Err... no. In fact, the biggest problem with the console market today is that they're all so horribly underpowered by today's standards (I.E compared to PC). Sure, we may theoretically hit a point in the future where consoles can any game at maxed out setting at any resolution, but we aren't even close to that point right now.

I don't want more powerful tech just give me a normal controller please

What people are missing isn't so much that the CPU is slow, it's that most of the processing power is re-routed into the GPU which is stronger than the current systems. Kotaku ran a side by side comparison for example, of the Wii U playing against the 360 and PS3, and found that the Wii U version actually beat the PS3 version for quality and running ability, near matching the 360 capability. The hindrances came from later in the game with massive battle scenes, ones with massive amounts of NPC characters. In other words, the Wii U can handle what you throw at it on today's consoles just fine, it's a matter of knowing how to run it.

In other words, don't undermine it before it's had a chance, it only released like what, a month ago? If it sinks or swims depends on what content comes to it and that's all there is to it.

Does no one remember the early 360 games? Oblivion looked horrible past 5 feet and hardly ran smoothly, yet the console can now handle Skyrim and other far more detailed games.

Nintendo aren't part of the graphics race but if developers work the machine properly it will produce some nice looking games anyway.

I would be behind Nintendo's Good enough technology philosophy if they force these gimicks that just detract from the game than adding it.

no its not. it is current gen. slightly faster than xbox or ps3. which does mean it is way behind average gaming computer.
what didn't you like with the controller? http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/why-you-cant-read-too-much-into-the-wii-us-slow-clock-speed/

go read this.


I thought we were past the age when speed and power of the computer was determined but the clock speed of the cpu.
i mean
my AMD3200 is apparently faster than i3 set into one core mode.... it really is not .

I just see the controller being gimmicky is all

I didn't ask that

I asked:

when you used it what you did not like about the controller?

Thing is, if those "gimmicks" detracted, then Sony and Microsoft would not have had to react with PSMove OR the Kinect. Alternative control schemes aren ot necessarily bad or inferior.
The Wii had the best third person shooter control scheme outside of point and click. It was not widely used, but damn if I wouldn't rather play RE4Wii than, well, whatever flagship TPS the PS3 or the 360 got. Gears of War and all.

It is only when it is BADLY implemented that it detracts from the experience, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the wiimote, and since the new WiiU screenpad has all the functionality of a regular dualshock/xbox pad plus the screen, that won't detract either.

Edit: Same with 3ds and DS, where did the two screen/stereoscopic 3d gimmick detract from the game?

well it feels kinda cheap to me plus i already had one broken

in one month? that's... either it is really crappy or you get too excited :)

wasn't me my friend broken it she's kind of a klutz

I just found the motions unnatural for me, the system was always really clunky and really made gaming less relaxing to me. It really detracted what I wanted from the game when a normal controller didn't take much. Sony and Microsoft reacted because the success of the wii, which really was about marketing targeting a vast and untapped market, one that doesn't put much value in there gadgets, just buys the latest craze. Thank god the move and kinect are optional since they're really bad, especially the Kinect.

I do know the DS and haven't bothered wasting money on the 3DS, but in the DS the touch screen was tolerable when games relegated it to a map or pretty pic of something but once the game made me use it, that was it, the game became unplayable to me.

I'm not saying that they can't do it, but I'm not giving my money to them if they use gimmicks. That's how I choose to spend my money. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a Wii u if you value that touch screen, I don't, at all, so I'm not buying it unless the 3rd party really goes out of it's way to make me buy it, or nintendo does enough new stuff that appeals to me, since most their franchises don't interest me.

Actually, I can think of ONE example where the wiimote was a detractor for the gameplay. Metal Slug Anthology. Wonderful collection, amazingly bad control schemes. Not one that was properly workable. There was ONE that was decent, and it mapped a very important function (bomb) to waggle.

Yeah. And that was the MOST functional. COuldn't they map it to 1, + or -? Goddamnit.
Again, the problem is not with the controller itself, but the implementation of it.

Before multithreading is taken into account, the CPUs of the Xbox 360 and PS3 are only 20% faster than the Wii CPU at most.

The Wii CPU has a better design and it supports out-of-order execution, which the other CPUs do not.

If the Wii U CPU is similar or improved compared to that of the Wii, and considering 1.24 GHz clock speed and three cores (instead of 729 MHz and single core), then the Wii U CPU is likely significantly more powerful than what the other consoles offer.