@neobr10:

Quote area one: Yeah, those titles are pretty weak (though a fan of DR3 and Killer Instinct myself), but these were out what, two-three months after launch tops? The Wii U library has less than that and it's been out for ages; it's all well and good that is has Super Mario Bros Wii U and that, but they seem pretty much like the Wii iterations. ZombiU was decent, but where's that innovation now? Most devs don't seem to even know how to use the Wii U pad, which is a shame.

Quote area two: Ok, I should of said it better (was tired, but no excuse) - Nintendo was allowing games to be made for both the Wii and Wii U instead of trying to get them to be exclusives for the Wii U (should of been clearer, sorry). The Wii versions undermine the Wii U, because there's less incentive to get a Wii U if you can just get the Wii version. They do seem to be getting on that now at least.

Quote area three: The difference is the Xbox One has been out for about 6-7 months, and the Wii U about a year and a half total. The Xbox is starting to get titles. The Wii U really isn't imo.

Quote area four: This is pretty much the whole issue with Nintendo; the idea that it doesn't *need* third party support. EVERY console does; despite what you say about the SNES, the N64 had decent third party devs (Rare for example), but they really dropped the ball with the Gamecube. Despite the fact the Gamecube had some good games, it did poor in the market because there wasn't much for it - but there was still some ports at least, which helped. Wii traded the hardcore gamers market for a more casual experience, and profitted madly...but they moved on, or were happy to stick with the Wii. I've seen people in this thread, a year and a half after it's release, still not know exactly what a Wii U *is*. It's not well marketed, and it doesn't have basically anything but rehashes of Wii/Gamecube games on it's market for the most part. Monster Hunter 3 is on Wii. Super Mario Bros has several games on Wii. There's HD remakes, sequels, but the original titles Wii U exclusive I can think of are ZombiU and Nintendoland and...pretty much it.

Nintendo really, really needs to court the third party back; the Wii U can't survive without them, not now the casual market has moved on. Sadly, it lost a lot of Western interest after a few test games like Mass Effect 3, but the Japanese Gam Dev scene is very tight knit; maybe more Capcom, Platinum titles? There's speculation that after Bayonetta 2, Platinum will leave the Wii U, and I'd be surprised if they didn't tbh. It's a shame. People may buy the Wii U for the next Zelda, or the next Smash Bros, but you can't really sell a console on a few upcomming titles. For a console to survive, it needs a healthy library so people can recommend it; Wii U doesn't have that, and I am really not sure it will, despite what I'd otherwise like. I like Nintendo, but they're making really lethargic, token gestures in my eyes. I haven't booted up my Wii U in months because I played ZombiU, played Monster Hunter, but there's nothing on the Wii U for me, and it seems a lot of other people, at the moment.

Sorry for the odd staggering; I can't figure out how to interject my replies into other's quotes like others seem to be doing. ^_^;

I really don't think the 3DS version of Smash will undermine the Wii U version of Smash.
-The 3DS version will have handheld-based stages. The Wii U version will have console-based stages.
-The 3DS version has a mode unique to it. Chances are, the Wii U version will too.
-There's going to be a mode that connects the two versions somehow.

If the 3DS version were a handheld carbon-copy of the Wii U version, then I'd agree with you.

It's nice to see someone understand the difference between first, second, and third party developers. IGN editors, for instance, do not.

Anyway, people always go on about the glory days of the N64, when they were not very much so. It was tough for Nintendo to lose as much third party support as they did (many reasons for why) and if anyone takes a moment to think of that system's greats it will be a fairly decent sized list of mostly Nintendo games (nothing truly wrong with that, but that's kind of what it is). Also, Gamecube had its problems, but even if it got mostly skimped versions, it maintained more and better third party support and had more M games (mostly just interesting, not necessarily imperative to its survival) and maintained a good amount of multi console releases. Also, it did not take Sony long to not only rip off and improve upon the SNES controller, they added thumbsticks to the PS controller and made it better than the N64's. I'm not dogging on the N64, it's a good console, but it dropped the ball worse than Gamecube by far.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the N64 launched with 2 games or 3 in Japan. It also had 387 total games compared to SNES at 725 US games and the Playstation's 1100. I know a lot of the PS's games were probably crap, like most systems, but the N64 had filler as well, and less room in which to do it. Also, N64 had decent 2D graphics and I wished more devs used it. Oh, and it was expensive to make games on and were pricey at retail. I think I can give it a rest now.

Edit: PS's first controller did not improve upon the SNES, the thumb pad is too rigid and painful to use and using shapes as button designations throws me off. However, my comment on Dualshock vs N64 controller still stands.