Well, duh. Resident Evil 4 was designed from the ground up for the Gamecube. It was Gamecube exclusive for many months.

Xbox was powerful enough that multiplatform games were on par with PS2 and the sheer power alone could make up unoptimized code. But comparing PS2 and Gamecube, the GC version was almost always worse. One example was Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, where GC dipped to 30 fps while the PS2 version ran at steady 60 fps. Is the PS2 twice as powerful as the GC?

Bottom line is, the multiplatform games are not a reliable indicator of hardware capabilities. If you're a PC gamer who has played a crappy PC port of console game, you can probably attest to that.

None of their initial games interested me then or even now. After buying an Xbox 360 most of the top games for the PS 3 were available for the 360. Again, it's always been about the games, not the hardware.

Not really. I have all the 3 consoles from the previous generation and the PS2 versions were always the worst when it came to graphics. Both the GC and the Xbox were quite a bit more powerful than the PS2, which isn't that much of a surprise, since the PS2 was the first one to be released (after the DC, of course). In my opinion the GC and the Xbox came up pretty close graphically, but the difference to the PS2 was noticeable.

Anyway, no console can have it's power properly "measured" by launch games. Every initial wave of games suck when it comes to using the console efficiently. Heck, Xbox 360's first games looked like Xbox games. Just compare Halo 4 and Perfect Dark Zero, for example, they don't even look like games from the same generation. The same goes for the PS3, which had terrible looking games at release, especially multiplatform titles. The complexity of the Cell CPU made developers struggle with it for years. Fuck, the first Resistance looked like a HD PS2 game (seriously, the textures on that game look terrible), it actually looked worse than Perfect Dark Zero, which was also a launch title. Uncharted was the game that started to show what the PS3 was capable of, for the Xbox 360 it was Gears of War. Actually i think that Gears of War was the game that started the next-gen on consoles. It looked far better than anything available at that time and set a new standard for both graphics and third person shooters.

I spent a little bit of time poking at this, apparently the Wii U's proc is slow if you don't code very specifically for it. If do you do spend the time you'd get pretty good performance, but the problem is, a lot of devs won't spend the time right now while the toolchains barely exist outside the regular dev kit. It looks like you two have not been properly introduced, I hope you enjoy getting to know her.

ya i may overreacted a bit isn't it again going to be the same story wii had ? console with low spec meant for a general group of gamers[wii u exclusives like mario etc] , as the next gen consoles from xbox and sony will be monsters again getting the lead development on games.

I wonder how many games are going to be developed by other companies taking wii u as the lead console focus?

That rickity contraption? The one that has to have the wiimote dangling off?

Yeah... craploads of games use it or a gamecube controller. Why would you think that games are required to have waggle on the Wii any more than the 360?

My problem with the Wii-mote is that it makes games artificially hard. I lost all desire to even use it the moment I tried Mario Kart Wii with a GameCube controller. The damned Wii-mote was creating most of the difficulty. Trying interesting things aside, that to me is a failure if all difficulty is provided by an intentionally inferior input. The game was impossible to balance between the two control schemes.

Again, I'm glad companies try new things. I just think the Wii-mote was a bit of an abortion.

I find it varies from game to game. I have never felt any desire to play Mario Kart with motion controls, either on the Wii or the 3DS. On the opposite end of things, I found Skyward Sword (but most certainly NOT Twilight Princess) to make excellent use of motion controls. The game was more difficult because of the increase in complexity of combat the motion controls allowed.

Mario Kart and Smash Bros. though? GC controllers all the way.

You should not have to have 4 different controllers at the ready to play your console. If a controller has the buttons, it should work for every game, and Nintendo should have enforced that. Also, that classic controller would have been great if it wasn't made so cheap, had rumble, and if Nintendo would stop forcing you to insert wiimotes in every peripheral.

The fact that the idiots fell for it and bought guitar hero and the like, having to insert a wiimote in each peripheral, while the REAL console versions of said peripherals had proper wireless functionality shows you how brainwashed the Nintenobites are.

Right because this is totally different from using a 360 controller for some games and Kinect for others. And where did you get a count of four controllers? You need a wiimote and a classic controller OR a gamecube controller.

I see nothing wrong with making use of the wireless functionality and ability to connect to peripherals that the wiimote already has.

I agree with that.

On the latest version of the Nintendo Wii, and since they removed the GameCube ports, you now have to plug your wire classic controller into your wireless wiimote. Which means that you have to play with the classic controller in your hands and the wiimote sitting on your lap or a side table. Fantastic.

Also, only a handful of games are compatible with the classic controller, and that is totally inexplicable. I enjoyed most of my Wii games, but seriously, playing New Super Mario with a wiimote ? I'll pass.

So you support paying for a plastic shell called a peripheral?

So on my xbox, I have a DJ hero table, and a controller. You have to either have two wiimote and the table, or insert/take out the wiimote each time you play. And you SUPPORT this!?!?!

And Kinect is a console add-on, closer in functionality to the WII sensor bar than a wiimote.

You're talking about guitar hero controllers? They have all the same electronics as the other console versions apart from the bits that the controller already does. What is the point in manufacturing duplicate stuff? It stands to reason that you'd already have a wiimote. Besides, I'm not sure why you're obsessing over peripherals that were made by Activision and not Nintendo.

I've never really even seen a DJ Hero controller so I'm afraid I don't really understand. What's wrong with putting your wiimote into the controller when you want to play the game and taking it out when you want to play other games? And again, pretty sure this is an Activision peripheral you're talking about.

I know what Kinect is and how it works, but apparently you don't know what the Wii sensor bar is or how it works.