Post by: Don'tHate742 on August 20, 2005, 09:10:32 PM
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
Post by: mantidor on August 20, 2005, 09:41:32 PM
Post by: Mario on August 20, 2005, 10:09:03 PM
QuoteDonkey 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.
We don't want simplicity, because simplicity makes for simple games.
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.
Post by: IceCold on August 20, 2005, 10:13:37 PM
QuoteDidn'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.
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
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.
Post by: MrMojoRising on August 20, 2005, 11:04:50 PM
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...
Post by: Don'tHate742 on August 21, 2005, 04:20:53 AM
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.
Post by: Mario on August 21, 2005, 06:06:12 AM
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.
Post by: KnowsNothing on August 21, 2005, 06:40:17 AM
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?
Post by: KnowsNothing on August 21, 2005, 06:41:35 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 21, 2005, 06:42:10 AM
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...
Post by: KnowsNothing on August 21, 2005, 06:51:43 AM
Thank you! Someone else finally noticed it
I saw it first
Post by: trip1eX on August 21, 2005, 07:03:28 AM
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on August 21, 2005, 07:36:09 AM
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
Post by: bmfrosty on August 21, 2005, 07:44:23 AM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 21, 2005, 08:41:11 AM
To please Ian and the three and a half other people who haven't realized the Dpad is completely unnecessary now.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on August 21, 2005, 12:52:52 PM
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
Post by: Don'tHate742 on August 21, 2005, 01:43:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
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.
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 21, 2005, 01:56:06 PM
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...
Post by: Don'tHate742 on August 21, 2005, 01:58:32 PM
Just like the light gun remained....
Post by: DrGAKMANx on August 21, 2005, 07:14:14 PM
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!
Post by: IceCold on August 21, 2005, 07:27:00 PM
QuoteNo. 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.
So they need to make games as well that are opposite of today's, correct?
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 21, 2005, 10:50:10 PM
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?
Post by: Cube_King on August 21, 2005, 11:42:33 PM
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.
Post by: WesDawg on August 22, 2005, 07:29:43 AM
Quote
gim·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.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on August 22, 2005, 10:01:38 AM
=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
Post by: Ian Sane on August 22, 2005, 10:11:47 AM
Post by: jasonditz on August 22, 2005, 11:19:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
A gimmick is when something is changed from the norm yet provides no advantage or improvement and is only different to get an initial "wow" reaction from people. The goal is to try to get people interested in something that is not worthy of any interest. So touchscreen steering in Ridge Racer DS is a great example. It's neato but it's useless.
You've got a much more negative connotation of gimmick than the dictionary definition would suggest.
Post by: Artimus on August 22, 2005, 11:57:17 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 03, 2005, 09:02:02 PM
Turns out...I was right about everything I argued about. People stating that Simplicity (in design) and Functionality could be done, and done by Nintendo were absolutely wrong, and the "shell" proves it.
Basically Nintendo made two controllers: One for Simplicity (that may or may not provide complex games) and one for functionality (for games that need those extra buttons, that extra complexity). If they could have both, then they would of done it correct? No need to waste time on a "shell."
Quote
Mario said: Not with that attitude they can't, which is lucky because you don't work at Nintendo.
Bill said: Ahaha, very true...I'm very glad you don't work at Nintendo...
If I had worked at Nintendo, my design would be uncanny to the NRC, so therefore you would be VERY glad that I worked at Nintendo correct?
Hating a forum goers idea, then turning around and praising Nintendo when they produce that almost exact idea is.......what do you call that.....hmmm..........Hypocritical? Face it, your a FAN-BOY!
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 03, 2005, 09:27:38 PM
Plus:
"People stating that Simplicity (in design) and Functionality could be done, and done by Nintendo were absolutely wrong, and the "shell" proves it.
Basically Nintendo made two controllers: One for Simplicity (that may or may not provide complex games) and one for functionality (for games that need those extra buttons, that extra complexity)."
You just contradicted yourself. People were wrong to assume that Nintendo could offer both functionality and simplicity, because Nintendo offered both functionality and simplicity?
I have no previous post or argument in this thread to back up... it just seems you're twisting words around to be able to say "I told you so", is all.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 03, 2005, 09:41:45 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 03, 2005, 09:52:26 PM
And who turned their back on your idea? I seem to remember that when everyone was drawing up their own mockup, we discussed it and all, but to say that everyone rejected your idea like that isn't true.
Nintendo probably didn't want to include the shell. If they had their way they would have just left it at the remote. But to appease third parties who didn't want to have to spend time thinking of how to implement their game into the controller (and fans who wanted a traditional setup) they created the shell.
And I really believe that if the remote was tweaked a bit, it would look simple and appealing, and have basically all of the functions needed for traditional games. Right now even it is functional, but not for some specific games, but it definitely could be.
Post by: zakkiel on October 04, 2005, 06:52:14 AM
QuoteSo basically you're saying there is no solution but you hope Nintendo comes up with one? Honestly, I can't tell what you mean by simplicity or functionality in your post. You seem to keep changing definitions as you go through. Me, I have a very straightforward standard for control: SSBM. You could remove the Dpad, a shoulder button, an analog stick, and either the x or y button and still have a fully functional game of insanely deep proportions. You can play it just fine with an analog stick, five play buttons and a start button. If you count the bottom of the Dpad you have that much functionality in the nunchuck before you even get into the rest of its abilities.
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.
Also, I hear tell there is a near-magical object capable of providing all the functionality that you need to manage cities and armies, yet it is so smooth, so natural, so simple that a four-year-old can use it with ease. They call this legendary artifact... the mouse. Oh wait. That's a sparkling innovation.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on October 04, 2005, 07:13:14 AM
Post by: trip1eX on October 04, 2005, 09:50:58 AM
I think is the best of both worlds and a bridge to getting the horse&buggy crowd to try the new controller.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 04, 2005, 11:36:12 AM
~~~~~
What divides TV gaming and PC gaming for me is 'convenience.' Taking advantage of a mouse involves, in an everyday sense, seat/"desktop space"/monitor setup. It's long established, and will continue to stay. However, importing the mouse/keyb combo into my home theater/couch setup is just... clunky. Being able to wave the magick Rev Wand from just about anywhere sounds nice, almost as well as holding a traditional controller at any position/angle while I can lie around and vegetate as I play. Mouse/keyb while lying down in my couch.... not really happening.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 04, 2005, 12:17:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Dammit, DontHate, will you stop blowing your own trumpet please? It's getting quite annoying
And who turned their back on your idea? I seem to remember that when everyone was drawing up their own mockup, we discussed it and all, but to say that everyone rejected your idea like that isn't true.
Nintendo probably didn't want to include the shell. If they had their way they would have just left it at the remote. But to appease third parties who didn't want to have to spend time thinking of how to implement their game into the controller (and fans who wanted a traditional setup) they created the shell.
And I really believe that if the remote was tweaked a bit, it would look simple and appealing, and have basically all of the functions needed for traditional games. Right now even it is functional, but not for some specific games, but it definitely could be.
I just want recognition where recognition is due. It's like Nintendo not getting a damn emmy for videogame acheivement.
Remember how Racid Planet came up with the idea for FPS's where you could control the gun as if it were real? Ya, I came up with that idea a while ago yet people praised him. Then people started "coming up" with their own ideas saying that you could shoot everywhere, even behind you! Ya, I came up with that idea too, but for some reason no one says a damn thing and doesn't give me any recognition. Therefore, I have to, and if you call that blowing my own trumpet, then f**k, so what?!
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically argued that Nintendo should give us the shell as the standard controller in your first post and spent a while bashing simplicity, which by your own admission is the focus of the actual controller. Hardly uncanny.
Hahahaha, you obviously mis-understood me. And I will correct you cause you are wrong
. I was stating how shell-like functionality was needed. I never said we needed a classic controller or a "shell." Instead, I was saying that Nintendo needs the shells functionality (its ability to play all games). You'd agree correct? If it didn't then how would we play N64/Snes games?The only diffence between my idea and Nintendo's is the number of buttons. They are both two-piece controllers (with the option to use only one piece). They both interact on a 3-D plane for 3-D movement. They both achieve the same advancements in all the same genres (FPS, Link Sword-fighting). They only difference was that they went with simplicity in their controller design and added an attachable shell for maximum functionality; I went with maximum functionality and no shell. How is that not uncanny?
Quote
So basically you're saying there is no solution but you hope Nintendo comes up with one?
There IS no solution for making one controller cosmetically simple (the definition that I've been using the whole time) and functional (to have the ability to play ALL games). So I said I hope Nintendo comes up with a solution because they obviously want both, but they can't have both.
Their solution ended up being the shell (and the nunchuck attachment, but that is actually cosmetically simple as well). That was their solution to have both, making maximum functionality essentially an attachment.
Post by: zakkiel on October 04, 2005, 02:31:08 PM
You can argue that for some games the shell will be more convenient. No way in hell I buy that it has more functionality. Any game you could devise for a traditional controller can be played with the nunchuck - ackwardly, sure, but it could be played. The reverse is far, far from true.
The shell is, like trip1ex said, a bridge to the horse-and-buggy crowd who long for games with lots of buttons because that's what they're used to. Future generations will wonder how we lived with such an artificial, restrictive and needlessly complicated paradigm.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 04, 2005, 03:42:07 PM
Post by: Artimus on October 04, 2005, 04:01:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
It has more functionality by being able to play ALL games. Period.
It cannot play a FPS that uses the Remote Controller. It cannot play almost nay Remote Controller game.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 04, 2005, 04:05:41 PM
LOOKS LIKE FUN
Post by: BigJim on October 04, 2005, 04:06:11 PM
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. You pick the right setup for the right game. Removing the *option* would be the ridiculous choice.
Post by: BigJim on October 04, 2005, 04:08:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Shoot someone behind you buy aiming the shell+remote combo over your shoulder. Holding it with 2 traditional hands, of course.
LOOKS LIKE FUN
If your arthritis is that bad, then maybe they just won't make a game that requires that partcular action with the shell.
OPTIONS, folks.
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 04, 2005, 04:41:30 PM
Come on. Do you really believe that?
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 04, 2005, 04:57:35 PM
And yes, the remote provides functionality that did not previously exist on controllers, and that a shell cannot duplicate.
Using the controller as the pointer device is ridiculous. You could do it, but it's much, much more awkward than the remote. Really, I can tell just by looking at it.
Post by: IceCold on October 04, 2005, 06:25:45 PM
QuoteWe KNOW that you thought of that controller. I remember it clearly; it was even on the IGN mockup feature. And any other serious contributer to the forums knows that you thought of that controller as well. But in the last few days, I've read more than a few posts of yours in which you keep repeating that it was YOU who came up with an idea similar to the controller. So, good job, I really mean it - it was a very creative design, and it was close to the NRC, but you don't have to keep shoving it down our throats, OK?
I just want recognition where recognition is due. It's like Nintendo not getting a damn emmy for videogame acheivement.
The truth is, if developers actually try, they can make any game they want fit the controller. It's just those companies that want quick ports without much work that the shell is useful to. If Nintendo modified the controller just a little bit, it could be simple and extremely functional.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 04, 2005, 07:01:18 PM
But the previous "aroma" i was picking up earlier was that a traditional shell was suitable for all games. I'm holding my GC controller with only my right hand, and it seems to make a "meh" light gun, a "meh" chef's knife (like Rev TGS demo), a "meh" lightsaber, and a "meh" general laser-pointer-like device.
What I do like about a shell+remote combo is it gives a broader surface for manipulating a Super Monkey Ball platform, rather than the slim rod/remote. It'd definitely work with just the remote, but i'd rather have my hands around something more like a plane. DOH. I just realized i could tape the remote to something like a DVD case and it'd get the job done nicer. A shell+remote combo as a floating steering wheel comes to mind too. John-Woo-movie gunplay? No thanks.
I'm excited about the future, but I should be playing Buttalion Wars now.
Post by: zakkiel on October 04, 2005, 07:15:18 PM
QuoteA good half of the games implied in the promo simply could not be played with a traditional controller. Trying to play them with the shell really would cause the massive wrist fatigue everyone is worried about. For more traditional point-control applications, yes you could use the analog stick to move the cursor, but I defy anyone to have any fun doing it in an RTS or similar application. You can't use the point control with the shell - there's no way you could make the kind of continuous, intuitive adjustments necessary while gripping something with two hands. Doing anything besides tilting it will feel extremely clunky and ackward.
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
It has more functionality by being able to play ALL games. Period.
Post by: BigJim on October 04, 2005, 08:11:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"It's no more or less awkward than the nunchuck setup."
Come on. Do you really believe that?
In the context of the comment, yes. *Neither* one is difficult.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 05, 2005, 04:20:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteWe KNOW that you thought of that controller. I remember it clearly; it was even on the IGN mockup feature. And any other serious contributer to the forums knows that you thought of that controller as well. But in the last few days, I've read more than a few posts of yours in which you keep repeating that it was YOU who came up with an idea similar to the controller. So, good job, I really mean it - it was a very creative design, and it was close to the NRC, but you don't have to keep shoving it down our throats, OK?
I just want recognition where recognition is due. It's like Nintendo not getting a damn emmy for videogame acheivement.
The truth is, if developers actually try, they can make any game they want fit the controller. It's just those companies that want quick ports without much work that the shell is useful to. If Nintendo modified the controller just a little bit, it could be simple and extremely functional.
Thanks, I appreciate it. Honestly...that's all I wanted.
It was featured on the IGN mockup feature? I can't seem to find it....you have a link?
Quote
A good half of the games implied in the promo simply could not be played with a traditional controller. Trying to play them with the shell really would cause the massive wrist fatigue everyone is worried about.
What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say you should play Gyration or whatever games with a one-piece "classic" controller? No, definitely not. In fact, I remember saying that it would be basically useless to do so.
What I did say was that the shell is needed to play games the NRC can't. However like Ice Cold said, with some creative industrial design, Nintendo could make the REV play all games and it's own special brand of games to come. Honestly, if they used IceCold's idea, then all problems would be fixed.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 05, 2005, 05:34:52 AM
What, One Piece-branded controllers? Are they made out of rubber?
Post by: zakkiel on October 05, 2005, 07:55:56 AM
Quote
What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say you should play Gyration or whatever games with a one-piece "classic" controller? No, definitely not. In fact, I remember saying that it would be basically useless to do so.
Quote
It [the shell] has more functionality by being able to play ALL games. Period.
Quote
Trying to play them with the shell really would cause the massive wrist fatigue everyone is worried about.
Have we cleared up this little misunderstanding?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 05, 2005, 09:49:06 AM
Damn it...by all games, I mean the established genres of today and yesterday. You can play fighters, and the mulitude of N64/Snes games with ease.
However, they should leave NRC type games to the NRC, because it would be stupid if they didn't. I thought this was insanely obvious, but I geuss not.
Post by: wandering on October 05, 2005, 11:23:08 AM
Quote
I just want recognition where recognition is due. It's like Nintendo not getting a damn emmy for videogame acheivement.
I'm sure I speak for everyone one these boards when I say, I tip my hat to you and your design. And I love you.
Now then, I want some recognition for my design, dang it.
Check this out:
Left controller. Right controller.
You may have nailed the dual-wielded, gyration-enabled design, but here's what I got right (with the design I made after yours):
-ONE controller with gyro functionality.
-Gyro controller looking differerent than analog controller.
-The removal of the tradional button layout on the gyro controller in favor of a primary button under the thumb, and a secondary button under the index.
-More triggers in the analog controller than in gyro controller.
-white color scheme.
]I win! I'm the best! bwahahaha!
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 06, 2005, 12:08:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742Remember how Racid Planet came up with the idea for FPS's where you could control the gun as if it were real? Ya, I came up with that idea a while ago yet people praised him.
Because I'm so awesome.
Duder, I remember your defense of the simplicity in design argument. And you were right. But don't get angry at everybody for not recognizing it. We all make comments on these boards. They come from everywhere. For instance, I pull most of mine right out of my ass. But to hope that people will consider you a genius or give you any praise for anything like that is just fruitless and silly.
Trust me, there is only one thing that forum posters really appreciate. And that's...a good poop joke.
--------------------
"Rmember dat poop joke he tolderz that 1 tyme?"
"Yeah day wuz funnie!!11 LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
"We should elect him TEH FORAM KEENG!!!!"
--------------------
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 06, 2005, 07:49:48 AM
It wasn't you afterall, it was Rabicle.
Post by: IceCold on October 06, 2005, 08:04:13 PM
QuoteYeah actually - here it is. Nemo made an "in retrospect" topic about this. Must be interesting reading it again after so long.
It was featured on the IGN mockup feature? I can't seem to find it....you have a link?
