WII U is it good enough to get back in the game?

[commodorejohn]

The tablet controller is going to be a giant pain in the ass to use. Having two screens more or less worked on the DS, where there's a constant spatial relationship between the two, but when you're going to have to keep your eyes on both the screen in your hands and the screen across the room, it's going to get old really fast. It's too big, as well - remember how people hated the original XBox controller? A game controller just should not be that large.

That's not to say it won't be a decent system - the Wii defied expectations by actually having some good games that ignored the stupid gimmick hardware and just focused on being fun to play, and there's no reason that couldn't happen here. But if it is a success, it's not going to be because some stuck an iPad in the middle of an ordinary gamepad.

Might need to get an old Dreamcast off eBay and  find out what all the fuss was about! Am I right in thinking that the  DC wasn't really very successful?

The Dreamcast was quite successful - for the very short period in between its release and the announcement of the PS2. (And like the TurboGrafx/PC-Engine, it was far more popular in Japan, and lasted far longer there than in the international market.) It's not at all a bad system, and has a lot of solid ports and some great exclusives. Definitely worth nabbing one on the cheap.

[commodorejohn]

I agree. Whereas Sony and Microsoft just seem to go for more and more power with each generation, Nintendo always seem to be quirky and innovative.

Well, they definitely have made the smart move by dropping out of the "biggest baddest hardware" race - but I'm not sure that it's the "quirky and innovative" (read: gimmicky) stuff that's helped them so much as the fact that their consoles have been significantly less expensive than the competition and developers for Wii-exclusive or Wii-targeted games have focused less on aping current-gen graphics trends and more on making fun games.

[commodorejohn]

I disagree that Nintendo's inclusion of motion sensors in the Wii and touch screens in the DS are gimmicky. They could have been, but a lot of games make really great use of these controls.

Eh...I've seen some DS games that use the touchscreen well, but it's stuff like Etrian Odyssey where game mechanics (i.e. the map system) are designed specifically for the touchscreen - the majority of games use it as either a way to half-bakedly adapt a genre not suited for the existing controls (i.e. FPS ports) or an annoying "gimmick" mechanic dropped into the middle of a completely unrelated game.

And I've yet to see a Wii game that doesn't use the Wiimote as either an annoying gimmick or a poor man's mouse. I'm in agreement with Yahtzee: requiring larger motions for the same actions detracts from game immersion, it doesn't add to it.

I think the way the Wii has been adopted by many people who wouldn't normally play computer games is a testament to Nintendo's innovation in this area (I'm thinking specifically of my boyfriend's 65 year old parents).

And I'll put this one on clever marketing designed to accomplish exactly that goal (showing the general public games as a normal form of entertainment, not trying to offer condescending induction into the "gamer culture" cognoscenti.) And the price difference

[commodorejohn]

Yes, marketing is another factor. XBox and PS3 are marketed as hardcore, gamer-oriented devices, and the Wii is marketed as a more family-friendly, casual gaming device. Surely the fact that this marketing was effective says something for the effectiveness of the control mechanism, since this is central to the marketing campaign of the Wii.

I don't know that it does, necessarily. I think the key factor was that they didn't position it as a "hardcore" game system, but a family entertainment device - the controller might have provided novelty value for drawing interest, but it's the games that kept it there, I think.