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'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.
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
The main question here is 3rd party support. Of course, Nintendo makes awesome 1st party games. They always have. But how many 3rd parties will commit themselves to a console where the primary method of controlling the game just doesn't translate to other consoles? They'll either have to
A) make the game primarily for the Revolution, but with a control scheme that can easily be ported (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller)
B) Make the game primarily for other consoles, and hack together a Rev-controller interface (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller) or
C) Make the game a Revolution exclusive, severely limiting their potential audience, and thus potential sales.
The only way out is for this style of controller to become so wildly popular that other consoles create their own versions of the same control style (possible), or license the tech from Nintendo (not likely).
So while I'll be getting a Revolution next year, I don't really suspect that there will be too many games that take full advantage of its revolutionary controller.
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.
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.
Certain genres of games might be difficult with this controller, yes. Tekken style games are a good example. But try and look past established genres and imagine that this different controller system just might allow whole new genres to form. But even if you can't do without Tekken 6 or whatever, MS and Sony will be more than happy to sell you a system with controllers chock-full of buttons.
You're too caught up in the current controller mindset. The revolution controller is giving up some of the detailed control that buttons provide, and replacing it with the detailed control of a mouse, plus a third dimension. I think this is a pretty decent trade off, and hopefully a lot of developers will agree.
If you took away video games and my computer, I'd pretty quickly find that very few of the things I interact with day to day involve that many buttons. If the revolution lives up to its potential, i don't think I'll be missing X, Y, L, or R very much.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
"The main question here is 3rd party support. Of course, Nintendo makes awesome 1st party games. They always have. But how many 3rd parties will commit themselves to a console where the primary method of controlling the game just doesn't translate to other consoles?"
I think this question actually needs one more little detail: How much will the Rev cost? The GameCube was/is a/an interesting little machine. It has an impressive list of decent games. The GC also started at $200. Now it's only $100. If Nintendo maintains the low cost scenario, then do the 3rd party titles matter as much?
The point I'm getting at is that Microsoft and Sony are trying to be the market leaders. As a result, they're creating really expensive do-all machines. At least with the current generation, it's a lot easier to own a PS2 and a GameCube than it is to own a PS2 and XBOX. Nintendo isn't the market leader by a wide margin, but they're profitable and accessible. One could buy a GameCube and only end up buying 5 games for it, yet they're stil satisfied.
I cannot ignore that 3rd party support is very important to a lot of people. But if Nintendo holds to their strategy, then they stand a good chance of having a really good system on their hands.
"Derp de derp."
B) Make the game primarily for other consoles, and hack together a Rev-controller interface (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller)
IMO, I really don't think it will be too hard to "hack together" a Rev-controller interface. Think of it this way. Say you have a FPS where on the PS3, you use the right analog stick to "aim"... Would it really be so hard to adapt this control to what's essentially a 2d grid on the screen?
Example, pointed at the middle of the screen is as if you're not touching the analog stick... point down a bit, like you're pushing down on the analog stick... What you essentially have is just another analog 2d stick, you just point instead of push a stick around.
If you think about it like that, I really don't think it would be too hard to adapt, although it does depend on the original control scheme.
It seems to me that in order for them to not work for Revolution games, Nintendo would have had to design the system and expend extra effort with that particular goal in mind. (Such as actively disabling the ports when a non-Gamecube disc is detected in the drive.) This seems to me so completely self-defeating that it's inconceivable as a possibility.
If the ports are there, any software made for the system should be able to access them if they so desire.
Of course, nobody really cares about "respect" on slashdot anyway- especially if you've already got extra karma points.
Let me comment on his first complaint, a prediction that it will painful to use for long times, as lightguns are.
1. If true, some customers would consider that an advantage. Many Nintendo buyers will be parents of children, and they'd enjoy knowing there's a natural limit to how long gameplay will last.
2. To some extent, it's already true with existing Nintendo controllers. I've probably done PC games like FPS for practically 8 hours, but get stiff and painful after barely four on SNES. I suppose that PC controls are more relaxing because you've got a desk to hold the controls off of the floor, instead of needing to use your fingers to keep it up. This means you can take micro-breaks away from the controls during very brief pauses in the action, without them falling onto the floor. Controllers newer than SNES must be even worse, because they have that "rumble" motor intentionally making it harder to grip. (Yes, you can partly sit it in your lap, but that wouldn't be very stable)
3. In arcades, lightgun shooting games are #3 in popularity, below DDR and driving, and above fighting. Even if lightguns are tiring, so is DDR, so apparently exhaustion isn't necessarily a big problem.