Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wii U Architecture

copetti.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Wii U Architecture

#151

Post by Beldin »

Sakos wrote: post #53
mardifoufs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that until this post lol. And it was released when I was 12 and actually into gaming. Now I find it weird that the "controller" is so weak that it can't do anything but stream from the console, it kind of make the portability useless.

Asynchronous game design is something that holds a lot of promise. Traditionally, that was something reserved for online multiplayer in PC games. But suddenly it was possible to design local coop around one player interacting with the game in a different way than the others. The idea is still really cool, but I think most devs are unwilling to experiment with such a niche product.

Zelda four swords adventures managed that on the cube already. Not quite suddenly, I'd say. Awesome game if you had 3 friends and the necessary hardware.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#152

Post by fomine3 »

jacobr1 wrote: post #86
dm319 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of people who say 'I thought the Wii U was a handheld?', made me realise how badly they messed up. Home console buyers didn't realise it was a console. Handheld buyers realised quickly it wasn't a handheld.

It also shows in the switch how much they learned their lesson.

Switch is the perfect implementation of Wii + Wii U

Re: Wii U Architecture

#154

Post by astura »

m_st wrote: post #17

Slightly OT but Wii U games seem to be a topic here: There were many great games, but the IMHO single best game on this console was Lego City Undercover. It was like a less violent GTA. Such a joy to play, plenty of jokes, fantastic open world and great story mode with funny missions. Luckily they ported it to other consoles too. My kids are still playing it with their friends. I hope they are working on a successor.

I agree that game is great - It's currently only $6 on the Switch eShop.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#155

Post by BuckRogers »

jrootabega wrote: post #45
astura wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breath of the Wild was originally intended to be a Wii U exclusive, with a 2015 release date[1], but it didn't end up that way. The developers had some Wii U Gamepad features in early prototypes but found that looking between the gamepad and TV was distracting and axed them. [1] https://www.polygon.com/2015/3/27/8303247/the-legend-of-zeld...

And I think that was a bad decision and a soft betrayal of Wii U owners.

I still have my Wii U plugged in and while that may be true, they made up for it by never charging for online service. No-charge access to Mario Kart 8 multiplayer has been great.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#156

Post by BuckRogers »

mikepurvis wrote: post #4
meibo wrote: post #2

The Wii U was such a fun console with so many great games, it's a shame that it was relatively inaccessible due to horribly bodged marketing and weird choices - luckily they're porting most(but not all) of the gems. I actually think that the gamepad screen did contribute a lot to a lot of games, especially if there was a lot of action and you were able to use it as a map/for quick actions. It's good that they basical…

Which games really used the secondary screen in an interesting way? The main ones I can think of are: Splatoon— second player without split screen. New SMB U— gamepad player can spawn blocks to help you reach secrets. Wind Waker— map and inventory. But an awful lot of titles just mirrored the TV or had a button to enable off-TV play.

Splatoon made me sad that you couldn't do 2-player co-op online with the gamepad and TV. That felt like a big miss.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#157

Post by BuckRogers »

pjmlp wrote: post #35
Narann wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the main reason, game studios target consoles because of established player base. Actually, consoles are tricky to develops on because they are quiet restricted from hardware standpoint, so you have to invest a lot in hardware knowledge.

Still much less than the gazillion PCs, each being its own snowflake.

In the current day that won't really affect gaming. As long as the PC is stable being its own snowflake hardware combo, the developer of a game doesn't have to worry about customizing code around it. Most games are built on engines like Unity, not that direct API access wouldn't be just as reliable. Games built on very well-tested platform like Unity just remove all remaining doubt.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#158

Post by BuckRogers »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #140
philistine wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the whole story here. Was the Game Boy well designed? It was a smash hit upon release, but everybody immediately complained about the screen quality. The thing sold and sold and sold because it was inexpensive and just plain fun, bad screen notwithstanding. By 1996 however, it was woefully old, and the Game Boy Pocket sales were soft when it came out. Pokémon saved Nintendo’s bacon and gave them leeway…

It was the pragmatic choice at the time: the screen was reflective and featured four colors (really, shades of grey), but that was enough to allow the system to run for several hours on four AA batteries. It's closest competition, the Game Gear, featured a backlit color LCD, but it ran through its six AA batteries in an hour or two at most. There were other also-ran handhelds in that era (Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket),…

The Atari Lynx was the other one that came to mind. I agree with you, the original Gameboy was well-designed. I had one of course being over 40. It was the Nokia brick phone of handhelds. Yes, I was envious of the Game Gear, but most of the attention was on the Gameboy anyway so you could safely ignore its existence at the time. Portable anything back then was still quite the novelty. And the games on the Gameboy were fun. Tough to beat a game of Super Mario Land or Tetris.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#159

Post by gambiting »

wodenokoto wrote: post #54
psychphysic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breath of the Wild ran poorly on both platforms on release. Which surprised me, and undermined the power of the Switch. That said the Switch remains underpowered compared to contemporary game consoles.

It did? I never noticed performance issues with breath of the wild

Did you never get to the forest where the Master Sword is? The entire area around it runs at about 10fps, on both the Switch and the Wii U.

Re: Wii U Architecture

#160

Post by andrekandre »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #126
frosted-flakes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zelda Wind Waker was also great. You could assign weapons or items to the buttons whilr you were walking , or scroll through the map.

Breath of the Wild development started on the WiiU and I'm convinced it would have been better if they didn't have to shoe-horn in Switch support. The inventory menu of BOTW is horrible and totally was meant to be used real time on the gamepad.

i was surprised by that too

especially since the switch has a touchscreen, why is the inventory screen not using it?

Post reply on HN