Worth a read: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-1 ... shtop_read
Count me in the withholding judgment group. If this thing follows through with a cheaper console with unique and fun gameplay, I would welcome the change rather than playing another rond of semi-satisfying EA football games.
Revolution controller unveiled
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
-
Boltman
- Starting 5
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:00 am
- Location: "The Mission City" San Fer, CA.
That pic is priceless. I think thats probably the number one thing that controller should be used for.bdoughty wrote:NINTENDO IS THE MATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Married guys find additional use for Nintendo controller to please their wives after years of married sex.
DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IF PEOPLE ARE NEARBY
http://sigdepot.nhldepot.org/8Blink9/RevolutionGame.jpg
Pretty much my opinion also. Particularily if the console is somewhat cheap in comparison to the others. The graphics are going to be good. They don't need to be the best to me. I think Nintendo has a very strong niche with budget conscious gamers, young gamers, and gamers with open minds and broad taste. That's a pretty good section of the market to capitalize on.Naples39 wrote:Worth a read: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-1 ... shtop_read
Count me in the withholding judgment group. If this thing follows through with a cheaper console with unique and fun gameplay, I would welcome the change rather than playing another rond of semi-satisfying EA football games.
http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=49293&catId=49
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
My guess is the console will ship with a traditional controller as well, but this one will be used to create a ton of fun games you won't be able to get anywhere else.
If someone already has a 360, what will be the compelling reason to own a PS3 as well? Exclusives would be the only reason. When you start talking $400-500 bucks, there better be something more compelling than the same game with a different title.
Nintendo will be sitting there with a cheaper console, AND something different. If the games pan out, they couold seriously have a chance to put a dent in Sony's dominance. I doubt they would stand a chance if they just created a system that plays EA Sports games and shooters. If the titles pan out, it will end up being a must buy for many families.
I think the Gamecube is already a great choice as a second console, whether you have a PS2 or an Xbox, and the Revolution seems to be capitalizing on that. Of course, if the games aren't fun, and the controller is uncomfortable, they are done. We'll see, but I bet this thing is more fun than the naysayers here will realize.
If someone already has a 360, what will be the compelling reason to own a PS3 as well? Exclusives would be the only reason. When you start talking $400-500 bucks, there better be something more compelling than the same game with a different title.
Nintendo will be sitting there with a cheaper console, AND something different. If the games pan out, they couold seriously have a chance to put a dent in Sony's dominance. I doubt they would stand a chance if they just created a system that plays EA Sports games and shooters. If the titles pan out, it will end up being a must buy for many families.
I think the Gamecube is already a great choice as a second console, whether you have a PS2 or an Xbox, and the Revolution seems to be capitalizing on that. Of course, if the games aren't fun, and the controller is uncomfortable, they are done. We'll see, but I bet this thing is more fun than the naysayers here will realize.
-
matthewk
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Wisconsin
- Contact:
Well, looks like EA sounds pretty interested:bdoughty wrote:I am sure EA looked at that controler and just decided it was not worth porting next-gen games over to the Revolution, unless every game is set default with "Easy Play" as the only control choice.
"Game control is essential – it's the area where perhaps the most game-play improvement can be made," said John Schappert, Sr. Vice President and General Manager of Electronic Arts (Research) Canada in a written statement. "While our portfolio represents a full array of titles across all genres, I think our sports titles might be the first to immediately take advantage of what this novel 'freehand' type of control has to offer."
Taken from: http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/15/comment ... /index.htm
Of course this statement could turn out to be nothing, but it's a good sign that someone at EA is willing to make a favorable comment on it.
-Matt
I normally don't post this kind of stuff here but it comes from a developer forum I frequent and are the impressions of someone who actually played it. I also put more stock in it since it's actually from a developer rather than some PR from IGN or gamespot or the rantings of a fanboy or hater. Seems pretty interesting....My interest is greatly increasing.
So what did you play?
I played the Retro-fitted version of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes.
And ...?
It played far better than the original controls. Turning and aiming were instantaneous. Control was absolutely precise.
At a certain point during the demo, one of our designers did a double-jump over a gap and spun a full 180 degrees in midair before landing on the opposite side. When I saw this my arm literally started shaking and had to grab and squeeze the cup holder on my theater seat like Doctor Strangelove to hold my arm steady.
Then he circle-strafed around a Space Pirate.
Yes, circle-strafed.
In Metroid Prime 2.
And that's without target-locking.
How were the controls set up?
It was set up in the "nunchaku" configuration described in the article. On the left controller, the thumbstick controlled player movement, the upper trigger button was assigned to visor-switching, and the lower trigger was assigned to the "scan" function and locking onto a target. On the right controller, the controller itself moved the player's gun independently of the player's view (yes, you could fire at any point on the screen without changing the player view -- the gun tilted to face toward the aim point), the trigger button fired the gun, and three of the buttons controlled jumping, firing missiles, and switching to morphball mode.
How does it compare to a mouse?
From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.
There is no lag.
There is no error.
It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.
At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it was true.
I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed at them.
But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that I don't need to use a mouse ever again.
Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.
Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll (rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to explore.
Gizzard: I would worry that if its in any way sloppily implemented, it will suck bigtime.
No worries in that category. If there was any sloppiness whatsoever, I didn't see it.
I do not expect to be using any other controllers ever again once the Revolution comes out.
The Angriest Smurf: This is cool as a novelty, but how does this lend itself to extended play sessions?
Try it yourself. Then see if you can still call it a novelty.
Trust me, I was very skeptical going into this. That skepticism is gone.
The Angriest Smurf: Could you imagine playing an FPS for over an hour with this without your hands getting tired?
Hell yeah, brother.
I often play Battlefield 2 for up to 3-4 hours in an evening (yes, I'm an addict), and after 10 minutes with the Revolution I'm ready to throw my mouse out the window for good.
When you take into account that the Revolution controller is very light (it seemed to me a bit lighter than I'd expect a TV remote of the same size) and that it's basically effortless to play with it, extended play sessions are a non-issue.
EvaUnit02: My concern is with playing today's standard genres of games. How do I play a racing game? Do I spin the controller around like a steering wheel?
That would be one way to do it.
Given the number of buttons available in the "nunchaku" configuration, combined with the tilt/rotate/push/pull aspects of the controller, I can't think of a game you couldn't easily adapt to the Revolution controller.
EvaUnit02: It's just not going to work.
I have played it. It works brilliantly.
So now that you've played it, what kinds of things do you think are possible with it that weren't possible before?
Off the top of my head:
A tennis game where your motions control the racket directly, and you never have to press a button the entire game.
A Harry Potter game where you can control Harry Potter's magic wand with the Revolution controller, and cast "Expelliarmus" with a few flicks of the wand.
... and where you steer your Quidditch broom just by steering your controller.
A boat racing game that lets you steer entirely by rotating the controller clockwise and counterclockwise.
A fencing game where you can slash, parry, and stab with the controller.
A Nintendogs game that lets you pet your dogs, pull on a leash, or throw a frisbee with the Revolution controller.
A real-time strategy game ... yes, on a console.
Furthermore, I want this RTS game to have a special cargo helicopter unit. Move the controller forward, and the cargo chopper descends and grabs hold of a tank sitting underneath it. Pull the controller toward you, and the cargo chopper lifts the tank into the air. Then you tilt the controller wherever, and the chopper flies over there, and you move the controller forward a bit to lower the tank to the ground again.
So what did you play?
I played the Retro-fitted version of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes.
And ...?
It played far better than the original controls. Turning and aiming were instantaneous. Control was absolutely precise.
At a certain point during the demo, one of our designers did a double-jump over a gap and spun a full 180 degrees in midair before landing on the opposite side. When I saw this my arm literally started shaking and had to grab and squeeze the cup holder on my theater seat like Doctor Strangelove to hold my arm steady.
Then he circle-strafed around a Space Pirate.
Yes, circle-strafed.
In Metroid Prime 2.
And that's without target-locking.
How were the controls set up?
It was set up in the "nunchaku" configuration described in the article. On the left controller, the thumbstick controlled player movement, the upper trigger button was assigned to visor-switching, and the lower trigger was assigned to the "scan" function and locking onto a target. On the right controller, the controller itself moved the player's gun independently of the player's view (yes, you could fire at any point on the screen without changing the player view -- the gun tilted to face toward the aim point), the trigger button fired the gun, and three of the buttons controlled jumping, firing missiles, and switching to morphball mode.
How does it compare to a mouse?
From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.
There is no lag.
There is no error.
It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.
At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it was true.
I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed at them.
But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that I don't need to use a mouse ever again.
Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.
Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll (rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to explore.
Gizzard: I would worry that if its in any way sloppily implemented, it will suck bigtime.
No worries in that category. If there was any sloppiness whatsoever, I didn't see it.
I do not expect to be using any other controllers ever again once the Revolution comes out.
The Angriest Smurf: This is cool as a novelty, but how does this lend itself to extended play sessions?
Try it yourself. Then see if you can still call it a novelty.
Trust me, I was very skeptical going into this. That skepticism is gone.
The Angriest Smurf: Could you imagine playing an FPS for over an hour with this without your hands getting tired?
Hell yeah, brother.
I often play Battlefield 2 for up to 3-4 hours in an evening (yes, I'm an addict), and after 10 minutes with the Revolution I'm ready to throw my mouse out the window for good.
When you take into account that the Revolution controller is very light (it seemed to me a bit lighter than I'd expect a TV remote of the same size) and that it's basically effortless to play with it, extended play sessions are a non-issue.
EvaUnit02: My concern is with playing today's standard genres of games. How do I play a racing game? Do I spin the controller around like a steering wheel?
That would be one way to do it.
Given the number of buttons available in the "nunchaku" configuration, combined with the tilt/rotate/push/pull aspects of the controller, I can't think of a game you couldn't easily adapt to the Revolution controller.
EvaUnit02: It's just not going to work.
I have played it. It works brilliantly.
So now that you've played it, what kinds of things do you think are possible with it that weren't possible before?
Off the top of my head:
A tennis game where your motions control the racket directly, and you never have to press a button the entire game.
A Harry Potter game where you can control Harry Potter's magic wand with the Revolution controller, and cast "Expelliarmus" with a few flicks of the wand.
... and where you steer your Quidditch broom just by steering your controller.
A boat racing game that lets you steer entirely by rotating the controller clockwise and counterclockwise.
A fencing game where you can slash, parry, and stab with the controller.
A Nintendogs game that lets you pet your dogs, pull on a leash, or throw a frisbee with the Revolution controller.
A real-time strategy game ... yes, on a console.
Furthermore, I want this RTS game to have a special cargo helicopter unit. Move the controller forward, and the cargo chopper descends and grabs hold of a tank sitting underneath it. Pull the controller toward you, and the cargo chopper lifts the tank into the air. Then you tilt the controller wherever, and the chopper flies over there, and you move the controller forward a bit to lower the tank to the ground again.
http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=49293&catId=49
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
Well the differentiation strategy didn't work that well for the GameCube. Sure there are EA games on it but those sell a fraction of the volume they get on the PS2 and even the Xbox.
So they've been riding the Zeldas and the Metroid Primes and looks like they will continue to have to do so. I'm sure they will retain their market share in Japan but may be hard-pressed to do even as well as the GC did in NA and Europe. Not sure how it did compared to the Xbox in Asia.
So they've been riding the Zeldas and the Metroid Primes and looks like they will continue to have to do so. I'm sure they will retain their market share in Japan but may be hard-pressed to do even as well as the GC did in NA and Europe. Not sure how it did compared to the Xbox in Asia.
Yea but there are plenty of gushy comments about the controller from all the big publishers. The problem is Nintendo is such a tiny % of EA's userbase why would they spend alot of dev time on a limited market. Again they might do a few neat things here and there but if the sales stay down.... well history tends to repeast itself.
You only have to go back to "GBA/Gamecube" connectivity being such a big thing and how EA was all over that with PR's on what a great idea and all of our sports games. So how is that connectivity thing working for you EA and Nintendo?
In bold because it needs to be a repeated...
You only have to go back to "GBA/Gamecube" connectivity being such a big thing and how EA was all over that with PR's on what a great idea and all of our sports games. So how is that connectivity thing working for you EA and Nintendo?
In bold because it needs to be a repeated...
Last edited by bdoughty on Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I absolutely love the fact the Nintendo is not going mainstream with the Revolution or it's controller. Why would they? We have PS3 and 360 for that. Why over saturate the market with yet another console that will play the exact same way as the other two???
I think Nintendo is playing this really smart. They lost market share with the Gamecube. What would putting out a new console that mirrors the other two do for them to regain ground? Software? They had really good software (for the most part) on GC. IMO, they probably were spending too much time trying to market the GC to compete with the PS2 and X-Box when they could have been making even more fun, innovative software titles. Now they have their chance to do that with Revolution.
The controller is a great example of the fact the Nintendo is looking at the Revolution as a complimentary piece of hardware to the gaming consumer, NOT an alternative! Plus, it is obvious that they are trying to keep the price WAY down on the Revolution, so that is yet another indication that Nintendo is seeing that most consumers have more than one console and will be willing to have an additional game machine if it did something completely different than the other one they had. I mean, how many consoles do you need in the house that can play Madden or Call of Duty the same way? I, for one, am excited to have one of my consoles be cheaper and provide me with a completely different gaming experience than my ‘standard’ one!!!
I think Nintendo is playing this really smart. They lost market share with the Gamecube. What would putting out a new console that mirrors the other two do for them to regain ground? Software? They had really good software (for the most part) on GC. IMO, they probably were spending too much time trying to market the GC to compete with the PS2 and X-Box when they could have been making even more fun, innovative software titles. Now they have their chance to do that with Revolution.
The controller is a great example of the fact the Nintendo is looking at the Revolution as a complimentary piece of hardware to the gaming consumer, NOT an alternative! Plus, it is obvious that they are trying to keep the price WAY down on the Revolution, so that is yet another indication that Nintendo is seeing that most consumers have more than one console and will be willing to have an additional game machine if it did something completely different than the other one they had. I mean, how many consoles do you need in the house that can play Madden or Call of Duty the same way? I, for one, am excited to have one of my consoles be cheaper and provide me with a completely different gaming experience than my ‘standard’ one!!!
XBL Gamertag: Spooky Disco
Spooky wrote:I absolutely love the fact the Nintendo is not going mainstream with the Revolution or it's controller. Why would they? We have PS3 and 360 for that. Why over saturate the market with yet another console that will play the exact same way as the other two???
I think Nintendo is playing this really smart. They lost market share with the Gamecube. What would putting out a new console that mirrors the other two do for them to regain ground? Software? They had really good software (for the most part) on GC. IMO, they probably were spending too much time trying to market the GC to compete with the PS2 and X-Box when they could have been making even more fun, innovative software titles. Now they have their chance to do that with Revolution.
The controller is a great example of the fact the Nintendo is looking at the Revolution as a complimentary piece of hardware to the gaming consumer, NOT an alternative! Plus, it is obvious that they are trying to keep the price WAY down on the Revolution, so that is yet another indication that Nintendo is seeing that most consumers have more than one console and will be willing to have an additional game machine if it did something completely different than the other one they had. I mean, how many consoles do you need in the house that can play Madden or Call of Duty the same way? I, for one, am excited to have one of my consoles be cheaper and provide me with a completely different gaming experience than my ‘standard’ one!!!
Thats great and all but there is only so much damage control Nintendo can do as it lost a large base of gamers from the N64 to the Gamecube (you have to go back farther then the Cube). Love it or hate it emulation still plays a big factor in the equation. Why pay for a bunch of old games you can download for free?
I do hope that anyone who buys this systems gets every pennys worth of enjoyment. The ONLY thing that would get me to buy this system are the next-gen First Party Nintendo games. I have not played a non-sports game in forever so I doubt that this system will see the light of day in my house. If I want to play Tecmo Bowl I will simply dust off the NES.
-
sportdan30
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 9120
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: St. Louis
Jayhawker, Reeche, and Spooky have completely reversed my initial opinions of the Revolution. While I doubt I'll purchase one at launch, I can see it being an addition to my gaming hobby eventually. At a fraction of the cost that the 360 and the PS3 are going to be, it very well may provide something new and different.
Of course, I have been less than enthused about Nintendo's games in recent years. However, I admit a little bit of unknown excitement of what they have up their sleeve. IMO, this is their final attempt....If it fails, they're done!
Of course, I have been less than enthused about Nintendo's games in recent years. However, I admit a little bit of unknown excitement of what they have up their sleeve. IMO, this is their final attempt....If it fails, they're done!
-
ScoopBrady
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 7781
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
I don't doubt that the Revolution will be a fun alternative /companion to the PS3 and 360. The DS is a fun little gadget. The Gamecube has some fun little titles. What saddens me is the fact that Nintendo has given up the fight. That's what it seems like to me. Rather than trying to get back to their past glory (being the top dog in the industry) they are content with being a novelty in the industry. Their early success came from the original NES, the Super NES, and the Game Boy. The experiment of the the Virtua Boy flopped. Their reluctance to go the a cd medium hurt the N64. Their reluctance to embrace online gaming has hurt the Gamecube. There is definitely a place for Nintendo in the video games market but I wish they'd strive to rule it again.sportdan30 wrote:Jayhawker, Reeche, and Spooky have completely reversed my initial opinions of the Revolution. While I doubt I'll purchase one at launch, I can see it being an addition to my gaming hobby eventually. At a fraction of the cost that the 360 and the PS3 are going to be, it very well may provide something new and different.
Of course, I have been less than enthused about Nintendo's games in recent years. However, I admit a little bit of unknown excitement of what they have up their sleeve. IMO, this is their final attempt....If it fails, they're done!
I am a patient boy.
I wait, I wait, I wait, I wait.
My time is water down a drain.
I wait, I wait, I wait, I wait.
My time is water down a drain.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33886
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
This video shows the controller in use. After watching this, I get it. This controller seems pretty cool and will change the way games are played -- very much.
http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/651/ ... ids_1.html
Here's a story that shows how this thing might work with various game genres:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651224p1.html
That said, I'm not buying a console for the controller. I'm buying it for the games and online play, and Nintendo didn't have the third-party support I want or online play in this generation.
Will the Revolution have online play?
Take care,
PK
http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/651/ ... ids_1.html
Here's a story that shows how this thing might work with various game genres:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651224p1.html
That said, I'm not buying a console for the controller. I'm buying it for the games and online play, and Nintendo didn't have the third-party support I want or online play in this generation.
Will the Revolution have online play?
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Supposedly they have stated in the not so recent past that they want to make online more of a priority for the revolution but I tend to believe this is just lip-service. Nintendo only does something if they think it will pretty much be profitable from day one and there is no real way to guarantee that for consoles just quite yet.pk500 wrote: Will the Revolution have online play?
Take care,
PK
http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=49293&catId=49
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
---Lend a ***** a pencil--- Context?
Revolution will have Wifi built-in and Nintendo has contracted with GameSpy to offer online play for free.
But does that mean Miyamoto's games will go online? Or is he more preoccupied with getting his games to work with this motion-detector controller thing instead?
Because I would think there would be some interest in online versions of Mario Kart and all those other split-screen Nintendo games.
You know maybe this thing will inspire some more creativity in control schemes, even if it's not successful itself. What if those sensors used in motion-capture became cheap enough that they could be mass produced?
You could have it track your limbs, head and torso and have it translate your movements exactly in real time on the onscreen character. Then you could imitate the batting stance of baseball players. Of course, people would have to set up their video games in a home gym area rather than the living room.
Nintendo has already said they won't try to compete with the other 2 companies on HDTV graphics or getting the latest, fastest chips. So this thing would have to offer the most terrific gameplay to overcome this deficit in graphics performance. If they didn't spend money on this more complicated control scheme (motion detectors and other sensors to track velocity), maybe they could have spent more money on competitive silicon.
But does that mean Miyamoto's games will go online? Or is he more preoccupied with getting his games to work with this motion-detector controller thing instead?
Because I would think there would be some interest in online versions of Mario Kart and all those other split-screen Nintendo games.
You know maybe this thing will inspire some more creativity in control schemes, even if it's not successful itself. What if those sensors used in motion-capture became cheap enough that they could be mass produced?
You could have it track your limbs, head and torso and have it translate your movements exactly in real time on the onscreen character. Then you could imitate the batting stance of baseball players. Of course, people would have to set up their video games in a home gym area rather than the living room.
Nintendo has already said they won't try to compete with the other 2 companies on HDTV graphics or getting the latest, fastest chips. So this thing would have to offer the most terrific gameplay to overcome this deficit in graphics performance. If they didn't spend money on this more complicated control scheme (motion detectors and other sensors to track velocity), maybe they could have spent more money on competitive silicon.
-
sfz_T-car
- DSP-Funk All-Star*
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 3:00 am
- Location: Lower Haight, San Francisco
I like Nintendo's direction and hope the Revolution really turns out to be one. We've reached a point where the physical interface is the greatest untapped area for gaming innovation.
This generation of consoles has produced many great games but almost all of them are refinements of genres from the PSX/N64 era. No matter how realistic the graphics and sound, at the end of the day it's X to jump, Y to shoot, D to steer. .
Handhelds have caught up technologically but the PSP provides mostly scaled down versions of their console big brothers. The DS has nowhere near the processing or graphics power of the PSP but offers some unique gaming experiences.
Nintendo doesn't have the financial wherewithal to compete with Sony or Microsoft. I'd much rather see them stay in the game as a niche innovator than to go the route of Sega. I hope the market can support three console producers, especially one with a smaller catalog of software.
This generation of consoles has produced many great games but almost all of them are refinements of genres from the PSX/N64 era. No matter how realistic the graphics and sound, at the end of the day it's X to jump, Y to shoot, D to steer. .
Handhelds have caught up technologically but the PSP provides mostly scaled down versions of their console big brothers. The DS has nowhere near the processing or graphics power of the PSP but offers some unique gaming experiences.
Nintendo doesn't have the financial wherewithal to compete with Sony or Microsoft. I'd much rather see them stay in the game as a niche innovator than to go the route of Sega. I hope the market can support three console producers, especially one with a smaller catalog of software.
another thing to remember, nintendo isnt losing money. i believe they are the most profitable of the 3 in console/game sales. they dont lose money on hardware or games and since most of their titles are 1st party, even more money.
then again i could be completely wrong, but i could have sworn i heard that fact mentioned once before.
then again i could be completely wrong, but i could have sworn i heard that fact mentioned once before.
They are the most profitable in the gaming market amongst console MFG's. Of course that is sometimes at the expense of the gamer (hardware limitations and functionality). Microsoft on the other hand is the most profitable company of the 3 due to all those other little "non gaming" products they offer.Noledog wrote:another thing to remember, nintendo isnt losing money. i believe they are the most profitable of the 3 in console/game sales. they dont lose money on hardware or games and since most of their titles are 1st party, even more money.
then again i could be completely wrong, but i could have sworn i heard that fact mentioned once before.
They have far and away the biggest "war chest."
From IGN:
Q: What does the conventional controller cradle/shell do?
A: This add-on makes it possible to play Revolution games in a more traditional manner. The shell is designed to look and function like accepted "regular" controllers, such as the Wave Bird. After its bottom casing is removed, the Revolution's free-hand-style remote is inserted into a gap in the middle of the controller shell. Gamers can then use the shell as they would a traditional controller, with a notable difference: the pointer remote's sensory functionality remains active. As a result, gamers get the best of both worlds: more buttons and two analog sticks along with motion-sensing operations. In a Revolution version of Madden Football, gamers might be able to use the combo to control players with the shell's analog sticks and execute pinpoint passes with the pointer's improved accuracy.
This is only a mockup, but it shows the possibilities.
Q: What does the conventional controller cradle/shell do?
A: This add-on makes it possible to play Revolution games in a more traditional manner. The shell is designed to look and function like accepted "regular" controllers, such as the Wave Bird. After its bottom casing is removed, the Revolution's free-hand-style remote is inserted into a gap in the middle of the controller shell. Gamers can then use the shell as they would a traditional controller, with a notable difference: the pointer remote's sensory functionality remains active. As a result, gamers get the best of both worlds: more buttons and two analog sticks along with motion-sensing operations. In a Revolution version of Madden Football, gamers might be able to use the combo to control players with the shell's analog sticks and execute pinpoint passes with the pointer's improved accuracy.
This is only a mockup, but it shows the possibilities.
-
WillHunting
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:00 am
Nintendo did not invent the analog controller with N64 in the console world.
Vectrex is the first, and the Atari 5200 did too but it is not self-centering which made it very poor.
Anyway, this is a gimmick that might work, or it might backfire. I have no interest in buying old Nintendo games so I have almost zero interest in the Revolution anyway. At least this controller might have some unique games for it, but 3rd parties might not be so interested in develop cross platform games on the system (even if a more standard controller can be plugged in).
Vectrex is the first, and the Atari 5200 did too but it is not self-centering which made it very poor.
Anyway, this is a gimmick that might work, or it might backfire. I have no interest in buying old Nintendo games so I have almost zero interest in the Revolution anyway. At least this controller might have some unique games for it, but 3rd parties might not be so interested in develop cross platform games on the system (even if a more standard controller can be plugged in).
I just want to chime in here with my two cents:
One of the things that has always drawn me to video games is the breakthroughs in technology, whether it be in terms of graphics or sound, or in controllers/input devices. The jump to a mouse, for the first time; the first '1st person' game I played (was it Colony?); the shoulder buttons on the SNES (it was a real 'oh my God' moment with those shoulder buttons and F-Zero), the analog stick (how excited was I at the prospect of Madden with analog control! Or FIFA!), the rumble pack, and so on. This Revolution controller may be unheard of, it may be too different to grasp exactly what it will bring, but those are the very things that get me excited about it. Who knows what kind of gameplay mechanics may be broached now with this new kind of input device?
Playing Madden last night with the cone and all, I was struck how much I would love the cone, I mean absolutely go ga-ga over the cone, if I could be using that Revolution controller to deal with it! With that standard-controller cradle, just a shift of the thing in the hands would move that cone, fingers still on the buttons, no need to shove the inaccurate R-Stick or do the multi-button selection stuff, just a slight flick of the controller itself and the cone moves with ease and precision. . . I can't wait. In fact, it is the idea of this controller that would make the cone work in my mind; as it is, the cone is too complex, but with that controller it would be a no-brainer! And that's just one example in one of today's games where I think this thing would be a breakthrough. Who knows what gameplay mechanics we can't even conceive of would be thought up once it's out there.
Thank goodness the big NIN is still interested in trying new things, even if they fail half the time. Put me in the crowd that just can't wait. Before this, I was pretty ho-hum about the Revolution. Now, there's no question I'm getting one.
One of the things that has always drawn me to video games is the breakthroughs in technology, whether it be in terms of graphics or sound, or in controllers/input devices. The jump to a mouse, for the first time; the first '1st person' game I played (was it Colony?); the shoulder buttons on the SNES (it was a real 'oh my God' moment with those shoulder buttons and F-Zero), the analog stick (how excited was I at the prospect of Madden with analog control! Or FIFA!), the rumble pack, and so on. This Revolution controller may be unheard of, it may be too different to grasp exactly what it will bring, but those are the very things that get me excited about it. Who knows what kind of gameplay mechanics may be broached now with this new kind of input device?
Playing Madden last night with the cone and all, I was struck how much I would love the cone, I mean absolutely go ga-ga over the cone, if I could be using that Revolution controller to deal with it! With that standard-controller cradle, just a shift of the thing in the hands would move that cone, fingers still on the buttons, no need to shove the inaccurate R-Stick or do the multi-button selection stuff, just a slight flick of the controller itself and the cone moves with ease and precision. . . I can't wait. In fact, it is the idea of this controller that would make the cone work in my mind; as it is, the cone is too complex, but with that controller it would be a no-brainer! And that's just one example in one of today's games where I think this thing would be a breakthrough. Who knows what gameplay mechanics we can't even conceive of would be thought up once it's out there.
Thank goodness the big NIN is still interested in trying new things, even if they fail half the time. Put me in the crowd that just can't wait. Before this, I was pretty ho-hum about the Revolution. Now, there's no question I'm getting one.
I had planned on getting the new Nintendo system before info about the new controller was realeased, then when first seeing pictures of it being basically a remote control I started to wonder what the hell they were trying to do but after seeing video and reading more about it I think it could end up being a great innovation that Microsoft and Sony will definitely end up copying somewhere down the line. Imagine no more thumb blisters playing a grueling match of tennis with that controller, so count me in as one who is really looking forward to the new Nintendo system.