I mean, the keynote and demo was pretty impressive! And it'll be nice to get some real games on the Nintendo finally. But I don't know how this fits into my current gaming habits -- it's not offering too much different from my PS3 or Xbox 360.
The controller is nifty, but other than that?
How do you folks feel about this? How do you think it compares to the current crop of consoles?
I think I'll need to see the price on this thing first. Considering just how much the controller does I don't see it being any cheaper than $399. I'm also curious about storage space here as it must use more than an SD card can handle.
I think that telling us that Darkstalkers and Batman Arkham City are on the system isn't going to be enough: the best games, the ones that sell systems, are the ones that really make the best use of the system's capabilities. I think it's going to be a while before I pick one up.
I would agree that Nintendo did best this year at E3. But having a screen in your controller isn't exactly original (Dreamcast anyone?). It hasn't worked in the past because of costs so unless this thing is artfully inexpensive, it's going to be a hard sell.
What happened to better integration with the DS systems? I find it hard to believe that Nintendo's business strategy is to have people own that much hardware with that many screens on them.
Think off all the white colored accessories piled up under your TV. Harmless plastic shells and a tangled mess of cables. Do I want something with an actual screen on it in there? As a savvy consumer it seems like a waste. We all own too much stuff as it is.
For a company so invested on nostalgia, I sure miss the days of a simple TV, a SNES and a controller. Game on.
I think the problem is just that -- it compares to the current crop of consoles that have been out for 5 years or so. It just seems like a lackluster gimmicky solution that is really late to the game. I definitely don't want one and even though I'm not a gamer, the other consoles have much more appeal to me. An under powered system that just happens to have a touch screen isn't enough and Nintendo should know that by now.
why the trend to get us to use smaller screens when we game here we dont want to do it on a small screen we want to do it on the big screen even my kids with their PSPs only use them while in the car and would rather play on the Ps3 or xBox on our 47" Toshiba
Based on their comments, the intention isn't to get you to play on a smaller screen, the intention is to get you to keep playing even when the TV is needed for something else. I play my DS more than any of my home consoles, not just because I can play it on the subway, but because I can play it at home while watching TV.
Lately I've been telling people that the only real use case I personally have for tablets is as a glorified coffee table book/family computer. I'd want to use it to poke into my email or check a website while watching TV, but little more. Maybe leave it out with cool catalogue style apps for me and friends/family to thumb through when bored.
At about 300 to 800 bucks, this makes tablets the ultimate luxury devices, though. With this in mind, I think Nintendo is striking with a neat multipurpose device here.
All the fights that happen when my nephew wants to play Mario when his sister wants to watch TV can now be eliminated (or reduced), and I'd have the means of checking my mail in the living room on an existing device--eliminating the need for a double investment.
Personally I always stick with Nintendo because the majority of games I want to play are on their platforms. But they've just offered me a bonus that could keep me out of the tablet market for good.
I really found the Nintendo Wii U to be pretty innovative; however, I think I'm going to wait until all three consoles are released from Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to make any decisions as far as which machine I want.