Topic: Nintendo and it's philosophies

[Don'tHate742]

If my memory serves me correctly, Nintendo has recently stated two ideas that completely contradict each other.

I think it was Miyamoto that stated he wanted a controller that was simple,  and more importantly, a controller that wouldn't "scare" non-gamers away with complexity. I understand that fact. Many people are intimidated by videogames mostly because of the way you control said videogames. The learning curve is too steep for non-gamers.

Videogames on the NES were as user-friendly as possible, with only a couple buttons and a d-pad. Many people could jump right in and have fun.

Simplicity is a good goal to have, and will infact level the playing field for both non-gamers and gamers alike but it is nowhere near as important as the next "truth."

Stated by Reggie and Miyamoto themselves, the REV controller will play all previous generation games. This is far more important than simplifying a controller to attract non-gamers; this is functionallity to its greatest degree.

People (us gamers) need a controller that plays everything....and plays them well. We shouldn't have to be transported back to the NES days just so new comers can feel at "home." No...games have gotten more complex since then, so why should we, the loyal followers, be punished for complexity that we had no control over yet learned to deal with?

Basically, it's either simplicity or functionality....you can't have both Nintendo. I hope they realize this and come up with a solution, because either option doesn't achieve the main goal: Expanding the numbers of videogame users.

I hope I don't have to be as thorough as this, but i'll explain the cons of each option. Simplicity would gather many non-gamers....that's great and all but completely turning your back on your loyal fan base eats away at any possible expansion. The second option would be history repeating itself, with Nintendo most likely clinging to life only because of its loyal fan base....with no expansion in sight.

However, there is a third option. What if Nintendo could figure out a new control mechanic that is so much more complex than an analog stick, yet at the same time simple to use. The controller could then look complex and functional, which would allow compatibilty with everything. Although, it wouldn't matter how complex the controller looks because this new feature is so intuitive that it would dominate the control aspect of most games and let non-gamers jump right in. It would level the playing field for non-gamers and gamers alike since us gamers have never used such a mechanic before. Furthermore, this new mechanic must also have a learning process that can't take more than a couple seconds. Anytime longer than that and you've lost potential gamers.

So instead of "dumbing" down the controller and achieving instantaneous fun (i.e. NES), you could go the other way and make gaming more complex while achieving the same results.

This new mechanic is exactly what Nintendo must be aiming for: something that makes gaming easy to get a hang of while making games more complex in nature.

I remember Nintendo mentioning how the DS is a clue to what they have in store. Many people took that literally and said the interface will have many small things that when put together make for a grand experience. I'm not saying that isn't true....hell nobody knows whats true and what isn't. All i'm saying is that Nintendo was probably hinting at something else.

If you look at the DS, you can see that it levels the playing field for experts and new comers. The touchscreen is a new technology in the gaming world so no past experience will be of use at all. It also takes literally seconds to figure out how to use it and have fun with it. That's what Nintendo has been trying to hint at: technology that is easy to learn and interact with, yet complex and sophisticated.

So back to the controller. Nintendo would still have to choose between simplicity and functionality. Functionality is the obvious choice because you need functionality, unlike simplicity where you would want it instead.

However, even though the controllers are functional, the games can be very simple to control. That way you get the best of both worlds. I'm not talking about simple games here, please don't misinterpret that. I'm talking about complex games that are simple to control. Again, the DS is a prime example of this (Kirby's Canvas?).

If you look at Virtual Reality, it is a very complex mechanism. Even so, it would be very intuitive and easy to control. The fact that the component/controller is very complex is over-shadowed by the ease of use. I'm not saying VR is the answer, I just wanted to point out that something very complex in nature can be relatively easy to use and learn (within a couple seconds).

If this truely is Nintendo's philosophy, then I think we have something great in store for us. Their contradicting philosophies, are of course, still contradictory but I know Nintendo will make the right choice because literally they HAVE to. It scares me to think that Nintendo just might ignore the obvious here and go with simplicity. That would encourage my fellow Nintendo loyalists and I to jump ship (starting with Ian of course) and basically Nintendo would be doomed. We don't want simplicity, because simplicity makes for simple games.

Now lets try and think what Nintendo could do to level the playing field once again, but this time further revolutionize gaming. The DS's touchscreen is a gimmick....I'm sorry, but it really is. Most games still are controlled by the D-pad. That one and only fact proves that its a gimmick and nothing that completely revolutionized gaming. Compared to the analog stick, the touchscreen doesn't bare the same similarities. The analog stick became the "norm." It offered far superior control when compared to the D-pad, and because of that almost all games are better because of it.

Nintendo needs the next analog stick to keep up with the hype. They need something that will be used in many games (not all) from the REV on out. But as you ponder what this new mechanic could be, remember that one and only pre-requisite....it most be simple and easy to use....in many games, not all.

That's why I think this trackball idea is ridiculous. It'd offer superior accuracy, but is it simple to use and learn....maybe to us, but to any non-gamer it wouldn't make a difference it were still an analog stick. The learning curve is still there for almost all games.

Honestly, I think Gyration is the best bet. Especially if the controller can split into two. Emulating arm movements on screen makes the gamer (non or core) feel inside the game. This type of control lends itself easily to intuitivity (for games that require arm/wrist movements). I'd like to see such a tech demo at the mall and see people of all ages and gaming status try an "Archery Gyration Game." I stole this idea from I don't know who, but basically you take both peices of the controller and put them side by side. You hold the "A" button down on the right part and slowly draw it back towards your body. This would emulate the actual movement of a bow and arrow. With Gyration you could even feel the resistance tighten as you draw the arrow father back. Now, your goal is to hit a target. You aim with your left hand (the hand holding the said bow), and when ready you release the arrow by releasing "A". I could see some very non-gamers beating halo champions at this, and even if they don't, they'd still put up a good fight. The fact that it is very easy to use, while providing instantaneuos fun (learning curve only a couple seconds) covers the pre-requisite and provides for a more complex and accurate way to control.

This would allow for very simple and intuitive controls to many games that involve arm/wrist movements (Racing, Boxing, Fishing, Sword-fighting...etc). Metriod being a prime example (pun un-intended).  The only flaw is, it wouldn't make all games very simple and intuitive. However, it would provide superior control and allow for far more creative aspects in games in which it can't make very simple to control (the FPS genre comes to mind). The point is, it caters to both. That should be the goal of any company....to cater to all.

Anyway, sorry for the rant...

I kinda fluttered between topics, so take it as you will.

Thanks for reading,
Don'tHate742

[mantidor]

I didnt really read it all carefully, but I totally disagree that functionality and simplicity cannot go hand by hand, the touchscreen itself is an excellent example of that. And also, simplicity in the interface doesnt mean at all simple games, or was Zelda for the NES with its really simple controller a simple game?

 

[Mario]

Quote
We don't want simplicity, because simplicity makes for simple games.

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat proves simple controls doesn't mean simple gameplay, there's like 30 different moves you can do with only two buttons. Also, I enjoy simple games. I love Wario Ware, I love Yoshi Touch & Go.

Quote
The DS's touchscreen is a gimmick....I'm sorry, but it really is. Most games still are controlled by the D-pad. That one and only fact proves that its a gimmick and nothing that completely revolutionized gaming.

A gimmick? So it's innovative and fresh? I agree. The thing is, DS isn't supposed to have the same d-pad/analog stick games we play on consoles, Mario 64 doesn't feel very good on it, those crappy third party 3D games on DS aren't very good, because they're NOT what the system was designed for, this is just the early stages of the DS so we're getting lots of crappy console ports. The gameplay of games like Yoshi, Polarium, Nintendogs and Kirby is where it shines, and those are the games that are worth buying, THAT is the new way of playing that Nintendo has introduced to the DS that i'm very fond of. I wish developers would stop trying to substitute the analog stick with the touch screen, because it results in a very sloppy game, they might as well just release the game on home console.

Quote
The controller could then look complex and functional, which would allow compatibilty with everything.

The thing is they need the controller to LOOK simple, if you hand your grandparents a GC controller they'll just look at it and think "WTF?" and hand it back to you. Even if a GC game only uses one button, people look at the control and think "no way, i'm not going anywhere near that".

The thing that gets me is that they keep saying the controller couldl be copied instantly, and that rules out a LOT of things, Sony couldn't just make a visor overnight, or just whack gryo controls into their controller, or magically make their controller fall into pieces and be customisable like lego blocks.

I think my "light gun" controller theory is one of the best, basically the tv acts as a touch screen, but you don't have to touch the screen, just point at it. Man, all this speculation is driving me nuts, time to play some cube.

[IceCold]

Quote
Basically, it's either simplicity or functionality....you can't have both Nintendo. I hope they realize this and come up with a solution, because either option doesn't achieve the main goal: Expanding the numbers of videogame users

Didn't read whole post as well, but I'm with mantidor here. The two theories don't contradict at all, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't bother with the Revolution. You CAN have both, and that is what Nintendo is trying to achieve with the new controller. You'd just need to make the controller different than the standard one used today, because that is the opposite of simple.

Just because you can't think of a way to make it both simple and functional doesn't mean Nintendo can't as well. And if is achieved, then that WILL expand the numbers of videogame users, both "traditional" and new.

[MrMojoRising]

I actually read your whole post DontHate, and I have to disagree with some of it and agree with other parts.  I think that simplicity and functionality are somewhat contradicting, but I think Nintendo is trying to find a balance between the two to allow experienced gamers and non-gamers to both be satisfied.  Perhaps that was what you were getting at with your third option...I wasn't terribly clear on it.  If anyone can find the balance I believe it would be Nintendo...who else could make a fighting game as easy to pick up as SSBM that is still so freaking deep and involving.  Then there's a game like DK Jungle Beat as Mario brought up that has such simple controls yet has extremely advanced gameplay techniques.  Now Nintendo is trying to bring this beautiful balance they have in so many of their games to their controller, and I hope they succeed.

As for the DS screen being a gimmick I'm going to have to ask you to take your own advice and "don't hate."  While some games add on touch screen features in a very gimmicky way, others are completely unique to it.  Great examples have already been given such as Kirby and Nintendogs.  I'm actually glad when developers choose not to add any tacked on touch screen "gimmicky" aspects.  The weapon choosing in Nanostray sounds somewhat gimmicky, the extra item choosing in the New Mario Brothers looks a little gimmicky, I hope that developers from now on realize that they don't have to use every feature of the DS to make their game good.  The DS is still one of the only places where 2D games will be accepted by the masses...whether they have touch screen capabilities or not.  I think the DS should have plenty of new unique games and also old familiar formulas with some newer graphics and some new ideas (like the New Mario Bros).  That's a winning combination if you ask me.  PSP has the current console knock-off games down pretty well, if the DS has the unique games and the old games that for some reason just seem new because they're on a handheld I think it has a leg up.

Hopefully that made sense...

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I didnt really read it all carefully, but I totally disagree that functionality and simplicity cannot go hand by hand, the touchscreen itself is an excellent example of that. And also, simplicity in the interface doesnt mean at all simple games, or was Zelda for the NES with its really simple controller a simple game?

Not only did I add a disclaimer saying that the DS was an excellent example, I even stated it as being a hint of what's to come. You'd agree correct?

Like I said before, we shouldn't be transported back to the NES days. We've already been there and done that. Games are alot more complex now. And if you think a simple controller with merely two buttons will play all those complex games you see today then your wrong. Even the DS has 6 buttons and most of its games are 2D!

Quote
Donkey Kong Jungle Beat proves simple controls doesn't mean simple gameplay, there's like 30 different moves you can do with only two buttons. Also, I enjoy simple games. I love Wario Ware, I love Yoshi Touch & Go.

Good for you, but do you really think that the ability to play only those games is functional in todays gaming society? I knew adding that sentence to my post was a mistake, but what I was trying to get across was this: All games can't be as simply controlled as Donkey Kong Jungle Beat or Wario Ware. Making a controller with only two buttons would be horrendous. There are games that need those extra buttons, and if Nintendo doesn't provide that functionality they've already lost.

Quote
A gimmick? So it's innovative and fresh? I agree. The thing is, DS isn't supposed to have the same d-pad/analog stick games we play on consoles, Mario 64 doesn't feel very good on it, those crappy third party 3D games on DS aren't very good, because they're NOT what the system was designed for, this is just the early stages of the DS so we're getting lots of crappy console ports. The gameplay of games like Yoshi, Polarium, Nintendogs and Kirby is where it shines, and those are the games that are worth buying, THAT is the new way of playing that Nintendo has introduced to the DS that i'm very fond of. I wish developers would stop trying to substitute the analog stick with the touch screen, because it results in a very sloppy game, they might as well just release the game on home console.

That's my exact point. It doesn't replace the analog stick, therefore it is a gimmick. It's fun and refreshing, yes, but does it change the gaming world forever? No....I don't think it will. I don't think will see the same touchscreen travel onto consoles. Its good, but its not great. The analog stick was great.

Quote
The thing is they need the controller to LOOK simple, if you hand your grandparents a GC controller they'll just look at it and think "WTF?" and hand it back to you. Even if a GC game only uses one button, people look at the control and think "no way, i'm not going anywhere near that".

That's exactly what I'm saying. They can't make a controller LOOK simple while providing all the needs for every single game, a.k.a FUNCTIONALITY. Therefore it CONTRADICTS. That is my whole point.

The only feasible way to not scare away people is to make the games control very simply. To have the games take only a couple of seconds to learn exactly how the game works. If they make the controller simple as well, they lose a necessary part in functionality for the sole reason of not making my grandpa say "WTF?!" That's a ridiculous idea, and a stupid move for sure.

They need functionality, but they also want the controller to look simple. It's impossible, they can't do it. Unless by simple they mean "looks like a toy." Which isn't a great idea either.

Quote
Didn't read whole post as well, but I'm with mantidor here. The two theories don't contradict at all, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't bother with the Revolution. You CAN have both, and that is what Nintendo is trying to achieve with the new controller. You'd just need to make the controller different than the standard one used today, because that is the opposite of simple.

So they need to make games as well that are opposite of today's, correct? Try playing OOT with only two buttons and an analog stick. It would never work. Once again, I'm not saying that some complex games can't be controlled with just a few buttons. However, most can't be. Just look at your GameCube or PS2 catalog. How many of those games use more than 3 buttons? I bet almost every single one. That is the point I'm trying to get at. They can't fulfill all the needs of today's complex games while providing a simple look.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You can have a complex controller that plays games that are simple to control, but you can't have a simple controller that plays games that are complex to control (basically anything 3-D).

Quote

I actually read your whole post DontHate, and I have to disagree with some of it and agree with other parts. I think that simplicity and functionality are somewhat contradicting, but I think Nintendo is trying to find a balance between the two to allow experienced gamers and non-gamers to both be satisfied. Perhaps that was what you were getting at with your third option...I wasn't terribly clear on it. If anyone can find the balance I believe it would be Nintendo...who else could make a fighting game as easy to pick up as SSBM that is still so freaking deep and involving. Then there's a game like DK Jungle Beat as Mario brought up that has such simple controls yet has extremely advanced gameplay techniques. Now Nintendo is trying to bring this beautiful balance they have in so many of their games to their controller, and I hope they succeed.

I appreciate you reading my post.

First off, every single game you guys bring up is 2D. Have you not noticed that? Every single one! Sure there deep and evovling, but like I said we can't have all games be 2D and involve only a couple buttons. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

My point is simplicity in the controllers design is a lost cause. You need 2 analog sticks; You need 4 face buttons; You need (at least) 2 triggers; You need a d-pad. This provides maximum functionality and won't alienate REV owners from games that come out on the PS3 and Xbox360. Also like Reggie said, it has to play every single game to date. You can't do that without maximum functionality. You can still have games such as SSBM that are simple to control, but designing your whole controller around just those games is a ridiculous idea. That is my point, that is what I've been trying to get across. You can't have Functionality and Simplicity, it doesn't work.

I mentioned a new mechanic that would level the playing field once again, akin to the days of the NES, where both non-gamers and gamers know exactly what they were doing the moment they touch the controller. Nintendo wants that....hell we want that. However there are only two ways to go about acheiving that goal:

1. Develope a new mechanic that is very simple to use, yet complex enough to forever better most of the inevitable complex games (FPS, TPA/S, Fighters, Flying games, Sports...and so forth).

2. "Dumb" down the controls for all games to the point where non-gamers can enjoy them (while ignoring all complex games that will come to other consoles, and even the games on our "virtual" console).

The DS took number 1 and ran with it dropping behind the "yet complex enough to forever better the inevitable complex games." The REV can't afford to make the same mistake or it will be labeled a gimmick from the moment it first gets unvieled.

How can they accomplish that? Your guess is as good as mine, but the fact that we completely ignore option 2 says that we are at least trying.

I said a gyroscopic 2 peice controller as seen HERE. This would open up many options to make games solely based on gyroscopic control. These games would be simple to control, yet complex in nature. Not only that, but it would level the playing field for experts and new comers alike.

It would provide exceptional accuracy and control in games that we see today....Complex games. It covers all areas and is a possible solution.

Is it the only solution...hell no! I'm just saying it is at least feasible.

If Nintendo can cover all areas such as this did while providing something different, then hats off and I hope that I enjoy whatever they may create.

[Mario]

Quote
That's my exact point. It doesn't replace the analog stick, therefore it is a gimmick. It's fun and refreshing, yes, but does it change the gaming world forever? No....I don't think it will. I don't think will see the same touchscreen travel onto consoles. Its good, but its not great. The analog stick was great.

What the hell? I don't want to respond to that because I don't want a DS debate going here, in the Rev section, but that makes no sense. The whole tone of your post suggests the DS is a worthless "gimmick" so i'm guessing the fact they've already sold over 6 million of them isn't apparent to you?

Quote
First off, every single game you guys bring up is 2D. Have you not noticed that? Every single one!

Nintendogs.

Quote
They need functionality, but they also want the controller to look simple. It's impossible, they can't do it.

Not with that attitude they can't, which is lucky because you don't work at Nintendo.

[KnowsNothing]

Quote
Basically, it's either simplicity or functionality....you can't have both Nintendo.

I stopped reading your post after that sentance.

But then I read the next one.

Quote
That's my exact point. It doesn't replace the analog stick, therefore it is a gimmick. It's fun and refreshing, yes, but does it change the gaming world forever? No....I don't think it will. I don't think will see the same touchscreen travel onto consoles. Its good, but its not great. The analog stick was great.

So you're suggesting that it doesn't change the world of gaming because it DOESN'T use an analog stick?  You know, the analog stick that we've been using for a decade now?  That doesn't make any sense.  Also, we won't see touchscreen gaming on a console because you have to be looking at a TV, most of which, last time I checked, are not touchscreens.  Touchscreen gaming will not migrate to consoles from portables, why is this even an issue?  The DS certainly has changed the way we play games- portable games.  Do they not count as games anymore? [spolier]non-games lol, shut up, they count

I have no qualms about debating about the DS in a Rev forum, since when have I cared about being off-topic?

[KnowsNothing]

Woah, my [ /spoiler] (which is after "count" by the way) made my text all weird.  Cool.

[Bill Aurion]

"That's my exact point. It doesn't replace the analog stick, therefore it is a gimmick."

Wow, the analog stick hasn't technically replaced the D-pad (why is it still there if the analog stick replaced it!?), I guess the analog stick is still a "gimmick" (which is a word with a positive connotation, read the bloody dictionary, people)...Or perhaps maybe, just MAYBE, people like having multiple ways to play games and don't want to be stuck with only one method of gaming...

Quote
 

Quote
They need functionality, but they also want the controller to look simple. It's impossible, they can't do it.

Not with that attitude they can't, which is lucky because you don't work at Nintendo.

Ahaha, very true...I'm very glad you don't work at Nintendo...

[KnowsNothing]

which is a word with a positive connotation, read the bloody dictionary, people
Thank you!  Someone else finally noticed it

I saw it first

[trip1eX]

The touchscreen isn't the best control for every game, but it will turn out to be the best control for some games.

[Stimutacs Addict]

Quote
With Gyration you could even feel the resistance tighten as you draw the arrow father back.

that wouldn't work; to feel resistance such as a resisting force from a bowstring, your controller(s) would have to be attached to a central piece that could exert said resistant force. (cue nemo and the novint falcon; you would need an 'arm' of sorts to provide a counter-force. you can't have something come from nothing.)

however, they could make the controller pieces rumble, which would (barely) simulate the bow's resistance.

i'd love the two arm mechanic, but i dont think the industry is ready for it. It would likely scare away most new gamers ["There are two of them?] unless you had a max of , say 3 buttons on the face (possibly the gamecube 4 button layout, but kidney B) and instead of triggers use analog grips (they could get away with 4 of them, i believe, and each one could potentially provide haptic feedback, so as you squeeze one of the handles it could resist your pressure)

i just dont think the public would find a breaking controller to be very simple. HOWEVER, i think they might find it to be coool as hell, which would in turn maybe motivate them to learn how to play; from there it is just a matter of good software to keep them playing/learning.

in conclusion, gyroscopes can really only measure the acceleration acted upon them as you move them from their normal position. they can't actively provide enough force feedback to resist the change, unless you want to wire your controllers.. hell im even thinking about how bad the battery life will be when you have a gyro constantly spinning in your controller.


of btw i could be completely wrong now that i think about it; i was working out with a gyro-ball made for golfers and that provides enough force (when shaken about with enough intensity) to rip apart my forearms (that's saying a lot, too, cuz i get my fair share of pr0n)
 


EDIT: i just read some crap on gyroscopes, and I guess they could provide some resistance, but i think it'd have to be spinning really fast and the acceleration placed by the user would have to be pretty large in magnitude to provide some legitimate resistance

[bmfrosty]

Ok.  So I didn't read any of the previous posts, but here's a way that a control could be complicated enought to play new and modern games, but simple enough that you could hand it to your grandmother and she wouldn't be to confused.  Put software controllable LEDs under the buttons and sticks.  If you're playing a game where only A and B are used, then only A and B would be lit.  When gameplay instructions are being given onscreen, the LEDs could blink as indicators of what buttons should be pressed.

Further thoughts.

In addition to being turned off, buttons that aren't in use could be retracted if not in use.  Think small servo motors or something similar.

[KDR_11k]

why is it still there if the analog stick replaced it!?

To please Ian and the three and a half other people who haven't realized the Dpad is completely unnecessary now.

[Stimutacs Addict]

nintendogs doesnt cound as a 3d game... you're in a 3d world but the interface is 2d.

basically nintendo needs to make sure that their controller could play Splinter Cell (thats a good example of a complex game, methinks, and even sam fisher uses a context sensitive button)

bmfrosty's idea is really good.... that would simplify a functional controller


and yes, you can't have simplicity and functionality, all you can do is feign the simplicity i.e. pressure sensitive grips  -- they add functionality and shouldn't too greatly intimidate anyone. then keep the analog triggers, lose the z button, and keep the ABXY setup (i think nintendo believes that to be a very simply control scheme.)  in regards to the c stick, i have no clue what they want to do to control teh camera, for gyroscopic camera control would be teh suck


and in regards to people who think a gyroscope would require a button to be held while you tilt the controller (so as to avoid any mistakes when you're scratching your nose mid-game), I reccommend utilizing one of the pressure sensitive grips to activate the tilt sensor

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario

Quote
That's my exact point. It doesn't replace the analog stick, therefore it is a gimmick. It's fun and refreshing, yes, but does it change the gaming world forever? No....I don't think it will. I don't think will see the same touchscreen travel onto consoles. Its good, but its not great. The analog stick was great.

What the hell? I don't want to respond to that because I don't want a DS debate going here, in the Rev section, but that makes no sense. The whole tone of your post suggests the DS is a worthless "gimmick" so i'm guessing the fact they've already sold over 6 million of them isn't apparent to you?

Quote
First off, every single game you guys bring up is 2D. Have you not noticed that? Every single one!

Nintendogs.

Quote
They need functionality, but they also want the controller to look simple. It's impossible, they can't do it.

Not with that attitude they can't, which is lucky because you don't work at Nintendo.

Did I ever say the DS was a worthless "gimmick?" No, never. However, I did say it was a gimmick. It provides a unique way to play games that are fun and refreshing but it won't replace the analog stick like the analog stick replaced the D-pad.

As for the D-pad still being there, you can't fully replace any directional device if some games are better played with the old one. The D-pad is better for fighters. Therefore, to allow maximum functionality and ease of use, the d-pad still exists for those games.

Quote
So you're suggesting that it doesn't change the world of gaming because it DOESN'T use an analog stick? You know, the analog stick that we've been using for a decade now? That doesn't make any sense. Also, we won't see touchscreen gaming on a console because you have to be looking at a TV, most of which, last time I checked, are not touchscreens. Touchscreen gaming will not migrate to consoles from portables, why is this even an issue? The DS certainly has changed the way we play games- portable games.

Again, you missed my point. The fact that the DS's touchscreen doesn't REPLACE the analog stick proves that it's a gimmick. When controllers evolve, the directional control evolves as well. First the D-pad, then the analog stick, then the dual analog sticks. The precision in accuracy becomes greater over time. Because the touchscreen allows for far more accuracy in SOME games while failing at many others proves that its a gimmick. It doesn't replace the other methods of control for many games. Almost all games on the DS use the D-pad...

I'll make it clearer: From the D-pad to the analog stick --- STEP FORWARD in advancement. The analog stick can play any game the D-pad can WELL. From the analog stick to the touchscreen --- STEP SIDEWAYS in advancement. The touchscreen can't fully replace the analog stick, nor can the analog stick replace the touchscreen. There are games were both excell and both fail. Because of that fact it is a gimmick.

Basically the touchscreen is like a far superior light gun. The light gun played some games amazingly well, but it sucked at everything else. The touchscreen can play some games amazingly well also, but is only 'ok' at everything else.

That's all I was trying to get across. Jesus, I didn't think calling the touchscreen a 'gimmick' would cause such an uproar.

Quote
Wow, the analog stick hasn't technically replaced the D-pad (why is it still there if the analog stick replaced it!?), I guess the analog stick is still a "gimmick" (which is a word with a positive connotation, read the bloody dictionary, people)...Or perhaps maybe, just MAYBE, people like having multiple ways to play games and don't want to be stuck with only one method of gaming...

Your right Bill, the D-pad hasn't fully been replaced. As long as it's better at few games that the analog stick isn't, it will always remain. However, could you imagine if the analog stick wasn't invented? All those N64 games you played would SUCK. They would feel like Resident Evil. Call it a gimmick if you want, but it certianly doesn't fit the description.

Quote
Ok. So I didn't read any of the previous posts, but here's a way that a control could be complicated enought to play new and modern games, but simple enough that you could hand it to your grandmother and she wouldn't be to confused. Put software controllable LEDs under the buttons and sticks. If you're playing a game where only A and B are used, then only A and B would be lit. When gameplay instructions are being given onscreen, the LEDs could blink as indicators of what buttons should be pressed.

That's actually a damn good idea

Quote
and yes, you can't have simplicity and functionality, all you can do is feign the simplicity i.e. pressure sensitive grips -- they add functionality and shouldn't too greatly intimidate anyone. then keep the analog triggers, lose the z button, and keep the ABXY setup (i think nintendo believes that to be a very simply control scheme.) in regards to the c stick, i have no clue what they want to do to control teh camera, for gyroscopic camera control would be teh suck

I think they should keep the c-stick (or better yet a real joystick). What if people playing a FPS don't want to use the crazy gyroscopic control? Give them options, give them functionality.

[Bill Aurion]

Quote
Your right Bill, the D-pad hasn't fully been replaced. As long as it's better at few games that the analog stick isn't, it will always remain. However, could you imagine if the analog stick wasn't invented? All those N64 games you played would SUCK. They would feel like Resident Evil. Call it a gimmick if you want, but it certianly doesn't fit the description.

I was mocking the "gimmick" statement you made, not actually implying that the analog stick is a "gimmick"...

And this: As long as it's better at few games that the analog stick isn't, it will always remain

The touch screen is better at interacting on a 2d plane than an analog stick...Thus, it should always remain...

[Don'tHate742]

Always remain....as a gimmick

Just like the light gun remained....  

[DrGAKMANx]

I've discussed this before at other forums.  Basically...there IS a mid-ground between the simplicity of the D-PAD and the functionality of the Analog Stick.  I only thought of it when a recent Miyamoto interview quoted him debating aloud which was better: the D-PAD or the  Analog Stick?  I found the quote interesting 'cos why would Miyamoto question such a thing?  I mean, wasn't the Analog Stick eventually suppossed to replace the D-PAD...why question it?  Obviously it's 'cos they wanna reach the simplicity of the olden days.

I theorized on a mid-ground dirrectional control idea I called the "3D-PAD".  It's a big rounded pressure sensitive D-PAD combined with a raised outer touch sensitive ring and a central protruding jogball.  All 3 features can function together or seperatly...in combination or independently from one another.  It has the inviting and comfortable look of a D-PAD with more than enough function to play today's games.  It can play games from any past Nintendo system (including GCN) while still allowing for ports from other systems.  Older classic games would simply use the D-PAD normally.  Games that require analog control would use the jogball for light movement (creeping), the pressure sensitive D-PAD for mid-ground movement (walking) and for sharper movement (running) you would use the outter ring...it would feel somewhat like rolling your thumb around an analog thumbstick, more comfortably too.  For games that require a D-PAD & analog control (Metroid Prime for changing visors, Rogue Leader for giving squad commands, etc.) that's still possible since the touch sensitive analog ring & jogball are more raised and seperate from the D-PAD which means you could use either function (digital or analog) seperatly from one another.  Taking this further, new games can be designed to use all 3 features independently...imagine a next generation Mario that uses the outter ring to run, the inner jogball to tip-toe and the D-PAD from rolling, crouching and diving...it's like having an Analog Stick that has four different digital clicks.  More depth in dirrectional control than an Analog Stick while having the simplicity & comfort in the look & feel of a D-PAD.

This could explain why Nintendo hasn't shown it yet...if they did, people may think that their simplicity talk meant that they were ditching 360* analog control for simpler 8-way dirrectional control.  Nintendo wants to show this thing when we can play games with it and feel it for ourselves and FEEL that it isn't Nintendo "dumbing it down"...rather that they're making it look and feel simpler to attract more casual, drop-out & non-gamers all while keeping the analog dirrectional control functionality to be able to play today's games.  This could be nothing, but if you notice in Nintendo's new annual report there are pics which show a hand using a stylus and a D-PAD.  The stylus is obviously for the NDS, but if you look closely though, the D-PAD doesn't look like the NDS D-PAD...which could mean I'm on the right track.  Again, why would Miyamoto openly question and debate which is better if they weren't either dropping one in favor of the other or (as I'm theorizing) merging the 2 into 1?

You may be wondering...why should Nintendo aim to merge them anyways?  Besides looking & feeling simpler for the audience Nintendo is aiming for, it also cuts down on the cluttery look of today's controllers.  Today's controllers have 4 distinct thumb possitions, this is very intimidating to non-gamers and novice gamers alike.  I think the best way to simplify that is to reduce these 4 possitions back to just 2 home possitions again...that way a newer gamer at least knows where to place thier thumbs.  But how does Nintendo do it without sacrificing function?  The right side (buttons and secondary dirrectional control) is easier...just bring things closer together and lay it out better.  The left side (analog control & digital control) is more difficult...unless you combine the two!  My theory not only combines them, but also allows them to function together as well as seperatly!

[IceCold]

Quote
So they need to make games as well that are opposite of today's, correct?

No. I didn't say that. I said that if the Rev controller is simple and easy to use, it would have to be different in some ways than today's complex controllers. Not opposite.

Again, just because you can't think of a way to both simplify controls and keep them functional doesn't mean Nintendo can't as well.

[KDR_11k]

The D-pad is better for fighters.

No, it isn't. Many fighters just use stupidly small or large deadzones for the stick.

Besides, the console gamepad is just a gimmick, it never replaced the mouse or the keyboard. Or how about that gimmicky microwave thing that never managed to replace the oven?

[Cube_King]

Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
I stole this idea from I don't know who, but basically you take both peices of the controller and put them side by side. You hold the "A" button down on the right part and slowly draw it back towards your body. This would emulate the actual movement of a bow and arrow. With Gyration you could even feel the resistance tighten as you draw the arrow father back.

For some reason, even though thats not groundbreaking, made my jaws drop. That's a pretty hectic idea.

[WesDawg]

I don't think you're using a different definition of gimmick. That's all that's bothering people.

Quote
gimĀ·mick

1. a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
   b. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.

2. a. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
   b. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3.  A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.
4.  To add gimmicks to; clutter with gadgets or attention-getting details. Often used with up.
5.  To change or affect by means of a gimmick.

fdsadfNo one uses the word to mean 1b that I know of, but most people use it in reference to 2a or 4. In that sense the touchscreen is more than just clutter or an attention getting detail. It's kinda the centerpiece of the whole DS. Gimmick usually seems to imply that the thing would work just as well without the extra crud. The DS definately wouldn't.

[Stimutacs Addict]

its not that the touchscreen itself is a gimmick. Rather, developers feel like they need to include some sort of touchscreen functionality, and most of it has felt rushed or *gasp* gimmicky... in that they kinda throw it in there and say "hey! come play ridge racer with an ALL NEW steering control scheme)

=GIMMICK ,


whereas there are awesome titles out there that utilize the touchscreen in very innovative ways, most of these happen to be 2d games (that's fine, the touchscreen obviously doesnt appeal to too many people when used as directional control in 3d games, i manage with it just fine).

imo, the touchscreen should be used for invetory management of camera control if a developer doesnt have a better idea for it. Right now they need to focus on games that utilize better DUAL SCREEN usage. Those will be the truly innovative titles. putting a map and a health meter on the topscreen is convienient, but hardly justifies my purchasing a system with two screens; they could have made it one big touchscreen instead. from what i've read, mario kart will utilize the second screen in a useful manner (though i think a rear-view mirror would be cooler, i think the map is probably a better choice).

back to the revo... i don't quite follow the 3dpad idea... could you maybe illustrate it?  also, am i the only one that likes to use the dpad on menus? i just find it easier on the analog stick and slightly more precise... as to fighting games, I'm surprised that developers dont develop them to use the analog stick (as in smash attacks and such) ... i like using analog control in soul Cali 2, but i guess that's just me