I don't get it. I don't understand the general opposition to gaming on mobile hardware. Does the current selection of games generally suck? Yes. Do touchscreen controls suck for anything that wasn't already designed for a point-and-click interface? Yes. Does that mean the whole prospect sucks? Absolutely not. Android phone hardware is just like any other hardware, it can run games with 6th to 7th console generation quality. The advantage is that it's lightweight, uses little battery power, and is affordable. There is zero reason such hardware could not work well for a console-in-your-pocket like setup.
this is something i would never even want to see let alone buy.
If i want cellphone games i will use my cellphone.
from nintendo and console or handheld companies i expect specialized handhelds and not yet another phone on a severely bloated and saturated market.
this shows how difficult this market has become.
People these days want to be able to make and receive calls anywhere, they want to send and receive email or SMS messages anywhere, they want to browse the internet anywhere, and they want to play their games anywhere. People don't want to carry around two devices to communicate and to play real games when the former device is perfectly capable of the latter.
I think the market is ripe for a return of N-Gage like stuff. The only reason the N-Gage failed is because the market and the technology wasn't ready. Now we have a bustling, active software market, and widely adopted, standardized and very capable hardware. We're already half-way there, as far as making the gaming portion worthwhile. There are already Bluetooth controllers, you can already hook many phones up to a TV. Now we just need real games and not Cut The Rope or whatever.
My question is this: why not? Why not have smartphones geared toward gamers with proper controls already built in? Why not develop and port real games for these devices? FireFish (and anyone else), what is the actual difference between an Android phone and a DS, and why could the former not fully fulfill the functions of the former?
I generally agree. Frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if they became a 3rd party dev/publisher, that would mean they'd have less of that kind of control.
Nintendo aggressively promotes a walled-garden system with strict censorship. They can all rot in hell regardless of how good their games are.
AFAIK, there's already such a thing for Wii games. Given that the Wii was mostly just a Gamecube under the hood, they have no excuse not to support backwards compatibility of Gamecube games.
Seriously, there's no reason they couldn't make the Wii U not have a special Wii mode and play Gamecube games, but they're set on making sure the hardware is strictly limited in backwards compatibility. They probably could even allow games to run in higher resolutions if they would just run them under a compatibility layer.
That's a definite plus. That being said, RGB is still better than YUV, and digital is better yet. Ideally, there should be a picture with maximum quality without any form of DRM.
One thing I really like about the Wii U is that it still has the ability to use component cables (component is nearly identical in quality to HDMI, there's just no HDCP so Sony and Microsoft want nothing to do with it).
Which is further proof of just how pointless the extremely simplistic "motion" controls really were.
I don't know what games you were playing, but most of the Wii games I have use only the pointing capabilities and the occasional shake. Works just fine from the couch.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, Metroid Prime 3 was merely playable, and Red Steel 1 was a disaster. For quick aiming, the Wiimote was better than an analog stick, but for turning, I always found it to be a pain.
As for the Wii, honestly, it worked great for FPS games - shame there was such a limited selection.