(06-08-2011, 09:38 AM)Alpha Six Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 03:12 AM)Dazz Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 01:05 AM)Flame Wrote: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/306...eparately/
Really disappointed if this is true.

Basically makes me not want it anymore.

You guys do realize that it takes a lot of extra power to basically duplicate what's happening on screen and put it on a smaller screen simultaneously, right?

Honestly I'm not surprised right now that this is what they're doing-- right now, we don't even know if more than one Wii U controller can be synched to the Wii U yet. Give it time, the thing was just announced yesterday. It's not coming out until next year.

Ok sure, but I only really like the Wii for multiplayer. I can't use the fucking new feature for the reason I want to use it, then why do I want it?
I know it takes a lot of power to produce those 4 screens - sure. But the Gamecube did it for 4 Swords Adventure? I mean, seriously.
I know these are on a bit of a bigger scale than that, but the point still remains.

Sorry to say that I just don't really want a console that has a great feature that can only be used for single player, since I rarely willingly play a single player game these days. I have a girlfriend and playing games together is much more fun than sitting on our own playing them.

Also, internet gaming is shit on consoles. I'm never going to change my opinion on that. Same console is where it's at.

edit: Also, if you can sync more than one controller to the console at once, I'd rather not by two fucking consoles to get a second controller. Just saying...

Quote:I'm never going to change my opinion on that.

FTF (FUCK THE FUTURE) MY OPINION IS FACT DOG

I think that the system would have the power to stream to more than one controller...

Think, when you play a 4 player game like mariokart on the wii, the screen is split into 4 different areas on the tv right?

Well there's nothing saying that those 4 screens can't be sent to the four controllers.

(06-08-2011, 10:42 AM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote:

Quote:I'm never going to change my opinion on that.

FTF (FUCK THE FUTURE) MY OPINION IS FACT DOG

I've never enjoyed online gaming except PC gaming.
If they work out some way of actually making it fun, sure. But as it stands, I think console online gaming is shit.

(06-08-2011, 10:42 AM)Kaikimi Wrote: I think that the system would have the power to stream to more than one controller...

Think, when you play a 4 player game like mariokart on the wii, the screen is split into 4 different areas on the tv right?

Well there's nothing saying that those 4 screens can't be sent to the four controllers.

And then there's a game like Resident Evil 5, where the screen is split on 2 different areas on the TV, and performance suffers during times of intense action.

Or Call of Duty, when the screen is split on 2-4 different areas of the TV and the framerate takes a noticable dive from 60fps to 30-- sometimes even less than that, depending on the action happening in-game.

Mario Kart suffers from performance diminishing when split-screen, too. The only one that hasn't is SMK on the SNES.

Pretty much any game with a splitscreen feature has to diminish the overall performance of the game in order to prevent inconsistencies.


Now consider that 4 (or even more, we don't know yet) assumingly-high-definition screens would have to be sent to the controllers to display what's going on for each player-- in addition to the 1:1 scale screen being displayed on the TV. The console would have to work about 4 times harder to display all of those screens accurately and at once.

Right now, we know what the console is capable of creating on one screen. It's not entirely clear what it's capable of on 2 screens yet, let alone 4.

Again, it's early, and things are unclear. We won't actually know until more information is revealed and we see more of it in action.

Quote:I've never enjoyed online gaming except PC gaming.
If they work out some way of actually making it fun, sure. But as it stands, I think console online gaming is shit.

why
what is even The Big Difference

(06-08-2011, 10:53 AM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote:

Quote:I've never enjoyed online gaming except PC gaming.
If they work out some way of actually making it fun, sure. But as it stands, I think console online gaming is shit.

why
what is even The Big Difference

Generally, the connection, the costs, the lobbying...
Brawl was great, when it worked, except there was no voice chat.
DS was great, when it worked, except the voice was so shit...
PS3, I enjoyed Red Dead online with friends, but the bluetooth connection of microphones kept fucking up on both ends, so we resorted to using our phones on skype... Which gets rid of the point.
Xbox live, cost a bomb.

The only real good online games are FPS, which I generally don't enjoy unless they're on PC.
Otherwise I'd really just rather play on the same console, because I enjoy real human interaction.

And I just don't really enjoy it all that much. Can't explain why, just don't.

PSVita Shall be Mine. If for no other reason than this title right here and the people behind it.

(06-08-2011, 12:14 PM)Omegajak Wrote: PSVita Shall be Mine. If for no other reason than this title right here and the people behind it.

Isn't that coming out on PS3 as well? I'd rather play it on a big screen...

(06-08-2011, 12:27 PM)Dazz Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 12:14 PM)Omegajak Wrote: PSVita Shall be Mine. If for no other reason than this title right here and the people behind it.

Isn't that coming out on PS3 as well? I'd rather play it on a big screen...

If that's the case consider Vanillaware richer because I'm buying BOTH versions for ALL of my friends.

(06-08-2011, 10:30 AM)Dazz Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 09:38 AM)Alpha Six Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 03:12 AM)Dazz Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 01:05 AM)Flame Wrote: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/306...eparately/
Really disappointed if this is true.

Basically makes me not want it anymore.

You guys do realize that it takes a lot of extra power to basically duplicate what's happening on screen and put it on a smaller screen simultaneously, right?

Honestly I'm not surprised right now that this is what they're doing-- right now, we don't even know if more than one Wii U controller can be synched to the Wii U yet. Give it time, the thing was just announced yesterday. It's not coming out until next year.

I know it takes a lot of power to produce those 4 screens - sure. But the Gamecube did it for 4 Swords Adventure? I mean, seriously.
I know these are on a bit of a bigger scale than that, but the point still remains.

This is a really dumb post.
4SA was a fucking just-barely-above-snes-level-graphically 2d game streaming tiny screens worth of data to gameboy advances.
I wouldn't be surprised if the gamecube never hit 25% power output, even with tons of stuff happening at once.

Wirelessly streaming fully 3d, better-than-ps3 content to multiple controllers isn't just "a bit bigger in scale"
all of that stuff still needs to be rendered and computed and shit while still simultaneously instantly streaming HD video to one or more controllers.

Thats like comparing an atari 2600 to something like an N64.

About 4SA, the thing is, the Wii U streams the video directly to the controller, whereas the GCN with GBA connection uploaded the entire ROM data to the GBA, only requiring to send and receive only the littlest of data that needs to be streamed. I know, I've disected 4SA for some of the sheets on this site.

Also, I can't wait for a Monster Hunter announcement for the Playstation Vita.

(06-08-2011, 08:59 AM)NICKtendo DS Wrote: I am actually happy that Mario 3D is what it is. Something I can call a sequel to Mario 64, unlike the Galaxy games and Sunshine.
I do have to confess, New Super Mario Bros. Mii looks like Nintendo is milking the Super Mario Bros. name.
@Rakia: Maybe you are the only one, but everyone has his or her own opinion.

Not sure if anyone said this but as of right now NSMBMii is just so people at E3 can test the WiiU, it's not an actual game.


I wouldn't mind it being real though as I loved NSMBWii. It was a fun game to play in my free time that wasn't too easy, wasn't too hard.

Why does Nintendo always talk about a new Zelda.



And then also release a new console

(06-08-2011, 11:08 AM)Dazz Wrote:

(06-08-2011, 10:53 AM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote:

Quote:I've never enjoyed online gaming except PC gaming.
If they work out some way of actually making it fun, sure. But as it stands, I think console online gaming is shit.

why
what is even The Big Difference

Generally, the connection, the costs, the lobbying...
Brawl was great, when it worked, except there was no voice chat.
DS was great, when it worked, except the voice was so shit...
PS3, I enjoyed Red Dead online with friends, but the bluetooth connection of microphones kept fucking up on both ends, so we resorted to using our phones on skype... Which gets rid of the point.
Xbox live, cost a bomb.

The only real good online games are FPS, which I generally don't enjoy unless they're on PC.
Otherwise I'd really just rather play on the same console, because I enjoy real human interaction.

And I just don't really enjoy it all that much. Can't explain why, just don't.

Xbox live when you look at it is only $5 a month. Hardly costs a bombload.