Do controllers with screens deserve another chance? Is it a useless gimmick?

Do controllers with screens deserve another chance? Is it a useless gimmick?

Screens, no. But touchscreens are crazy underutilized.

it's useful in games that can take advantage of it, but not as useful as gryo controls in my opinion. I know the Wii wagglan gave it a bad rep., but modern gyroscopics are more than capable and cheap enough to actually work well for games (particularly shooters) - as evidenced by Splatoon.

I hope you're not falling for that "Wii U is like the Dreamcast" meme user.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

If it was like the Dreamcast, there wouldn't be a Nintendo Switch. Now people are backpedaling and calling it Nintendo's Saturn. They'll keep doing this every generation, waiting for Nintendo to die.

Anyway, the screen was really useful for me when I was living in Japan. I had this shitty TV from last century in my shitass apartment which had no HDMI port. So the games looked like ass on the television. They looked better on the gamepad. It was nice because I could play vidya like Xenoblade X and appreciate the beauty of it without much compromise.

Please don't post your autistic images here, thanks.

VMUs don't count

The WiiU gamepad was great. When games used it correctly you were basically just playing a giant 3DS with the TV being the top screen and the controller being the bottom screen.

Wish more games used it that way. Most first party games just mirrored the top screen for off TV play. What a waste.

as a handheld yes otherwise fuck no

The gamepad was the reason why the system failed and I wish Nintendo never made it.

the system failed because the billions of soccer moms that bought a wii thought the wiiu was just a minor upgrade but more or less the same system, or they didn't even realize it existed they were kinda right

Useless gimmicks like VR

>I never played WWHD the post
The gamepad is amazing for Zelda games.

No. Almost everything wrong with the Wii U was the gamepad.

>Teaser neglects console, people think they're selling the gamepad
>Teaser shows gamepad working with Wii peripherals, names it Wii U, which is in line with the naming of Wii peripherals
>Gamepad was expensive. Could've sold for $50 cheaper with a pro controller instead
>Two screen set-up was more expensive and time consuming for developers, scared away 3rd parties
>Gamepad gameplay was convenient at best, but usually just one off gimmicks or minigame fodder
>At worst, was distracting inconvenient neck strains just for the sake of it
>Is required for using certain apps like System Settings or finalizing purchases on the eShop

There's a few more things that the Wii U did wrong. Not really being consistent in who they were marketing the thing towards, overconfidence in their own brands, shitty VC offerings, ect., but as far as I can tell, if the gamepad didn't exist, the Wii U would've been far better off and probably wouldn't have been killed off as of last year.

>ecelebshit
>retard ignorant opinion
k

"controllers with screens" are just handhelds that cant be taken anywhere (completely defeating the point of portability), at which point why wouldn't you just make it a regular console?

Yes it's a stupid fucking gimmick, and almost never adds to gameplay in a meaningful way.

It's one of the reasons.
The whole system is a mess of little "but's" and "if's".

One of the reasons that really showcase what a mess the whole system is is the controllers.

It has about 6 different official Dual Analog controllers, all supported by different games.
>Wii Gamepad
>Pro Controller
Seems simple until you work in Wii controllers and Gamecube Controllers. For example, DKCTF supports Pro Controllers and Wiimotes, but not Classic Controllers? What the fuck?
>Classic Controller / Classic Pro
>Gamecube Classic / Gamecube Adapter

All supported by a mishmash of different games.

Wii Virtual Console games don't support ANY wii u controllers, not even the gamepad you can display them on! Nevermind how it has ABXY, two analogs, a touchscreen, and motion controls, and can in theory replace a Wiimote.

Speaking of Wiimotes, they're dragged in from 2006 with all their uselessness. No WiiUmote, no forcing Motion Plus, just the same original 2006 Wii Remote.

I remember the first rumors about the ds4, the touchpad was supposed to be a touchscreen or some shit like that.Dunno if it's true but anything would be better than a useless touchpad

The wii pretty definitively showed that they aren't worth it.

They drive the price of the system up, make controllers expensive to replace, and they don't add anything truly worthwhile to the vast majority of games.

The BEST use for them war just to display menu information, and in a lot of games that didn't even matter, it was just taking your eyes off the screen to use the menu vs just opening the menu in game.

Totally frivilous.

The screen is a cool feature for multiplayer but Nintendoland and ZombiU were the only games I saw use it well. I also heard that it can be used for 5 player Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed but it slows the game down.

>Before wii u releases
>"The second screen is stupid, it's just going to draw processing power and almost everything is just going to use it for menus
>No it won't! nintendo is going to do awesome things with it!

One of the worst gaming gimmicks

>No

He couldn't be more right. Your asshurt against the gamepad is pretty funny. Going so far as to feign neck pains, kek.

Nintendo couldn't even come up with good uses for the gamepad, so there was definitely a failure in design here.

>Almost everything wrong with the Wii U was the gamepad.


HAHA no

the worst part of any nintendo console after the gamecube was the fact that it was underpowered as fuck and couldn't run current gen titles like le ebin skyrim and shooter of the month

The PS1 was underpowered compared to the competition
The PS2 was underpowered compared to the competition
The Wii, the Game Boy, the DS, the 3DS, ect.

That was before consoles had to appeal to normies, though. Games were more focused on gameplay. That just doesn't sell anymore, unfortunately

>normies didn't buy the PS2 or Wii

Sure buddy. Those 100+ million consoles were exclusively in the hands of hardcore gamers such as yourself.

>The Dreamcast used the same "Screen on the controller gimmick"
It really didn't, except for maybe a handful of games, but that's it. The best you got was "Game logo on the VMU.

And even when it did use the VMU screen, the only game that really used it well was one of the resident evil games where it showed your health.

Their logic for the Gamepad was clear at the time; tablets were exploding and kids were treating them as the primary device. Nintendo responded by shoe-horning a tablet onto their next console. It was at best a lukewarm idea, at worst a complete failure.

There is however, one key advantage to the GamePad. It separated the console from the living room TV. This was a (completely unintentional) quantum leap and the single success the WiiU would be remembered for.

Since you have to be within about 10 feet of the console for it to work, the separation was weak, but still powerful enough to be felt as a key idea. The Switch is the progression of that idea, by liberating the console from the TV entirely.

Yes, this is at the expense of power, but it is a key step which in in lockstep with the changing habits of consumers and especially kids. Content consumption was liberated form the living room and static TVs five years ago. People carry media centres in their pockets nowadays; a fixed point console cannot easily survive in this environment, especially if the TV point in question is in a living room slowly being converted to a different style of life. Kids are affected by this to a much greater degree than adults.

The Switch is a needed evolution. Again, this is coming at the cost of power, but mobile is where the consumer has gone. If they want power, they will go to PC. If they want traditional games, they will go to the company that made the GameBoy.

>It really didn't, except for maybe a handful of games, but that's it.

So, yeah, pretty much the same thing?

>So many possibilities with the Wii U
>Didn't get any of them

>create a peripheral that has the potential to be incredibly innovative
>put it in the hands of dev teams still run by idiots who want to play it safe as much as possible
gg Nintendo

I've never seen a Dreamcast in my entire life, and I'm 24. How many of you actually owned one as a kid? Maybe it was just my local area or something. Same with the Saturn, but that was considered a commercial failure as I understand it.

This pic is taking me backkkkk

>that has the potential to be incredibly innovative
What, the NX? There's not much innovative about it gameplay-wise.
I used to go over my friends house a lot and he had one. I've also bought one for myself around 4 years ago. It was really popular before 2001.

>If they want traditional games, they will go to the company that made the GameBoy
And you were doing pretty good too.

I was referring to the Wii U. It's understandable that a peripheral like that will have a bunch of third party shovelware like the Wii, Kinect, PS Move, etc. did, but there's absolutely no excuse for there to be only one first-party game to use the gamepad well, with the rest either ignoring it or only putting in a token effort. Nintendo's executives on the software side are just so allergic to anything new and different.

The difference between how the ps2 and ps1 were underpowered vs the wii and wii u was that they were only slightly weaker than their competition, so little that it had no effect on whether or not games could be ported across them.

The wii and wii u were so weak that some games could barely be made to function on them, after gutting them, and others were cancelled outright due to power constraints.

because they're fucking garbage

Not exactly, considering the Wii U touchscreen has gotten more use with Mario Maker, a couple menus and whatnot.