Also, Nintendo always spends lots of money on R&D. The difference is, they don't spend $400 million for R&D on the processor, they spend $400 million on R&D for the entire console. Every part in the Wii is custom made for Nintendo, including the CPU, GPU, system RAM and probably the Flash memory storage. The PS3 is mostly stnadard parts, with a custom made CPU and Blu-ray drive (which pretty much has to be custom made since it was one of the first ones worked on).
I don't have exact numbers on what Nintendo has spent on R&D for the Wii, but I'm willing to bet the R&D on the controller along cost them quite a bit of money.
You're right though, about most of Nintendo's profit being from handhelds in the past year. In 2005, the DS & GBA accounted for about 75% of profits at Nintendo, the GCN only about 25%.
No one wants to actually call this thing a Wii in public. Probably not in private either. Sure, you could continue to call it the Revolution, but what this will most likely do is cause people to end up just calling it 'The Nintendo'.
And that's not such a bad thing. Back in the days of the NES & SNES everyone wanted a Nintendo. Nintendo was synonymous with video games. Then you had the Nintendo 64, and now...the gamecube? And everyone calls it the gamecube, the Nintendo name was diluted. Microsoft's brand is 'Xbox', Sony's brand is 'Playstation', but Nintendo's brand has always just been 'Nintendo'.
Anyway, the more I hear and read about the name, the funnier it gets. NoJ marketing might take it seriously, but if NoA tries to do that, they're doomed. But if they have a sense of humor about the name, they'll attract lots of buyers, especially their casual gamer demographic. Immature humor outsells mature drama consistently, and Nintendo has a chance to capitlize on that.
Actually, Nintendo's titles do target a wider demographic than any of those titles you mentioned. Each of those titles targets a specific demographic, whereas Nintendo tends to release titles that are loved equally by people in very distinctly different demographics. Take Brain Training, for instance. Though it is primarily targetted at middle aged and older men and women, it is played and enjoyed by people of both genders from the ages of about 13 to 72. That's a pretty wide demographic for a single game.
Not that I disagree with you on Nintendo needing 3rd parties. Just because Nintendo hasn't produced games that equate to the ones you mentioned doesn't mean they can't. Sometimes it means they just don't want to. But if Nintendo doesn't want to do it, they need someone who does want to make those games, to make them for a Nintendo system, in order to sell the system to the type of people who enjoy those games.
Also, as you said, there is a physical limit to how many games Nintendo can actually produce. 3rd parties are needed to take up the slack when Nintendo has nothing available for sale.
Wind Waker I'll give you, because you're right, it wasn't terribly original compared to Ocarina of time.
Metroid Prime is not a first person shooter, it's a first person adventure. Strickly speaking, it has more in commonw with first person pc rpgs like Might & Magic than it does with FPS like Halo or Syphon Filter. Also, it's a dramatic shift going from Super Metroid to Metroid Prime.
Resident Evil 4 is a 3rd party game, and therefore not part of this conversation.
And yes, let's talk about Mario. First appeared in Donkey Kong. Next in Mario Bros. Next in Super Mario Bros. See any similarity in those games yet? Let's go on. Next you have Super Mario Bros. 2 (originally Doki Doki Panic), then Super Mario Bros. 3, which has the same basic gameplay as Super Mario Bros., but essentially tripled the contenct by changing how stages are organized, giving more freedom to choose a path, more powerups, and more distinct worlds. It also added several new mechanics.
Moving on, you have Super Mario World, which is essentially Super Mario Bros. 3 with Yoshi added, and improvements to make use of the new technology in the SNES.
Then Mario 64 which was one of the first fully 3d platflormers and completely altered and updated the gameply for 3 dimensional play. It added a host of new mechanics, completely altered the world structure, introduced new characters and new abilities.
And then you had Mario Sunshine, which essentially did for Mario 64 what SMB 3 did for the original SMB, only not as well, obviously.
Next you have Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart and Mario Sports Titles (none of which have any bearing on any of the previous games so no qualms with originality there). Now, admittedly, each iteration of these games is virtually identical in gameplay, just with added features or mechanics, but they've all been released for different systems. All that means is that, if you want to play Mario Kart, and you have a DS but not a n64 or GCN, you don't have to go out and buy a new system, you just get the game for the system you already have. Therefore, it's allowable.
And, of course, there was Super Mario RPG, and Paper Mario, neither of which were remotely like each other, or anything else released in the Mario universe (at least until Mario & Luigi were released for the GBA & DS respectively, and those two games were still significantly different).
The only place where you really have an argument for a lack of originality is with the constant releases of Mario Party (which is essentially the same basic game, except each iteration has different mini-games).
Try not to mistake profitability for a lack of originality. Nintendo continues to use Mario because he is worth great heaping wads of money. They always try to do something new and original with him, from adding completely new, sometimes unheard of, mechanics, to switching genre's completely. It takes just as much originality to create a new game type as it does to create a new character model. Putting a known profitable character/world into a totally new game isn't unoriginal, it's just good business.
As far as original games on the PS2, yes, it does have a lot of really, really great original titles, and the GC is actually quite lacking in original titles. But, to be fair, few of the original titles on the PS2 were developed in house by Sony. And the GC, in every possible manner, has been the least original console Nintendo has ever created.
Capcom has already said they have no plans to make RE5 for the Revolution. The Creative Director of the series said he'd prefer to build a new RE specifically for Revolution from the ground up, but first he'd like to make another game to get used to creating content for the controller.
So chances are, you'll see a Capcom exclusive for the Rev, but not RE5. The graphics have nothing to do with it.
You'd have to alter the control scheme. If you wanna do something like that, you'll have to assign duck & jump to directions that aren't diametrically opposed. Set sword attacks to modular so you have to hold down the B button to use the sword. Set back, forward, left & right movement to moving the controller, and look to tilting the controller. Jumping is still moving the controller up, ducking is still moving the controller down, and assign the A button to hold a position. So, to do what you suggested, move controller down, hold A to hold the duck and move the controller up and to the left to jump left, while tilting it right to look right.
Or you could use the nunchuk attachment for movement, and use the wand for look, which would probably simplify things.
That's why I like the controller, if you think about it, there's really a lot of different things you can do with it.
Platformers will benefit more than FPS. 3 dimensional movement will be much easier to control with full wrist movements than with finger movements. 2D platformers won't benefit, but they won't suffer either.
RPG's won't benefit, but they won't suffer, either. The biggest benefit to RPGs is that, ultimately, they really require very few buttons, so you'll now be able to play them one-handed (one of my favorite features of The Seventh Saga).
RTS will work better with a mouse, but very few consoles will allow you to connect a mouse. Action games depends on what type of action game you're talking about. Most will benefit in much the same way that FPS will. They'll also benefit because some things that weren't possibly, or that triggered cognitive dissonance with a standard controller, will click better with the Revmote.
The Revmote is actually the closest thing I can think of to HOTAS available besides an actual joystick. Only horizontally orientiend rather than vertically. For one, it inherently detects pitch, yaw and roll. Coupled with detecting positional movement, there's very little you can do in an airplane you can't do with the Revmote.
A movement sensor in a standard controller would work just as well, but i think would prove less comfortable over time, as you'd need to coordinate movements with both hands at all times. For some games that will actually be better than the one handed mode, but the Rev controller can be turned on it's side and held in both hands, and will still sense position and tilt. But the real reason Nintendo chose the shape and design they did is because it appears less complicated than a standard controller. Putting movement sensors in a dual shock controller would not have achieved all their goals.
It really is a superior control scheme. How superior depends on how developers use it.
Hmmmm...okay, I understand. You are in rather a unique position.
I've mostly considered the controller from two viewpoints. That of casual gamers who have rarely, if ever, used a standard controller, and that of hardcore gamers who routinely use a standard controller.
Hardcore gamers are used to learning new control abstractions for new types of games. They may not initially want to learn to use the Revmote, but if there's a game they want to play, they can pick it up just as easily as any other control scheme, because they have that kind of dedication.
Existing casual gamers have no prejudice towards existing controllers, and when presented with a controller that's easier to use, and more importantly looks easier to use, will be more likely to pick it up. Especially, again, with interesting software to back it up.
Former heavy gamers turned casual due to life circumstances are in another boat entirely. They do have a prejudice towards existing controllers with up to 2 decades learning to use and refine that control. With less time to dedicate to learning a new control, they're probably the most likely to disregard a new control scheme out of hand for one they're familiar and comfortable with.
However, how easy the controller is to use has nothing to do with how much fun it is, really. As far as that's concerned, Takahashi's comment stands. Fun is in gameplay, not control. If a game is fun, you'll enjoy it no matter what controller it uses. The difference is, the controller determines what games are possible, not what games are fun.
To be honest, I didn't like the new controller at first either. But I've come to the conclusion that it will be preferable to existing controllers, if only because I'm a lazy bastard and any game that I can play with one hand while lying down automatically gets +10% to it's review score. I can think of reasons why people I know will prefer it over existing controllers as well. But I'm not so foolish as to assume that everyone will feel the same way about it as the people I associate with.
From TFA: "I see what [Nintendo is] trying to do, but they're putting such emphasis on the controller; 'Woah, this controller lets you do this!' and I'm thinking - are you messing with us?"
Well, I can see where he's coming from, he does have a point.
Fun games depend on good gameplay. Good gameplay depends on good design, and that's all in the software. No controller will ever change that. No piece of hardware will ever automatically make a game fun if it's not well designed.
But I think he's missing two really big points.
The first is, the controller is flat out more capable than existing controllers. It can do things current controllers can't, and for the most part, can do everything they can in a slightly different way.
Second, from a consumer standpoint, it's less complex. Arm, wrist & hand movements are more natural than precise finger movements, easier too. For instance, most people can hit a nail with a hammer, drum out a rhythm with their hands, or play air guitar with ridiculously exaggerated strumming. Less people can touchtype, play piano or play a real guitar.
The first set of actions require some hand eye coordination, and maybe a sense of rhythm. The second set of actiosn require that, as well as a great deal of flexibility and precision with individual fingers.
Existing controllers fall into the second set of actions. They're something that is learned, and not everyone can learn. Nintendo's objective is to create a controller that falls into the first set. Something that anyone can just pick up and use, and understand intuitively.
Which, you know, is great. But it doesn't matter how easy it is to use if the software abstracts from the base design too much. Badly designed games are badly designed no matter what controller you use. But a better controller can make what was previously impossible possible. What's more, a better controller can make a brilliant designed game more popular, because more people will be able to play it, if for no other reason than the controller itself is less daunting to look at.
And that brings me to the other point he is missing. The reason Nintendo is putting so much emphasis on the controller is mainly because they don't want to show anything else yet. Nintendo always plays things close to their chest, they don't like to reveal all their ideas early on.
Nintendo is focusing on the controller for two reasons. First, it's a pretty large paradigm shift they're trying to pull off here. The longer people have to get used to the idea, the less likely they are to disregard it out of hand. Second, it's distracting. It's something that's already out there, that people can talk and speculate about. Slashdot alone has proven that we can argue over the controller for months without even one single bit of extra information. That means as long as Nintendo can keep hype, speculation and thought about the controller going, they don't have to say a damn thing about anything else in the Revolution. People will totally ignore the fact that they haven't shown games yet simply because there's so much to talk about with just the controller itself. And that means they can keep their secrets that much longer. Anytime someone gets close and says, "Hey, is that a game with Pitt you're working on!?" Nintendo pulls the controller slight of hand with another interview or statement on theorectical possiblities, and we all shift gears just like they want us to. If you ask me, Nintendo is being bloody brilliant on this one.
In the end, Takahashi is right. The controller itself is just a tool. A superior tool, yes, but still just a tool. What matters most is whether anyone makes good use of that tool, and that will depend on the developers themselves. But you can't imply Nintendo is ignoring game design. Nintendo always focuses on game design. In fact, every controller Nintendo has ever released has been a direct result of the games they designed. They design controllers arou
Do you have the Bongos for DK Jungle Beat, the microphone for Mario Party/Odama, the guitars for both Guitar Freaks & Guitar Hero, a steering wheel for racing games, the Steel Battalion controller, an arcade stick for fighting games AND a dance pad?
I'm just wondering, since you seem to be putting the revolution controller in the place of a peripheral. Even knowing that peripherals sell fairly badly, no matter how popular the game. Because every game that is put out has to have a fallback to the standard controller in one way or another.
However, the Revolution Controller will be the standard controller for the system. That means that every game will have to, no matter what peripheral options it offers, have to fall back to the Revolution controller. A controller which is inherently capable of things that simply aren't possible with any other controller on the market and can do anything they can do as well.
You're right that there is no technical reason the controller can't exist for any other console or a pc. But for any of those consoles, it's a peripheral that may be used by one or two games, if you're lucky. For the Revolution, every game will use it in some fashion. So, if as Nintendo believes, the controller is inherently superior to existing controllers, you won't have to ditch your old controller and go out and buy a new one since no games will use the old controller any longer (or, more likely, the controller would be a spectacular add-on, regarded as the best thing to ever happen to videogaming, but there'd only be two games that used it, cause no other company could take the risk that you wouldn't buy the peripheral and therefore wouldn't buy the game cause you wouldn't be able to play it).
Actually, I think the Revolution's controller is the least specialized of any controller I've ever used. It allows for more direct control than existing controllers, but it also allows for greater levels of abstraction.
Just like now we press a button to do something on screen, we can easily translate that to tilting the controller to the right. Of course, the idea behind the controller is to create less complex abstractions, but that depends on the programming of the software (game), not the controller itself.
Even still, for the greater majority of people on the planet, it's easier to make small movements of their wrist or arm than to press a complex series of buttons. The human brain handles patterns of movement for the arm and hand more easily than patterns of movement for the fingers.
You do realize what you just said doesn't make any sense, right?
Casual gamers are the gamers who sit down for 20 minutes, play, have fun, then move on with their lives. This is the category you just put yourself in. The catergory the new controller was made to encourage.
Hardcore gamers are the ones who spend hours at a time playing. Hardcore gamers are the ones Nintendo has spent a lot of time and energy (and released pictures of Red Steel) to convince that they're not losing out. Nintendo has to prove to the hardcore audience that they can still play their long, epic RPGs, FPSs, Sports Games and Strategy games with the new Revmote, without being totally exhausted after 20 minutes of play.
They've spent much less energy on targetting casual gamers so far, mostly because casual gamers don't spend hours trolling gaming news sites to find out every little bit of information. But also because the controller will be easier to understand, easier to use, so you can play a quick game, then go on with your life.
But really, that depends less on the controller and more on the games. And Nintendo got it's reputation as a kiddy console specifically because they continually make games you can play and enjoy in 20 minutes without the hours of dedication (Super Smash Bros, FZero, Advance Wars, Super Princess Peach, Luigi's Mansion, Animal Crossing, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Mario Party). They just also happen to make games that require 100 hours of gameplay.
A large number of games though will still work best using a standard controller. As far as that form of interface goes, the Revolution controller stinks.
Such as? Please give examples of games that will work better with a standard controller. So far the only kind I can think of are 3D fighting games ala Soul Calibur. I can't think of a single other type of game that will work better with a "standard" controller than with the Rev controller.
To move the character, move the controller. Want to move forward, push the controller forward. You can program it to be analog, so if you move your hand forward a little and keep it there, the character will walk. If you move it forward a lot and hold it, the character will run.
Move the controller down to duck, move it up to jump. If there is an object on the ground when you duck, you will automatically pick it up. Or, if that gets annoying (or you don't feel like programming context sensitive controls), you can dip it forward, then press the A button to pick up the object.
To use the sword, you tilt the controller. Tilt to the right or left to swing that direction, or tilt up or down for overhand and underhand swings. To block an attack to the right while moving left, you tilt the controller right and move it left. Want to block into the attack, tilt it right and move it right.
Because the controller understands positional movement seperate from angular movement you can pull things like this off. And this is without using the nunchuk attachment with the analog stick at all, or even using more than one button.
If you do want to use both the A & B buttons, you can increase functionality. For instance, make it so you only use your sword when you hold down the B trigger, then you can assign a different action to tilting the controller depending on whether the trigger is depressed or not.
Actually, on that point I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Nintendo has always created controllers as a result of their game ideas. Usually as a result of Miyamoto's ideas.
In the NES era, they switched to the digital pad because of Super Mario Bros.
For the SNES they added shoulder buttons for Super Mario World.
For the N64 they went to an analog joystick for Mario 64.
For GC they added the digital click feature for Rogue Squadron 2.
These games aren't the only influences for each of the controller designs, but when Nintendo designs a controller, they alway start with a game, and work out which will control it best from there. They make tweaks and changes after that to improve control for other games in other genres. That's why they have had a noticeably different controller with every console they have released.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'll give you DOA4, and maybe GRAW, but there is no way Tomb Raider or Oblivion made the launch window. The 360 came out last year, the launch window ended December 31, 2005.
To be affective, it has to constantly up date location in 3D space, degree of rotation, linear velocity, angular velocity, linear acceleartion and angular acceleration. This is more physics in the controller alone than most games have in the entirety of their gameplay
No, just no. That's completely wrong. Games handle the same math, only handling hundreds of objects at the same time. The rev controller is handling no more math than a dual analog controller
Okay, yes, I was using some hyperbole there, but actually, the entire point is that most games don't actually calculate all those different things for hundreds of objects. The point is that we want them to in the future, to have better physics, and I'm just saying, the actual physics calculations are simple, the main power issue is calculating how that affects your graphical assets.
Rev is going to have as much, if not more CPU cache than the GC. So it will still have potentially better AI than either the 360 or PS3.
That's wrong too. Especially since all 3 consoles use power PC based processors
I covered that. All 3 consoles use PPC based processors, all three are equally bad at processing AI. However, the GC also used a PPC based CPU. If you check the CPU cache of the Xbox, PS2 & GC, you'll see the GC had the greatest CPU cache. If you compare it to the CPU cache of your home pc, you'll see it probably had greater CPU cache than your home PC. The specific reason for adding so much cache was to improve the console's ability to handle branching predictions, which are vital to programming high level AI (branching predictions equates to decision paths, the more branches you have, the more possible reactions your AI is capable of).
The slower processor on the Rev will not mean inferior AI, it will only mean it can handle fewer AI at a time, assuming the Rev has as much or more CPU cache than the GC did.
That was a render done by a member of IGN. Nintendo has confirmed that the Revmote will use rechargable batteries, but they have not shown whether it will use a charging station, or whether it will somehow charge through the console.
The thing about gimmicks is that they only remain gimmicks until they become the accepted norm.
Things such as shoulder buttons (which I remember Sega fans back in the day calling a gimmick), the rumble pack (which every single controller uses now for some reason) all being called gimmicks.
Everyone complains that the Revmote is a gimmick, without bothering to look up what gimmick actually means. To whit:
1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device (from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gimmick).
Let us also remember that TV's were considered a gimmick, so were remote controls. Power windows in cars. And the Atari 2600 was considered a gimmick, for that matter. Saying something is a gimmick doesn't inherently make it bad. It's only bad if it fails.
Looks to me like the DPad (or control pad as Sony & Microsoft call it now), Shoulder Buttons, Analog Thumbsticks, Rumble Packs and Z-Targetting have all done pretty well for themselves.
Well, for one, that's not the name of the console, it's just a working name. Much like Dolphin was for the Gamecube.
Not so much a gimmick as wishful thinking then.
And it uses a single sensor bar which can be placed either above or below the tv. I'm not entirely certain of the operation, but if it uses absolute positioning, it would seem to me that as long as it's attached to the console, it doesn't really matter where it's located, but since I don't actually have one yet, I'll just have to take Nintendo's word for it. So it's a single sensor bar which can be placed either above or below the tv.
Nintendo has never lost money on hardware. It was Sega who first pioneered losing money on a console in the hope to make it up with software sales. Even Sony didn't sell the original PS1 for a loss. It was not until the release of the PS2 that Sony went that route. Microsoft is the only one who's ever sold their hardware at a loss from the get go.
Slashdot Mirror
Bwahahahahaha, my work proxy filters out the Anti-Wii site, but not the Pro-Wii site. That's hilarious for no good reason.
I don't have exact numbers on what Nintendo has spent on R&D for the Wii, but I'm willing to bet the R&D on the controller along cost them quite a bit of money.
You're right though, about most of Nintendo's profit being from handhelds in the past year. In 2005, the DS & GBA accounted for about 75% of profits at Nintendo, the GCN only about 25%.
No, neither the ps1 or ps2 sold at a loss. The ps3 probably will, unless Sony intends to sell it in the $600 range.
And that's not such a bad thing. Back in the days of the NES & SNES everyone wanted a Nintendo. Nintendo was synonymous with video games. Then you had the Nintendo 64, and now...the gamecube? And everyone calls it the gamecube, the Nintendo name was diluted. Microsoft's brand is 'Xbox', Sony's brand is 'Playstation', but Nintendo's brand has always just been 'Nintendo'.
Anyway, the more I hear and read about the name, the funnier it gets. NoJ marketing might take it seriously, but if NoA tries to do that, they're doomed. But if they have a sense of humor about the name, they'll attract lots of buyers, especially their casual gamer demographic. Immature humor outsells mature drama consistently, and Nintendo has a chance to capitlize on that.
Not that I disagree with you on Nintendo needing 3rd parties. Just because Nintendo hasn't produced games that equate to the ones you mentioned doesn't mean they can't. Sometimes it means they just don't want to. But if Nintendo doesn't want to do it, they need someone who does want to make those games, to make them for a Nintendo system, in order to sell the system to the type of people who enjoy those games.
Also, as you said, there is a physical limit to how many games Nintendo can actually produce. 3rd parties are needed to take up the slack when Nintendo has nothing available for sale.
Metroid Prime is not a first person shooter, it's a first person adventure. Strickly speaking, it has more in commonw with first person pc rpgs like Might & Magic than it does with FPS like Halo or Syphon Filter. Also, it's a dramatic shift going from Super Metroid to Metroid Prime.
Resident Evil 4 is a 3rd party game, and therefore not part of this conversation.
And yes, let's talk about Mario. First appeared in Donkey Kong. Next in Mario Bros. Next in Super Mario Bros. See any similarity in those games yet? Let's go on. Next you have Super Mario Bros. 2 (originally Doki Doki Panic), then Super Mario Bros. 3, which has the same basic gameplay as Super Mario Bros., but essentially tripled the contenct by changing how stages are organized, giving more freedom to choose a path, more powerups, and more distinct worlds. It also added several new mechanics.
Moving on, you have Super Mario World, which is essentially Super Mario Bros. 3 with Yoshi added, and improvements to make use of the new technology in the SNES.
Then Mario 64 which was one of the first fully 3d platflormers and completely altered and updated the gameply for 3 dimensional play. It added a host of new mechanics, completely altered the world structure, introduced new characters and new abilities.
And then you had Mario Sunshine, which essentially did for Mario 64 what SMB 3 did for the original SMB, only not as well, obviously.
Next you have Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart and Mario Sports Titles (none of which have any bearing on any of the previous games so no qualms with originality there). Now, admittedly, each iteration of these games is virtually identical in gameplay, just with added features or mechanics, but they've all been released for different systems. All that means is that, if you want to play Mario Kart, and you have a DS but not a n64 or GCN, you don't have to go out and buy a new system, you just get the game for the system you already have. Therefore, it's allowable.
And, of course, there was Super Mario RPG, and Paper Mario, neither of which were remotely like each other, or anything else released in the Mario universe (at least until Mario & Luigi were released for the GBA & DS respectively, and those two games were still significantly different).
The only place where you really have an argument for a lack of originality is with the constant releases of Mario Party (which is essentially the same basic game, except each iteration has different mini-games).
Try not to mistake profitability for a lack of originality. Nintendo continues to use Mario because he is worth great heaping wads of money. They always try to do something new and original with him, from adding completely new, sometimes unheard of, mechanics, to switching genre's completely. It takes just as much originality to create a new game type as it does to create a new character model. Putting a known profitable character/world into a totally new game isn't unoriginal, it's just good business. As far as original games on the PS2, yes, it does have a lot of really, really great original titles, and the GC is actually quite lacking in original titles. But, to be fair, few of the original titles on the PS2 were developed in house by Sony. And the GC, in every possible manner, has been the least original console Nintendo has ever created.
So chances are, you'll see a Capcom exclusive for the Rev, but not RE5. The graphics have nothing to do with it.
Yes, that's exactly what I was asking. Since you do, you pass.
Or you could use the nunchuk attachment for movement, and use the wand for look, which would probably simplify things.
That's why I like the controller, if you think about it, there's really a lot of different things you can do with it.
RPG's won't benefit, but they won't suffer, either. The biggest benefit to RPGs is that, ultimately, they really require very few buttons, so you'll now be able to play them one-handed (one of my favorite features of The Seventh Saga).
RTS will work better with a mouse, but very few consoles will allow you to connect a mouse. Action games depends on what type of action game you're talking about. Most will benefit in much the same way that FPS will. They'll also benefit because some things that weren't possibly, or that triggered cognitive dissonance with a standard controller, will click better with the Revmote.
The Revmote is actually the closest thing I can think of to HOTAS available besides an actual joystick. Only horizontally orientiend rather than vertically. For one, it inherently detects pitch, yaw and roll. Coupled with detecting positional movement, there's very little you can do in an airplane you can't do with the Revmote.
A movement sensor in a standard controller would work just as well, but i think would prove less comfortable over time, as you'd need to coordinate movements with both hands at all times. For some games that will actually be better than the one handed mode, but the Rev controller can be turned on it's side and held in both hands, and will still sense position and tilt. But the real reason Nintendo chose the shape and design they did is because it appears less complicated than a standard controller. Putting movement sensors in a dual shock controller would not have achieved all their goals.
It really is a superior control scheme. How superior depends on how developers use it.
I've mostly considered the controller from two viewpoints. That of casual gamers who have rarely, if ever, used a standard controller, and that of hardcore gamers who routinely use a standard controller.
Hardcore gamers are used to learning new control abstractions for new types of games. They may not initially want to learn to use the Revmote, but if there's a game they want to play, they can pick it up just as easily as any other control scheme, because they have that kind of dedication.
Existing casual gamers have no prejudice towards existing controllers, and when presented with a controller that's easier to use, and more importantly looks easier to use, will be more likely to pick it up. Especially, again, with interesting software to back it up.
Former heavy gamers turned casual due to life circumstances are in another boat entirely. They do have a prejudice towards existing controllers with up to 2 decades learning to use and refine that control. With less time to dedicate to learning a new control, they're probably the most likely to disregard a new control scheme out of hand for one they're familiar and comfortable with.
However, how easy the controller is to use has nothing to do with how much fun it is, really. As far as that's concerned, Takahashi's comment stands. Fun is in gameplay, not control. If a game is fun, you'll enjoy it no matter what controller it uses. The difference is, the controller determines what games are possible, not what games are fun.
To be honest, I didn't like the new controller at first either. But I've come to the conclusion that it will be preferable to existing controllers, if only because I'm a lazy bastard and any game that I can play with one hand while lying down automatically gets +10% to it's review score. I can think of reasons why people I know will prefer it over existing controllers as well. But I'm not so foolish as to assume that everyone will feel the same way about it as the people I associate with.
Well, I can see where he's coming from, he does have a point.
Fun games depend on good gameplay. Good gameplay depends on good design, and that's all in the software. No controller will ever change that. No piece of hardware will ever automatically make a game fun if it's not well designed.
But I think he's missing two really big points.
The first is, the controller is flat out more capable than existing controllers. It can do things current controllers can't, and for the most part, can do everything they can in a slightly different way.
Second, from a consumer standpoint, it's less complex. Arm, wrist & hand movements are more natural than precise finger movements, easier too. For instance, most people can hit a nail with a hammer, drum out a rhythm with their hands, or play air guitar with ridiculously exaggerated strumming. Less people can touchtype, play piano or play a real guitar.
The first set of actions require some hand eye coordination, and maybe a sense of rhythm. The second set of actiosn require that, as well as a great deal of flexibility and precision with individual fingers.
Existing controllers fall into the second set of actions. They're something that is learned, and not everyone can learn. Nintendo's objective is to create a controller that falls into the first set. Something that anyone can just pick up and use, and understand intuitively.
Which, you know, is great. But it doesn't matter how easy it is to use if the software abstracts from the base design too much. Badly designed games are badly designed no matter what controller you use. But a better controller can make what was previously impossible possible. What's more, a better controller can make a brilliant designed game more popular, because more people will be able to play it, if for no other reason than the controller itself is less daunting to look at.
And that brings me to the other point he is missing. The reason Nintendo is putting so much emphasis on the controller is mainly because they don't want to show anything else yet. Nintendo always plays things close to their chest, they don't like to reveal all their ideas early on.
Nintendo is focusing on the controller for two reasons. First, it's a pretty large paradigm shift they're trying to pull off here. The longer people have to get used to the idea, the less likely they are to disregard it out of hand. Second, it's distracting. It's something that's already out there, that people can talk and speculate about. Slashdot alone has proven that we can argue over the controller for months without even one single bit of extra information. That means as long as Nintendo can keep hype, speculation and thought about the controller going, they don't have to say a damn thing about anything else in the Revolution. People will totally ignore the fact that they haven't shown games yet simply because there's so much to talk about with just the controller itself. And that means they can keep their secrets that much longer. Anytime someone gets close and says, "Hey, is that a game with Pitt you're working on!?" Nintendo pulls the controller slight of hand with another interview or statement on theorectical possiblities, and we all shift gears just like they want us to. If you ask me, Nintendo is being bloody brilliant on this one.
In the end, Takahashi is right. The controller itself is just a tool. A superior tool, yes, but still just a tool. What matters most is whether anyone makes good use of that tool, and that will depend on the developers themselves. But you can't imply Nintendo is ignoring game design. Nintendo always focuses on game design. In fact, every controller Nintendo has ever released has been a direct result of the games they designed. They design controllers arou
Well, to be fair, Takahashi had nothing to do with the PSP version.
I'm just wondering, since you seem to be putting the revolution controller in the place of a peripheral. Even knowing that peripherals sell fairly badly, no matter how popular the game. Because every game that is put out has to have a fallback to the standard controller in one way or another.
However, the Revolution Controller will be the standard controller for the system. That means that every game will have to, no matter what peripheral options it offers, have to fall back to the Revolution controller. A controller which is inherently capable of things that simply aren't possible with any other controller on the market and can do anything they can do as well.
You're right that there is no technical reason the controller can't exist for any other console or a pc. But for any of those consoles, it's a peripheral that may be used by one or two games, if you're lucky. For the Revolution, every game will use it in some fashion. So, if as Nintendo believes, the controller is inherently superior to existing controllers, you won't have to ditch your old controller and go out and buy a new one since no games will use the old controller any longer (or, more likely, the controller would be a spectacular add-on, regarded as the best thing to ever happen to videogaming, but there'd only be two games that used it, cause no other company could take the risk that you wouldn't buy the peripheral and therefore wouldn't buy the game cause you wouldn't be able to play it).
Just like now we press a button to do something on screen, we can easily translate that to tilting the controller to the right. Of course, the idea behind the controller is to create less complex abstractions, but that depends on the programming of the software (game), not the controller itself.
Even still, for the greater majority of people on the planet, it's easier to make small movements of their wrist or arm than to press a complex series of buttons. The human brain handles patterns of movement for the arm and hand more easily than patterns of movement for the fingers.
You do realize what you just said doesn't make any sense, right?
Casual gamers are the gamers who sit down for 20 minutes, play, have fun, then move on with their lives. This is the category you just put yourself in. The catergory the new controller was made to encourage.
Hardcore gamers are the ones who spend hours at a time playing. Hardcore gamers are the ones Nintendo has spent a lot of time and energy (and released pictures of Red Steel) to convince that they're not losing out. Nintendo has to prove to the hardcore audience that they can still play their long, epic RPGs, FPSs, Sports Games and Strategy games with the new Revmote, without being totally exhausted after 20 minutes of play.
They've spent much less energy on targetting casual gamers so far, mostly because casual gamers don't spend hours trolling gaming news sites to find out every little bit of information. But also because the controller will be easier to understand, easier to use, so you can play a quick game, then go on with your life.
But really, that depends less on the controller and more on the games. And Nintendo got it's reputation as a kiddy console specifically because they continually make games you can play and enjoy in 20 minutes without the hours of dedication (Super Smash Bros, FZero, Advance Wars, Super Princess Peach, Luigi's Mansion, Animal Crossing, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Mario Party). They just also happen to make games that require 100 hours of gameplay.
Such as? Please give examples of games that will work better with a standard controller. So far the only kind I can think of are 3D fighting games ala Soul Calibur. I can't think of a single other type of game that will work better with a "standard" controller than with the Rev controller.
To move the character, move the controller. Want to move forward, push the controller forward. You can program it to be analog, so if you move your hand forward a little and keep it there, the character will walk. If you move it forward a lot and hold it, the character will run.
Move the controller down to duck, move it up to jump. If there is an object on the ground when you duck, you will automatically pick it up. Or, if that gets annoying (or you don't feel like programming context sensitive controls), you can dip it forward, then press the A button to pick up the object.
To use the sword, you tilt the controller. Tilt to the right or left to swing that direction, or tilt up or down for overhand and underhand swings. To block an attack to the right while moving left, you tilt the controller right and move it left. Want to block into the attack, tilt it right and move it right.
Because the controller understands positional movement seperate from angular movement you can pull things like this off. And this is without using the nunchuk attachment with the analog stick at all, or even using more than one button.
If you do want to use both the A & B buttons, you can increase functionality. For instance, make it so you only use your sword when you hold down the B trigger, then you can assign a different action to tilting the controller depending on whether the trigger is depressed or not.
In the NES era, they switched to the digital pad because of Super Mario Bros.
For the SNES they added shoulder buttons for Super Mario World.
For the N64 they went to an analog joystick for Mario 64.
For GC they added the digital click feature for Rogue Squadron 2.
These games aren't the only influences for each of the controller designs, but when Nintendo designs a controller, they alway start with a game, and work out which will control it best from there. They make tweaks and changes after that to improve control for other games in other genres. That's why they have had a noticeably different controller with every console they have released.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'll give you DOA4, and maybe GRAW, but there is no way Tomb Raider or Oblivion made the launch window. The 360 came out last year, the launch window ended December 31, 2005.
No, just no. That's completely wrong. Games handle the same math, only handling hundreds of objects at the same time. The rev controller is handling no more math than a dual analog controller
Okay, yes, I was using some hyperbole there, but actually, the entire point is that most games don't actually calculate all those different things for hundreds of objects. The point is that we want them to in the future, to have better physics, and I'm just saying, the actual physics calculations are simple, the main power issue is calculating how that affects your graphical assets.
Rev is going to have as much, if not more CPU cache than the GC. So it will still have potentially better AI than either the 360 or PS3.
That's wrong too. Especially since all 3 consoles use power PC based processors
I covered that. All 3 consoles use PPC based processors, all three are equally bad at processing AI. However, the GC also used a PPC based CPU. If you check the CPU cache of the Xbox, PS2 & GC, you'll see the GC had the greatest CPU cache. If you compare it to the CPU cache of your home pc, you'll see it probably had greater CPU cache than your home PC. The specific reason for adding so much cache was to improve the console's ability to handle branching predictions, which are vital to programming high level AI (branching predictions equates to decision paths, the more branches you have, the more possible reactions your AI is capable of).
The slower processor on the Rev will not mean inferior AI, it will only mean it can handle fewer AI at a time, assuming the Rev has as much or more CPU cache than the GC did.
That was a render done by a member of IGN. Nintendo has confirmed that the Revmote will use rechargable batteries, but they have not shown whether it will use a charging station, or whether it will somehow charge through the console.
Things such as shoulder buttons (which I remember Sega fans back in the day calling a gimmick), the rumble pack (which every single controller uses now for some reason) all being called gimmicks.
Everyone complains that the Revmote is a gimmick, without bothering to look up what gimmick actually means. To whit:
1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device (from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gimmick).
Let us also remember that TV's were considered a gimmick, so were remote controls. Power windows in cars. And the Atari 2600 was considered a gimmick, for that matter. Saying something is a gimmick doesn't inherently make it bad. It's only bad if it fails.
Looks to me like the DPad (or control pad as Sony & Microsoft call it now), Shoulder Buttons, Analog Thumbsticks, Rumble Packs and Z-Targetting have all done pretty well for themselves.
Not so much a gimmick as wishful thinking then.
And it uses a single sensor bar which can be placed either above or below the tv. I'm not entirely certain of the operation, but if it uses absolute positioning, it would seem to me that as long as it's attached to the console, it doesn't really matter where it's located, but since I don't actually have one yet, I'll just have to take Nintendo's word for it. So it's a single sensor bar which can be placed either above or below the tv.
Nintendo has never lost money on hardware. It was Sega who first pioneered losing money on a console in the hope to make it up with software sales. Even Sony didn't sell the original PS1 for a loss. It was not until the release of the PS2 that Sony went that route. Microsoft is the only one who's ever sold their hardware at a loss from the get go.
For more info check: http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb .php