does anyone see this failing as a gaming console like the wii did?
Considering it's likely to sell as well as the Wii and review as well as the XB360/PS3 versions of multi-platform games typically did, coupled with the sure-fire Nintendo first party hits, and there is very, very little chance of Wii U failing. And it's been said already, but Wii was the #1 selling console for a few years. It failed to attract sufficient third party support, but as a top selling console, it didn't have any problems.
"Paper disproves Spock"
Seca Verins posted...
NightMareBunny posted...Seca Verins posted...Only "hardcore gamers", AKA the type of neckbeards who think there's any distinction between "casual" and "core" gaming, actually think the Wii "failed". The Wii is easily the most prolific and successful gaming console since the PS1, maybe even since the NES. It didn't "fail" because you've arbitrarily decided you don't like that women and adults with jobs (two types of human beings you'd previously only heard of in legend) happen to also enjoy some games on that console.
non gamer wii owner....someone like my sister that buys a wii to play wii sports every now and then, doesnt look up anything about games, has 0 interest in the hobby and couldnt care any less if video games died but damnit they own a wii....people like this may own a few wii games probably in the vain of just dance, wii sports, and other mini game kind of games that are usualyl terrible games or if they arent they almost always are exclusively multiplayer couch games that are not your traditional kind of game. these same people also have little working knowledge of their system.in essence these people will never ever support the industry.personally i cant stand these types of people....far far far too often they dont know how to sync controllers, barely can turn on systems, can rarely set up said multiplayer matches, and more often than not do not know how to even use the controller but because the game often requires just moving around they get by in said game and usually in the group there is at least one of them that knows a little bit more aka enough to get the party going. these same people i have often heard them tell me that no they arent playing video games.
an actual gamer - a person that will at least keep up somewhat with the gaming hobby, has some knowledge of games, cares whether the hobby fades into oblivion or not and will play games by themselves and will game on a regular basis of at least once a week or more which denotes a person invests time into their hobby.these people and in particular those that game far more often than once a week will support the industry.then there is of course the hardcore extreme gamer which there is always a hardcore extreme version of every hobby.
I don't think the Wii U will have anywhere near the success of the Wii. The Wii wasn't a failure; not commercially. It sold like crazy.
They aren't telling anyone how they should play games. In fact, the WiiU has like 3 different control schemes so you can play anyway you like!
an atheist scowling at a cheat code. he growls. "....GOD MODE?!"
Wii didn't fail as a gaming console. It didn't have all the third party stuff that xbox/ps3 did. It had plenty they did not. Does that mean they failed? No. You see things wrong.
GAMERTAG: Casperstar X"For those of you wondering whether the above made sense, you've just answered your own question. "
GutzNRage posted...They pretty much did tell you how to play games because games SMG and Zelda SS you was forced to play with the wii mote.I don't think the Wii U will have anywhere near the success of the Wii. The Wii wasn't a failure; not commercially. It sold like crazy.
Seca Verins posted...
Only "hardcore gamers", AKA the type of neckbeards who think there's any distinction between "casual" and "core" gaming, actually think the Wii "failed". The Wii is easily the most prolific and successful gaming console since the PS1, maybe even since the NES. It didn't "fail" because you've arbitrarily decided you don't like that women and adults with jobs (two types of human beings you'd previously only heard of in legend) happen to also enjoy some games on that console.
Except there is no 'core' gaming. There's just casual and hardcore and they refer to a preferred playstyle. You're talking about dumb f***s, which is different. There are a couple of games that require hardcore dedication to beat, but just about every other game is made accessible for casual gamers and that's also their main audience. Most games do have features for hardcore players, but in how satisfying those are greatly depends on the execution and players themselves.
There is a difference between gaming casually and hardcore though. Thinking there isn't makes you just as ignorant as the so-called hardcore gamers who think playing CoD and Halo makes them hardcore.
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.
No, I think that video games are video games and you're creating an arbitrary system of categorization to separate yourself and people who play the games you like from a perceived "other" in people who play games you don't like. A twelve year old girl who plays nothing but The Sims and World of Warcraft is exactly the same amount of a "gamer" as a 24 year old guy who plays Dark Souls and Monster Hunter; the issue is that the status quo of what types of people play games has expanded, and the people conventionally thought of as "gamers" are notoriously bad at socially accepting people who aren't like themselves.
My original statement holds true, and is reinforced by the fact that every example given to me about how someone isn't really a "hardcore" gamer always feels the need to specify that the player in question is female or in some other way "different" from the popular image of the "gamer" (but, typically, female). It's not about any difference in the games, it's about wanting to keep "gaming" as a boys' club of twelve to thirty-five year old males with social issues. You do so by creating a new category called "hardcore gaming" to separate from "casual gaming", and the distinction is entirely arbitrary and defined by the types of people who play those games rather than the content of the games in question.
tl;dr, "hardore" and "casual" are artificial classifications that say nothing about a game but quite a bit about gaming culture's aversion to sharing the hobby with people who are in any way "different".
Seca Verins posted...
Only "hardcore gamers", AKA the type of neckbeards .
And there goes your argument.
Sorry, but when the first sentence of your argument is already resorting to name calling, you've failed.
I'm sorry, do you have a better term for people who feel the need to measure the quality of their entertainment hobby against the quality of other people's? I'm hardly saying all gamers are like that; I'm specifically pointing at those gamers who actively perpetuate the stereotype of the "neckbeard" by behaving in that way. If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's fine, but don't pretend my argument is devalued by my pointing out that gamers reinforcing negative stereotypes about gamers do in fact align with those stereotypes. That's just kind of basic logic.
Seca Verins posted...
I'm sorry, do you have a better term for people
You don't have to resort to name calling.
EDIT: You're welcome.