I don't particularly care for Nintendo or their franchises. I wouldn't get a Wii U for Nintendo games, I'd get it for that new Xenoblade game or Fatal Frame, although to be fair, I'm not that interested in those either. But if I did get it, only then would I get a Nintendo game, and even then, I'd never get MK or SSB or Pokemon. I'd likely try Zelda and Metroid mostly.

In a sense, I wouldn't care if Nintendo went 3rd party. I'd be more likely to get one of their games though, that's for sure. I buy random stuff as it is. Would it be good for Nintendo themselves? I have no idea. I do feel like designing and launching a console takes away resources one could be putting towards creating a game. I thought for sure MS and Sony would have plenty of next-gen games ready what with the Xbone and PS4 taking so long to come out. Instead, it really feels like they poured money into the new consoles, and are waiting for those to sell before really getting into making games. If this is the same with Nintendo, then does that mean we'd get more games more often if they went 3rd party? Again, I wouldn't care too much, but would Ninty fans prefer that? It does seem like stuff has been slow for the Wii U too.

I also feel like for Nintendo to recover, they'd have to release a new console way sooner than a PS5 or Xbone 2 would arrive. Who knows how this will affect them. Will people flock to the new console with new features? OR would they wait with their PS4s and Xbones as they know those will get new additions as some point. If Ninty got 3rd party support, they'd just get multiplats really. Ninty would have to rely on its 1st party again, which it always has, but would it be as slow as it has been with the Wii U? That just brings the PS5 and Xbone2 back into contention.

Ninty also seem to want to make a profit with each console sold, so generally speaking, Sony and MS will always have an advantage, risking loss for hardware advantage. Even worse if they release a new console way earlier.

I'd say....dabble first. Port something to the PC (I'd say new Zelda, but I'm sure they want that to sell systems). Put one or two games out there, but keep all available to Wii U. See how well that sells.

The handheld market seems solid though, for them.

Wow, I was looking forward to that game. Tomb Raider felt great on PC. Maybe there'll be a 'definitive edition' for the rest. This kinda sucks either way.

Dual pistols? Pfft, bring back dual Uzis

Wait, there was a hostage? I thought it was capture the flag.

@Lulu_Lulu:

I do both! Honestly, in my eyes, the fluidity in TR's gameplay was better than Uncharted. I love me old school tomb raiding, and want that too though. TR doesn't need them set-pieces, I could do with less of those. Still, it's the most exciting thing from E3 so far to me, and we haven't even seen anything.

Bloodborne was my most anticipated game to be shown, but it didn't feel like they gave enough in the trailer.

Loved the reboot. Got extremely excited for this when they showed it. It's great to see they are going for more tomb raiding, but I have to say, I loved the fluid gameplay in the reboot. I'm excited to see them expand on that.

At its best, the battle system is pure awesome. Some fights are just edge of seat moments. Random battles are pretty dour though, the battle system doesn't work that well there and can get kinda annoying fighting some monsters. Have some great memories of it, even though I haven't finished it. I'd get back to it, but I'm so out of touch with the battle system that it would take me a while to get used to it again. I had a video fighting an earth eater, which was a great tough fight at the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqOG1BIf0EA

Story on the other hand, I never gave a damn about. Part of it is being connected to FFXIII and how the characters just don't carry over well. The other problem being some just seem to act too high and mighty really. Some side-quests are totally boring and annoying, while some remind me of old style quirky and at times touching side-quests. Like I said, I haven't finished it though.

Take what the reviewer says with a grain of salt. Technically, the game is all over the place. I loved me some Nier, but I don't remember that game being as technically bad as Drakengard 3. I don't think Drakengard 3 reaches the height of 'charm' that Nier achieved either, but I do see where the reviewer is coming from. I've gotten 2 endings so far, but I can't say I'm as enthralled by the story as I was with Nier.

Still, no matter how much I might like the story and characters, the screen tearing, the framedrops, the long loading times all reallllllllly get to me. I couldn't go higher than a 6/10, and that's with me being generous.

I thought this was just traffic-bait, which it still is, but I thought it'd be pandering to the peeps with angst for DS2 but a hard-on for DS1. Turns out it's just a newcomer getting lost, which is totally believable. The game tried to be accessible, but still fails miserably. Some of the complaints felt like he wasn't paying attention fully though, which is a big mistake in a Souls game.

He only faced 5 bosses too, and probably missed a ton of bonfires/shortcuts by the sounds of things. So yea, weird that his review was even given space. What's the point? In 20 hours of playtime, he didn't really learn to play. And while leveling isn't that important, how he is still stuck doing small damage is beyond me.

Uh, didn't KH 1.5 release earlier in its month compared to FFXHD? With GTAV dragging everything up with it?

Hell, MGSV:GZ barely did ~280K over 4 consoles. What was Dark Souls 2 numbers?