Slashdot Mirror
The Evolution of the Revolution
Jane Pinckard, over at 1up, has a look at the evolution of the Nintendo Revolution controller...not that we have any real idea what the revolution will be. She takes a look at what we know to be untrue, and speculates on what might be. From the article: "One natural line of thinking, after eliminating the buttons and the D-pad, was that the controller would be touchable - not a far-fetched idea, since the DS uses a touch screen. What could be more intuitive than the power of touch? Throw in the microphone - another DS feature - and you have this model featured on the right; the creator kept the buttons and the analog stick, possibly to enable backwards compatibility. But the main interface of this controller concept is the spacious haptic touch screen."
That controller has been intelligently designed.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Penny Arcade, as always, has something funny to say about this.
- 29&res=l
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-08
This space intentionally left blank.
I've been using a keyboard from Fingerworks http://www.fingerworks.com/ (that now looks shut down), that has no actual keys on it. The included gestures are very easy to learn, and you can even make your own. Because of this, I don't see a d-pad less controller too far of a stretch, though extreme precision might be tough to achieve without lots of practice.
Seemed slow to me so here's NYUD cache:= 3143314
http://www.1up.com.nyud.net:8090/do/newsStory?cId
And my god, are some of those mockups ugly or what? Except the last one, of course.
It's fun to watch the joke fly over the mods' heads.
Rob
Not only do I want the DS to be a controller, but also be an interface to games. Take an RTS or RPG that not only could you look at the action on the screen, but you could also get tactical info from the DS screens.
...but I'm geek like that.
I know that is information overload...
BTW from what I have seen so far, DS touch pad with a pen is a good substitute for a mouse (although not perfect, but it's really close).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The one thing Nintendo has to worry about most now is that their offering isn't going to be as cool as the fan-made controllers.
In fact, it won't, if only because of the Nintendo ON virtual-reality video. Everyone _knows_ virtual reality isn't possible, but they'll still be disappointed when it doesn't happen.
The worst thing would be if someone guessed close to the truth - people will look and say "Oh, that's neat, I guess, but we already thought and talked about it. And why doesn't it have X?". The best thing Nintendo could do is come up with something surprising enough that people forget it's not as cool as virtual reality.
And, of course, it has to be weird enough to get major news sources to pick up on it, so Nintendo can fulfill their goal of attracting non-hardcore gamers. Even if it disappoints, if it's strange enough people will hear about the Revolution. "Game maker Nintendo revealed today that their vision of the future controller for video games is a dead cat on a string. Nintendo's system, which costs $4.99 and comes in 43 colors, can play all video games made between 1980 and 2000."
It'll get people's attention, anyway.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Hasn't Nintendo stated multiple times that the Revolution won't use a DS-like controller? Besides, anyone who's played Wario Ware: Twisted knows they're going to do a gyroscope anyway.
"Superiour" you say? I'll be damned.
Touchpads on laptops work well because there's no specificity to the touchpad itself, it's simply a pointing device, ie mouse. I'm not sure what the Nintendo people are doing but touchpad technology is ok if used right but people do not want to be looking at their hands when they want to be looking at the screen.
Even when you focus all of your energy on making your point, leaving your grammar and spelling to lie in utter squalor, you still fail to make a compelling argument. Yes, Nintendo uses their popular franchises quite a bit. Who doesn't? How many Halos do you think we're going to see? How many other XBox games will get their own version of Master Chief once Halo itself is considered old hat? How many Sonic games are there? How many Grand Theft Autos or Grand Turismos do we need? How many Maddens? Perpetuating a franchise is not, in itself, an argument against creative gaming. Games can use familiar characters and still be fun and even innovative.
On a side note, and I realize from your tone that you're a teenager and will almost certainly disregard this advice because you already know everything, communication skills do actually matter in the real world. You may think that because this is an online forum, you can dispense with all effort at effective writing, but it only serves to distract the reader from your point. If you want to make a point at all, being able to communicate it effectively is the first step to getting to across. You might as well practice here, where there are no real consequences. It might help when you finally land a job and need to convey ideas to your superiors without looking like a fool.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Relying on established franchises doesn't necessarily mean that Nintendo (or Sony or Microsoft) isn't being innovative. Franchise usage and innovation aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Take Donkey Kong games as an example.
You can't really blame them for using a franchise people recognize. Square did it with Final Fantasy Tactics, too. Different gameplay, but the name will at least get your average gamer to look at the package.
e2 | LJ