Wii/Wii U

[Master Xanthan]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't plan on buying CoD or games like that that are already available on another system for the Wii U. Just first party titles and games that you can only get on the Wii U (for example, Pikmin, Smash etc). If I wanted to play CoD or something like that, I'd just play it on my computer.

It's always been like that for me. When I bought the Wii, I didn't think "AWESOME. I get to play CoD: Black Ops!" but instead I said "AWESOME. I get to play Skyward Sword and Brawl!"

Hopefully I'm not confusing any of you, lol.

There are many good multi-console games besides CoD.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't plan on buying CoD or games like that that are already available on another system for the Wii U. Just first party titles and games that you can only get on the Wii U (for example, Pikmin, Smash etc). If I wanted to play CoD or something like that, I'd just play it on my computer.

It's always been like that for me. When I bought the Wii, I didn't think "AWESOME. I get to play CoD: Black Ops!" but instead I said "AWESOME. I get to play Skyward Sword and Brawl!"

Hopefully I'm not confusing any of you, lol.

No, it's not confusing, I understand. I was the same way with my Wii... and then after about 3 years and so many missed games I wanted to play but couldn't because the Wii couldn't handle them, like Saints Row 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Bioshock, Bayonetta, Oblivion, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, NIER, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, and countless others, I thought to myself that enough was enough. Clearly, I was never getting those games on the Wii, and was forced to get a PS3. That's what I don't want to have happen; I get the Wii U, it has good third party support, just for the PS4/720 to come in, have their third party support that the Wii U can't handle, and thus force me to get another console to play games I want to play. Yes, Nintendo's first party titles are great, but they will only suffice for those who care only about Nintendo games. People, like me, who want to play all kinds of games, don't want to be forced to shell out money for another console, because their Nintendo console is too inferior to play said game without downgrading the hell out of it (once again, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is a prime example of this).

Well, the Wii U doesn't absolutely need all of those third parties, the Wii even did well overall without them, and this time we have a much more well rounded system, so yeah, Wii U isn't going to bomb at the very least. Debatable whether the launch will be good in terms of sales, but it will skyrocket once they pick up the slack. Not going to lie, the start may be really dark, especially when Reggie defined the launch window as like 3-4 months after launch, which means some of the big ones we actually have may not be immediate. I need to look for the list with some details again. Edit: Is this correct?

Wii U sales will pick up eventually. That much is certain. If it ends up being more affordable than the inevitable PS4/720, then even more so. Also, to my knowledge, the list of games in your link is correct, though I imagine it's subject to change.

Personally, I'm not too crazy about third party stuff myself, it isn't what I look for in a Nintendo console (what anyone does, seemingly, like what Morino said), but it IS icing on the cake, and as time goes on, something interesting might come up. Ubisoft is good for the start in my view.

Well then in your case, you'd be fine, since you're not interested in third parties too much. But I like third party games as well, and if there's a game I want that's on the PS4/720 that I can't play on the Wii U because of hardware limitations, then the Wii U will have the same issues the Wii did by being a generation behind. That's what I don't want to have happen for the Wii U.

 

[BSP]

No, it's not confusing, I understand. I was the same way with my Wii... and then after about 3 years and so many missed games I wanted to play but couldn't because the Wii couldn't handle them, like Saints Row 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Bioshock, Bayonetta, Oblivion, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, NIER, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, and countless others, I thought to myself that enough was enough. Clearly, I was never getting those games on the Wii, and was forced to get a PS3. That's what I don't want to have happen; I get the Wii U, it has good third party support, just for the PS4/720 to come in, have their third party support that the Wii U can't handle, and thus force me to get another console to play games I want to play. Yes, Nintendo's first party titles are great, but they will only suffice for those who care only about Nintendo games. People, like me, who want to play all kinds of games, don't want to be forced to shell out money for another console, because their Nintendo console is too inferior to play said game without downgrading the hell out of it (once again, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is a prime example of this).

I feel you and totally agree, but I was only concerned with the HD Sonic titles. Anyway, I don't want this to happen again as well because it's quite annoying.

 

[Morin0]

There are many good multi-console games besides CoD.

Yeah, I know, but that's all that could come to me for a multi-platform game, lol. I'm sure there's many other games out there as well.

No, it's not confusing, I understand. I was the same way with my Wii... and then after about 3 years and so many missed games I wanted to play but couldn't because the Wii couldn't handle them, like Saints Row 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Bioshock, Bayonetta, Oblivion, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, NIER, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, and countless others, I thought to myself that enough was enough. Clearly, I was never getting those games on the Wii, and was forced to get a PS3. That's what I don't want to have happen; I get the Wii U, it has good third party support, just for the PS4/720 to come in, have their third party support that the Wii U can't handle, and thus force me to get another console to play games I want to play. Yes, Nintendo's first party titles are great, but they will only suffice for those who care only about Nintendo games. People, like me, who want to play all kinds of games, don't want to be forced to shell out money for another console, because their Nintendo console is too inferior to play said game without downgrading the hell out of it (once again, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is a prime example of this).

Yeah, I see where you're getting at. I guess I'm just in the same boat as Holder of the Heel here. I don't play any of the games you have mentioned. I guess I'm just too lazy to play other games or they don't catch my interest. But even if it did catch my interest, I can most likely play it on my computer.

 

[theeboredone]

Well that's the division between the fans of Nintendo. Some want third party games at the same level as the PS3/360. They don't want a crappy port of CoD, and then you miss out on so many great third party games. Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Batman are the some big ones from late last year alone. Others are just content with their Mario, Zelda, etc. But the problem with that is, unless Nintendo plans to outsource their first party franchises more often (like Retro), then you can only expect 2-3 good games per year. I mean, at what point are you going to say...I'm tired of playing the New Super Mario Bros over and over again? Are you honestly gonna sit around and wait for 3-5 years for another Zelda while your Wii U collects dust?

We also have to remember that most of the first party Nintendo games don't have some sort of MP features that can extend the life of the games. Once you finish DK, unless you're some hardcore enthusiast, there is no reason to come back to it. Same with Mario. Same with Zelda. Having third party games that can give you that (mainly FPS and fighters), will help in that area + DLC interest.

Finally, the Wii won last year with a lot of contribution from the "casuals" or soccer moms. I'm not sure if that can be replicated again.

 

[BSP]

We also have to remember that most of the first party Nintendo games don't have some sort of MP features that can extend the life of the games. Once you finish DK, unless you're some hardcore enthusiast, there is no reason to come back to it. Same with Mario. Same with Zelda. Having third party games that can give you that (mainly FPS and fighters), will help in that area + DLC interest.

This is totally true and racers too IMO, if they're good. MKW is still alive and doing fine. This is also why I don't get hyped for single player games that much anymore. Once you beat it, you're done. Fighters/Racers/multiplayerFPS on the other hand...

 

[Wizzrobe]

I feel you and totally agree, but I was only concerned with the HD Sonic titles. Anyway, I don't want this to happen again as well because it's quite annoying.

Good, I'm not the only one who hates missing out on the recent Sonic games.

Missing out on Sonic Generations and Sonic 4 epsiode 2 made me mad.

I only own a Nintendo console but I luckily had PC.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm with you Sol, I don't want this feeling that being a Nintendo fan makes you very sheltered to what everyone else is playing, so some third parties are VERY welcome. Not what I demand, but it definitely has the potential of emptying my wallet.

Oh, and off the topic we are talking about, but Project P-100 seems interesting. Doesn't appear to make too much use of the Gamepad, but that isn't necessary. Though I need to wait for more information on it personally, that may be one I need to get.

 

[Morin0]

Well that's the division between the fans of Nintendo. Some want third party games at the same level as the PS3/360. They don't want a crappy port of CoD, and then you miss out on so many great third party games. Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Batman are the some big ones from late last year alone. Others are just content with their Mario, Zelda, etc. But the problem with that is, unless Nintendo plans to outsource their first party franchises more often (like Retro), then you can only expect 2-3 good games per year. I mean, at what point are you going to say...I'm tired of playing the New Super Mario Bros over and over again? Are you honestly gonna sit around and wait for 3-5 years for another Zelda while your Wii U collects dust?

We also have to remember that most of the first party Nintendo games don't have some sort of MP features that can extend the life of the games. Once you finish DK, unless you're some hardcore enthusiast, there is no reason to come back to it. Same with Mario. Same with Zelda. Having third party games that can give you that (mainly FPS and fighters), will help in that area + DLC interest.

Finally, the Wii won last year with a lot of contribution from the "casuals" or soccer moms. I'm not sure if that can be replicated again.

I'm pretty sure all those games you've mentioned I can play on my PC. I don't need a PS3 or Xbox 360. Lol. I see no reason for my Wii U to collect dust if there's games out there like Smash, Mario Kart, etc. You're right about the replay value, though. Quite frankly, I have enough faith in Smash that my Wii U won't ever collect dust.

 

[BSP]

Good, I'm not the only one who hates missing out on the recent Sonic games.

Missing out on Sonic Generations and Sonic 4 epsiode 2 made me mad.

I only own a Nintendo console but I luckily had PC.

Lucky, I don't have PC either lol, so everytime I got to play L4D or L4D2 or Halo or something at a friends house, once I went home, I was SoL lol.

I caved in and got an Xbox though.

Edit: I've got faith in Smash too. Plus, we know we're going to get a mario kart eventually, so as I've said, I will definitely get the system. I just don't know when yet.

 

[theeboredone]

I'm pretty sure all those games you've mentioned I can play on my PC. I don't need a PS3 or Xbox 360. Lol. I see no reason for my Wii U to collect dust if there's games out there like Smash, Mario Kart, etc. You're right about the replay value, though. Quite frankly, I have enough faith in Smash that my Wii U won't ever collect dust.

Dark Souls is coming to the PC this Summer, essentially a year after the original game's release. Other then that you are right. But overall, my point is that the Wii U needs to have strong third party support, because at some point, they may lose it. You say you don't care because you have PC. Well you still have to upgrade your PC at times. How many times did you spend upgrading it in the 8 year lifespan of the 360? The costs add up, and it's pretty much equivalent to buying a PS4 imo.

Also, while you are a PC gamer, a lot of us aren't. I mean...consoles are still the dominant way to go. Blame laziness or lack of knowing...but you can't beat a "plug and play" system compared to finding out how to set up a PC gaming, let along upgrading it.

 

[Morin0]

Lucky, I don't have PC either lol, so everytime I got to play L4D or L4D2 or Halo or something at a friends house, once I went home, I was SoL lol.

I caved in and got an Xbox though.

Edit: I've got faith in Smash too. Plus, we know we're going to get a mario kart eventually, so as I've said, I will definitely get the system. I just don't know when yet.

I'm getting it when Smash comes out. There should be a good lineup by then

Dark Souls is coming to the PC this Summer, essentially a year after the original game's release. Other then that you are right. But overall, my point is that the Wii U needs to have strong third party support, because at some point, they may lose it. You say you don't care because you have PC. Well you still have to upgrade your PC at times. How many times did you spend upgrading it in the 8 year lifespan of the 360? The costs add up, and it's pretty much equivalent to buying a PS4 imo.

Not once. When I built it, it was kind of future-proofed. But I agree with the third party support

 

[Master Xanthan]

Well that's the division between the fans of Nintendo. Some want third party games at the same level as the PS3/360. They don't want a crappy port of CoD, and then you miss out on so many great third party games. Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Batman are the some big ones from late last year alone. Others are just content with their Mario, Zelda, etc. But the problem with that is, unless Nintendo plans to outsource their first party franchises more often (like Retro), then you can only expect 2-3 good games per year. I mean, at what point are you going to say...I'm tired of playing the New Super Mario Bros over and over again? Are you honestly gonna sit around and wait for 3-5 years for another Zelda while your Wii U collects dust?

We also have to remember that most of the first party Nintendo games don't have some sort of MP features that can extend the life of the games. Once you finish DK, unless you're some hardcore enthusiast, there is no reason to come back to it. Same with Mario. Same with Zelda. Having third party games that can give you that (mainly FPS and fighters), will help in that area + DLC interest.

Finally, the Wii won last year with a lot of contribution from the "casuals" or soccer moms. I'm not sure if that can be replicated again.

I hope that can't be replicated again. If catering to casuals doesn't work this time then maybe nintendo will focus on core gamers more, which would be great.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Dark Souls is coming to the PC this Summer, essentially a year after the original game's release. Other then that you are right. But overall, my point is that the Wii U needs to have strong third party support, because at some point, they may lose it. You say you don't care because you have PC. Well you still have to upgrade your PC at times. How many times did you spend upgrading it in the 8 year lifespan of the 360? The costs add up, and it's pretty much equivalent to buying a PS4 imo.

Also, while you are a PC gamer, a lot of us aren't. I mean...consoles are still the dominant way to go. Blame laziness or lack of knowing...but you can't beat a "plug and play" system compared to finding out how to set up a PC gaming, let along upgrading it.

I'll be honest and say that it's for that reason I sometimes envy PC gamers, since yes they have to upgrade their hardware, but it can come at a modest price for those who are savvy enough about PC parts that can save them money.

Those who own PCs who say they don't care pretty much have the right to not care, seeing as they're almost covered as far as games go. Unfortunately, people like you and I aren't PC gamers, and it is our demographic that console makers (in this case, Nintendo) needs to draw in as much as possible.

That aside, there's nothing that makes me want a Wii U at launch, unfortunately. Pikmin 3's great-looking and all, but I never really got into the games. All other launch titles I don't care for. The casual games, like Wii Fit U, no one cares for, and Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, Assassins Creed III, etc. are games I either already own (ME3) or games I can already get on my PS3 without shelling out the money for a new console.

The only thing that will make me get the Wii U at launch is if they confirm an achievement system, as I've mentioned before.

 

[theeboredone]

Sadly, I think I might just end up getting the Wii U when the PS4/720 come out. That is assuming the game library is worth it. I will be paying close attention to see what happens to third party support once MS and Sony release their consoles. I need my third party games as much as I need exclusives. As much as I love me some Mario and Zelda...I will give it up if I had to choose one console that gives me a lot of games to play with compared to 2-3 a year.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Sadly, I think I might just end up getting the Wii U when the PS4/720 come out. That is assuming the game library is worth it. I will be paying close attention to see what happens to third party support once MS and Sony release their consoles. I need my third party games as much as I need exclusives. As much as I love me some Mario and Zelda...I will give it up if I had to choose one console that gives me a lot of games to play with compared to 2-3 a year.

That's exactly my mindset. As long as Nintendo shows that whatever the PS4/720 can play, they can play too, then there should be no problem at all. Otherwise, the Wii U will just end up being what the Wii should have been last gen.

The only thing that will guarantee my buying a Wii U, achievements or not, is Smash 4. That's pretty much it. Maybe Mario Kart too.

 

[Ecks]

Honestly, I'm feeling that the WiiU will be to the PS4/NextBox what the Wii was to the PS3/360.

I really wish the WiiU's specs got leaked/revealed already.

 

[Luigitoilet]

That's not going to happen until someone gets hold of a WiiU and dissects it. Nintendo doesn't talk about that kind of stuff.

I am most likely going to buy this dang thing. It won't be for a good while after release though.

 

[Vinylic.]

I am too. It's the kind of game console I consider buying after I saw pikmin 3.

And not to mention playing darksiders 2 and etc.

 

[yani]

A given really, but EA confirms Madden and Fifa are coming to Wii-U. That's some pretty good news for fans of those titles.

 

[Berserker.]

Ff------ Just ignore this post

 

[theeboredone]

So I was watching the demo for ZombiU and honestly...I wasn't that impressed with how they decided to integrate the game pad. I know in general, almost any additional feature outside your usual controller would be considered a gimmick, but this is...really gimmicky.

Granted, I only watched about 5 minutes, but anytmie they would use the gamepad, it would be to organize items, aim a crossbow, or scan the environment. I just feel like a lot of those things could still be done on the main screen.

When he was lock picking a door, it went to the touch screen where you have to swing the lockpick to a certain part and hold it there, before getting access to the next lock. Once again, it just feels like something you could do on TV.

I dunno, just wasn't impressed. Some might consider it cool or impressive, but it's not that..."Amazing!" feeling I get.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

So I was watching the demo for ZombiU and honestly...I wasn't that impressed with how they decided to integrate the game pad. I know in general, almost any additional feature outside your usual controller would be considered a gimmick, but this is...really gimmicky.

Granted, I only watched about 5 minutes, but anytmie they would use the gamepad, it would be to organize items, aim a crossbow, or scan the environment. I just feel like a lot of those things could still be done on the main screen.

When he was lock picking a door, it went to the touch screen where you have to swing the lockpick to a certain part and hold it there, before getting access to the next lock. Once again, it just feels like something you could do on TV.

I dunno, just wasn't impressed. Some might consider it cool or impressive, but it's not that..."Amazing!" feeling I get.

You sound like my wife. She thought my computer with its dual monitors was ridiculous. She was like, "Why would anyone want two screens?" Well, after trying it out on her own computer using a friend's extra monitor, she said to me, "We are going to the store and buying a second monitor for me right now."

I think there is lots of potential here. All of your "that could just be done on the screen" arguments don't really work. For instance, the point of the inventory on the small screen is that you are constantly checking the TV to see if you are in danger. That, to me, is an epic mechanic. That's not a gimmick; that is literally something you cannot achieve without the two-screen setup.

Apple likes to think that touch is the ONLY interface we need. I think Nintendo found the best mix: good dual analog sticks + buttons + a touch screen for dynamic interfaces.

 

[Morin0]

You sound like my wife. She thought my computer with its dual monitors was ridiculous. She was like, "Why would anyone want two screens?" Well, after trying it out on her own computer using a friend's extra monitor, she said to me, "We are going to the store and buying a second monitor for me right now."

I think there is lots of potential here. All of your "that could just be done on the screen" arguments don't really work. For instance, the point of the inventory on the small screen is that you are constantly checking the TV to see if you are in danger. That, to me, is an epic mechanic. That's not a gimmick; that is literally something you cannot achieve without the two-screen setup.

Apple likes to think that touch is the ONLY interface we need. I think Nintendo found the best mix: good dual analog sticks + buttons + a touch screen for dynamic interfaces.

Isn't that why to a certain extent, OoT 3D for the 3DS was good because of the extra screen, it made changing your inventory effortlessly? Or I dunno, lol.

 

[finalark]

Apple likes to think that touch is the ONLY interface we need. I think Nintendo found the best mix: good dual analog sticks + buttons + a touch screen for dynamic interfaces.

Indeed. When the DS was announced I too thought that two screens was just stupid and did nothing to help game play. To my surprise the DS is one of Nintendo's gimmick consoles that actually enhanced game play rather than detracted from it.

I don't really see Apple as a threat to the handheld market. The 3DS and Vita are always around for people who actually like playing video games. Games on the iWhatever tend to fall apart once they reach complexity beyond Angry Birds.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

So I was watching the demo for ZombiU and honestly...I wasn't that impressed with how they decided to integrate the game pad. I know in general, almost any additional feature outside your usual controller would be considered a gimmick, but this is...really gimmicky.

Granted, I only watched about 5 minutes, but anytmie they would use the gamepad, it would be to organize items, aim a crossbow, or scan the environment. I just feel like a lot of those things could still be done on the main screen.

When he was lock picking a door, it went to the touch screen where you have to swing the lockpick to a certain part and hold it there, before getting access to the next lock. Once again, it just feels like something you could do on TV.

I dunno, just wasn't impressed. Some might consider it cool or impressive, but it's not that..."Amazing!" feeling I get.

The effect they are going for is that you have to look away from the your surroundings just like in real life to do these things, not only making it more realistic but also suspenseful, because just like in a real apocalypse, stopping somewhere to look in your bag or focus on picking a lock distracts your attention away from a potential zombie munching on your ***.

 

[Metal Overlord]

New Super Mario Bros. U looks so fun

Can't wait to hear more about Miiverse

 

[theeboredone]

I think there is lots of potential here. All of your "that could just be done on the screen" arguments don't really work. For instance, the point of the inventory on the small screen is that you are constantly checking the TV to see if you are in danger. That, to me, is an epic mechanic. That's not a gimmick; that is literally something you cannot achieve without the two-screen setup.

Disagree. There are plenty of games where you have to pause in real time while events are going on around you. Rather than looking at another screen, you are still looking at the same one, but the downside is your screen is filled with the item menu. Isn't that what you're essentially doing in this game? You look down, to a screen that displays the item menu, thus your focus is taken away from what's going on in real time.

I mean, just look at the Dark/Demon's Souls series. You access the menu to equip an item, but there might be something lurking around the corner that may attack you. The menu takes the entire thing up, so you might just end up getting attacked. Your focus is too busy on how you wanna manage your items, so you are already "immersed" in that aspect. The moment you get attacked, you panic and exit out.

I never said the game pad doesn't have potential, but what I saw from ZombiU...it's nothing impressive. It's nothing that screams to me, "Buy me!"

You wanna look through the game pad while aiming? Well uh...how does that make the game more epic or immersive? So you're looking at the gamepad, seeing the badguys that you need to aim on as opposed to looking at the screen.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Erm, I disagree that having an on-screen inventory that doesn't pause the game is the same thing. The difference is that your eyes can be bouncing between your inventory and the zombies. How would you replicate that in a 'normal' game? Make the player just open and close the inventory rapidly? Or just put the inventory and the world view side by side thus defeating the point of the split focus?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

New Super Mario Bros. U looks so fun

Can't wait to hear more about Miiverse

Yeah, normally I wouldn't care about how fast or well I beat levels, but with Miis of people around me living and breathing in the game with me, I think I might take Nintendo games more seriously just by virtue of that alone.

 

[theeboredone]

Erm, I disagree that having an on-screen inventory that doesn't pause the game is the same thing. The difference is that your eyes can be bouncing between your inventory and the zombies. How would you replicate that in a 'normal' game? Make the player just open and close the inventory rapidly? Or just put the inventory and the world view side by side thus defeating the point of the split focus?

You have a point there, but as my main arguing point was, it's nothing that is "amazing" or screams "buy me." It's an immersive/cool feature, but I still hold strong on my other points in regards to "environment scanning" "crossbow aiming" or "lock picking." Those can all be done on the main game screen without a need for a gamepad.

Also, I hope they fix it, but I thought when he was moving items around on the gamepad, it looked a bit laggy and not smooth as your typical touch screens out there.

Overall, if at this point we're investing a bunch of money for subtle features like that...then I just personally think it's not worth it. It's just gonna have to be up to the games to just be plain awesome.

 

[Wizzrobe]

New Super Mario Bros. U looks so fun

Can't wait to hear more about Miiverse

Sure does, they could of done more with the graphics though.

The game looks really fun though and I can't wait to see how the game and the online features work together.

 

[BirthNote]

I would've been more impressed with NSMB U if they had shown Peach, Wario and/or Waluigi playable. Miyamoto said the reason why they chose 2 Toads over 1 Toad and Peach in NSMB Wii was because of hardware limitations; It would be hard for them to incorporate the physics of Peach's dress, and Toads have similar body shapes to the Mario brothers.

Now that they have the Wii U, which is more powerful than the Wii, what's stopping them from making atleast one of those characters playable?

 

[theeboredone]

Being lazy. Waluigi and Wario would have been uh...weird just cause people see them as villains. Toad and Peach would have been perfect.

 

[GwJ]

I think the background is where NSMBWU shines. They look just completely beautiful and that's where my attention was held each time I watched the trailers for it.

 

[theeboredone]

I thought the graphics and art for NSMBWU were very mundane. Then again, I assume that it's gonna be like any new console, where the entry level games don't look as good compared to years later. ZombiU was meh as well.

There have been some great 2D platformer games with great graphics and art. I love how Rayman looks. While Journey is not a true 2D scroller, the art in that is stunning.

 

[John2k4]

True with that graphics point. Just look at Skyward Sword/Xenoblade on the Wii - producing stunning graphics after years.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I think the background is where NSMBWU shines. They look just completely beautiful and that's where my attention was held each time I watched the trailers for it.

Yeah the backgrounds are nice. A big improvement over the older NSMB games.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I agree with the background of NSMBU in that it's a huge improvement. The problem though, is that when you look at the game itself, it's just another "New Super Mario Bros." game that plays presumably the same way as the other games, just with some added gameplay elements and power-ups. They should just remove the "New" in New Super Mario Bros. at this point, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Wizzrobe]

I agree with the background of NSMBU in that it's a huge improvement. The problem though, is that when you look at the game itself, it's just another "New Super Mario Bros." game that plays presumably the same way as the other games, just with some added gameplay elements and power-ups. They should just remove the "New" in New Super Mario Bros. at this point, but that's just my opinion.

I agree, and while I love the new super mario bros. games they should really do something different after this because the name is becoming repetitive and the game needs to not look so similiar to previous Mario games because it will become repetitive eventually.