R shoulder buttons (SNES), a joystick (N64), force feedback (rumble pak - N64), motion controls (Wii), touchscreen (DS) and now 3d gaming (3DS) to a mass market.

Your post is tl;dr but I did notice that you think the 3DS was the first thing to bring 3D gaming to the masses even though the PS3 has supported 3D for a good while now. Who cares what they bring in controls if they can't bring the content to back it up.

Also, your part about Nintendo essentially not being greedy is the biggest load of bullshit I've read in a while. They released motion controls for EXACTLY that reason. They were beaten the past two generations pretty hard and they realized that doing what they've always done wasn't working. The Gamecube basically appealed to the Nintendo base and it showed that it was basically not enough. Take away the casual base from the Wii and it'd probably have a really small amount of sales.

 

[cwstjdenobs]

Sony has kept literally the SNES controller layout for their entirety of home console gaming but there have still been some games that people mark as highly influential and even innovative on their consoles.

There you go, fix'd.

But have Sony themselves ever brought out one of these influential and innovative games? Serious question, apart from LBP they all seem standard faire.

 

[Slyakin]

Sony has kept literally the SNES controller layout for their entirety of home console gaming but there have still been some games that people mark as highly influential and even innovative on their consoles.

There you go, fix'd.

But have Sony themselves ever brought out one of these influential and innovative games? Serious question, apart from LBP they all seem standard faire.

What Guild is trying to say is the innovation will be the gaming industry's downfall, or something. I really don't get what point he's trying to push... Aside from the controller sucking? I'm seriously lost.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

What Guild is trying to say is the innovation will be the gaming industry's downfall, or something. I really don't get what point he's trying to push... Aside from the controller sucking? I'm seriously lost.

I'm saying that gamers nowadays in the Nintendo sector as so jaded by Nintendo saying that they're so innovative that they forget that innovation should come from the games, not the console. Anyone can make a game and market it as "innovative" with a new control scheme. Only talented devs can make a game with a standard, tried-and-tested control scheme and have everyone recognize it as innovative.

 

[machomuu]

What Guild is trying to say is the innovation will be the gaming industry's downfall, or something. I really don't get what point he's trying to push... Aside from the controller sucking? I'm seriously lost.

I'm saying that gamers nowadays in the Nintendo sector as so jaded by Nintendo saying that they're so innovative that they forget that innovation should come from the games, not the console. Anyone can make a game and market it as "innovative" with a new control scheme. Only talented devs can make a game with a standard, tried-and-tested control scheme and have everyone recognize it as innovative.

That's true, I mean when the system is innovative then it seems almost forced that the game must have some type of innovation as well. However, I do think it is also the consoles job to aid in a game's innovation, lest we have no or very little innovation at all.

 

[nutella]

Possibly all treu, but why are sony and Microsoft folowing the motion control paths?
Trust me when you have played a WELL made game on Wii with it's controls utilized in full potential, you know what I mean.

I have, though you couldn't blame me if I hadn't. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's fuck all software that's actually making use of their own controller properly. There are an ass load of games that use motion controls as substitutes to button presses. The only reason Microsoft and Sony are doing the same thing is that "intuitive" and "innovative" controls were the key to Nintendo's commercial success. i.e. how they made the big bucks.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

That's true, I mean when the system is innovative then it seems almost forced that the game must have some type of innovation as well. However, I do think it is also the consoles job to aid in a game's innovation, lest we have no or very little innovation at all.

There have been games though that have introduced so much into games though without the need for motion controls or touchscreens or whatever. Plus it's not like games NEED to be innovative. Zelda has changed very little since his N64 days. Maybe they change the art style, maybe they give him a boat or something, but in the end it's still almost the same combat with the same system of boss battles and the same type of dungeon layout. But people still rave over them and rightly so. I still consider Twilight Princess the best Zelda game in my opinion. Even Nintendo's big franchises don't use focus on "innovative" controls. Probably their best game this generation (and in my opinion, ever) is Super Mario Galaxy. It uses motion controls very little outside of attacking and the random Monkey Ball-style levels (which we could just do without). Same goes for Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby's Epic Yarn, even Twilight Princess (well, it was ultimately better with motion controls, but the Gamecube version lived without them). The franchises they have that really use them are often panned by core Nintendo gamers. Wii Sports is a joke, Wii Play is just terrible, newer Mario Parties are shells of what they used to be, and Wii Music was considered a flop (well, a 2 million-selling flop) by Nintendo and panned by critics. The only game that had a decent middle line of new controls and not sucking was Mario Kart Wii, and even then, I stick to a Wiimote/Nunchuck combo.

I'd rather play a game that's fun (within my previous paragraph, DKCR, Epic Yarn, SMG, Twilight Princess, etc) than one that's branded as "innovative" (Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Mario/Wii Party, etc).

 

[holoflame]

Personally I think that Sony and Microsoft are running late.

Nintendo always had the newest things (joystick, motion comtrol etc.) and Sony & Microsoft improved that technology for their own consoles.

Just my opinion.

And to stay on-topic, Nintendo's presentation just sucked.

 

[Valwin]

You are very very wrong....Wii u acctually has more power than current High end consoles.
I will absolutely blow the vita out of the water if it comes to graphics, lol!

Do a little research. It's about 50 % more powerfull than ps3.
Also this award is'nt for best graphics, or for best console.

It'll probably be close to a PSP-Wii level of comparison. And yes, I'm saying that the PSP is a stone's throw away from the Wii.

50% more powerful than 5 year old consoles is probably the least impressive thing I've heard. You look at WiiU tech demos compared to PS3 games and the difference is not a whole lot. You compare PS3 tech demos to PS2 games and there's a huge difference. The WiiU is a sorry excuse for "next gen" graphics.

And it basically is awarded "best console".

wtf are you smoking

 

[nando]

vita might be the very first sony console i purchase, it is quite underpriced which is the opposite of the 3ds.

 

[machomuu]

That's true, I mean when the system is innovative then it seems almost forced that the game must have some type of innovation as well. However, I do think it is also the consoles job to aid in a game's innovation, lest we have no or very little innovation at all.

There have been games though that have introduced so much into games though without the need for motion controls or touchscreens or whatever. Plus it's not like games NEED to be innovative. Zelda has changed very little since his N64 days. Maybe they change the art style, maybe they give him a boat or something, but in the end it's still almost the same combat with the same system of boss battles and the same type of dungeon layout. But people still rave over them and rightly so. I still consider Twilight Princess the best Zelda game in my opinion. Even Nintendo's big franchises don't use focus on "innovative" controls. Probably their best game this generation (and in my opinion, ever) is Super Mario Galaxy. It uses motion controls very little outside of attacking and the random Monkey Ball-style levels (which we could just do without). Same goes for Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby's Epic Yarn, even Twilight Princess (well, it was ultimately better with motion controls, but the Gamecube version lived without them). The franchises they have that really use them are often panned by core Nintendo gamers. Wii Sports is a joke, Wii Play is just terrible, newer Mario Parties are shells of what they used to be, and Wii Music was considered a flop (well, a 2 million-selling flop) by Nintendo and panned by critics. The only game that had a decent middle line of new controls and not sucking was Mario Kart Wii, and even then, I stick to a Wiimote/Nunchuck combo.

I'd rather play a game that's fun (within my previous paragraph, DKCR, Epic Yarn, SMG, Twilight Princess, etc) than one that's branded as "innovative" (Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Mario/Wii Party, etc).

No doubt. I look for many things in a game, one of them is innovation, however if the game is innovative but not fun I won't give it a second thought. That said, when the innovation does contribute to the fun, it's truly a game worth playing. Though I'm not going to lie, I liked Wii Sports and more so Wii Sports Resort. I mean, I would definitely be more happy with Nintendo creating a system that went back to pre-Wii style, but that may never again happen. It's sad, though, because there are a lot of quality Wii games that could have been better had they not been made on a system completely based off of innovation. I mean, SMG did a good job and wouldn't have been the same game otherwise, and Monster Hunter had an oddly comfortable feel to it when playing with a Wiimote and Nunchuck, but had they followed the original formula, who knows how good Super Mario Revolution would have been? Who knows what No More Heroes would have been like? Who knows how good many games on the Wii would have been if they weren't on a platform based on innovation? Point is, the Wii U doesn't need to be innovative, it could have been a very good chance to go back to the basics. I'm not saying it's gonna be bad, I'm quite looking forward to it, but there are so many missed opportunities with the Wii U, even though there are many vastly different ones now available.