Topic: Nintendo's got 700 Problems, but.......

[Ian Sane]

If you want to make a game that only uses two buttons you can still do it on a controller with ten buttons.  I have never met ANYONE who if I gave them a "complex" controller for a simple game was confused.  "Move with the stick, A does this, B does that."  Simple, easy, they pick it up right away.  They don't get confused because X does nothing.

The thing is by forcing devs to think of simplifying their games the Wii has become the dumbed down simple game console for confused casuals.  That's what every dev but Nintendo treats it as.  Meanwhile the more complex games are on the consoles with controllers that give the developer the freedom to do whatever he wants.

No creative person every wants to be told what to do.  No one wants to be told they have to make simpler games or simpler controls or do it this was or that way.  Creative people want flexibility.  I make software for a living and designing a UI that the user easily learns and understands is very important.  But if the company I work for was told that we could only have these many buttons on screen or this many menu items or that we could only use one mouse button or couldn't use the keyboard we would freak.  We would have to find another way because we couldn't make the software with the functionality we want with those restrictions.  We work best when the development tool or the operating system or the database that gives us the flexibility to do what we want.  And we don't **** it up it make a bunch of confusing bullshit either.  If any of the third party tools we use prevented us from creating the software we want to make, we would switch to a different tool.  So if you were a game developer and this one company is telling you how to make your games why would you ever stick with them if you didn't need to?  You're going to want to go with the option that lets you make the games you want to make.  And that is what everyone has done.

You need to provide flexibility just because you can't make assumptions about what third parties want to do.  Nintendo can make assumptions about what types of games Nintendo wants to make but they don't know what Konami or Capcom or Square Enix wants to make and what they need.  They can't assume that anyone else will be content with weaker hardware or with a very different controller.  A flexible design is the only way you can safely guess anything.

[Guitar Smasher]

If you want to make a game that only uses two buttons you can still do it on a controller with ten buttons.  I have never met ANYONE who if I gave them a "complex" controller for a simple game was confused.  "Move with the stick, A does this, B does that."  Simple, easy, they pick it up right away.  They don't get confused because X does nothing.

I don't have evidence, but I very much believe Nintendo has tested this hypothesis and found different results.  They certainly spoke to this point prior to the unveiling of the console.

The thing is by forcing devs to think of simplifying their games the Wii has become the dumbed down simple game console for confused casuals.  That's what every dev but Nintendo treats it as.  Meanwhile the more complex games are on the consoles with controllers that give the developer the freedom to do whatever he wants.

The reason "the Wii has become the dumbed down simple game console for confused casuals" is because the industry perceives the userbase to be "dumb customers who buy shallow party games".  I have never read about a game being held from the console because the controller isn't capable enough.  The odd time a 'core' game is adapted to use motion controls, all I hear is how "we're so excited to incorporate motion into our games" (although often they're not competent in execution).  From what I've gathered, there's two main reasons why 'core' games don't make it to Wii: a) the Wii audience isn't interested in this type of game; or b) Wii isn't HD/online capable.

In my opinion you're placing way too much emphasis on the controller's limitations in an effort to explain your perceptions of the console's misgivings.

[Stratos]

If you want to make a game that only uses two buttons you can still do it on a controller with ten buttons.  I have never met ANYONE who if I gave them a "complex" controller for a simple game was confused.  "Move with the stick, A does this, B does that."  Simple, easy, they pick it up right away.  They don't get confused because X does nothing.

I don't have evidence, but I very much believe Nintendo has tested this hypothesis and found different results.  They certainly spoke to this point prior to the unveiling of the console.

I remember them talking about it. And several people including my mother are intimidated by complicated controllers. It doesn't matter how much you explain the 'basic' controls. They just look at the whole controller and say "I can't do this, it looks too complicated". Some people give up too easily.

[TJ Spyke]

I consider myself a hardcore gamer, but even I hate when I play a game that uses all of the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 controllers (especially PS3 games, I still can't get used to their Playskool controller with it's symbols instead of letters), I can imagine how much worse it is for a casual gamer or someone who hasn't played games in years trying to play a game that uses 8 different buttons plus 2 analog sticks and a d-pad to play.

[Stratos]

The worst part of the Playstation controller for me is how 'x' means accept but I've grown up with Windows telling me 'x' means exit. Ugh.

[TJ Spyke]

I think even some gamers got confused because some games used X to accept while others used it to exit, so some people would accidentally hit it when they didn't mean to.

[Mop it up]

The worst part of the Playstation controller for me is how 'x' means accept but I've grown up with Windows telling me 'x' means exit. Ugh.

That always bothered me so much. Especially because the first PlayStation game I played was Final Fantasy VII, which properly has Circle as select and Cross as cancel/back, so I expected other games to follow that.

There's actually sometimes similar mixups on Nintendo systems. I've run into a few games where B is accept and A is back, despite that the letters would match if it were reversed.

[Ian Sane]

And several people including my mother are intimidated by complicated controllers. It doesn't matter how much you explain the 'basic' controls. They just look at the whole controller and say "I can't do this, it looks too complicated". Some people give up too easily.

Yeah and those people are depriving themselves of great games because they're too close-minded.  And I don't really care that they do that because they bring it on themselves.  If I was a videogame developer I would not give two shits about such people as long as I could still make money.  There is a market of people that are willing to try games with some complexity and I can make money off of those people with the games I want to make.  I think there's some personal pride here as well.  If you're a developer and you love videogames and you take great pride in your creative work, why would you want to cater to people that blindly reject your work for superficial reasons?  People do not react well to what they view as illegitimate criticism.  And then Nintendo comes along and says they've changed the controller that YOU the developer liked in favour of a new design that people who refused to even try your games in the first place will like.  That's like a heavy metal band being approach by a guitar manufacturer with a new guitar that will attract the adult comtemporary market.
 

 In my opinion you're placing way too much emphasis on the controller's limitations in an effort to explain your perceptions of the console's misgivings.

The topic has moved more in the direction of the controller so that's why I'm mentioning it more.  No, I think the controller is just one part of developer disinterest in the Wii.  It's the combination of the controller, the weaker hardware and the casual focus of Nintendo's marketing.  The marketing is not a real restriction but the other two are.  With the Wii, Nintendo provides an inflexible development environment.  They have to address that next gen if they care at all about third party support.  I think the 3DS is the right approach so Nintendo can do it and still keep the casual market.
 
What I find odd is that I'm getting the same arguments from some of you that I think Nintendo themselves are giving to third parties that turns them off.  I see a lot of "well they should make games this way" stuff.  That's the whole damn point!  Developers don't want to hear that.  Assume that you don't agree with Nintendo's game design philosophy and that you were a developer.
 
For the record I typically don't really like it when games use all the buttons as it is often done poorly.  But it can also work out really well.  And I find waggle games to be much worse.  Having extra buttons seems to be less of a problem then not having enough.

[Arbok]

If I was a videogame developer I would not give two shits about such people as long as I could still make money.

Isn't that the problem though, making money? The recent NPD report is pretty grim, and seems to be painting a market where only the top dog and evergreen titles are succeeding. In this type of economy, developers can not and should not act so full of themselves as to turn their nose at appealing to a broader demographic.

That's like a heavy metal band being approach by a guitar manufacturer with a new guitar that will attract the adult comtemporary market.

No its not, because consumers of that band's music will never touch that guitar. You don't have to know how to play a guitar to enjoy a song. You do have to know how to play a game to enjoy it though.

[ThePerm]

relevant OLD article

http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p1.html
http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p2.html

[Dirk Temporo]

Somehow I don't think that an article in which Miyamoto questions the superiority of the analog stick over the D-Pad lends a whole lot to the argument that controllers are too complicated.

[Mop it up]

relevant OLD article

http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p1.html
http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p2.html

The Nintendo 64 wasn't the first system to have an analogue stick. Doesn't anyone ever fact-check these things?

[Dirk Temporo]

The Atari and the Vectrex don't even count. It was the first real and successful attempt at integrating an analog stick into a home game controller.

[TJ Spyke]

What Atari system ever had a analog stick? Analog stick and joystiq are different things.

Besides, the N64 perfected it and got it right.

[Dirk Temporo]

There was a SINGLE controller for the 5200 that used a non-centering analog stick, and it sucked.

[Mop it up]

Besides, the N64 perfected it and got it right.

That is true, but it still wasn't the first, even if the one on the Vectrex was poor quality. It would be so easy to insert the word "successful" in there, and make it "The first successful system with an analogue stick."

I would think that you of all people would care about an article getting this right.

[ThePerm]

relevant OLD article

http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p1.html
http://cube.gamespy.com/articles/636/636728p2.html

The Nintendo 64 wasn't the first system to have an analogue stick. Doesn't anyone ever fact-check these things?

no, but it really shows what Miyamoto had going on in his head. Now we have the answer of WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?