Iwata claims this isn't meant to be a portable gaming system, but you'll be able to play Wii games on the go and Wii U games without the TV.
This was a natural evolution in systems. Nintendo claiming it's not a portable system is only because of the stigma that goes along with handheld gaming being a generation behind console gaming.
It's possible you'll still need the Wii-U to be turn on and hooked to the internet for this thing to work, but perhaps not.
Nintendo calls it the future, but this thing is already the past. The Dreamcast had a portable memory card with a primitive screen, so it's hard to get excited about this thing.
Also, to be blunt, using an iPad in the store last year was enough to convince me that I never wanted another touch-screen product that didn't work as well as Apple.
As the entire world moves toward cloud computing, the idea of consoles strikes me as incredibly dated. The best games over the last few years have all been downloadable titles or indie releases (usually both). If there is one thing almost all E3 commentators have in common this year, it's the idea that somehow the industry doesn't get gamers.
The video game industry, more than anything, simply knows how to advertise. They know how to sell. They don't exactly know how to make good games because they never stopped to ask, "What makes a game good?"
"What makes a good game?" is a very different question from "How do I impress the average reviewer?" All reviewers seem to demand is big-budget appearance, "fun-factor," and "playable." What if, to be a good film, it simply had to be "fun"? Or simply "watchable"? Why don't game developers take their job more seriously? Why are most videogames, intellectually, regressing even further and reinforcing stereotypes and cliches that were barely acceptable in the '80s? Why does any philosophical discussion in a video game feel 200 years old? Why are there so many cutscenes? Why are the games so easy?
Posts
