Slashdot Mirror
Responses To Nintendo's Revolution Controller
Gamasutra has reactions to last week's Question of the Week, discussing the Nintendo Revolution Controller. While there were a lot of mixed feelings, overall the response seemed to be positive. From the article: " I certainly hope [the controller will be beneficial]. More of the same thinking in terms of developing the future of games can only take us so far. As a lifelong gamer and game developer, I urge everybody in our industry to support the innovation and risks taken by Nintendo on sheer principle. We always lament that there is no creativity and innovation in the games industry anymore. Guys, we have to rally around these initiatives. It brings a tear to my eye that somebody out there in this big brutal word of ROI and risk management still dares to go out on a limb like that to push gaming further. And my mouth waters when I think of designing for such hardware. -Marque Sondergaard, Powerhouse"
Wow! You have a remote that senses movement in 3d space as well as rotational directions?
I don't see what people have to hate about this controller design. If you don't like it, plug in a gamecube controller. Nintendo has this thought out well for everyone, including people that dislike their new controller.
A very accurate comment on the form of the thing, while compleatly ignorring the function of the device. Pretty insightful there.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
Didn't you see the sign? Don't feed the trolls.
Just look at the dudes comment history.
I'll have an opinion once I use one. But my general feeling is that if the games are designed with this controller in mind and can take advantage of its features then it will be a good thing. Playing older game cube games that were made for the old style controller probably would not be so good. So I guess it all depends on the developer.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
I don't really see how it's good or bad, the only direction I'm vaguely excited in is the world of FPS games. I hate console FPSes and this could be just the thing to improve FPS gaming IMHO. I Suppose I agree with the article in the idea that we should encourage attempts at innovations such as this. (though I for one found the plethora of "touching is good" ads for DS somewhat creepy)
And as the original article states, you at least have to give Nintendo props for being willing to take risk and try something radical. The game market has been sorely lacking in innovation for a long time, so even though I'm not particularly impressed by Nintendo's newest offering, I still applaud them for being unique.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. However, don't hate on Nintendo because they're doing something new and different. It's that kind of thinking that has kept the gaming industry in the vicious cycle of endless clones and knock-offs that don't offer anything new but a rehashed graphics engine. If this venture becomes successful, it will in turn inspire other companies and publishers to go out on a limb with ground-breaking ideas. As it is, everyone is too afraid to take a big risk on an unproven concept, so we just keep getting fed the same old crap over and over.
Now, all that said, there have always been great games coming out, but in recent years they seem to have been continually dwindling in numbers. Bottom line: innovation is always a good thing. It's what's driven our economy and fueled growth and technological development more than almost anything else.
The Slashdot Limerick
You know, even if it were *just* a remote control (which on that, you're incorrect to begin with - though I sense your statement is more of an attempt to defame, rather than one of ignorance), it would still be a departure from the norm. What the article is saying, or at least the quote in question, is that we should move on any opportunity to support a departure from the norm based on that alone.
He makes a good point that people continuously want a new experience. The revolution controller as a step in the right direction by bringing gamers closer to real interactivity, which is the entire reason and purpose of video games in the first place.
When broken, the "Remote Control" will be exactly as cool as a broken PSP with all it's moving parts. So stop your biased-i-get-girlfriends-that-love-the-same-videog ame-manufacturer-as-i-do-fanboy-ranter here and don't buy it if you don't like it. Nintendo doesn't force you to buy their shit. Their games are mostly addictive to the majority (including girls that could become girlfriends). But they don't force you...
Give me 1 well done FPS, 1 well done star wars game with lightsaber control and make Twilight Princess a nrv title and I'll buy 10 systems and sign off everything I own to Nintendo. The last request is optional, though.
Just like commenting on the PS3 controller:
"Ooooh! A banana-rang, how innovative!"
or on the X360 controller:
"Ooooh! It's white and um... ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and huge)"
Looks aren't everything, and no offence, didn't your mom tell you that?
^_^
one of the things that bugs me is that the reasoning for shaping it like a remote control is stupid! So people will pick it up off of their coffee table? Yeah, like the average gamer is gonna blow $200-$300 on a device, hook it up, and then set the remote on the coffee table, only to sit down later that evening intrigued by the new, user friendly device in front of them.
Come on, we're gamers, not old people. Anyone who is going to pick it up and play with it will either be a grandparent, or a parent, and then they will pick it up, have trouble figuring out the game interface or have trouble turning it on, fiddle with it for a while, and then set it down and find the TV remote.
We're your customers. Cater to us! It would be like a knitting needle company foregoing the same old needle designs for more hardcore, Xtreme designs, to draw a new generation of nonknitters to the table.
Okay okay, it looks like a remote control, but can you actually control the TV with it? Seriously, I think that is a feature that would complete the set. The more I think about it, the better I like this new controller and really want to see the games. So if a person can just pick this up, turn the TV on with it, adjust the volume and channel, turn on the Revolution, and play, that would be perfect! Wow, imagine that people start using this as their primary remote, then they'd always be a click away from playing a game. You know, that's where Nintendo might be going with this. Gaming becomes as casual as using a TV remote.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I don't really like the revolution's controller. although this controller will make some games more intuitive and easier to play (Mario party, fishing games, baseball, tennis, and some platformer games) it is going to make other games much harder to play. Can you imagine trying to play a tekken style fighting game with that controller? It would be just about impossible to play well without buying the controller cradle. The user should not have to buy extra controller peripherals to play an entire genera of games.
Also think about what madden is going to do with that. The nunchaku or cradle attachment will be required in order to play well. The analog stick will be used for movement the d-pad will be used for play selection and audibles and the motion sensor will be used for juking/jumping. So in the end juking will get easier but everything else in the game will become more awkward (because of the wire between hands rather then having a solid controller) This controller will work great for simple games but for any game that takes more then 3 buttons and a d-pad it isn't going to help, only hinder.
To me it seems that Nintendo is hindering detailed control in order to make room for invention and change. I think in the end this is going to push away 3rd party developers even more. But there games will be fun and special. If Nintendo wants to bring games back to where you only need 2 buttons and a directional pad, then this is the way to go.
Wow, think about playing a mech game, going from the Steel Battalion controller to the revolution. Your loosing so many options you'll feel like your missing your arms.
You know, even if it were *just* a remote control (which on that, you're incorrect to begin with - though I sense your statement is more of an attempt to defame, rather than one of ignorance), it would still be a departure from the norm. What the article is saying, or at least the quote in question, is that we should move on any opportunity to support a departure from the norm based on that alone.
Without bringing the Revolution controller into this at all, what you just said, quite frankly, is moronic.
Nailing poisonous asps to my scrotum is a departure from the norm but it behooves me to think twice before jumping onboard the swollen man-parts bandwagon. There are an infinite number of ways to make things different that also make things worse. The inverse is not true.
Perhaps you're talking about Gamespot?
Oddly enough, there is a local minimum. If developers are afraid of the Revolution, and they don't make games for it, then making games for the Revolution starts to almost guarantee a sale. Nintendo's in-house titles are of high-enough quality to guarantee some console sales, and the uniqueness of the controller will get more. Some degree of support will be optimal for the 3rd parties.
But mainly I think Nintendo is embracing and extending. They've made a controller system that looks like it can support game types from other systems (via an attachment... *shudder*), but those competing systems can't support the Nintendo exclusive titles. So you can buy an Xbox 360, a PS3, or a Revolution if you want to play Sly Cooper 4, but if you want to play Star Wars: Lightsaber Battles properly you will need a Revolution. That's a pretty big incentive to pick one console over another. That's why Microsoft bought Bungee instead of just working with them, and why Nintendo gives Miyamoto anything he asks for. Nintendo is guaranteeing themselves some unique exclusives. And unlike their past exclusives, they don't have to be the ones to build them.
They're going for a lock, basically. And while everyone is going for a lock in their own ways, (free live online, PS2 compatibility, etc), this seems like a potentially fun lock.
I think the real question is whether or not the add-on controller idea will take off everywhere... such a thing might fly in Japan, where peripheral sales are high, but in the US and Europe that plan has repeatedly failed. The interface is probably too limited without more than two buttons.
The ______ Agenda
It's also moronic to discard the subject of the conversation when quoting the original post. (i.e. "without bringing the revolution controller into this at all...")
I guess it's too easy to flame people when you can make them sound any way you want by quoting them out of context.
The original statement "...bringing gamers closer to real interactivity, which is the entire reason and purpose of video games in the first place" was intended as a reinforcement that this controller change is a good thing, and was not intended to suggest that people should just jump on the bandwagon simply for the sake of the ride.
If you were to say "I support male castration for its benefits to the health of convicted rapists", and someone decided to come along with the smarmy reply of: "Did you just say 'I support male castration for its health benefits.'? That's just moronic!" I'm sure you can see where you're a little out of line.
I don't know why you bothered to reply to the post, since you didn't really contribute anything to the topic.
Correct, you are not the target audience. And you know what? For every hardcore gamer in the world, there are probably 10 people who are not hardcore gamers. If Nintendo can grab the interest of even 10% of that potential market, then they are doing as well as Sony and Microsoft put together.
You demand hardcore stick-tilting, combo-memorizing, button-mashing game controls? Buy an XBox 360.
The people kvetching about the Revolution controller and how it will discourage third-party development and reduce the number of games ported to the Revolution are people who complain because they feel the need to complain about anything. They're the sort of people who will complain loudly one day about how buggy their latest console game purchase is, then the next day complain about how the Xbox allows games to be patched. They're the kind of people who will complain about how they hate sequels and use their next breath (or finger movement) to say how excited they are about a sequel to Katamari Damacy or the next Zelda game.
In short, the people who complain about the design of the Revolution controller are whiny dolts and will remain so until there is actual evidence that the system has bad games that are hard to control.
You and the poster that replied to you miss my point, and that is that of "Joe Consumer's" first impression.
I get that the 3d motion sensing is kick ass, and the functionality alone is truly revolutionary, and I applaud them for that.
However, the bottom line is it's looks like a remote control, and that is exactly the impression mom, pop, and the rest are going to have when they see it. They will lose sales because of it.
Don't hate me because I'm right.
I fully understand that it's not *just* a remote control. I'm just pointing out the idiocy of making a "revolutionary" controller identical to something not-so-revolutionary.
This is a case of right concept, wrong implementaion.
Mod parent up!!!
(So we can all point and laugh!)
"Derp de derp."
Oh, you mean the one that has it's OWN CONTROLLER? ... WITH A BAZILLION BUTTONS? ... THAT COSTS 200 BUCKS?
Right, I use that to play Tekken ALL the time!
I'm not scared of anonymous cowards.
Sad truth is, stick SONY on the bottom, triple the price and "Joe Consumer" along with "Expert 14 Year Old" will be tripping over themselves to not only buy it but also praise it up to all and sundry. :(
Nintendo said they are targetting both the "hardcore" gamers who are bored of the current status AND to non-gamers who will see games that you don't need to read a 50 page manual to start playing.
My older brother is certainly not a gamer but then he and his wife bought a DDR pad and game and they really enjoy it. The rev is intended to this audience. Those who like fun things, but don't want the shock of complex games.
But on the other hand, they are coming out with Metroid Prime 3 and other "deep" games, for the "hardcore" gamer.
Look on the DS. It's sold a lot of pieces just because of a "non-game" which is Nintendogs, to people who are not "hardcore" gamers. That's Nintendo's plan for the Rev.
OTOH, Sony is catering only to the "hardcore" gamers with their PSP and while selling well it doesn't seem to be crazy like with the DS.
Case in point, the hardware is here to stay, it's the software that will define its success or failure. Altough personally I trust Nintendo to "know what you doing" and launch every rev "for great justice"
(Sorry for my incohorency, it's 6am in the morning and i'm just on my way to bed)
^_^
I think he was probably meant 1UP.
Nintendo is doing the right thing with this move. If you think that the software is what matters, if the controller will have success if Revolution has titles that fully utilize it, Nintendo already own it.
How much will it cost? How much would your mother pay for hours of entertainment? A tip, that trip to Florida probably costed 5x more than a Revolution and its controller.
If those who can buy find a reason (i.d. a good game) to bring the console home, they will. If they have fun, they will. And that's what this controller can bring, fun while playing games to people who have never played a game! Just like you and me have played Air Guitar, having fantasies while moving your body without control, this controller allows your phisical to be an extension of your imagination.
There's no key placement to remember, no sequence, no joystick to control. Your movement is the control. Your motion is translated to whatever the game developer imaginated.
The possibilites are enormous! No longer we're stuck to up, down, left, right and 6 options. The controller allows new kinds of motion, of interaction with a virtual world.
The closer the software gets to your imagination, the better.
Yes it is innovativbe and that is always a good thing but they will easily have one of two things happening here
A. They will make you buy 20 different attachments to play certain games at their full potential.
B. If that little motion sensor moves when the controller moves think about a game with a sniper rifle ( probably another attachment )otherwise all their fps's will cost more to play with a steady crosshair or it will shake real bad. how far can you truley keep it dead on from your tv with a remote (innovation good stealing the ms white color bad)
They're trying to simplify interaction with games to bring in more people. It would require at least another 20 buttons just to make the basic functions available to control your typical modern TV.
:P
That said, if the technology isn't prohibitively expensive for 3rd party controller makers, I wouldn't be surprised to see a universal one from someone.
It would be nice if they'd put a clock on the front of the thing. My DVD player doesn't have one and my VCR is in the closet. Of course it would just flash 12:00 for most people, but it would be nice to glance at to see how long I've been flailing my arms around
No sig for you!!
Get this: noone's attacking Nintendo because they're innovating, so I wish that straw-man and persecution complex was put to rest already.
/. for another example of innovation that a lot of people don't like nevertheless.
1. They can innovate as much as they like, and kudos to them for innovating. So there. Maybe now we can stop it with the "waah, bad people try to stop inovation" emo act aready. But
2. totally unrelated to that -- in fact _orthogonal_ to that -- an interface can still be good or bad, regardless of whether it's innovative or not.
E.g., the dot-com for example was full of such "innovations" that just didn't work. The more clueless a PHB was, the more he was full of "innovative" ideas to make the web an "experience" and such. Except noone actually wanted to have that experience. (Even those very same PHBs didn't want to personally use the resulting awful site, but had their secretary do it for them.) E.g., see the endless ranting and raving against the RIAA-backed DRM schemes on
In this case, I think this controller sucks. That's all. Again, let's not pull the same "waah, but if you're against it you're against innovation" straw-man, because it's still a straw man. I'm not against innovation, I just don't like this particular item. That's all.
"However, don't hate on Nintendo because they're doing something new and different."
Again, noone's hating them for it. Yes, I know I'm repeating myself, but maybe it will finally sink in this time.
"If you don't like it, don't buy it."
Yes, very insightful that. And indeed that's what I was planning to do.
"Bottom line: innovation is always a good thing. It's what's driven our economy and fueled growth and technological development more than almost anything else."
No, sorry. That's just half the story. What's driven the economy and develompent wasn't just imagination run amok, but also the reality check of whether the market also wants to buy it or not. Some ideas will be the next great thing, and some will fail, and that's actually a _good_ thing. It's that separating the gold from the sand that's an equally (if not more) important component in that progress.
Either half is worthless without the other. Having just the reality check but not the input for it, yes, isn't going to get us all any further. But also mindlessly folloing any idea, not even trying to discern the good from the bad bad, is even worse.
At any rate, to put this thing to rest already:
A) "innovation" as in the process of coming up with new original stuff, is good. But,
B) any particular "innovation" as in an actual product or idea, can still nevertheless be a bad product or a bad idea.
And all this emo stuff along the lines of "Product X is an innovation, we must support innovation, therefore we all must support Product X" is at best a textbook verbal fallacy. It's based on the ambiguity between the two very different meanings of it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Nintendo is doing the right thing with this move. If you think that the software is what matters, if the controller will have success if Revolution has titles that fully utilize it, Nintendo already own it."
I've taken the liberty of highlighting a word there. That's the whole crux of the problem. That little "if".
"How much will it cost? How much would your mother pay for hours of entertainment? A tip, that trip to Florida probably costed 5x more than a Revolution and its controller."
Again, it's begging the question if it will give her hours of entertainment, or just a sore arm after waving the thing around.
"nd that's what this controller can bring, fun while playing games to people who have never played a game! Just like you and me have played Air Guitar, having fantasies while moving your body without control, this controller allows your phisical to be an extension of your imagination.
There's no key placement to remember, no sequence, no joystick to control. Your movement is the control. Your motion is translated to whatever the game developer imaginated.
The possibilites are enormous! No longer we're stuck to up, down, left, right and 6 options. The controller allows new kinds of motion, of interaction with a virtual world.
The closer the software gets to your imagination, the better."
Now you're sounding like a broken marketting droid from the dot-com era.
No, the closer it gets to be intuitively controlled, the better. Thing is, however, (A) an intuitive controller, and (B) PR-stunt gadgets (badly) imitating reality or such fantasies... well, they're usuall exact opposites.
You may notice that the most effective and useful interfaces are those who _don't_.
E.g., the mouse is probably the most successful input device ever, but here's the thing: it's an abstract device. There is no RL equivalent of it, no "think of your airguitar fantasies!!" BS needed, it just works. Even without trying to mimmick natural movements or anything, anyone who's ever tried a mouse, needs only minimal instruction to use it. (I can tell you that I even got my computer-illiterate grandma to use one adequately well in less than a minute.) By comparison, the things that did try to imitate reality and human moves, like the touch screen or the power glove, failed miserably, because humans aren't built to hold an arm up for hours.
E.g., between the keyboard and handwriting recognition, it's the same issue: between writing something by hand (the thing that imitates reality and natural movements) and typing something on a keyboard, the keyboard is the faster and more comfortable option.
Etc.
And the same applies not only to input devices, btw. You may notice that we still use wheels on cars, not try to build mechanical legs. You may notice that our airplanes don't flap their wings like birds to. You may notice that boats have moved from oars (the solution that was inspired by flippers) to just using a propeller. Etc.
As I've said, imitating reality is that-a-way, building something efficient and useful is in the exact opposite direction.
So basically that's the thing: coming up with a PR stunt like this is _easy_, and it's easy to hype to hell and back. ("But it's natural!!!") Coming up with an innovation that's actually a better interface, that requires a lot more work, and a lot more imagination.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's a remote control that senses movement in 3D. This technology is absolutely amazing! Now tell me, how am I supposed to play Soul Calibur with my friends all on the same couch without us hitting each other? Furthermore, how am I supposed to play first person shooters on a split screen when I have to aim at only my part of the screen (which will be very small mind you)? This control seems to have been designed with the thought of bringing in more people into the gaming world. However, it has definately not been designed with the thought of gaming in mind.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
I'm not actually aware of any criticism of the x360 controller. There was some disappointment that it wasn't very different from the controller-s but after holding it in my hands, i think it's a great controller. Soft, light, well proportionned, etc. While people can say it's white and ugly, no one in their right mind would call it huge. Now the PS3's Batarang, that's a whole other ballgame.
What I had in mind was using the existing buttons like the remotes you often find in hotel rooms. For this you just need buttons for next and previous channel and more volume and less volume. The D-pad alone is good enough for this. If you want to get fancy without making it too complicated, the remote could have a channel jump feature where if you hold the button down in one direction or the other it would skip through the channels quickly. The key thing is to keep it simple.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Well, we can discuss why I don't like the controller too, but all I wanted to say there was that it's a completely different issue from disliking innovation as a whole. So figured for a change I'd focus on one single idea instead of a hard-to-read mix of disparate issues.
But ok, here's why I don't like it:
1. It looks like it would be uncomfortable after a while.
Think lightguns, for example. They're great as a gimmick, but it's not the kind of thing you'd want to play with for hours. It's the kind of stuff you play for half an hour, or an hour, then plug in your regular controller and play something else. I know people who've played a FPS with a keyboard and mouse for 16 hours straight. I don't know anyone who can play a lightgun game for _half_ that time.
Being a weakling nerd has nothing to do with it, btw. Humans just weren't built for that. I've actually got a bodybuilder once to play a lightgun game. He too soon got sore muscles from holding his arm up.
So all things considered, I'd rather _not_ have to wave that thing around for hours to play a game.
Most of Nintendo's proposed accessories for this controller suffer from the same problem. E.g., take the racing wheel. A car's wheel also serves as something to rest your hands/arms on. Trying to just hold a loop in the air and steer with it would get very uncomfortable very fast.
2. Too few buttons for anything serious. Two buttons, A and B (the trigger included) just aren't enough for anything but the most over-simplified games. Even the GBA also has the shoulder triggers, by comparison.
E.g., let's take racing games. Let's say the trigger is the gas pedal, and "A" is the brake button. It just has no keys left for gear switching, hand-brake, or anything else. Reaching for the cross to do those things, not only is uncomfortable (and precludes stuff like changing gears _while_ braking), it just guarantees also moving the controller while you do that.
3. Lack of an obvious "centre" position, or of a way to reset it.
E.g., racing games again, as an easy example. (But the same would apply to a lot of other games, e.g., flight sims.) How do you know when it's centered? On a gamepad you can just let go of the stick, and it's automatically centered. I can actually think of one game where they didn't offer auto-centering: "Driving Emotion: Type S". (A Square game for the PS2, just so you don't think I'm picking only on Nintendo.) Review sites dubbed it "The real drunk driving simulator."
E.g., FPS. You can pick a mouse up and move it back to the centre, when you've pushed it too far to one side. Now imagine doing the same with such a gyroscope device instead of a mouse. How do you do that? So you want to circle-strafe around someone. You turn it to the right, right, right... then what? How far does your arm twist? How do you reset it without turning left?
Reserve a button for a "pick up the mouse" equivalent? Well, it only has two, so I'd rather not. Plus, there goes that intuitive use idea right out the window.
Or use it as a joystick instead, so you don't have to twist your arm? Well, we all knew how well joysticks worked in FPS.
4. Then there's the whole fact that it's been actually tried before. E.g., some of the Microsoft Sidewinder gamepads, yep, had just that: a motion sensor. If that worked as great for all sorts of games, as Nintendo claims, don't you think we'd have heard about it already? E.g., if a motion sensor was that great and intuitive for fps, don't you think by now you'd hear about whole clans of Sidewinder owners pwning everyone in sight?
Etc.
And yeah, yeah, it can be combined with other stuff to overcome those problems... basically bringing you back to square one. So you can stuff it into a normal Gamecube-like gamepad... getting a regular gamepad for your game. Or you can stick the analog stick part in it, nunchaku style... getting a regular gamepad split into two. Or you can stick it into a plastic loop... getting a racing wheel, if a very
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You do realize that if you put the control inside the wavebird-like sleeve, it still tilts when you tilt the addon sleve?
That's great, except that picture of a wavebird sleeve was just a mock-up. Supposedly, Nintendo has said they're going to make something along those lines, but I've never actually seen this mentioned anywhere official, just as rumors.
Also, someone said that Gamecube controllers would work, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. I was under the impression that the Gamecube ports on the top of the machine were purely for reverse compatibility when playing Gamecube games on the machine. Nintendo hasn't said anything about them working on actual Revolution games. I wouldn't hold my breath.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
If you want to play yet another fighting game, then don't buy the Revolution. It's time to retire or RETHINK game genres that have been played out...
Coming to the topic a bit late, but I'm a "casual" gamer. I play when I can, but I have a wife, a kid, a full time job and am working on a software project on the side. I play to relax, to forget my troubles. I don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in a gaming rig, online play, etc. I would like a machine that will be relatively cheap, that my daughter can have some fun with and that will be fun for me as well. My guess is that there are a lot of folks like me.
Please tell me good sir, how would you implement the functions of the Revolution controller into the design, yet still make it relevant to the functions of that controller?
I'm glad you put hardcore in quotes. I tend to think most of the Sony gamers are really lamers, (Not all, just most), and I've decided that those who buy the XBox are 95% more likely to have done so because gaming is "cool" now, and they want to be "cool." I'm getting tired of hearing people getting "hardcore" and "fanboy" mixed up.
Dictionary.com gives three definitions. First is intensely loyal. I think that is where a hardcore gamer is. Someone who is intensely loyal to games. But not a specific game, that would just make you a hardcore Zelda fan, or hardcore Soul Calibur fan, or a hardcore Dead or Alive fan (which is hardcore in completely other ways). A hardcore gamer is one who thrills in new games while still enjoying the old. Any game they can get a hold of is another opportunity.
Unfortunately, most "hardcore" gamers are more like definition number 2. They don't want things to change. When change occurs, that's when you can tell the diehards from the blowhards. The diehards rejoice in change as yet another opportunity. The blowhards reject change because they're part of the elite and change means that they might not be part of the elite anymore. Diehards don't care if they're in the elite club or not.
A similar thing is true for programming. You have the old school hackers. These are the people who are great. They rejoice with a new language with all the learning and challenges that are inherent in that. Then you have the latest technical school grad who knows ASP.Net and never wants that to change. He may be a "hardcore" ASP.Net programmer, but if the newest fad in web programming comes along, they whine and complain about how it's not "hardcore," or their version thereof.
I say let all the "hardcore" gamers play their shiny PS3's and XBox 360's. The true hardcore probably will, too. They can flame each other about how their console of choice displays more polys, has HDR, and all the other $graphic_of_the_day items. The true hardcore will also be playing with a revolution, enjoying more games for the sake of enjoying more games.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
I totally agree. If you look at the right side of this link, you will see a similar controller that was made for the CD-i which completely flopped as a console controller. From the blurb:
CD-i
Philips, 1992
The four Mario and Zelda games that Nintendo inexplicably allowed Philips to create for the CD-i would be terrible no matter what controller you used to play them. But the pad that shipped with the CD-i hardware defies all reason. Held in one hand, it's basically like a television remote -- the directional pad surrounded by two tiny, thin buttons. Perfect for browsing through the menus of Shelley Duvall's It's A Bird's Life. Awful for gaming.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this controller...
I like the idea of using the controller to control sword fights. However with only the inertia of a few ounces of plastic weighted entirely in your hand instead of a few pounds of steel weighted out a few feet, it can only be -so- realistic. Maybe lightsabers, they appear to have very low inertia or mass other than the handle, but I think it is easy to imagine being able to move the controller faster than can be recognized by the receiver, particularly in a LAN environment.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Screw playing soul caliber on the console, you can all dress up as your favourite characters, go outside and hit each other with foam weapons.
;)
LARP ftw.
They're the sort of people who will complain loudly one day about how buggy their latest console game purchase is, then the next day complain about how the Xbox allows games to be patched.
Allowing games to be patched is a tacit approval of publishing unfinished games. It's gotten so bad in the PC gaming world that alpha-quality software is the norm. Why would anyone want to allow that in the console world?
In short, the people who complain about the design of the Revolution controller are whiny dolts
There are some very valid concerns about the Revolution controller in this very thread. Stuff like, how am I supposed to aim in an FPS game on a split screen? What if I am playing my games on a projector? Whether you call it whining or not, if it affects whether people buy the system or not, Nintendo needs to address it.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Well, yes, that's in fact the whole point: you want it to be a fun experience. That includes such practical issues as its being comfortable and easy to use, for example.
Yep, even if it's a console. One of the things that keept getting mentioned by Nintendo fans about Mario 64 for example was that the controls were just right. One of the things criticized about the XBox was that the original controller was too big to be comfortable.
In games themselves, we've moved from joysticks to gamepads, because Nintendo's gamepad was more _practical_ (e.g., comfortable) than Atari's joysticks. And then we've moved to mice in FPS, because they were more _efficient_. Nintendo itself in the DS moved to a touch screen, among other things, because it was a more practical and efficient input for some games. (Trying to either draw or steer a FPS with a gamepad is a lot less fun.)
Other items also used for fun, e.g., your TV, also weren't entirely immune to efficiency and practicality issues. E.g., that's why they're all shipped with a remote control, have a digital tuner, memory, presets, auto-scan for channels, tele-text, etc.
So basically you can't really separate items like that. Even if something is supposed to be used for fun, you'll still want it to have a practical interface.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Do you mean, something like this? http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5306/image6me4r b3zp.jpg
Thanks. The reason I put hardcore in brackets was to refer the meaning my parent post refered to.
;)
It's important to notice there are many types of gamers, varying both in time spent playing and which games appeal to them.
On one side you have those who play games once in a while ("casual gamers") vs those who are in-the-know, play a lot and knows what's happening in the game world.
On a different angle, you have those that mainly like sports games (i.e "the madden crowd") vs those who prefer "deeper" games (i.e strategy/RPG/whatever) vs those who like Nintendo-style fun games (i.e not "cool" games).
You can have any combination of these and everything in between.
Those who like only "cool" games aren't interested in Nintendo's offers.
However it doesn't mean those who also like "not cool" games won't like PS/XBox games.
Moreover, regardless of your gaming habits (casual vs in-the-know), you can like either of the consoles.
You can have a casual gamer playing GTA on a PS2 or Mario Party on the GC and you can also have an "in-the-know" gamer doing the same thing.
And it's not like only those who like only "cool" games buy the current XBox.
An interesting example, which seems a bit exceptional: Ninja Gaiden. This game caters both to those who like "cool" games and to those who like "real games with depth bla bla", however, it's aimed only at those who really play games a lot and truly have "madskillz" and not the "casual gamer".
The PS2 is more of a hybrid, has many games which are "cool", many games which are "fun" and many games for casual or i-t-k gamers.
As for myself, I consider myself an i-t-k gamer but like pretty much any kind of game if it's fun. About the next gen consoles?
PS3 - After seeing the Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer vid, looks like a great system.
X360 - Me, a Microsoft hater. Other than the actual console design/controller, the upcoming games look very interesting with NinjaGaiden2, 99Nights and a few more.
NRev - Unlike the two consoles above, this one is special, something never seen before. Even without seeing the games and graphic quality I know this one will be something special.
I wish luck to all 3 companies (Yes, I actually wish luck to MS too!) and hope they kick eachother's asses, driving prices to the ground and game quality to the sky
^_^
when I have to aim at only my part of the screen (which will be very small mind you)?
Don't think of it as a light gun. Think of it as an analog stick. Want to look up? Tilt up. Want to look left? Tilt left. You're not aiming. It's just an analog stick.
and you do not want to see me dressed as Ivy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's even worse. I have an even smaller window of movement to move in. What happens when I want to fire? I push and nothing is stabilizing the controller but my one hand. What happens? The thing jerks and doesn't hit anywhere near my firing. With a normal control, you don't press analogue sticks to fire. You only use them to aim.
With a keyboard and mouse, your desk surface stabilzes the input interfaces minimizing the jerking effect. How will the revolution controller stabilize you pushing a button on the controller and consequentially moving the entire controller down.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
That's even worse. I have an even smaller window of movement to move in.
Huh? You have the same window of motion that an analog stick has. You're just using your wrist rather than a fingertip. It's the same as a mouse, and I'd imagine you can adjust the sensitivity, but I doubt you'd need to.
I push and nothing is stabilizing the controller but my one hand.
Your hand is stabilizing it, and your fingers are pushing the buttons. That should be fine.
I dunno. I can point a mouse and click it without moving pretty easily if I'm gripping it, rather than just holding it like a mouse.
I've got a feeling that given that one of the demos is a FPS, it probably works pretty well for an FPS. It's got to work better than a controller. Not much could be worse.
Let me just say that I don't think the novel point-n-shoot idea is a bad thing. I think it'll make FPS games more interesting, add some cool new design concepts, and possibly, maybe even probably, be really cool.
All I'm saying is that they're self-admitedly dumbing down their hardware, and catering to a crowd who won't buy the system. Sure, you want a console that won't cost much, that'll give you cool, pick up and play kinds of games. Don't we all? You think I have time to game 'hardcore'? All I really want is something to play when I'm home from school/work, and not doing homework. But, please, two buttons? I like a technical fighter as much as the next guy (maybe less), I like FPSs now and again, I love a good, immersive RPG or dungeon crawl, and I like platformers more than most. Will two buttons, four if you count the 'nunchuck' attachment, really allow for the complexity I want in a FPS? Heck, Doom used more buttons than that! Will an uncomfortable looking (to me) controller really let me select items on the screen with maximum precision? Their design seems to focus around making the hardware look really good to people who don't game, when it should focus on being the best hardware it can be, and letting people who don't game discover how easy it is to control when they see their friends/kids/extended relatives play it.
1. Dumbing down might be a good thing. Will two buttons, or 4 with the nunchuck be enough?
Nintendo aren't that stupid, sure it will, where it's reasonable.
Lets iterate an FPS:
Analog for strafes
Pointer for aim
A button to jump
B button to shoot
Changing weapons can be done by the d-pad or by selecting items on screen.
2 more action buttons on the nunchuck.
SELECT/START for a toggle/map/data screen
Any more? Maybe some prone/crouch button, can be cramped into the d-pad.
Lets iterate an RPG (Square style if you may):
D-Pad to navigate in menus + A or B to select.
Pointer to aim at your target for the spell or telling your char where to move.
B button to perform the action.
I think that's pretty much it.
A technical fighter? Ok, this controller doesn't work well with fighters.
Guess what? A game pad sucks for technical fighters anyways! Ask anyone and they'll tell you to use an arcade stick. Don't want a game stick? Connect a GC controller or use a "standard gamepad" shell.
I hope they designed it ergonomically so you won't have more cramps than with a standard gamepad.
^_^
The system as shipped in the box ... will have one button .... That's more than enough for any game I can think of.
<shot style="cheap">Especially ports of Mac games. *snicker*</shot>
Actually, it looks like it also has an "a" (not to be confused with "A") and "b" buttons down on the bottom. They'd be hard to reach using one hand, but you could turn the lil' bugger sideways and voila! instant NES controller.
(Cue Legend of Zelda "Found a new item" song — Doo do dee doooo!)
For a quick game or two, the revolution controller looks like fun. However there's a few practical considerations that make me think Nintendo might not be thinking it out fully: a) Won't gamers get tired of waving about their arms? I don't know about you but I'm usually not playing a game for a few minutes, more like several hours at a time. Try noticing your behaviour with the controller the next time you play: instinctively you may change the position by which you handle the controller as your arms/hands tire. b) Why did they make the nunchakus with a cord? Why not go wireless since the technology is already available (see: wavebird)? If you're waving about the remote like crazy isnt there a risk it'll get tangle or restrict your movement?? c) How will I play the majority of game types that I love? The thing was consoles were never meant originally for FPS games (or game types that the revolution controller is attempting to create). Therefore the many years of games that were designed (platformers, beat 'em ups, driving, etc.) that we have grown to love with multiple-button, ergonically designed controllers, whats going to happen to them? I certainly don't see them finding a home with Nintendo even if they do have some transformer-like plugin for the remotes. Sure you can release a new controller, plugins, whatever.. but the sad fact is most game companies program for the default system config (eg. how many games were programmed with Expansion Packs in mind on your other consoles, Nintendo?), and if it means no kickass controller for the majority of game types gamers like? This should be put in the context also of game companies nowadays making ports to-fro different consoles to maximise return on the investment of making a game. d) How practical is a square-remote control with one or two buttons, considering ergonomics and the need for multiple options in games? Quite revolutionary indeed but I'm wondering if it's not a tad impractical.