Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on September 28, 2005, 12:00:57 AM
On Tuesday G4 ran an interview with Satoru Iwata, conducted by Geoff Keighley during Tokyo Game Show 2005. The aired interview was severely edited and came across as mostly useless; fortunately G4 has posted a lengthy unedited version on its website. While much of what Iwata discusses about Nintendo DS and Revolution is familiar, he does add a few surprising (and troubling) comments on the Revolution and the company's strategy.
When asked about Revolution's graphical capabilities and High Definition support, Mr. Iwata claims that users will not see a discernable difference between Revolution and Xbox 360/PS3 games on standard definition sets. Although the president does not explicitly reconfirm the omission of HD, Iwata explains that Nintendo feels mainstream appeal is far more important than graphical prowess since current non-gamers have no interest in the visual quality of current games. In fact, he goes as far as to say Nintendo hopes those hardcore enough to care about the graphical differences and buy a PS3 or Xbox360 will also buy a Revolution, since the Revolution will provide unique experiences. A bold statement--one clearly demonstrating a shift in Nintendo's console strategy. Nintendo isn't trying to be number two: it is aiming for the top spot from a different angle--one that is profitable for both Nintendo and its partners.
Iwata also discusses Nintendo's recent interactions with publishers and developers. He explains that western publishers initially were wary of the freestyle controller, but quickly became receptive once Nintendo introduced the nunchaku attachment. Iwata also reveals that Nintendo has approached publishers and developers with gameplay concepts, proposing how their established franchises could benefit from Revolution's controller. The spokesman claims that, "without exception," all third parties have responded positively to such "concrete proposals," and Nintendo has found the meetings constructive and enjoyable. He refused to mention any specific collaborations, but he promised many familiar titles and suggested the Revolution could have a large launch line-up "in 2006."
Finally, the interview touches on The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Iwata apologizes for the delay but insists Nintendo will keep its promise to release the game on the GameCube. However, the president expresses interest in the franchise's possibilities on the Revolution, alluding to the promotional video's sword fighting.
You can access G4's full interview with Satoru Iwata on its TGS 2005 home page.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 01:38:16 AM
Quote
Although the president does not explicitly reconfirm the omission of vital buttons, Iwata explains that Nintendo feels mainstream appeal is far more important than controls since current non-gamers have no interest in gameplay.
Edit: Win!
Post by: Dasmos on September 28, 2005, 01:45:26 AM
Post by: Nephilim on September 28, 2005, 02:51:57 AM
the questions were was too general and easly allowed Iwata to change the subject
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 28, 2005, 03:17:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onixQuote
Although the president does not explicitly reconfirm the omission of vital buttons, Iwata explains that Nintendo feels mainstream appeal is far more important than controls since current non-gamers have no interest in gameplay.
Edit: Win!
Oh ho ho, I get it...Because Nintendo doesn't know what gameplay is, right? Oh wait, that's not the bloody case at all...
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 04:45:59 AM
Quote
This makes me wonder who Nintendo are trying to attract? Non-gamers only or are they trying to cater to everybody.
How does the comment that they are not going for HD support make you think that they aren't going for the hardcore gamers?
All they are saying is that they are going for a much larger market than just the Hardcore gamer, as for HD support who cares? I'm not concerned with the graphics at this point, I want better gameplay, besides its definetly going to be better than GCN level so what more do you need
Post by: mantidor on September 28, 2005, 05:09:35 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 28, 2005, 05:28:27 AM
Nintendo knows that most hardcore gamers are too hardcore for innovation. They have narrowed their tastes over time and wouldn't think you're innovating, they think you "didn't get it". Take Metroid Prime, it's a first person shooter and many claim Nintendo didn't "get it", namely that FPSes should be about accurate targeting and combat. That Metroid Prime is a different type of game doesn't cross their minds.
Post by: denjet78 on September 28, 2005, 06:18:41 AM
*** WARNING ***
This post may contain a certain gamers pent up aggression. Read with caution. And for the love of god, don't flame because you feel personally attacked or that the opinions expressed herein are unacceptable in regards to your own.
*** WARNING ***
Considering that Nintendo wouldn't be able to compete with Sony or MS on equal footing, and let's face it why the hell would they want to, I don't see the whole "second console" thing as anything bad. They're seeing that the PS3 and the XBox 360 are going to be multimedia machines that also (take a good long look at that word as this is the direction console gaming is headed) play video games.
On the other hand, Nintendo is setting themselves up as the "games only" alternative with all sorts of extra little game related dodads and ideas to intregue gamers with. When the market finally does become completely obscured and Sony and MS jump ship from games, considering the small amount of revenue each company is actually making from them, Nintendo will still be there. And if you see a problem with this concept, remember that it worked before. Just because PCs played games that didn't stop consoles from appearing and becoming far more popular.
I see this as more of a buffer than anything else. Sony and MS are forcing the market in a certain direction. In order for Nintendo to survive, and games overall, they have to differentiate themselves from the competition so much so that they're seen as a completely different market. There's no other way to do it other than to become a multimedia giant as well and pull console gaming even further out of focus at which point I will stop playing games all together.
As for approaching developers with new game concepts, this is a great thing. In fact, I'd say that if they weren't doing this they'd be in a heap load of trouble. I'm just hoping that they're only spreading new gameplay ideas, and not just franchises, around. This generation with farming out franchises was an interesting idea, but it brought almost zero return. After the Sonic adventure titles, did any Sega game remain exclusive to the GC? Namco basically pulled the same thing. And we ALL know about the whole Capcom debacle.
And I'm sick to DEATH of the whole argument about graphics and hi-def, of which you don't need EITHER to make a great game. If you want to make that the whole crux of your argument against Nintendo, then you're better off getting a PS3 or an XBox 360 as chances are, you'd never be willing to give a great new gaming idea a chance anyway because it didn't fit into you narrow minded perceptions of what a game "should" be.
Oh, I'm sorry... I meant to say what Sony and MS TOLD you a game "should" be and you believed them because hey, they've got that kickin' rad ad campain and Nintendo's for the I LOVE HALO 2s right?
GOD DAMN RETARDED HILLBILLY..... URGH!@
Calm... calm....
Anyway, there's nothing "troubling" here. This is what most Nintendo gamers have been thinking Nintendo was going to have to do sooner or later anyway. As is, I'm a bit upset that they put DVD playback in the Rev anyway. I don't NEED another DVD player. I already have 2... and I only have 1 TV, which is not hi-def because that crap is still WAAAAAAY too expensive.
Edit:
Wow... I didn't know there were word filters on this forum.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 28, 2005, 06:43:17 AM
....the DVD attechemt in optional
Post by: trip1eX on September 28, 2005, 06:53:45 AM
I think this is for the hardcore.
Post by: mantidor on September 28, 2005, 06:54:35 AM
DVDs are so mainstream now that it actually makes sense to put the add-on functionality,while going with blue-ray, although understandable because sony is behind the format, is a huge risk. For start ps3 will bomb around here in latinamerica because its near impossible to pirate blue-ray disks, since you know, theres hardly even blue-ray players to begin with.
It will be interesting that I finally will be able to prove that piracy around third world countries like mine does indeed has a big impact in the overall success of a console. I see the ps3 failing overall unless they manage to get blue ray mainstream, HD TVs cheaper and the ps3 under 300, which none will happen.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 07:04:32 AM
So if Sony sells 50 million PS3s and Microsoft sells 40 million 360s, then nintendo sells 30 million Revolutions to PS3 owners and and 20 million Revolutions to 360 owners, not mention 10 million Revolutions to people who don't own either console, who sells the most consoles?*
*all numbers are arbitrary Ian.
Post by: Bloodworth on September 28, 2005, 07:10:40 AM
Quote
Considering that Nintendo wouldn't be able to compete with Sony or MS on equal footing
You know, I don't think it's a matter of not being able to compete; I think it's a lack of willingness. MS jumped in, copied what was popular among the hardcore, and grabbed a huge market. Nintendo on the other hand is never satisfied with just copying another company's gameplay model, they constantly experiment with new hardware gadgets, rarely sacrifice profits, and seem more concerned with the quality and innovation of their games than popularity.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 07:44:33 AM
Most people buy only one console. So if Nintendo is saying ahead of time that buying the Rev alone won't suit a hardcore gamer's needs then for most there's no point in owning a Rev. If you're only going to buy one Nintendo is not even an option.
Iwata basically just told me not to buy a Rev. I'm not cool with the controller but I'm open to the possibility that Nintendo could win me over with some killer games. But if they're not even going to try to improve things then I'm not going to bother. The possibility of Nintendo improving things is what has allowed me to put up with sh!tty third party support, and waiting months between games, and having weak rental selections. I don't like dealing with the BS that comes with owning the last place console. So if Nintendo isn't going to even try why should I bother? Why not just wait until a year later when the Rev is in the clearence bin and I can get all the games in one big blob for next to nothing? I knew the Cube wasn't going to be number one overnight but I felt it had potential to fix a lot of the problems of the N64 era so I was going to give it a chance. If the Rev is a secondary console then the problems of the Cube won't be fixed and I'm not buying two consoles because Nintendo can't get their act together.
Plus having a secondary console will KILL multiplatform third party sales and that will really damage third party interest. Multiplatform games only work if people buy the console as their only console. EA makes Madden for the market leader and then ports over. The Rev will not get the best version of Madden but if the Rev is the only console the userbase owns they'll get it anyway because they can't get the better PS3 version. But if Nintendo encourages the userbase to also own a PS3 then the option of the better version is there and the Rev version will sell much worse. Ever notice how third party sales dropped like a rock after Nintendo cut the Cube price and it became somewhat of a defacto secondary console? This is why.
I'm not so keen on Nintendo approaching developers with ideas either. Nintendo is probably the best developer in the world but they're not perfect. There are certain types of games they just aren't good at. Plus Nintendo has the idea that in order for a console to be for everybody every game has to be suitable for everybody and as a result their lineup has little variety. I like third party games because they're not Nintendo games. They're different and sometimes you want different. If Nintendo has a lot of input in what games third parties make then the "everybody" approach is going to have influence and it may result in a very homogenous lineup. It's like how Nintendo got third parties like Camelot, Treasure, Namco & Sega on board and then had them make games that were no different than Nintendo first party stuff and the unique talents those third parties bring to the table weren't used. Plus if you have to suggest ideas to third parties then your innovative concept probably isn't all that great.
These comments, in my opinion, highly suggest that non-gamers are clearly the target demographic for the Rev and traditional gamers are an afterthought. Why else would Iwata actually suggest the idea of buying a competing console if you're a hardcore gamer?
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 07:51:33 AM
Post by: mantidor on September 28, 2005, 08:28:28 AM
I really, really, really doubt Nintendo will give a bad suggestion to a third party about how to use the controller. Third parties like Camelot, Treasure, Namco & Sega made "Nintendo" games because thats what the franchises they used were, I highly doubt Nintendo wouldve tell Capcom to add turtles in a RE game for instance. Having Nintendo suggesting ideas is nothing but a good thing.
"Plus Nintendo has the idea that in order for a console to be for everybody every game has to be suitable for everybody and as a result their lineup has little variety."
E games range from Zelda to Animal Crossing and Pikmin. I dont know how could it be posible to have more variety than that.
And to finish, Ive find out that the "hardcore" and "casual" label are so loosely defined that they can end up meaning completly opposite things. Ive read both of these comments in forums around the interweb an both made total sense giving the context of the discussion:
"The Rev will alineate hardcore gamers for being so different, casual players will love it for its simplicity"
"The Rev will alineate casual gamers since they cant play Madden on it, hardcore gamers will give it a chance though for offering such interesting and new gameplay elements"
So if you pay close attention, in the interview Iwata seems to refer to "hardcore" gamers as graphic whores who want their HD gaming.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 08:28:53 AM
Post by: RABicle on September 28, 2005, 08:33:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH SAME OLD DOGMA RINSED
Rite tahts it im baning u
Post by: NRevolutionR on September 28, 2005, 08:35:49 AM
breath
breath
breath
................................................
MAN, ALL OF YOU FUNKERS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ!!!!! or Ill go
on you.It clearly states that Nintendo is indeed going after number one.
Come on Lan, sometimes you are justified, but mostly you are just playing the SHAT out of your character.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 28, 2005, 08:36:59 AM
This is so stupid...Do you think maybe the devs would not use the ideas if they felt they didn't work? I mean seriously...It's like "OMG EVERYTHING WILL GO AS I SAY IN IAN LAND!"
These comments, in my opinion, highly suggest that non-gamers are clearly the target demographic for the Rev and traditional gamers are an afterthought.
Yeah, even though Iwata and Miyamoto has said MANY times that they balanced the design of the Rev controller so it will attract new gamers as well as please traditional gamers...It doesn't please you? Sorry, Ian, but you don't qualify as a gamer...
Why else would Iwata actually suggest the idea of buying a competing console if you're a hardcore gamer?
Where were you when it was revealed that the Revolution is about playing games a new way? You won't be buying a Revolution solely for ports that can be found on the other consoles, right? If you do, then why buy a Nintendo system in the first place!?
And I LOVE how you haven't detailed exactly how Ninty would benefit from following the same ****ing gameplan as Sony and Microsoft...Why? Because you CAN'T, plain and simple...
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 08:45:02 AM
Only if the Rev version is the best version. That relies on third parties actually making use of the Rev's features and not just making a PS3 game and then going a cheap and dirty port. There's kind of catch 22 there. Third parties usually use the market leader as the "base" console and then port from there. However the Rev needs to be the base console in order to be the market leader. So Nintendo has to get third parties to break the "rule" and give them special treatment for their ports. That's going to be really hard to do.
Plus the Rev version has to be perceived as better and not just be different. The Madden games supposedly had exclusive connectivity content on the Cube. But the PS2 had online play. It was an "either or" situation and most thought that online play was better. So the Rev way of playing the game has to be seen as better and not just a different way to play. But that's important for the Rev's success period because of the controller. The remote has to be seen as better than the traditional controller or it will just be different and have no real advantage.
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 08:50:59 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 09:01:00 AM
Just because they say it doesn't mean that they WILL. For the first few years of the Cube's life Nintendo always made vague promises about revealing their online plans too but they never happened. They've promised to target mature gamers and to improve third party relations as well and in opinion they haven't delivered on those. I need more proof than Nintendo's say-so.
"And I LOVE how you haven't detailed exactly how Ninty would benefit from following the same ****ing gameplan as Sony and Microsoft...Why? Because you CAN'T, plain and simple..."
I HAVE. You just don't accept what my arguement is. I think that Nintendo's greatest problem is that they themselves screw themselves over with all sorts of stupid little mistakes and oversights as well as horrible marketing. If they stopped handcuffing themselves all the time and allowed themselves to be on even ground with Sony and MS they would do MUCH better. MS pulled ahead of Nintendo by merely being competent. They did nothing exceptional, they just didn't screw up as much as Nintendo did. When Nintendo releases a normal console and seemingly does everything right and still can't get it done then I'd say it's time to try something out of left field. But they have NEVER put up a decent fight against Sony. They've always shown up for the fight with their hands tied behind their back.
They're going to compete no matter what bullsh!t they spin up to think that they're not. It doesn't matter what they do. The fight's coming to them and running away from it, like they're doing with the Rev, isn't going to save them from it.
How about for once you give me your reason why the Cube is in last place? What proof is there that the only way for Nintendo to compete is to go off on a tangent aside from Iwata saying so?
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 09:09:32 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 09:10:15 AM
Nintendo ideally should provide a platform where third parties can do whatever they want good or bad and Nintendo themselves can excel and innovate at the same time. To do that they have to be flexible but not too weird. The NES and SNES were ideal for this because both third parties and Nintendo could do whatever they wanted, or at least what they could with the technology available at the time or in comparison to the competition. The N64 didn't follow that design. It allowed Nintendo to make what they wanted but not third parties and that's why all the third parties left. I think the Rev runs the risk of falling into the "too weird" category where Nintendo can make whatever they want but third parties can't.
Neither group should follow the other. It should be a partnership where they feed and learn off each other.
Post by: denjet78 on September 28, 2005, 09:14:23 AM
From what I've seen, most people seem to think you're a troll or something of the like. However, I find you to be very interesting. You balance out all the "Nintendo" rhetoric as it were with some pessemism.
From the standpoint of discussion, that is required or else all you have is a Nintendo cheerleading site who are only all too willing to live within their own dilusions. That's why I like Nintendo gamers and Nintendo sites. Often you will find people willing to question their console of choice as well as the company behind that. I don't think I've seen that on any competing console sites. The fact that people were enraged over Wind Waker's makeover, that people are afraid and hesitent of the new controller. People need to question.
However, there is also the idea of evolution. One must evolve to survive. If Nintendo were to remain as they are, they will surely perish. Each succeeding generation has seen a drop in their market share. At this rate they'd be lucky to sell 10 million consoles next generation. But this isn't the same Nintendo. They're trying to reinvent themselves.
Nintendo isn't IN the same market as Sony and MS anymore. This controller all but removes them. Which is why I think it would be a VERY bad idea to pack-in the "traditional" (god I hate that word) controller shell in the box. Give people the option and then let THEM make up their own minds. It's so very sad how many people are afraid of change that they will stick to what they understand and attack anything that they don't blindly. At least TRY it first before you condemn it.
Do I think Nintendo is going down the right road? I couldn't tell you. In the end we won't know until it's all over. I can see them surviving and maybe even selling a few more consoles than the GC but I don't see them retaking the industry any time soon. Sony and MS have ensured that only THEY can produce what they've told gamers they need.
I've brought up the idea that Sony and MS were only in the industry as a way of sneaking hardware into peoples livingrooms and that as soon as they're deeply enough entrenched that they'd drop gaming like a hot potatoe and do you know what I received? Flaming, hatred, and out and out banning because my ideas didn't mesh with everyone elses. It's almost as if gamers are TERRIFIED to question Sony and MS.
And I really don't understand why that is as neither one could make a good game to save their lives (and I don't count companies that they buy as that's just as bad as EA and if anyone other than Sony and MS are going to bring this industry down, it's going to be them).
I would actually like to have an indepth conversation with you over email or some other medium as here, it's far too open and people can invade and attack. There's a certain phrase that I heard once and really liked:
A person is smart. People are stupid.
Anyway, I couldn't find any way of contacting you here so here's my email:
denjet78@hotmail.com
If you'd like to chat, drop me a line. If not, I'm sure we'll still end up having some lively debates on this board.
Post by: Mario on September 28, 2005, 09:19:13 AM
Quote
Nintendo ideally should provide a platform where third parties can do whatever they want good or bad and Nintendo themselves can excel and innovate at the same time.
That's exactly what Revolution is. Thank you! You have done a complete 360.
Quote
The fight's coming to them and running away from it, like they're doing with the Rev, isn't going to save them from it.
Sony and MS are using swords, Nintendo has a wooden tree branch. It's not wise to stubbornly keep fighting, instead they run off and grab a shotgun, which does two things, it defeats them, and makes their weapons look terribly outdated. There's still the option of hitting them in the head with the gun too!
Post by: vudu on September 28, 2005, 09:22:02 AM
QuoteI don't think any of us think Ian's a troll. We all know he's a very big Nintendo fan who is generally concerned about the direction the company is heading. However, that doesn't mean that we don't occasionally get tired of his constant negativity.
From what I've seen, most people seem to think you're a troll or something of the like.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 28, 2005, 09:22:35 AM
Just because YOU say they won't doesn't mean they actually WON'T...It works both ways...
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 09:29:18 AM
Third parties can't do whatever they want if the PS3 and X360 gives them eight buttons and Nintendo gives them two. I think we have to know more details before we declare that kind of flexibility. Is Nintendo including the analog stick attachment with every controller? What about the shell? What does the shell even look like? From what we KNOW the Rev controller is, I don't think the flexibility is there. The remote by itself isn't accomodating enough. We need to know exactly what is being shipped with every Rev.
Plus we haven't even seen the specs yet. Hardware can affect things like framerate, AI, and how many characters are on screen at once. The specs will play a big role in how flexible the Rev is.
We've seen what the Rev does differently but not what it does the same. It's important that it can also do what the competition can.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 09:37:22 AM
Post by: vudu on September 28, 2005, 09:39:30 AM
Quote
op·ti·mist
n.
1. One who usually expects a favorable outcome
2. Bill Aurion
Quote
pes'si·mist
n.
1. A person who expects the worst
2. Ian Sane
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 09:40:07 AM
Fair enough. It's a trust issue. Nintendo has broken promises enough times that in situations where I'm skeptical their word isn't good enough to me anymore. So if I'm concerned about this non-gamer focus "Nintendo said it's cool" isn't enough to convince me.
If they do prove me wrong though I'll be a lot more trusting next time something like this comes up.
Post by: OptimusPrime on September 28, 2005, 10:06:54 AM
Let's go back in the past. the 80's, the gameindustry crashed thanks to Atari's pooping crapgames, it was announced DEAD. Nintendo (then still toycompany that also made arcade games) made the NES. The NES actually had a huge innovation value (maybe higher then the Revolution) and was a huge risk for Nintendo. But it defined gaming up to this day and would be the first step to a industry rebirthing from its ashes. Why did third parties loved the NES, not because they could make whatever they want, it was the standard and it was the only one out there.
in the next 3 generations new additions would be made to the to the old standard.
It is in Nintendo's nature to reinvent itself and to reinvent the way we play games, sometimes they do a very crappy job off it, most of the times they don't.
You have to look to the gamemarket as a fishingpool. Sony and Microsoft are so focused on that pool, always extending their fishingrods and making them bigger, faster and whatever while Nintendo is looking at a way to break the dam that separates that fishing pool with another, bigger pool just next ot it. Nintendo invented the fishingrod Sony and Microsoft are reusing over and over again but the rod is not enough to break the dam so they needed to invent something else that can break it. The problem is, the other pool has different kinds of fish in it then the gamingpool that trough generations past has accomstumized itself to always take the same bait (however there are also quite some smart fish that like something fresh). So not only do you need to break the dam, you need to have something that can catch those new fishes (they don't like those huge intimidating flashy overkill baits, scares them off like hell).
Nintendo could have made something that not only can break the dam but also catch the those new fish while making their new invention FLEXIBLE enough they can ADD stuff that will also appeal to the gamingfish. This is (very metaphorical) my interpertation of what Iwata actually said in that interview. They wanna catch as many fish as possible and they have the flexibility to do it.
Nintendo offering ideas to third parties i can only encourage, making deals that the rev-port of game x (lets say EA Baseball 200X) actually uses the remote in a good way (maybe they learned from the DS) i can only encourage, also explains why there are so few Rev-games announed, everyone is still under some sort of NDA not to show gameideas in action.
Iwata hoping that X360 and PS3 fans will buy the Revolution as a second console is a good thing just because i want to see those die-hards reactions so we know who are actually gamers. Hoping they can open up to some truly new stuff.
The problem offcourse: risk, this is a huge risk that can easily blow up in their faces if they don't get everything right. Nintendo can't compete with Microsoft or Sony because it doesn't have 10-15 billion dollars ready to waste on a product that will never run a profit (you can compare Xbox with Chelsea actually, they really bought their position). The problem also is that we don't know everything, we're far from it. We need to see games, announcements, releaselists, third parties really talking freely without some NDA sticking out of their ass ready to blow their guts if they move wrong, techsheets for those interested. We know truly to little to actually make a full-blown comment on the Revolution and that starts to eat at some people's guts (unconscience offcourse).
Nintendo is on the verge of reinventing itself and is trying to reinvent or atleast expand the gamingindustry. That's always a huge risk and they deserve huge credit for that alone. Now we have to wait and observe and try to puzzle everything togheter untill we have to complete picture and then we can really squable about it. Problem is, Nintendo is the only who can feed us those puzzlepieces... teasing bastards...
Is Nintendo being a bit stubborn, yes, with the N64 and GC (a bit less then the N64) they did but did but did not add enough flexibility for the third party. This time it looks they are going to be stubborn but in a good way (lots of flexibility). But we don't know whats under all those NDA's ,we don't know whats Nintendo is cooking, we don't know sooooo much that can be soooo determing in a way we're not allowed to discuss it, only observe and wait for the time when we can discuss.
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 10:13:53 AM
He wasn't saying that Nintendo isn't going to try and be number 1, instead trying to be everyone's second console....
He was pointing out why differentiation is good...
I think what he meant is more along the lines of "If Sony or MS still manage to sell more units than us, I think we will still be in a good position to sell to people as a second console."
He's not conceding, rather pointing out how differentiation can be both a Plan A and a Plan B.
Post by: King of Twitch on September 28, 2005, 10:14:34 AM
-Not bloody likely.
Nintendo has approached publishers and developers with gameplay concepts, proposing how their established franchises could benefit from Revolution's controller.
-This is a great step, but I hope that 'their' refers to the third parties' franchises, and not just on Fzero or Star Fox
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 10:27:03 AM
Anyway, as usual, it's comical to read Ians posts. It could be a robot for all we know. IAN ISN'T REAL!
But anyway... for all of those who freak out soooo much about third party support and whether or not Nintendo will be number 1... don't you ever consider buying a second console? If you do.. then why do you care?
If you don't, why don't you? Expense? That's understandable given the upcoming generation... but you don't have to buy a 360 or ps3 on launch. I guarantee their price drop will come quickly if nintendo comes in at 200 as most expect.
Nintendo doesn't have to be number 1 in order for you all to validate your lives. the GCN era of games has been my favorite yet.... yet Ian will tell you its the worst yet... maybe you all need to adjust your thinking a bit.
Post by: Renny on September 28, 2005, 10:37:40 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 10:51:54 AM
I read it as the third parties' franchises.
"If you don't, why don't you? Expense?"
Pretty much yeah. Aside from the console cost you have to buy more controllers, memory cards and accessories too. Personally I think it would eat up a whole lot of time as well. I try to keep up with Nintendo news. I just sort of glance at the news for the other consoles. Trying to keep up with two consoles would take a lot more of my time. I want Nintendo to have more variety but if I owned every console and had access to every game it would probably be too much and I would seriously hurt my bank account.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on September 28, 2005, 10:58:24 AM
Quote
This is a great step, but I hope that 'their' refers to the third parties' franchises, and not just on Fzero or Star Fox
Yes, "their franchises" = third party franchises. I didn't think I was being ambiguous when I used that pronoun, but you could have watched the interview to clarify your confusion.
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 11:04:20 AM
If part of the reason you don't want another console is because you think it will be too much on both you and your wallet.... what happens if every third part game is released for a Nintendo system.. don't you have the same problem?
It sounds like you are asking that Nintendo court exactly the right amount of third parties, etc. to make you happy, and if they got too many, you would resume your complaining.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 11:09:08 AM
Quote
From what I've seen, most people seem to think you're a troll or something of the like
I don't think anyone thinks of Ian as a troll, just as the guy who will always tries to rain on your parade. I mean I don't think in the years I've posted on this board I've ever heard a positive comment from him, he's the Eyore of the PGC forums (you know, the donkey from Winnie the pooh) .
Ian have you forgotten that the Rev not only has ports for the wavebird/gcn controller, nintendo has also stated thea they are working on a shell for the controller to mimic a traditional controller, not only that the Rev will have wi-fi capabilities and BW compatibility...where's the complaint?
yes they said that they are expecting the rev to be system two for many, but there are reasons for that:
1)It'll be the last to launch
2)Its definetly different from the other systems and that may scare away devs and hardcore gamers
3)It'll lack the graphics power of the other two systems
4)It's price makes it a great 2nd system choice, because once you've blown $400+ on the PS3 or 360, you probably won't want to do it again on the other one, but a $200 or so system will look very attractive.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 28, 2005, 11:27:02 AM
Nintendo says they're going after hardcore gamers- Ian, "La la la, blah blah blah." Nintendo says they're going after non-gamers- Ian, "Nintendo doesn't care about me Nintendo are doomed!"
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 11:27:21 AM
In a sense, that will be true... But it is very likely that the Rev games will look just as pretty, if not more so, as the other systems on a standard def set. Higher resolutions require more processing power... Standard Def gamers will not benefit from most of the added power Sony or MS may have.
By not supporting these ultra high resolutions, Nintendo can achieve the same standard def performance with cheaper hardware.
The only way this will be untrue is if you see XBox developers upping framerates, polygon counts, etc. based on if the game is not being displayed at the high resolution, which most likely will not happen.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 11:37:54 AM
Nintendo would never get that though. They didn't even have all of the great games during the NES days. So it's unrealistic. I wouldn't complain if Nintendo had too much variety. I'm just saying I don't want to have to keep up with two consoles. If Nintendo got third party support back to a really high level I would have to intentionally limit myself which would be a little annoying but it would be worth it. It's paying attention to two consoles that would bother me the most. I know I would neglect one.
If you have more than one console and you don't want to spend too much money you're probably going to stick with the really big releases and miss most of the "second tier" stuff. Guys who own the Cube as a secondary console get stuff like Mario, Metroid and Zelda and then miss out on stuff like Pikmin because their attention is spread too thin. I personally would prefer to own one console and dedicate my attention to that. So that one console has to provide enough variety on it's own to suit my needs.
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 11:44:45 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 11:47:25 AM
It could turn out to have a very wide variety of games, not to mention games not found anywhere else.
Post by: Pale on September 28, 2005, 11:50:44 AM
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 12:03:26 PM
There is no perfect selection of games for any system! Period. If you'd rather GTA than Zelda, why do you own a GCN? If you want both, well, you can't have it. You can blame Nintendo (though I'm not sure throwing money at developers is something we should want more of) but why not blame Sony and Microsoft? Do Sony and MS have better third party? Yes. But they have weaker first party. MS has Halo but not Metroid. Nintendo doesn't have Rockstar but Sony doesn't have Nintendo. Essentially, Ian, you're mad because Nintendo isn't going third party. You want to play Nintendo games on a Sony system. Which is therefore Nintendo's fault. Nevermind Nintendo has always been the most consumer friendly system. Sony and MS may sell more systems, but they're doing it on the basis of all the world's developers and a few exclusives. Nintendo sells 18 million systems almost entirely for their games.
Basically, Ian, you want Nintendo to do what no one else has ever done: have every single good game. It's impossible. You say you want such-and-such a game but the problem is you cannot go out and buy a Playstation because then you'll be missing such-and-such a game. You just choose to blame Nintendo because you're a Nintendo fan. Which comes down to the fact that your opinion carries little value, as it's impossible to appease and solely focused on Nintendo because you want their games more than Final Fantasy, etc.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 12:09:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
does the z button in the GC controller count as vital button for ruby? just wondering... because theres a D pad, an analog stick and four buttons accesible with this configuration, why would you need more knowing what the remote does?
Like KDR mentioned, I was joking, but it was dark humor, because Nintendo is making it too easy.
Let's face it, the Revolution controller has one button and a trigger. Those lower two buttons are clearly designed to replace the button and trigger if you're holding the controller sideways. And I won't get into the "shell" or "skin", because Iwata won't even confirm it's existence, let alone it being packed in for free, and because it's a "fix", and you're not allowed to point to a fix without first acknowledging the problem.
Heck, Iwata just said that he brought the Rev controller around to third parties in the West, and they were NOT impressed. Not until they made and showed off the analong nunchuck.
Let's look at a theoretical Metroid Prime Revolution as an example. The analog on the nunchuck controls movement. The Rev controller allows you to aim at anything onscreen, and blast it with the trigger. Okay, that is freaking amazing. The win button can let you jump. The D-pad can be for beam-switching or visor-switching (but not both). One of the nunchuck's triggers can let you look around freely, and the other one (what is it with Nintendo and offering dual triggers on one hand, and single on the other?) can be for the map.
Okay, that all seems fine and good. Now where are your missiles? Where is your morph ball? Sorry, you can't have those. The controller is maxed out. "Jump" and "shoot". That's all you'll ever get out of a two-button controller.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 28, 2005, 12:11:14 PM
The question was about graphics and HD support. Iwata answers by explaining that the Revolution will be comparable to the other systems when played on regular tvs. What this tells me is that yes the revolution's hardware will not be as powerful as the next systems, but it won't be drastically underpowered. Instead, the games will look the same on regular televisions, because the Revolution won't be wasting processing power on HD rendering.
Now, Iwata continues answering the question and states that he understands SOME hardcore gamers (not all hardcore gamers) will be strict on the HD graphics support and will buy Xbox 360 or PS3 for that support alone. For those gamers Nintendo is still confidently positioning this system to be a unique second system with a new experience for gaming. Period.
He isn't saying that Nintendo isn't targeting hardcore gamers. He is saying Nintendo believes HD support isn't the end all solution, and hopefully gamers that believe that will still buy Nintendo revolution for its unique experience. Sounds like a GOOD strategy to me, not a bad one.
To further support this reasoning I present to you the idea that Nintendo is going around to developers showing them ideas on how to make their games work with the Revolution. Nintendo is helping 3rd parties get quality game design of existing franchises aka mainstream popular games. Assumption here but Nintendo is probably working with EA to design a good Madden football. They are planting ideas for a Revolution SSX. They are talking to Free Radical about First Person Shooter ideas. They are talking to Capcom about Viewtful Joe, or Devil May Cry. They are talking to Sega about Sonic, and more. That tells me Nintendo CARES about the hardcore gamer and is fighting tooth and nail for the hardcore gamer as well as appealing to a new market of gamers.
The comment on the buttons was interesting. I think Iwata is telling people that he understands it is radically different change, and Nintendo is going to work to present gamers with a new experience and respect the classic gaming at the same time. I personally expect the Revolution to have 4 buttons on the bottom like a SNES controller or DS. Just wait...it will be in the final design.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 12:18:59 PM
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 12:20:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
hey Ruby, if you can't do MorphBall and Missles, how did they do it for the Prime2 Rev controller demo?
Shhhhh...pay no attention to the truth behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful Wizard of Igorance!
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 12:22:13 PM
I have never said I wanted that. I ask for Nintendo to make more of an effort to resemble the Nintendo that made me a fan. The Nintendo that was not just a brilliant game developer but was also a competent console maker that had tons of variety and third party support to spare. There was a time when Nintendo consoles didn't have whole genres represented by only one or two games. There was a time where if one exclusive got ported or the Nintendo console missed out on a game it didn't matter because it was the exception instead of the rule. If I liked Sony and MS I wouldn't be here.
Artimus stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what I think.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 12:24:02 PM
Quote
One of the nunchuck's triggers can let you look around freely
Why do you need this? The controller itself allows you to look around freely already.
Post by: WuTangTurtle on September 28, 2005, 12:29:12 PM
As for Ian's personality I side with him too. I think too many people are sheep to their system of choice. I think what everyone needs to do is take a course in Critical Thinking. Everytime you listen to a keynote speech or interview you have to realize that people state things that almost never have any factual backing or even logic sometimes.
And just to throw out some opinions, if Nintendo would attempt to have the same gameplan as SONY or MICROSOFT it just wouldn't work. The market has proved time and time again that the market isn't big enough for 3 Companies. However Nintendo is an exception because of 2 things, they own the handheld market, and second they differentiate themselves enough to coexist. Think about each of the bit eras, you have colecovision, TurboGrafx, Jaguar, Saturn, and Dreamcast all failing to come into the market and compete with 2 or more other consoles. Each attempted to be the new graphical power house and be the next gen system of sorts and each failed because they were not superior enough to be valid.
Nintendo has a whole different style and although it is a niche market it is a valid enough market because they are not in directly competing for the same demographic. For example Microsoft and Sony are after the Mature market, leaving people that don't necessarily care about FPS, racing, and Fighting games to Nintendo.
What Nintendo is doing for Rev will only widen their demographic and not Sony's and Microsoft's demographic. All a matter of opinion though
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 12:34:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShaolinKilla
I agree with Ian.
And just to throw out some opinions, if Nintendo would attempt to have the same gameplan as SONY or MICROSOFT it just wouldn't work. The market has proved time and time again that the market isn't big enough for 3 Companies.
Contradictory...
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 12:35:49 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 12:41:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
hey Ruby, if you can't do MorphBall and Missles, how did they do it for the Prime2 Rev controller demo?
Shhhhh...pay no attention to the truth behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful Wizard of Igorance!
I don't know how they did it. I wasn't at TGS. I never got a chance to play it.
Most impressions I've seen said they entirely threw out the standard Metroid Prime controls, and replaced it with a setup more akin to the craptacular Metroid Prime Hunters. I don't know if full functionality was even achieved.
IGN has a speculation piece for some MP Revolution controls that seems to omit the map screen, and maps things like morphballs and missles to making "stabbing motions" with the controller, and other "reserved" gestures. At which point, they might as well just go with voice recognition. "Morph ball. No, I said morph ball. MORPH ball. Morph BALL. C'mon dammit, gimme my morph ball already!" Yeah, that'll work just awesome.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 12:43:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Why do you need this? The controller itself allows you to look around freely already.
Because I was suggesting a control scheme that was actually based on Metroid Prime's controls, so people could more easily realize what's missing.
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 01:01:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The humorous thing is that Ian is asking Nintendo to be Sony and MS"
I have never said I wanted that. I ask for Nintendo to make more of an effort to resemble the Nintendo that made me a fan. The Nintendo that was not just a brilliant game developer but was also a competent console maker that had tons of variety and third party support to spare. There was a time when Nintendo consoles didn't have whole genres represented by only one or two games. There was a time where if one exclusive got ported or the Nintendo console missed out on a game it didn't matter because it was the exception instead of the rule. If I liked Sony and MS I wouldn't be here.
Artimus stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what I think.
The writing is right there on the wall, I'm just reading it.
You tend to mean well but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both Nintendo and the NES/SNES generation. Nintendo has never been a great business company, they've been a great product company. The number of great first party games made for the Gamecube, if we consider increased production requirements now, is on par with the SNES. You say whole genres weren't represented by one or two games, but there are facts you are ignoring:
1. Wrong. A lot of genres WERE owned by one or two games. Platforming was almost entirely Mario World and DKC. RPGs were Final Fantasy II and III. Racing was Mario Kart. These games defined the entire genres they were part of. There were other well known games, but there are today too. Look across the systems and compare how many worthwhile games come out in genres each year. Not that many. And pretty much no systems gets them all. Nintendo is weak on FPSs, but it does have TimeSplitters. Microsoft is weak on RPGs and platformers. Sony have the msot balanced lineup but nothing they have compares to Wind Waker. Who can match Metroid Prime? AKA the highest rated game of the generation. Put that with Resident Evil 4.
In the SNES and NES games Nintendo had no competition! The were on top. SEGA was like MS now: doing good but never able to actually win this generation. They had the most systems from the start, so third parties defaulted to them. The Gamecube is as good in our time as the SNES was in its, as far as system design/architecture goes. You blame Nintendo for cartridges, but look at it from their reasoning. Did they do it because they were cheaper? Nope! Why? Because load times hurt the gaming experience. The only thing you can do with a CD you can't with a cartridge is FMV. And ask any Xenogears player how much FMVs improve a game. The SNES RPGs prove that FFVII's FMVs are sparkling innovations, not really improving the game. But Sony pulled out all the stops and won. Nevermind they introduced a (two-generation) world of load times. Nevermind their system actually had less power. Nintendo's only mistake was believing too strongly that people would just follow, versus trying to lead them. They clearly aren't doing that again, they're trying to lead them.
You can say Nintendo is different, but it just isn't true. They never had to get third party support until the N64. So they didn't even know how! And this time they tried and they got great exclusives but missed some generals. You can argue against the disc size, and maybe that was a mistake. But would you rather fifty FMVs or no load times?
In truth, the only argument isn't that Nintendo is wrong, but that thye're not enough like Sony and Microsoft. But Nintendo does not want to be like them. Plain and simple. You can dislike that but that is what they want. You don't own them, they don't make games just for you. You forget they are people who only get one life. Why should they spend it working on things if it doesn't appeal to them? To save you 300 bucks? Ridiculous. It's amazing that Nintendo is one of the only companies in the world that focuses on making a profit how it wants, versus as much money as possible any way it can. Nintendo has always made a profit, but when's the last time you heard their developers say they made a game as quick and cheap as possible? I bet you could find a few people at EA who might say that.
Ian, you literally have no ground. Because Nintendo is sick and tired of complex controls meaning intelligent game design. Having fifty buttons isn't going to make playing Madden anymore fun or immersive. If anything the current controller designs allow for autonomous game design. Just add more buttons. Just make more presses. The entire point of video games is to immerse you, to let you be something you aren't. Buttons are not the ideal way to do that, says Nintendo. And honestly, it's kind of true. Pressing a button hardly makes you feel like you're really killing Ganon.
If you don't like what Nintendo is doing, fine. But that does not mean they are wrong. That does not meaning they cannot improve the immersive game experience. You want this generation, essentially. Nintendo doesn't. Fine. But don't go off on your high horse of hindsight syaing it's a mistake that will doom them. They're tired of buttons, they're tired of this faux-game experience. They want games to be more immersive, more fun, more intuitive in THEIR way. What right do you have to tell someone their definition of that is wrong? None. You might disagree when I say apples are better than oranges, but you have no right to say I'm wrong. Your definitions differ, but if they're wrong then maybe you are too.
Nintendo is tired oft his status quo. It doesn't work for them business wise or creativity wise. And they feel the risk is worth the possible creative gold mind it could end up as. I'm sorry that doesn't mesh with your vision of the right way, but so what? You can still buy the other systems. And no, maybe you can't get Nintendo games on them, but if that's the problem with them my previous post is 100% correct.
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 01:03:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onixQuote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Why do you need this? The controller itself allows you to look around freely already.
Because I was suggesting a control scheme that was actually based on Metroid Prime's controls, so people could more easily realize what's missing.
Why do they need to base it on MP? OPEN YOUR MIND.
Goodness, people really are anti-progress.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 01:19:33 PM
Reggie lied to us.
Post by: stevey on September 28, 2005, 01:40:49 PM
what rule? you just make up bull sh!t just so you dont have to learn how to play again. (Ian in 80's) what tv game! no! I know how to play radio game I dont want to learn how to play with a tv and no one going to buy it! they going to want hd radio game! microsony going to kill the with there walkman 360.
Post by: The Omen on September 28, 2005, 01:46:04 PM
Quote
The humorous thing is that Ian is asking Nintendo to be Sony and MS, but they don't have any of Nintendo's franchises.
And that has worked out great, hasn't it? I think what Ian is saying is Nintendo needs to steal MS and Sonys userbase by competing directly. And I agree.
Quote
There is no perfect selection of games for any system! Period.
Incorrect sir. The Nes and Snes had the perfect lineup, and just about every game under the sun. The system closest to accomplishing that now is the PS2. Were it not for Nintendos exclusives, the PS2 would be the Snes.
Quote
I'm also sick of people saying it lacks the graphics power...
In a sense, that will be true... But it is very likely that the Rev games will look just as pretty, if not more so, as the other systems on a standard def set. Higher resolutions require more processing power... Standard Def gamers will not benefit from most of the added power Sony or MS may have.
And I'm sick of people saying that. ^
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 01:50:18 PM
Yes, that's right. I am actually floating in midair.
"Platforming was almost entirely Mario World and DKC. RPGs were Final Fantasy II and III. Racing was Mario Kart."
Do you have any idea how many platformers were released on the SNES? It's unreal. And not all of them are crap either. Capcom's Disney games for example were pretty awesome. And RPGs? The SNES has a reputation for being an strong RPG system for a reason you know. Racing games weren't as common but Mario Kart was not the only option. Ever play the Top Gear games? Until Geist the Cube literally had no exclusive first person shooters (except Metroid Prime if you have a really loose definition of FPS). Nintendo in it's heyday never had that problem. There was always a fair selection. And I'm not talking about only one game per genre for first party stuff. I mean PERIOD. That's a issue Nintendo should take very seriously and their approach to it is very lacklustre.
"SEGA was like MS now: doing good but never able to actually win this generation."
The Sega Genesis was actually beating the SNES at one point in North America and it remained a tight battle until Nintendo pulled ahead with Donkey Kong Country.
Your arguement relies too much on the idea that Nintendo did everything they could on the Cube and still failed or that all of the things they do have a specific reason to it. I don't think that. Somethings on the Cube Nintendo just screwed up or cut corners on. Did releasing puny memory cards at launch and charging the same price as Sony fit into Nintendo's vision? What about charging ten dollars more for Player's Choice titles? Sometimes they just do stupid sh!t and it his nothing to do with their ideals or philosophies or anything like that.
Nintendo doesn't have to copy Sony or MS to do better in the traditional market. They should learn from the competition's good ideas (something Nintendo never seems to do) but they don't have to be exactly like them. They just have to be more on the ball, improve their marketing, and not cut corners. A lot of things that I feel hurt the Cube, if done differently, wouldn't be any less Nintendo-like. If Nintendo included demo discs with Nintendo Power for example would any of you complain that Nintendo was compromising their principles or anything like that? Or if they went online? Probably not. The only reason some of the questionable decisions Nintendo makes are defended by anyone is because Nintendo makes up some PR BS to justify it and a lot of you buy into it.
If Nintendo showed off a very normal controller for the Rev with the remote's motion control and never had mentioned anything about it ahead of time none of you would say "hey, that's too traditional. It goes against Nintendo's ideals." It's only because they've been talking about it that this idea that Nintendo has to target a totally new group of gamers is being treated like it's a mandatory measure in order to survive. No ever tossed this idea around before Iwata brought it up.
It's like how when Wind Waker was revealed many were quick to proclaim that this was what Zelda in 3D should always have been like. None of those same people complained about the N64 Zeldas or the Spaceworld 2000 demo.
If Nintendo showed off a more traditional Rev that fixed all of the existing problems of the Cube and looked like it had no noticable flaws no one would have said it was a bad move before. We would all be discussing how cool it was going to be.
Post by: Kairon on September 28, 2005, 01:52:12 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 02:01:27 PM
Quote
Because I was suggesting a control scheme that was actually based on Metroid Prime's controls, so people could more easily realize what's missing.
Fair enough, but the whole point is that the revolution will allow us to do the same things but differently, so we don't need the control scheme of Prime 1+2 which were designed to account for the GC controller.
Post by: stevey on September 28, 2005, 02:05:55 PM
Okay, that all seems fine and good. Now where are your missiles? Where is your morph ball? Sorry, you can't have those. The controller is maxed out. "Jump" and "shoot". That's all you'll ever get out of a two-button controller. "
a shoot | b jump | x missiles | y ball | d-pad gun | start stop | select shift d-pad to visor | z1 map | z2 who knows | stick move |
Post by: Kairon on September 28, 2005, 02:07:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Ian, you literally have no ground."
Yes, that's right. I am actually floating in midair.
"Platforming was almost entirely Mario World and DKC. RPGs were Final Fantasy II and III. Racing was Mario Kart."
Do you have any idea how many platformers were released on the SNES? It's unreal. And not all of them are crap either. Capcom's Disney games for example were pretty awesome. And RPGs? The SNES has a reputation for being an strong RPG system for a reason you know. Racing games weren't as common but Mario Kart was not the only option. Ever play the Top Gear games? Until Geist the Cube literally had no exclusive first person shooters (except Metroid Prime if you have a really loose definition of FPS). Nintendo in it's heyday never had that problem. There was always a fair selection. And I'm not talking about only one game per genre for first party stuff. I mean PERIOD. That's a issue Nintendo should take very seriously and their approach to it is very lacklustre.
"SEGA was like MS now: doing good but never able to actually win this generation."
The Sega Genesis was actually beating the SNES at one point in North America and it remained a tight battle until Nintendo pulled ahead with Donkey Kong Country.
Your arguement relies too much on the idea that Nintendo did everything they could on the Cube and still failed or that all of the things they do have a specific reason to it. I don't think that. Somethings on the Cube Nintendo just screwed up or cut corners on. Did releasing puny memory cards at launch and charging the same price as Sony fit into Nintendo's vision? What about charging ten dollars more for Player's Choice titles? Sometimes they just do stupid sh!t and it his nothing to do with their ideals or philosophies or anything like that.
Nintendo doesn't have to copy Sony or MS to do better in the traditional market. They should learn from the competition's good ideas (something Nintendo never seems to do) but they don't have to be exactly like them. They just have to be more on the ball, improve their marketing, and not cut corners. A lot of things that I feel hurt the Cube, if done differently, wouldn't be any less Nintendo-like. If Nintendo included demo discs with Nintendo Power for example would any of you complain that Nintendo was compromising their principles or anything like that? Or if they went online? Probably not. The only reason some of the questionable decisions Nintendo makes are defended by anyone is because Nintendo makes up some PR BS to justify it and a lot of you buy into it.
If Nintendo showed off a very normal controller for the Rev with the remote's motion control and never had mentioned anything about it ahead of time none of you would say "hey, that's too traditional. It goes against Nintendo's ideals." It's only because they've been talking about it that this idea that Nintendo has to target a totally new group of gamers is being treated like it's a mandatory measure in order to survive. No ever tossed this idea around before Iwata brought it up.
It's like how when Wind Waker was revealed many were quick to proclaim that this was what Zelda in 3D should always have been like. None of those same people complained about the N64 Zeldas or the Spaceworld 2000 demo.
If Nintendo showed off a more traditional Rev that fixed all of the existing problems of the Cube and looked like it had no noticable flaws no one would have said it was a bad move before. We would all be discussing how cool it was going to be.
So many mistakes that Nintendo made on the Cube were a direct result of Nintendo's very essence.
The GC's Satellite button lay-out? All part of Miyamoto's drive for simpler gameplay. I'm sure you'd call the GC controller a mistake Ian, but it's a mistake that is a result of Nintendo being exactly who they are.
The reluctance to go online? Also a "mistake" that grew out of what Nintendo believes online games should be. Now with the DS we're starting to see that Nintendo wanted free access to online games, unlike Microsoft, and that Nintendo needed to do something decidedly different with the online medium. With Animal Crossing they can push a whole new sense of "connectivity" that goes beyond the blase Mario Kart DS player matching. And they can now stand apart due to selling their back catalog for Download on the Rev. Mistake? You might say so, but it's a mistake based very much on Nintendo principles.
Now, whether we think that the above mistakes are big mistakes or small in the scheme of things, that's a moot point. But to say that all Nintendo could've done with the Cube was "Try Harder" and they would've won is fallacy. So many of the things people suggest that Nintendo should've done go with the Cube go directly against what Nintendo as an entity could do.
The fact of the matter is that if Nintendo played Sony's game, they'd be dead. If they played MS' game, they'd be toast. An international consumer electronics company and only the richest, most capitalistic man in the world as direct enemies who have defined the terms of battle to be higher-res, higher-res, higher-res? Nintendo is a company that made friggin' Japanese playing cards, for gosh sakes! And they're only here today because of Mr. Miyamoto, a family man who loves to spend his time gardening, the furthest thing from ultracompetitive Business-man extraordinaire Bill Gates or
crazy Skynet-designing Kutagari.
Bottomline is, asking Nintendo to face Microsoft or Sony on their terms, with the tools of today, is ridiculous.
Resources? They don't have it.
Talent? They have it, but so many third parties today make great games, it doesn't really matter anymore.
Technology? You simply can't beat Sony or MS.
Third Parties? Stuck in a catch-22 loop with mindless gamers.
Dear god, this is Microsoft we're talking about! And Sony!
Nintendo is small fry compared to them!
The only thing Nintendo CAN do is get out of the ratrace that everyone is so brainwashed in believing in and redefine what it means to play games. And that, apparently, is what they're doing in order to survive in an industry that has less and less room for a traditional Japanese Craftsman like Miyamoto who likes to garden.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: zakkiel on September 28, 2005, 02:12:12 PM
Quote
To hardcore forum posters the "war" is incredibly important.
Quote
Most hardcore gamers buy more than one console, expecially if one of them is both wildly different and much cheaper
Quote
Plus having a secondary console will KILL crappy EA port sales and that will change absolutely nothing in EA policy.
There we go.
Incidentally, Nintendo is after third-party single platform games. It makes no sense to talk about their failure to achieve a goal they aren't even pursuing.
QuoteYou're right on this one, though. Nintendo has no intention of making killer games for the Revolution. Quality is not part of their ethos anymore, as clearly stated by Iwata in this interview. We're all screwed.
I'm not cool with the controller but I'm open to the possibility that Nintendo could win me over with some killer games. But if they're not even going to try to improve things then I'm not going to bother.
QuoteCan't fix this either, because the logic is so completely atrocious. People buying the GC as a secondary console doesn't somehow make the people who bought it as a primary console suddenly stop buying third party games. Increasing the install base does not ever decrease sales.
Ever notice how third party sales dropped like a rock after Nintendo cut the Cube price and it became somewhat of a defacto secondary console? This is why.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 28, 2005, 02:25:00 PM
Quote
You're right on this one, though. Nintendo has no intention of making killer games for the Revolution. Quality is not part of their ethos anymore, as clearly stated by Iwata in this interview. We're all screwed.
I hope that this statement was sarcasm
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 02:42:39 PM
But the percentage of the total userbase that buys the games drops and that gives third parties the idea that their game isn't selling as well as it should. When they make projections for how many copies they're going to sell they don't take into account multi-console owners. They make an estimate based on 100% of the userbase, when only 75% (I'm just pulling this number out of my ass here) would even considering buying the Cube version The game can sell fine with that 75% but it could still end up lower than predicted.
"The reluctance to go online? Also a 'mistake' that grew out of what Nintendo believes online games should be."
I think they didn't go online for the very reason they said they wouldn't: profit. They pinched pennies and it bit them in the ass. They even promised us online gaming, teasing us for over a year about vague "plans" that would be revealed at a later date. The plans never showed and Nintendo then went on a crusade to downplay the importance of online gaming which then sabotaged Cube online play, be it first OR third party. If Nintendo really felt that they should wait until online gaming could be done the way they wanted to they would never had released a modem in the first place just like how they never suggested the idea of having CDs on the N64. They dangled a carrot in front of our noses. That has nothing to do with Nintendo's ideals. It's promising something and then not delivering. That's a mistake.
I think you're overestimating Sony and MS. Just because they're big and powerful doesn't mean they have some unstoppable advantage. The Xbox wasn't even profitable. At some point MS can't just throw money around to make stuff happen.
I see MS and Sony making huge mistakes that Nintendo, if they weren't off in wackyland, could easily capitalize on with a traditional console. Both the PS3 and X360 are ridiculously expensive and both companies are FORCING every game to be hi-def. I think hi-def should be an option but not a requirement and Nintendo could easily capitalize by having a traditional console where devs don't have to spend an insane amount of extra money to support a feature most people won't ever use. Plus Nintendo could probably make a cheaper console with comparable performance. Hell Nintendo's online plan with the Rev KILLS Microsoft's. But that won't mean squat if the Rev is too different. The competition is making some crucial mistakes but Nintendo can't use them to their advantage if they're being too weird. By trying to target a new market Nintendo is totally squandering these opportunities. Free online versus pay Xbox Live doesn't mean squat if the Rev's doing something that the traditional online crowd isn't even remotely interested in.
Even the motion control of the remote if put in a normal controller could give Nintendo a huge edge that would leave the competition scrambling. But because they put it in a damn remote with only two buttons they have no advantage. They're just wacky Nintendo doing something different instead of brilliant Nintendo that has what the competition has plus MORE at a lower price with FREE online and lower developer costs because HD is optional.
Post by: trip1eX on September 28, 2005, 02:43:31 PM
New controller. Hell yeah. FPS heaven. It just blew the lid open on a crate full of new ideas. Fresh blood for aging titles. The technology really sounds like its there too.
Going to 3rd party developers and showing them the controller and showing them how they could use it in their games? A great PR move. Folks have been saying NIntendo has showed them more than ever before earlier than ever before. It sounds to me like Nintendo now realizes the importance of a good relationship with 3rd party developers.
The controller will help them attract owners of other consoles. What 360 fanboy will touch the Revolution first? But how many might down the road have to give it a try just because it's a unique way to play games?
On top of it Nintendo shows, with their Revolution controller marketing video, that they know how to market this thing. I thought the video was just brilliant.
Nintendo won't have hi-def. But they'll do 480p. And at that resolution they will have as much power as their competitors. Considering the vast majority of consumers don't have hdtv this is a very reasonable move.
And this time Nintendo will have online support. AT no cost.
PLus their console will be considerably cheaper.
I am a fairly hardcore pc fps gamer and I have to tell you this new controller is like a dream come true. So when folks wonder if Nintendo is catering toward the hardcore I have to say that they are. This controller shows it. Iwata has mentioned Western FPS games many times in his speeches. Nintendo has woken up in this regard too. They are admitting there is a difference in the Western gaming market and their controller is positioned to cater to that difference - the fps game!
Post by: NRevolutionR on September 28, 2005, 03:22:15 PM
Didn't the shell get confirmed by Nintendo Europe?
Post by: Kairon on September 28, 2005, 03:23:32 PM
And I'm sure that Nintendo can profit from letting people play Animal Crossing and Mario kart: DS for free.
Nintendo didn't go online with the cube because they couldn't offer anywhere near the experience they wanted to. They didn't have the know-how of Sony or MS, and they didn't have anything close to the groundwork they needed in order to design a server farm system. If they HAD gone online with the Cube, what they said would've been true: they would've expended millions of dollars on a thrown-together online system which would net very few gamers, wouldn't be up to snuff, and give Nintendo a black eye because not only did they enter online after Sony and MS, but they did so horribly. So, yes, it's true: Nintendo didn't go online because it wouldn't have been profitable. Why wouldn't it have been profitable? Because as per Nintendo standards, they couldn't do the things they wanted with the online medium at that time. You may have wanted Nintendo to go online with the Cube, but that's a pipe dream when you take into accound how prepared the company was for a technology that's exploded beyond their expertise, and when you take into account exactly the sort of experience that Nintendo wanted to provide. You see, it goes back to Nintendo: they didn't go online with the cube because to do so, to offer such a rushed inferior and half-hearted product would have been Un-Nintendo. Observe: The Mario Kart: Double Dash Lan mode.
"I think you're overestimating Sony and MS. Just because they're big and powerful doesn't mean they have some unstoppable advantage. The Xbox wasn't even profitable. At some point MS can't just throw money around to make stuff happen."
Tell that to Netscape, Oracle, and Apple.
Actually Ian, I think you're underestimating Sony and Microsoft. These companies aren't staying still, they're hurtling headlong into fierce competition to define the future of your living room. These multibillion dollar corporations know how to play a commodities market, a PR battle, a technology race, a media blitz.
The only thing that MS and Sony can't do is what Nintendo is doing right now with their Rev controller: completely up-ending the tea table. (cookies to anyone who can remind me where that reference came from!)
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 28, 2005, 03:25:55 PM
Post by: zakkiel on September 28, 2005, 03:55:09 PM
QuoteThen they are a) dumb for not correcting their model, and b) stupid for caring about how much they think they should make as opposed to how much they actually did. A port to the GC is profitable based on absolute sales, not the ratio of sales to user base.
But the percentage of the total userbase that buys the games drops and that gives third parties the idea that their game isn't selling as well as it should. When they make projections for how many copies they're going to sell they don't take into account multi-console owners. They make an estimate based on 100% of the userbase, when only 75% (I'm just pulling this number out of my ass here) would even considering buying the Cube version The game can sell fine with that 75% but it could still end up lower than predicted.
QuoteNo, I think it would be a G I M M I C K (stupid censor). A handful of games would include some meaningful tilt functionality (mostly pinball and such). A few more would make a half-hearted effort to have some extra thing that depends on the tilt. The rest would ignore it completely. FPSs and RTSs would control as they always have, e.g. suckily. No new genres would open up. Nintendo would be the poor man's console with a pointless extra frill in their controller, and this forum would be filled with people shrieking about Nintendo always overhyping their innovations (with justice).
Even the motion control of the remote if put in a normal controller could give Nintendo a huge edge that would leave the competition scrambling.
The thing about the console wars is, you can't win. Neither Sony or MS are going anywhere. They will be engaged in the same, costly, futile struggle for dominance until the end of time. Could Nintendo join in the fray? Probably, though not with great success. Can I, as a gamer, think of a single reason to wish they would pursue this rather than trying to develop new paradigms? Absolutely not. By the Revolution or not, but don't pretend Nintendo has a duty to engage in a pointless battle or confine themselves to "innovations" that simply don't matter. They aren't a sports team, and they sure aren't in the business to make the same damn things we've seen for the last decade with an extra whistle or two. I can't think of anything that would be more pathetic than for them to come out and say, "Actually, we aren't going to try for a Revolution, because that scares reactionaries. Instead, we're making the same thing everyone else is." If they'd done that, I would be calling for them to become third party developers right about now, because what's the point of them making their own hardware?
Actually, what I don't understand is why you aren't calling for them to be a third party developer. As near as I can tell, you hate every decision they make outside of games, so why would you want them to have their own platform?
Post by: MarioAllStar on September 28, 2005, 04:02:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
The only thing that MS and Sony can't do is what Nintendo is doing right now with their Rev controller: completely up-ending the tea table. (cookies to anyone who can remind me where that reference came from!)
I believe that it comes from how Miyamoto will often take a hands-off approach during the development of games. Then, when he evaluates the work and sees what needs to be better, he "up-ends the tea table" and sort of makes the team take a new direction or redo what was wrong.
Someone please answer me this: If Nintendo includes a traditional shell with each console and additional controller what, aside from lack of HD, would be wrong with the system? You can say that we don't need the remote to begin with, but I really think we do. Otherwise, it would be too difficult to handle the gyro feature and the analog stick at the same time, and I really like the idea of being able to do that.
About past "mistakes" I think that for the most part Nintendo has done the right thing from a quality and business standpoint, but the public interprets it wrong (I suppose you could argue that what the public wants is always right). For example, the N64's cartridges. Everyone was bashing Nintendo for the choice of cartridges over discs, but the load times were horrible on other systems. Nintendo waited until the time was right to use discs, and now we have the best of all worlds--cost, size, and load times.
The same goes for online. Nintendo might have held off for a long time on online, but now we are getting a free online network to play games on. Whether they could have accomplished that in the past on the GameCube I don't know.
I think the main real mistakes Nintendo made were related to marketing and initial appeal. The purple color, non-descriptive ads, etc. This may have turned consumers away, which turns developers away. However, if Nintendo can correct these minor problems (which it seems they are) I believe they will be more successful next generation than in the current one.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 28, 2005, 04:10:00 PM
Good points by all.
Ian, I see your points. They make sense to me. I just can't see how you can be so pessimistic ALREADY! We've only learned a few CONCRETE details about the REV. Everything else is speculation. If you add up everything we KNOW and not what we think we know, you have a very wonderful system. A wonderful system to look forward to.
--Sleek Console design (Nintendo's answer to the GameCube)
--Mario, Metriod, a Camelot RPG, and SSBM: Online (Nintendo's answer to Luigi's Mansion and not going Online with the cube)
--Virtual Console (Possibly the greatest incentive to buy a system EVER)
--NRC (FPS's? Hmmm....I wonder what console became popular off of a FPS. Nintendo's answer to Halo, and more importantly the Xbox)
That's just the things we know. Imagine what's left in store for us.
You say Nintendo is dropping the ball already due to their inability to compete head-on with MS and Sony. Well let me ask you something...What system are you looking forward to? What features from MS and Sony churn your butter (hehe)?
I'm going to guess none. I bet you could give a rats ass about HDTV (do you have an HDTV?) and many other things your complaining about. You don't know what exactly is going to happen with third-party support next-gen, and even with your pessimistic outlook, Revolution is probably your favorite system thus far with the Xbox 360 only months away from debuting. If that's dropping the ball, then your an idiot. You don't know what you want, you just want.
EDIT:
MarioALLSTAR: Someone please answer me this: If Nintendo includes a traditional shell with each console and additional controller what, aside from lack of HD, would be wrong with the system? You can say that we don't need the remote to begin with, but I really think we do. Otherwise, it would be too difficult to handle the gyro feature and the analog stick at the same time, and I really like the idea of being able to do that.
There hasn't been any mention of including the shell in each console. However, they have mentioned to a point where it's basically official that they will include the analogue stick attachment in each console.
I get your point however. The NRC (with the analogue attachment and shell) can do everything any competing company can and more. That's what Reggie was talking about when he said an "and" company. There is so much freedom in Nintendo's design that I can't see how it can be ignored.
Post by: stevey on September 28, 2005, 04:32:16 PM
Post by: mjbd on September 28, 2005, 04:52:44 PM
Post by: Djunknown on September 28, 2005, 05:49:23 PM
Anyway, I've pretty much gotten over the HD-issue. My family scored a flat panel HDTV not so long ago (Magnavox 26' for 900 at Circuit City), and imported some component cables. Couple that with some surround sound (Altec 251 for 99.99), and I guess I have the ultimate 'Cube experience. And yes, its pretty damn good. As long as there's 480p, that's fine with me.
As I've mentioned in other posts, the big N is needs to go the extra miles with the Rev controller. The devs and publishers can sing its praises all day long, but we need to see the games. As of now, publishers really don't have an incentive to be creative. The money's too good. My inner cynic tells me they'll ride this videogame thing until it crashes, make like Enron(Take the money and run) and buy some private island somewhere.
The big N has to prove that at the very least, it can do what normal controllers can do. Ideally, it will trump the normal controller we know, making us wonder how the hell did we play videogames with just buttons. My inner conspiracist tells me that id would love to put Quake 4 on the rev, with free on-line play, superb controls, but MS thows them money hats because they know the Rev version is just too good.
Now if games will continue to be no more than 50 USD, we'd be all set...
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 28, 2005, 05:55:56 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on September 28, 2005, 06:00:46 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 06:01:18 PM
Nothing really grabs me by the balls but at least they're focused on traditional gamers. The Revolution is still the console I'm most interested in BUT I don't care for Nintendo "giving up" and going off on a tangent to solve a "problem" they made up because they have too much pride to admit that they did somethings wrong with the Cube and that competition sometimes has good ideas that they shouldn't reject just to be different. Nintendo saying that people are growing tired of games as they are, I feel, is largely an excuse. The Cube didn't sell that well so obviously it must be because gaming is getting stale. Obviously Nintendo did everything perfectly and it's the traditional gaming market that's broken.
I don't want what Sony and MS are offering but I don't want some "magic wand" controller targeted at non-gamers that fails to meet my console needs even more than the Cube did. Nintendo isn't perfect but they're still the console maker that targets my gaming tastes the most. So I don't want the only console maker I like to pay too much attention to a non-gamer market that I am not a part of. Basically I'm don't want Nintendo to reject me because then I pretty much have no reason to play games anymore.
Post by: Artimus on September 28, 2005, 06:07:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"What system are you looking forward to? What features from MS and Sony churn your butter (hehe)?"
Nothing really grabs me by the balls but at least they're focused on traditional gamers. The Revolution is still the console I'm most interested in BUT I don't care for Nintendo "giving up" and going off on a tangent to solve a "problem" they made up because they have too much pride to admit that they did somethings wrong with the Cube and that competition sometimes has good ideas that they shouldn't reject just to be different. Nintendo saying that people are growing tired of games as they are, I feel, is largely an excuse. The Cube didn't sell that well so obviously it must be because gaming is getting stale. Obviously Nintendo did everything perfectly and it's the traditional gaming market that's broken.
I don't want what Sony and MS are offering but I don't want some "magic wand" controller targeted at non-gamers that fails to meet my console needs even more than the Cube did. Nintendo isn't perfect but they're still the console maker that targets my gaming tastes the most. So I don't want the only console maker I like to pay too much attention to a non-gamer market that I am not a part of. Basically I'm don't want Nintendo to reject me because then I pretty much have no reason to play games anymore.
Since when did you play a console? You play the games. Nintendo makes the GAMES you like the most. I doubt that changes.
Post by: Renny on September 28, 2005, 06:14:50 PM
Post by: mantidor on September 28, 2005, 06:31:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: ruby_onixQuote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Why do you need this? The controller itself allows you to look around freely already.
Because I was suggesting a control scheme that was actually based on Metroid Prime's controls, so people could more easily realize what's missing.
Why do they need to base it on MP? OPEN YOUR MIND.
Goodness, people really are anti-progress.
Exactly my thoughts. Besides, the basic Nunchuck and remote set up has two shoulder buttons on the analog, the big nice A button, the B trigger button and a whole Dpad. I dont see only two buttons on that set up. As for a map button they can easily map it pun not intended
on the screen, point and shoot to an icon and theres your map. The option to open the map can be disabled or not with an easy movement of your hand to avoid open the map in a boss fight. Yes the idea has its flaws still, but I thought about it in five minutes, what do you think Retro and Nitendo will come up with? Seriously that controller is amazing and if its as precise as has been suggested, pushing buttons will became obsolete.Post by: PaLaDiN on September 28, 2005, 07:20:20 PM
Have you even seen what Sony's focused on? How is a powerful Linux box focused on traditional gamers? How does all this multimedia crap focus on traditional gamers? Are you telling me Iwata's comments scare you but Ken Kutaragi's comments don't?
You know what I think you're saying here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying "sure, give us all a whole bunch of crap we don't need, make a system that doesn't even focus on games anymore and I will gladly suck it up, but don't you dare try to share my hobby with anybody who isn't me". I think you're saying "the PSP is more focused on traditional gamers than the DS". Is that what you're saying?
I really hope I'm just putting words in your mouth here...
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 07:47:55 PM
Ken Kutaragi's comments still scare me. It's just that even with all sorts of extra crap added the PS3 controller can still accurately play virtually every existing type of game reasonably well (well the jury's still out on the boomerang design but it has more than two buttons at least). The Rev controller can't, or at least not unless the shell is included with every controller. The remote by itself can't play any past game made after the NES without a big workaround. Sony might be focusing a lot on extra junk completely unrelated to games but games as they exist right now can still be played on their console.
Post by: denjet78 on September 28, 2005, 08:19:22 PM
Quote
Sony might be focusing a lot on extra junk completely unrelated to games but games as they exist right now can still be played on their console.
I just have one question for you:
Did you feel the same way when the NES came out with a controller that was completely different from anything that had ever been seen before?
How about when the N64 controller was revealed?
Sure, they weren't perfect, but they both redefined gaming to where it stands today. To where you are arguing that it needs to remain.
Or would you simply be happy still playing games with an Atari 2600 controller?
I ran into a nutjob one time who actually infered (I won't say he stated because he didn't but more or less this is what he said) that controllers had reached the pinnicle of their evolution and that nothing would ever be any better.
Without evolution life stagnates and dies. Sure you can say Nintendo's being a bit pushy by not having a direct relation to current controller designes but if you really look at the Rev controller, really look at it for what it is, you can easily see that it can do what current controllers can do, and so much more with a level of precision and player involvment that's never been attained before.
I remember when I first played Super Mario Bros. and my original inclination when I reached the end of a level and was jumping for the flag was to actually raise the controller above my head as I did it, as if that would somehow cause Mario to jump higher. I actually had to unlearn that behavior patter. Nintendo, with the Rev controller, is now feeding directly into that base instinct. How much simpler can games get? But beyond that, it still allows for a level of control that is beyond anything that currently exists. Even the keyboard and mouse.
This controller exists in true 3D space. Not psudo 3D as every other control set-up to this point has used. You've been using a simplified interface to represent movement in a real environment. Now, you're representing 3D movement as it really exists. You can create games simplistic enough that only one button is needed to play them, and anyone can comprehend because the main controller is so easy to understand. Or you can make a game so convoluted and nuanced that it would be practically like interacting with a piece of living art. And don't even get me started on the uses for controller add-ons like the control stick. And please don't even try to whine about cost. How many companies have gone out of their way to create ENTIRE controllers or guns or dance pads just for one game?
I've always been interested in shaking up the establishment. Sticking with the status quo is dangerous as it breeds interdependency on existing systems that, if one ever needs to change for whatever reason, would quickly find itself between a rock and a hard place. Or a market unwilling to accept that change and a current regime bent against it even if it meant certain extinction.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 28, 2005, 09:22:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 28, 2005, 09:33:02 PM
Well to be honest I was like three at the time the NES came out.
The NES controller is not much different than the Atari one really. The Atari had a joystick and the NES had a d-pad. Both digital inputs and arcade games translated to the NES controller perfectly. It's not that big of a difference. Its not like essential Atari controller functionality was scrapped.The N64 controller is exactly what the Rev should follow as a model. Every SNES game is perfectly playable on the N64 controller. The d-pad and the L&R buttons buttons where there. Plus there was at least four face buttons and they were arranged in a similar fashion. The only thing missing was the select button but with extra face buttons on there that would be an easy fix.
The Rev controller's big flaw is that it removes existing functionality. They just went from seven buttons to TWO. That's a HUGE difference. Evolution is important. The SNES and N64 controllers were perfect examples of a good evolution. They took what was there and added to it making it better. If humans grew wings out of their shoulderblades that would be a pretty useful evolution. But if their arms turned into wings it would completely ruin the ability to use tools as we know them. That would be pretty weak. The Rev controller is Nintendo turning arms into wings. They have something new that could be very awesome but it's at the expense of what's already proven.
That's why I'm more in favour of a traditional controller with motion sensors. That would be pretty much the same thing as the remote but without CRUCIAL controller elements removed for no good reason.
Post by: Mario on September 28, 2005, 09:44:32 PM
Ian, I know what you mean but they CAN'T put too many buttons on it, or it'll scare off their new audience. That's why a traditional controller is a seperate option.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 28, 2005, 10:11:17 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on September 28, 2005, 10:25:23 PM
Quote
Ian, I know what you mean but they CAN'T put too many buttons on it, or it'll scare off their new audience. That's why a traditional controller is a seperate option.
The analog nunchuck wasn't even part of Nintendo's plan until third parties bitched to Nintendo about the uselessness of a two-button controller.
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
Ahem.
Yeah, because this (with inset L&R buttons on the right side of the unit) is such an unreasonable request.
Post by: WuTangTurtle on September 28, 2005, 10:36:26 PM
About the Atari Controller u may think it is not very different than the Nes Controller but in Actuality it is very different. The Atari controller made you use a complete hand on the joystick itself, and the other to hold the controller down and press the one button. The Nes controller was vastly more functional.
This is where it gets tricky, will the revolution remote be a step back seeing as how one hand is forced to use the gyro control? I think not, in actuality i think it gives it more functionality. Waving it around and having your thumb and index finger open to press a button and use the d-pad, thats a lot of function for just one hand, leaving your other hand open to use whatever is added to the expansion slot, whether it be a joystick, 6 button addon device or another remote set for say something like a boxing game or a sheild and sword mechanic.
However you have to stop and think how much can you can actually do in one spurt. For example the PS2 controller has 4 face buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, and 2 analog sticks that can be pressed down as a button. Very little games used the analog sticks as buttons, why? IMO I think adding that functionality makes the control a bit too complicated, especially when all the buttons on the ps2 controller is being utilized. If you think about it this is the reason why some people left gaming or have decided not to ever pick up a controller.
See where Nintendo is addressing here? Functionality and simplicity. Hopefully this can be achieved.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 28, 2005, 11:11:27 PM
Are you sure about the analog thing, or is that something you just came up with out of nowhere? Because it does sound believable, but I hadn't heard that before.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 29, 2005, 03:18:18 AM
Quote
I never said a trigger was out of the question. I was just making a point. Anyway, I think two triggers on a design like that might be too awkward (though I'm not certain without trying).
Actually, by the triggers I meant that I'd go one step beyond the photoshop which I posted (which isn't mine, BTW), and that I'd add another set of triggers, to duplicate the function of that photoshop's Z1 and Z2 when you're holding it sideways, and that they should be in the SNES-style "L&R" positions, although they should be inset, so that they don't get in the way when you're holding the controller in the standard vertical position.
My want list for improvements to the Rev controller:
- Split the "B" trigger into two triggers that match the triggers on the nunchuck.
- Replace the big "A" button with four smaller A/B/X/Y (uppercase) buttons.
- Replace the lower a&b or x&y or whatever Nintendo is calling them today buttons with four a/b/x/y (lowercase and sideways) buttons.
- Two new triggers on the side of the unit (named the same as the "B" triggers, but lowercase).
That's it. Now you don't need a shell/skin for Virtual Console NES or SNES games anymore (Genesis and N64 would still require some form of six-button shell), and with the addition of the nunchuck, the Rev controller can do anything the GameCube or even PS3 controller can do (tilt control would have to do to replace the second analog).
If that's too complicated for non-gamers, ditch the whole "sideways" gimmick. That will cut half the buttons off the controller. And then you're left with one extra face button (two moved buttons), and one extra trigger.
Quote
Are you sure about the analog thing, or is that something you just came up with out of nowhere? Because it does sound believable, but I hadn't heard that before.
Unless I misheard, Iwata said it in the interview.
IIRC, he said that he brought the controller around to Western developers, and that they were ho-hum on the entire idea. And then Nintendo came up with the idea of the analog nunchuck attachment, showed it off, and suddenly they were all "Okay, now we've got something to work with! This is awesome. With this could make a tremendous First Person Shooter." Perhaps I'm leaping a bit.
Post by: Mario on September 29, 2005, 03:33:51 AM
Quote
My want list for improvements to the Rev controller:
- Split the "B" trigger into two triggers that match the triggers on the nunchuck.
- Replace the big "A" button with four smaller A/B/X/Y (uppercase) buttons.
- Replace the lower a&b or x&y or whatever Nintendo is calling them today buttons with four a/b/x/y (lowercase and sideways) buttons.
- Two new triggers on the side of the unit (named the same as the "B" triggers, but lowercase).
That's it. Now you don't need a shell/skin for Virtual Console NES or SNES games anymore (Genesis and N64 would still require some form of six-button shell), and with the addition of the nunchuck, the Rev controller can do anything the GameCube or even PS3 controller can do (tilt control would have to do to replace the second analog).
All that really does is let you play SNES games on it (you can already play NES), which I think is a bit unesessary adding all that. TWO sets of 4 buttons? Why?
Post by: mantidor on September 29, 2005, 05:39:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
IIRC, he said that he brought the controller around to Western developers, and that they were ho-hum on the entire idea. And then Nintendo came up with the idea of the analog nunchuck attachment, showed it off, and suddenly they were all "Okay, now we've got something to work with! This is awesome. With this could make a tremendous First Person Shooter." Perhaps I'm leaping a bit.
yea leaping you are
it was more like western developers didnt "get it" until the nunchuk was shown. You know, first reactions are always "WTF?"
Post by: trip1eX on September 29, 2005, 06:41:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The Rev controller's big flaw is that it removes existing functionality. They just went from seven buttons to TWO.
?
Come on now. There are two buttons on the left controller. There's the big A button on the remote along with the trigger. That's 4. YOu also have a select and a start button. So that's 1 extra button than before. That's 5. Plus lower on the remote is a&b or x&y. That's 7. Sure those are out of the way but they can be used for functions like switching to a map or something.
Then of course you utterly and completely ignore the additional functionality built into the Revolution controller. The gryo stuff can map functions to hand gestures. The number of buttons here is beyond 7 in and of itself. The Revolution can also sense how close/far the controller is from the TV.
So I really wish people wouldn't be so narrow minded. Quit playing games for awhile and look around. There's a whole world out there.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 07:27:54 AM
And thus we come full circle to my biggest concern: comprimising functionality for non-gamers. I don't consider "we need to remove stuff to appeal to non-gamers" as a valid reason for "breaking" a good controller design. I'm concerned that Nintendo is focusing too much on non-gamers and traditional gamers are going to get the short end of the stick. I'd say removing buttons just to appeal to non-gamers is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.
"The gryo stuff can map functions to hand gestures."
Hand gestures are inaccurate and have a huge margin of error. You think you're tilting left and the controller thinks you're moving left and does the wrong thing. Buttons have a very small margin of error to them. You push the button and it works unless the game is a buggy piece of crap. You take a complex game that uses all of the buttons on the Cube controller and map it to the remote with hand gestures replacing buttons and after ten minutes of fighting with the controls and dying because the game misinterpreted your hand movement and you'll be smashing the remote against the wall. The remote will work fine for arcade style games like the ideas presented in the trailer. But if you tried to play Pikmin 2 on it Grubdogs would be just snacking on you. Sometimes buttons and analog sticks (which have resistance unlike motion control) just work better. There's a reason why the mouse accompanies the keyboard and hasn't outright replaced it.
Post by: mantidor on September 29, 2005, 07:43:22 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 07:59:28 AM
No there isn't. Select doesn't count and neither do the other A & B buttons. Those are out of the way and thus are useless for action purposes. Select is an administrative button and the other A & B buttons are for holding the remote side ways. It's at best a four button controller with the analog attachment. If it's a seven button controller then it's the most unergonomic thing ever built.
If you want to get technical the N64 had TEN buttons. But no one would count start nor would they count Z & L as seperate buttons on that controller.
Post by: mantidor on September 29, 2005, 08:18:20 AM
Do yourself a favor and pick a controller and realize how easy is to access all buttons with your tumb, "It wont allow for quick action" youll say, then they wont put quick actions to those buttons at the bottom! only things like the map! simple!
The only people who need 8+buttons are fighters freaks, and none of the next gen consoles will offer them what they want anyway.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 29, 2005, 08:23:11 AM
I can't defend Nintendo's choice of two buttons, because it is stupid. I made a mock-up a while ago that featured as many buttons as the GC controller (and even more triggers), so defending Nintendo would also be hypocritical.
Nintendo has a dilemma opun them. I made an entire thread about this before. Simplicity vs. Functionality. You CAN"T have both. Even with a gyro controller, you can't have it.
Trying to map MPrime to the NRC + Nunchuck controller, resulted in using a downward thrust motion to morph Samus into a ball. Is that somehow more simplistic? Is that even more fun? The answer is a resounding no.
The Rev Needs more buttons for games that DO use the gyroscopic function. I suggest they put a button to the left and right of the huge "A" button (in the shape of kidney beans, and raised up) and add a second trigger. The simple...get it SIMPLE addition of three buttons, solves every concievable problem even Ian could come up with. Something like this
Quote
CLicky
Does the controller look simple? Yes. Do you have to look down to find the buttons on either side of the "A"? No.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 08:30:38 AM
That would work really well. If Nintendo does something like that then my concerns over the controller would drop significantly. I don't see why they can't have the buttons and functionality of today's consoles with the motion control and possibly even in the form of a remote. The Cube face button layout for example would transfer to where the A button is right now perfectly. I'm not a huge fan of that layout but the buttons would be there and they would be easy for everyone to reach without looking.
Post by: PaLaDiN on September 29, 2005, 08:33:40 AM
Is that right Ian? I'm figuring people who stopped playing after the NES would like this controller. They're more traditional than you, you know. Let's not give in to elitism here, lest it come full circle to bite us.
Post by: mantidor on September 29, 2005, 08:41:17 AM
what? I read otherwise, they used the select button in one of the hands on impressions. It was kind of funny you saying that pushing a button is fun and waving a remote isnt, that isnt exactly what makes a metroid game fun for me.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 29, 2005, 09:00:59 AM
I can't think of any games that require 7 action buttons. The closest is Street Fighter with 6 buttons, but that's what the shell is for.
Hmm I think I'll make a thread in the Rev forum that discusses mapping existing games to the NRC
Post by: Mario on September 29, 2005, 09:21:21 AM
Quote
Nintendo has a dilemma opun them. I made an entire thread about this before. Simplicity vs. Functionality. You CAN"T have both. Even with a gyro controller, you can't have it.
How the hell isn't the remote functional?
There will also be a traditional controller people, stop forgetting! Even if you have to buy it seperately, it will STILL be cheaper to buy a Rev + Controller than a Xbox 360 or PS3.
Quote
Trying to map MPrime to the NRC + Nunchuck controller, resulted in using a downward thrust motion to morph Samus into a ball. Is that somehow more simplistic? Is that even more fun? The answer is a resounding no.
How do you know? Everyone who played it said it worked great. Also, that was just MP2:Echoes redone, the new Metroid Prime will obviously be mapped around the new controller.
Quote
The Rev Needs more buttons for games that DO use the gyroscopic function. I suggest they put a button to the left and right of the huge "A" button (in the shape of kidney beans, and raised up) and add a second trigger. The simple...get it SIMPLE addition of three buttons, solves every concievable problem even Ian could come up with. Something like this
Nope, too complicated looking, people are running away from it already.
The gyro/motion sensor things in the controller are INCREDIBLY functional and complex, but it doesn't LOOK like it is, which is exactly the point they have achieved! What's the problem again?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 09:46:49 AM
If you have to buy it seperately then no games will ever use it because third parties typically don't design games to use accessories if the entire userbase doesn't have them. Until we have SEEN the shell and have confirmation that it will be included with every controller it might as well not exist.
"Nope, too complicated looking, people are running away from it already."
What people? I'm sorry but if more than two buttons scares you then games just aren't for you. Hell PHONES aren't even for you or bank machines or microwaves or anything with even a number pad on it. Plus I think a controller that scares away the proven gaming market is a lot more serious then a controller that scares away an unproven non-gamer market that may or may not even care about the Rev regardless of what Nintendo releases.
I thought the whole point of going with a remote was that in theory it's a design everyone is comfortable with (which I think is poor logic anyway since most non-gamers I meet aren't comfortable with TV remotes either) and TV remotes are COVERED in buttons. Having more than two buttons isn't going to scare anyone way unless they're total "freaked of technology" types and those people are NEVER going to play games no matter what.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 29, 2005, 09:55:47 AM
Secondly, the key aspect of this controller is to make things more natural, more intuitive, whats more instinctual, moving your wrist or pressing a bunch of buttons?
Yes the control loses some buttons, but the number of buttons on the controllers were going overboard, for some fighting games you had to press three or more buttons at the same time just to do a kick or a punch, that's too much, this is much more natural, and therefore not only more accessible but also more enjoyable.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 10:15:15 AM
When it comes to something you're viewing on a screen I'd say buttons. Buttons are what we use for computers and televisions which are easily the top two "screen" related devices there are. If you made a TV where you switched channels by moving the TV remote people would laugh in your face. Buttons are what's expected.
Motion control makes sense for virtual reality but we're not there yet. You swing a baseball bat in real life but the bat has weight to it and when you hit the ball there's resistance. Motion control is largely like playing make believe where you're pretending you're doing something. It's not instinctive to react to what's not really there and that's largely what motion control is.
Post by: vudu on September 29, 2005, 10:19:57 AM
QuoteI don't mean to split hairs here, but Nintendo has been touting that the two Brain Training games took a team of 11 people 4 months to complete and cost next to nothing. It's their way of showing that a great concept can sell just as many games/systems (and for a higher profit margin) as a huge team with an unfathomable budget.
Originally posted by: Artimus
[W]hen's the last time you heard [Nintendo's] developers say they made a game as quick and cheap as possible? I bet you could find a few people at EA who might say that.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 29, 2005, 10:27:08 AM
Quote
You swing a baseball bat in real life but the bat has weight to it and when you hit the ball there's resistance. Motion control is largely like playing make believe where you're pretending you're doing something. It's not instinctive to react to what's not really there and that's largely what motion control is.
But the revo controller has weight so its not quite the same as motion control.
And actually I'd like a controller that changed channels and volume by moving it. (it would be pretty cool
)
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 29, 2005, 11:02:31 AM
And I'd like to add one more thing...Is it more instinctive to pretend swinging at a ball or pressing a button to swing at a ball? I mean COME ON! If I went around and asked people which they would rather do in a videogame, make a swinging motion or press a button to perform the same move, I can guarantee they'd choose the swinging motion since it's a movement that's natural and more akin to the actual thing...Stop making non-arguments, please...
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 11:20:35 AM
They would prefer it until they played an entire baseball game by themselves and their arms felt like they were going to fall off. Imagine batting for an entire game for an entire team. That would put a lot of strain on your shoulders. You don't get tired by pushing buttons. Plus it's kind of a waste to have to actually be good at baseball in order to do well. Ideally you would have to be a good hitter in real life wouldn't you? Otherwise your form would be the sh!ts and you would strike out the whole time.
I think a fair bit of people at first would think that motion control would be more natural but after playing with it for a while would go back to using a controller. Let's see what the impressions are from someone after beating an entire 20 hour+ game and after a year of playing with it. I want to see someone beat the Boostball Guardian with this new Metroid Prime 2 control method. I want to know what the impressions are like after the "wow this is so neato" feeling has worn off. Of course it's going to be exciting to use the first time you try it out. But this is FIVE YEARS of playing games like this. That's way different. Is the initial novelty factor going to last? I've had arcade games that I LOVED and then I've later rented the home version and have gotten bored out of my skull after two hours of it.
Anyway the arguement earlier on was that there are some things that buttons work better for and the Rev controller is short on them when it realistically doesn't have to be. It's a needless restriction and if the only justification for it is that it will be less scary for non-gamers then my whole concern of Nintendo focusing too much on non-gamers at the expense of existing gamers is valid.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 29, 2005, 11:29:28 AM
Post by: denjet78 on September 29, 2005, 11:39:55 AM
So you have the digital pad (4 buttons), A and B (two more), and Select and Start (another 2) which if you've ever played an NES game you know that they were used for TONS of other things and not just selecting and starting. That's 6 buttons just on the main controller. Add in the add-on and you have two more triggers, an anologue stick AND the 3D space detection of the remote.
Let's see... 8 buttons plus anologue and 3D space. Now which controller is more functional?
And anyone who wants to whine about how the digital pad can only be used for movement... Are you really going to want to use a digital pad for movement when you have anologue AND 3D space? It's like how digital pads are used with games today: THEY'RE NOT! The only game I remember playing that actually used the digital pad on the GC controller was MP, and it was only used to select... was it visors? I can't remember off the top of my head. And please, no whining about fighting games. They're bitchy enough as it is with wanting more and more buttons. Why no one hasn't just come out with a keyboard with a digital pad attached to it already I'll never know.
This controller has all the functionallity and more, without all the complication. Looking back at older video games systems before Nintendo standardized the controller, they were COVERED in buttons and some even had anologue control. Yet a simple little dinky controller with two action buttons, start and select, and a digital cross pad beat them all out.
Why do you think that is?
Here's where I'm expeciting arguments about the video game market, hardware, and business practices, which really are all valid arguments. This is merely a simplification so things don't get too complicated.
And Ian, you mentioned that you'd be happy if Nintendo had just created a traditional controller with 3D space detection in it? Have you even thought about how limiting it would be to try and play with a traditional controller with 3D space? It's just not possible. You can whine about the remote shape but a broken controller is the only way this could be done, and done right. Think about it for a while... You're going to be moving both hands while trying to control the game at the same time. Not only is your range of motion limited but if you try to use the anologue stick you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble really quick. It just doesn't work when you find yourself having to move the controller around at any level of speed and/or precision while still keeping good control with the stick.
Post by: denjet78 on September 29, 2005, 11:57:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
They would prefer it until they played an entire baseball game by themselves and their arms felt like they were going to fall off. Imagine batting for an entire game for an entire team. That would put a lot of strain on your shoulders. You don't get tired by pushing buttons. Plus it's kind of a waste to have to actually be good at baseball in order to do well. Ideally you would have to be a good hitter in real life wouldn't you? Otherwise your form would be the sh!ts and you would strike out the whole time.
Now that's an argument about the developers themselves. If they're still going to dumb down games for everyone to access them or if they're going to create very elite software that only the best gamers can use. It's already well know that the controller will work VERY well with only a small jerk of the wrist. That's no more harmfull than holding onto a controller and puching buttons. Keyboards can wreak all kinds of havok on your hand and wrists, as can a controller. Remember "Nintendoitis"? We really don't know what this type of control is going to do over a long period of time but we already do know what sitting still and pushing a bunch of buttons for hours at a time day after day can do.
Quote
Anyway the arguement earlier on was that there are some things that buttons work better for and the Rev controller is short on them when it realistically doesn't have to be. It's a needless restriction and if the only justification for it is that it will be less scary for non-gamers then my whole concern of Nintendo focusing too much on non-gamers at the expense of existing gamers is valid.
Actually, all you can say is that they're not marketing at YOU. If you asked me, this system is being built from the ground up for ME, and I played video games religiously during the 8 and 16bit generations. Not much recently though as, well, today's games suck for the most part. I wasn't even going to pick up a system this generation. Now I will. And for two reasons: 1. Virtual Console, 2. This is new, this is interesting, and by god, it's going to be fun!
Games just aren't... fun anymore. They feel too much like work, having to learn all the controls and button combinations and worst of all, they're all mirror images of one another with different graphics. UGH! I mean, why does everyone HATE the collection 3D platformer when Mario 64 is still considered one of the best video games ever created? Because no one's coming up with anything NEW. The Rev controller will breed new. It can't do anything else. Developers don't want to come up with new ideas because they're afraid it won't sell and cut into their profit margins? Well, Nintendo just changed the rule book. You think new or you die. I only wish this would have been possible for the GC.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 29, 2005, 12:52:08 PM
It's funny how you guys totally turned your back to this idea of a broken controller with gyros when I first brought it up, but now that Nintendo is all over it, so are you. Fanboyism?
The controller is great, but it is LIMITING. That is my basic concern. Select and start AREN"T playable action buttons. They are not placed in an ergonomic way for you to press them many a time during gameplay. Also, telling me that the D-pad is essentially 4 buttons is a wasted effort. The D-pad could be used to switch between items ala Zelda, but in NO way could it be used as an action button. I can see problems with pressing down or left in rapid succession while swing your arm/wrist every which way. There is too much room for error where accuracy is needed. Maybe if it were like a PS2 D-pad, where it actually is 4 different buttons.
You see, buttons are responsive, and they are also very distinct. No amount of hand gestures or d-pads can ever take that away. That's why I propose there be two more buttons on the face of the remote (call them X/Y). That would give the NRC + nunchuck attachment one less button than the GC controller. But th Z-button wasn't important anyway.
Is it really neccessary to have a huge lone "A" button for the sole purpose of attracting new-gamers? It's wasted space. Plus, you can attract new-gamers in another fashion. Sure simplicity is great, but how about a better looking controller? Something sleek and smooth with attractive looking buttons that glow and such. Something that doesn't look like a toy. Something that looks like electronic equipment akin to a dvd-player. Wouldn't that attract people who don't play games?
You could make those two extra face buttons have a crescent moon shape and put them on either side of the "A." Give them the same effect of transparency the A has, and maybe a light that makes the actually X and Y letters glow blue.
Is that scary? I can garuntee people would marvel at such a controller, and you know what? It provides even more functionality...what's wrong with that?!
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 01:11:39 PM
That true in theory but there's two other console where that rule doesn't apply. It's really more like "think new or Nintendo dies". Any third party that doesn't want to follow Nintendo's new "rule" will just do what they did when Nintendo decided that cartridges were the way to go: ditch Nintendo and make more money on another console.
I'll agree that games are getting pretty stagnant but I think that's more to do with Sony and MS having more influence as Sega has gone third party and Nintendo's marketshare has slided. I think if Nintendo goes off on a tangent to "avoid" the competition it will give them even LESS influence on the industry as a whole. I think the ideal solution if for a REAL gaming company like Nintendo to rise back up. Marketshare has more influence in the game industry than anything else. So Nintendo going all niche on us and targeting non-gamers is probably going to make the rest of the industry even more stagnant.
And there are still great innovative games made today with the current design. Pikmin for example is a major example. Another one would be Katamari Damacy. And despite all the hatred it gets from Nintendo fanboys who act like it's the worse thing to happen to gaming ever Grand Theft Auto III is one of the most innovative games to have been released in YEARS. New things can still be done. I think it would better for Nintendo to demonstrate how the current form of gaming can still breed new ideas instead of seperating themselves from the rest of the industry and turning it into an "old way" vs. "new way" battle. If Nintendo is a niche company they have no influence and the industry will just get worse. They have to be a major player to improve the industry and they won't be one if they're all "we're not competing" and "we're targeting a new market".
Plus many of Nintendo's least inspired games tend to come when they're trying too hard to be innovative. That's where stuff like the WATERPACK OF DOOM and some of their really bad DS games come from. When they're just trying to make a better sequel or the best game they can they innovate more naturally. I think it's because their thought process is more to achieve quality and thus new ideas come about as a way to make things better. When their thought process is to achieve innovation it doesn't turn out as good because they're trying to think of an innovative concept first and then come up with an idea for it instead of just coming up with a good idea and innovating as a need to make the idea work. Innovation must come as a result of great ideas. Otherwise you're like someone sitting at a table and trying to be an inventor.
Post by: trip1eX on September 29, 2005, 01:18:16 PM
Does that not show you the possibilities that many functions won't need buttons and won't be 'tiring.'
You can also tilt the controller up or down. You can zoom in and out by moving the controller closer/farther away from the TV.
Do you somehow think these things will be too difficult? I mean you use the argument that it only has two buttons to make it look easy to use, but then you use the opposite argument to explain the gryo functions. So Nintendo makes it look easy to use with the buttons but the gryo will be too difficult for their intended audience?
Has Nintendo not used gryos in GBA games? Was that stuff not easy to use?
Did you read up on the gyro technology in 3d mice that have existed on the market for years? Those mice are capable of mapping keys to gestures. And they do it accurately. I'll find a link to a review of one. The company that makes 'em is the company Nintendo licensed the technology from 4 years ago.
Mapping gestures is a matter of good software. You've seen how controls in games depend on how the game interprets your movements. HOw some games have really tight controls and others have really loose controls. So current controllers aren't immune to bad controls.
And the way the software interprets control movement in 3d space is the same as in 2d space except you've got that extra dimension to deal with.
So a 3d controller will really be no different. It's up to the developer to make responsive accurate controls. The hardware technology is there. IT's up the developer to play with the controller and find the right limits for each gryo function. IT's a matter of playtesting just like before.
The power to detect simple motions such as shaking the controller or waving it in a small circle are entirely possible to accurately do. You're just detecting movement in 3d space instead of 2d.
Anyway none of you naysayers seems to address this extra functionality the Revolution does have. You just choose to ignore it I guess and live in your own little world. Your brains can translate from button to motion. Thankfully NIntendo totally see this.
Come on use your imagination.
Post by: zakkiel on September 29, 2005, 01:26:14 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 29, 2005, 01:28:58 PM
Come on, there's still innovation to be found in the 2D era of games, Innovation can be found making games for the Atari 2600. For that matter innovation can be found in board games, and they've been around thousands of years!
We shouldn't stick to an old format just because the innovation well isn't dry.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 29, 2005, 01:37:15 PM
Quote
All that really does is let you play SNES games on it (you can already play NES),
Adding one entire generation to the abilities of the controller is no small feat. It brings it up from a style that some of us might be nostalgic for, but was actually painfully limited at the time. There's a REASON why Sega and Nintendo started adding buttons. Someone said "button counts just keep going up and up"? Yeah, they did. Up until the N64. Then they backed down to four main face buttons, which is probably the greatest balance of function vs complexity that anyone can hope for.
Also, once you bring this up from NES to SNES, you can match more recent generations of control with just the analog nunchuck. Add two meager buttons (and triggers that are seperate from that "B" trigger) and you've got the control capabilities of four straight generations of market-leading consoles (NES, SNES, PlayStation, PS2). And three out of four Nintendo consoles (NES, SNES, GameCube).
Plus it's not like the NES couldn't use two more buttons. The official NES Max and NES Advantage (and likely some others too) had four face buttons. Turbofire, dude.
Quote
which I think is a bit unesessary adding all that. TWO sets of 4 buttons? Why?
It only looks like "all that" because all the buttons are doubled, because Nintendo came up with that idea, for holding the controller in a more traditional "sideways" manner. I don't object to that idea. I think it works. However, it makes the controller look like it has more buttons than it actually does, which seems to fly against Nintendo's lowest-common-denominator "non-gamer" concept.
Those lower two buttons on the controller are redundant, and not meant to be used (unless you're holding the controller sideways). Even if we did use and count them as face buttons, like some are suggesting, they're in a downright lousy position. Worse than the Black and White buttons on the Xbox's Controller-S. Bring them up. add a proper "B" button. And a second trigger. That's it. That's all you'd need. Five generations (if we want to count the PS3, which Iwata does) instead of one.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 01:45:01 PM
Tilting left and right are two functions. But they are not the same as pressing a button. Different controller functions are appropriate for different uses. Sometimes a tilt will work better, sometimes a digital button press will. The Rev controller design assumes that tilting and moving is ALWAYS appropriate and will work fine for any situation where another button could do the trick. Nintendo is saying that there will never be a situation where more than four action buttons will be needed (and remember the "nunchuk" limits movement so to make use of motion control you really only get two buttons). That is incredibly restrictive and short sighted particularly when games that require eight buttons already exist. No one can say accurately that in every game that uses more than two or four buttons that motion control will be appropriate for the extra non-assigned functions. They just put a couple more buttons on there and PROBLEM SOLVED. They don't have to worry about anything testing their "only need two buttons" theory.
"You don't realize how great Ian thinks it is either."
To clear things up here's what I like about the Rev:
- good case design. Small, highly stylish and marketable. Big improvement over purple lunchbox.
- commitment to online with "90% of users" comments.
- FREE ONLINE!
- wireless controllers.
- very flexible backwards compatibility. FOUR Cube controller slots? Now that's being user-friendly.
- download service is cool as hell.
- not nearly as expensive as the competition
- motion control is a good idea if used correctly.
- optional DVD player. A smart move to allow for wider appeal.
- it's Nintendo and I like them a lot more than Sony or MS.
What I don't like:
- restrictive controller design. Could be way better with some extra buttons.
- overemphasis on non-gamers.
- no HD support (minor issue)
- no ethernet jack. Minor issue but I still don't want to have to buy something extra.
I loved practically everything I saw at E3 regarding the Rev. I've grown more sour on it because Nintendo decided to needlessly restrict their controller because of this non-gamer focus which will have a ripple effect on the entire console. All the good things they've done so far can all be undone by this one controller design.
Post by: IceCold on September 29, 2005, 01:52:32 PM
OK, why don't they put the D-Pad on the BOTTOM of the remote, instead of the a-b buttons. Then, at the top, have three, or possibly four, face buttons. It would be perfect; the D-Pad could be used a secondary feature, and then the face buttons could be used as action buttons, along with the trigger and the analogue/trigger attachment.
And best of all, to play S/NES games, tilt it the OTHER WAY and use the D-Pad and face buttons. That would keep the same amount of buttons (as the small a-b combo would be gone) or at most add another one, but would be more functional.
So not a double set like Ruby's drawing, but a D-Pad at the bottom and one set at the top. I think that Ruby's looked way too congested and there were too many buttons, but this would be just fine.
Any flaws, other than the fact that there will be more than just the A button at the top which will scare away non-gamers? Because with this it would still have the same amount/one more button, but just placed differently.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 01:53:03 PM
The first time I showed my Mom the controller the first thing she said was "how do you reach THOSE buttons?"
Edit: That's not a bad idea IceCold. My only concern is reaching the d-pad while playing vertically. Eliminating the redundant buttons would be really good though and realistically for any d-pad game you're probably going to be playing it horizontally.
Post by: MODE_RED on September 29, 2005, 02:14:18 PM
(1 ) A recessed microphone on the top of the controller. The increase in cost is negligible, and it makes sense to have a mic on top, because the controller is already shaped like a microphone handle.
(2) Recessed speakers can emulate the noises of whatever imaginary object the player is holding, which adds to the suspension of disbelief.
By definition, gamers love games. I am a big fan of games (and therefore game developers) that make a conscious, concerted effort to "love" gamers as much as possible through feedback and ease of interaction.
Speakers and a mic built into the controller to supply additional feedback and interaction (i.e. LOVE) are large strides toward success for such small, and easily written-off inclusions.
I M A G I N E
Using the NRC as a gun.
Hearing gun shots, reloading, expending shells, clinking against walls, coming from the NRC.
Blowing in the mic to blow the smoke off of your gun.
I M A G I N E
Being a reporter using the NRC as a mic that you can talk into and hold out to onscreen characters to get them to talk to you. Even squeals next to a speaker. Or maybe its a secret mic/sound recorder hidden in something. Press a button to play back what was recorded, with the sound outputted to your NRC only.
Press a button and it becomes a camera, with complimentary zooming and clicking noises to boot.
I M A G I N E
The NRC is a talking VOODOO doll, all its buttons corresponding to parts of the voodoo doll's body.
Press a button, poke it in the eye. Choke it. Say LEGS on FIRE, etc.
When the VOODOO doll screams, the NRC rumbles and screams!
I M A G I N E
This is just for starters... I know lightsaber sound effects and the sound of your arm searing when your hand gets lopped off would make many Star Wars fans by a Revolution.
With the ability to add onto the NRC, built-in speakers and mic would be inexpendible.
I M A G I N E
You are blind, and the NRC is your "SEEING STICK." Whever you point, it tells you through visual imagery what is there.
Now I M A G I N E your seeing stick can transform into an EAGLE, a DOG, and more, just by your voice commands.
Using your voice and arm movements, you can command the stick to perform tasks for you, like retrieval.
I M A G I N E your seeing stick can transform from stick, to animal guide, to a weapon like a gun and back to a simple stick in endless combinations during combat.
By the sounds the stick (the NRC) makes, not just the onscreen cues, you can tell what it is you are currently holding and what it is doing.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 02:28:28 PM
But the speaker on the remote idea is REALLY cool. It's not worth hiking the price of the controller up for but it's a good idea.
Post by: PaLaDiN on September 29, 2005, 02:32:35 PM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 29, 2005, 02:44:34 PM
Quote
Bring them up. add a proper "B" button. And a second trigger. That's it. That's all you'd need.
It isn't necessary to add in the extra trigger and another button the controller with the nunchuk can already cover all the necessary controls .
Quote
and remember the "nunchuk" limits movement so to make use of motion control you really only get two buttons
You're assuming the final version of the nunchuck will not be wireless, the one shown at TGS was the prototype.
Quote
No one can say accurately that in every game that uses more than two or four buttons that motion control will be appropriate for the extra non-assigned functions. They just put a couple more buttons on there and PROBLEM SOLVED. They don't have to worry about anything testing their "only need two buttons" theory.
In the unlikely chance that they haven't taken this into account, there is the controller shell, or the GC controller ports to cover that problem.
Quote
So not a double set like Ruby's drawing, but a D-Pad at the bottom and one set at the top. I think that Ruby's looked way too congested and there were too many buttons, but this would be just fine.
This is reasonable, remember nintendo already said that the revo controller shown at TGS was a prototype and that some changes would likely occur.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 03:03:58 PM
Fair enough. I didn't think of that.
"In the unlikely chance that they haven't taken this into account, there is the controller shell, or the GC controller ports to cover that problem."
The controller shell will work if it's included with every controller and is promoted as something to actually be used and not just a SNES/N64 workaround. The Cube controller isn't even an option. No developer is going to design games to use a Cube controller a Rev owner may or may not have. They can't even estimate what percentage of the userbase has one because the Cube is a whole different console and there's no way to determine what console any Cube controllers sold are used for.
Post by: BigJim on September 29, 2005, 03:38:10 PM
I'm all for a QUALITY mic or headset attachment. If nothing else, I want the option to talk to people as I play against them (or strategize WITH them). I do it in real life with multi-player games and online with PC games, so why not with Rev players?
For idea #2, as long as the speakers are good quality, that could be a good idea. The only problem is that if it's not at least as good as TV speakers, they might sound like ass and be more annoying than immersive. Good speakers are usually a battery drain too.
This entire topic can go on forever. The bottom line is that if you're sold on the controller already, then good for you. Not yet being sold on it is valid also, whether the "sold" people like it or not.
I give them all the credit they deserve that the new potential uses are many and varied, but I'm not going to be sold on the controller until:
1. We see the final design.
2. We see real, fully functioning games. (demos, even MP, are not satisfactory to me since it was a controlled demo in a controlled environment for a controlled period of time.)
3. We see that we haven't lost more than we've gained in terms of *practical* functionality.
4. We see that epics aren't released at an even slower pace at the expense of non-games.
Motion and tilt is not an end-all-be-all solution for missing buttons. Neither is suggesting the D-pad adequately substitutes action buttons since using more than one action button at a time is often desired.
If they were to add x/y buttons to the bottom of the controller so that a sideway design would allow 4 action buttons (basically the same layout as the DS), I would probably be more easily sold. Then I would *know* I'm not losing much functionality, and that the motion and tilt is *on top of* an already adequately functioning controller.
Quote
Okay, this "can't reach the buttons!" thing is getting very old. Pick up a remote and press the buttons in that area. You can do it. It's not that hard... go ahead and try. You don't have to use the other hand. And the controller seems to be smaller than it looks.
I just happen to have my Tivo remote handy.
This is the rundown. For me, there is a comfortable "thumb reach" of about 3 inches. That's the distance from the Tivo button at the top to the volume button closer to the center. As it translates to the NRC, the D-pad and A button are a no-brainer. The Select/Home/Start buttons LOOK like they're right around that 3" borderline from the d-pad. They could get annoying as action buttons because at that point my thumb would be bending inward and cramping to reach them. And of course the a/b buttons on the bottom would be out of the question.At worst, they're not suitable as action buttons due to reach. At best, they could be annoying. And I have big hands with a size 12 ring.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 29, 2005, 03:38:47 PM
Quote
The controller shell will work if it's included with every controller and is promoted as something to actually be used and not just a SNES/N64 workaround
I think the Nintendo spokesperson said it was intended to be used with traditional style games which would not work on the frestyle controller, in fact the Revo controller with Nunchuck fulfills the needs for N64 without the shell
Quote
The Cube controller isn't even an option. No developer is going to design games to use a Cube controller a Rev owner may or may not have. They can't even estimate what percentage of the userbase has one because the Cube is a whole different console and there's no way to determine what console any Cube controllers sold are used for.
Fair enough
Post by: ruby_onix on September 29, 2005, 04:27:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Oh hey, I just thought of this and I don't think anyone has mentioned an idea like it in here, so here it is..
OK, why don't they put the D-Pad on the BOTTOM of the remote, instead of the a-b buttons. Then, at the top, have three, or possibly four, face buttons. It would be perfect; the D-Pad could be used a secondary feature, and then the face buttons could be used as action buttons, along with the trigger and the analogue/trigger attachment.
And best of all, to play S/NES games, tilt it the OTHER WAY and use the D-Pad and face buttons. That would keep the same amount of buttons (as the small a-b combo would be gone) or at most add another one, but would be more functional.
So not a double set like Ruby's drawing, but a D-Pad at the bottom and one set at the top. I think that Ruby's looked way too congested and there were too many buttons, but this would be just fine.
Any flaws, other than the fact that there will be more than just the A button at the top which will scare away non-gamers? Because with this it would still have the same amount/one more button, but just placed differently.
That could really work. I already disliked having the buttons in such close proximity to the D-pad in the vertical position. Putting the D-pad at the bottom of the unit allows you to use it with your free hand. And the "lower" D-pad fits the style of the GameCube and other similar pads.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
- optional DVD player. A smart move to allow for wider appeal.
Oh yeah, has anyone guessed yet where Nintendo is going to attach that "dongle" to the Revolution, in order to enable DVD playback? It seems obvious now.
So the question is, can Nintendo control a DVD player with a remote that has a D-pad, one button, and a trigger, or are they going to have to add extra buttons to the DVD dongle?
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Okay, this "can't reach the buttons!" thing is getting very old. Pick up a remote and press the buttons in that area. You can do it. It's not that hard... go ahead and try. You don't have to use the other hand. And the controller seems to be smaller than it looks.
Tell that to someone with a Controller-S.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 29, 2005, 04:34:18 PM
Post by: BigJim on September 29, 2005, 05:47:37 PM
Quote
Oh yeah, has anyone guessed yet where Nintendo is going to attach that "dongle" to the Revolution, in order to enable DVD playback? It seems obvious now.
So the question is, can Nintendo control a DVD player with a remote that has a D-pad, one button, and a trigger, or are they going to have to add extra buttons to the DVD dongle?
It's a physical part. They said it was going inside the system.
I think there are enough buttons for DVD playback.
Menu: Home button
Navigation: d-pad or motion sensors
Navigation Select: Select
Play/Pause: Start
Fast Forward: b
Rewind: a
Skip Forward: A
Skip Back: B
It's not every feature under the sun, and you might shuffle that example configuration around a bit, but it's adequate.
Edit: BTW, IceCold, your suggestion was very astute. That would be a much better configuration. It's a relatively small change but sounds like it makes a big difference. It's an easier way to accomplish my concern also.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 29, 2005, 05:48:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Oh hey, I just thought of this and I don't think anyone has mentioned an idea like it in here, so here it is..
OK, why don't they put the D-Pad on the BOTTOM of the remote, instead of the a-b buttons. Then, at the top, have three, or possibly four, face buttons. It would be perfect; the D-Pad could be used a secondary feature, and then the face buttons could be used as action buttons, along with the trigger and the analogue/trigger attachment.
And best of all, to play S/NES games, tilt it the OTHER WAY and use the D-Pad and face buttons. That would keep the same amount of buttons (as the small a-b combo would be gone) or at most add another one, but would be more functional.
So not a double set like Ruby's drawing, but a D-Pad at the bottom and one set at the top. I think that Ruby's looked way too congested and there were too many buttons, but this would be just fine.
Any flaws, other than the fact that there will be more than just the A button at the top which will scare away non-gamers? Because with this it would still have the same amount/one more button, but just placed differently.
Nice work. I commend you. Although, if you added two more buttons to the a/b scheme so it resembled the SNES, you'd also have to add shoulder buttons correct?
Anyway, like BigJim mentioned I won't be sold till I see how the games actually control. If I see that hand-gestures are the substitute for buttons (such as morphing), I might be really really pissed off. Giggling a controller to morph Samus into a ball just doesn't sound good to me.
Who knows it just might work flawlessly, so i'll keep an open mind. However, I am still skeptical ESPECIALLY since Nintendo can easily solve this problem with both IceCold's and my own advice.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 29, 2005, 06:32:11 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 29, 2005, 06:33:40 PM
Post by: mantidor on September 29, 2005, 07:13:24 PM
Post by: zakkiel on September 29, 2005, 07:37:26 PM
QuoteHuh? Everyone who played any of the demos specifically noted that only small movements of the wrist were necessary. How many times do we have to recover this ground?
(and remember the "nunchuk" limits movement so to make use of motion control you really only get two buttons).
QuoteThis may be unfair, but all I can recall hearing from you was how dire it was that Nintendo had shown so little at E3.
I loved practically everything I saw at E3 regarding the Rev. I've grown more sour on it because Nintendo decided to needlessly restrict their controller because of this non-gamer focus which will have a ripple effect on the entire console.
Whether the restriction on the NRC is needless is the entire point of contention. It seems to me that a major gaming company employing focus groups to test this idea is perhaps better-equipped to discern how to capture non-gamers than we. Just a thought. Certainly something happened between the NES and N64 that lost a massive chunk of the market, and I doubt it was the graphics.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 29, 2005, 08:30:45 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 29, 2005, 08:59:46 PM
I did feel they should have shown more but I also said I liked what they did show.
Post by: BigJim on September 29, 2005, 09:04:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
BigJim, the controller is pretty small, if you see it in Iwata's hands. I think the 3 inch range will get you to the x y buttons no problem.
If you mean the a/b buttons, there's no way it's only 3" from the d-pad to the a button. I'm pretty sure Iwata doesn't have the hands of a 5 year old, as small as they might be.
If you look at the stock photos with the hand models, the a/b buttons are down next to the "meat" of the palm. At BEST it's not comfortable, especially to transition back and forth, without releasing the grip on the remote.
Still, the controller isn't done. So who knows what they'll change.
Post by: wandering on September 29, 2005, 10:36:40 PM
Quote
Yeah, because this (with inset L&R buttons on the right side of the unit) is such an unreasonable request.
That actually is. The controller is designed the way it is because it would be uncomfortable to move your thumb around to hit various buttons while also holding the controller in one hand and moving your wrist around.
AS for adding a second z-trigger, that's not a bad idea...but it would magnify the controller's complexity. With the current setup, a non-gamer playing a non-gamer remote-only game only has to learn about the thumb button, index button, and peripheral features like the d-pad and select button.
In any case, I'm tired of people saying the controller is unfunctional. A button + b button = 2 primary action buttons, just like the N64. d pad = 4 selection/movement buttons, just like the N64. z1+z2= 2 triggers, just like...you know. And then add to that the select button, which CAN be used as an action button (it's a little out of the way, but then, so was the cube's y button), and, of course MOTION CONTROL and A TRADITIONAL SHELL....and you have one heck of a functional controller.
Post by: theRPGFreak on September 30, 2005, 12:13:58 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 30, 2005, 04:39:05 AM
Post by: Pale on September 30, 2005, 05:28:45 AM
I guess Ian can win the award for "Creating the longest b*tch thread"...
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 30, 2005, 06:00:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
The Morph Ball was the select button! how do these rumors get started?
I could have sworn I read that you had to stab downward to morph Samus. You show me an article that says otherwise and i'll believe you.
Post by: wandering on September 30, 2005, 06:33:17 AM
Quote
The analog stick controlled your movement. The A button let you jump, while the B button fired your weapon. The shoulder buttons on the analog attachment let you switch visors, scan, and lock on to targets, although the lock-on feature was less necessary thanks to the precision firing available via just looking around with the controller. You could shift to the morph ball by pressing the select button on the main controller's face, which felt surprisingly comfortable to do in the middle of action.
Post by: Artimus on September 30, 2005, 06:56:43 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 07:27:11 AM
The N64 has SIX primary action buttons, unless the only N64 game you ever played was Super Mario 64.
"I'm having a hard time understanding your statements Ian. Are you saying that Nintendo's new console should put graphics first and copy the gameplay startegies that MS and Sony are following?"
In short, no.
I'm saying Nintendo's new console should focus more on trying to compete in the existing market and not go off on a tangent to attract an unproven market at the potential risk of losing the existing proven market. Nintendo doesn't have to make a remote controller in order to have "gameplay first" console. In terms of gameplay I don't see much need to change since that's what they're best at. They just have to encourage their allies to provide more variety in the lineup and not just make more Mario spinoffs and they have to time their releases better (ie: having a game longer than 10 hours as the launch flagship title, releasing realistic Zelda first and cartoon Zelda second). I think with better marketing, less silly obvious screwups, and being a whole lot nicer to third parties Nintendo could make a traditional console that could seriously compete. Ironically the Rev was doing that perfectly until they introduced the remote.
The only thing I want them to borrow from Sony and MS are their good ideas that Nintendo deviates from for no reason other than to be different. That would be things like being very flexible about distributing demos, charging only $20 for Player's Choice titles instead of $30 and having lower third party licencing fees. Good ideas that don't comprimise Nintendo's games themselves.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on September 30, 2005, 07:38:49 AM
Post by: wandering on September 30, 2005, 09:02:14 AM
From my POV, Nintendo already tried what you're suggesting: they played ball with the other guys. They made a traditional console, didn't make any big mistakes, offered interesting (if at times underwhelming) variations on their traditional games, courted 3rd party developers, etc. It kept NIntendo afloat, but certainly wasn't a resounding success, as I'm sure we agree.
Now, you point to various small mistakes that you think Nintendo made: no online, asking devs to make Nintendo franchise games, vague marketing, purple color, slightly higher prices for certain things, etc. (though ALL of these decisions are defendable, and probably seemed like good ideas at the time they were made. I actually think some of them were good ideas, but whatever.)
But I don't buy it. You could probably draw up a similar list for both xbox and ps2.
IMO, the 3 consoles were so undifferentiated from one another, that success and failure were determined by, not any minor mistakes, but rather by the consoles' various advantages. Playstation had brand recognition. Microsoft had deep pockets. Nintendo had NIntendo franchise games. Nintendo lost...and, IMO, no amount of minor tweaks would've changed that outcome.
If Nintendo were to do as you want them to, Ian, next generation we'd have a battle between Nintendo, with Nintendo franchise games + minor fixes to last generation's problems vs. Microsoft, with deep pockets + minor fixes to last generation's problems vs. Sony, with name recognition + major amplifications of last generation's problems (because, you know, they're the market leader and they can't fail no matter what /sarcasm). IN my mind, in this scenario, Nintendo would still lose.
Nintendo NEEDS to differentiate themselves in a major way....and that's what they're doing. And it'll probably work, judging by the ridiculous success of the DS....and the nearly UNANIMOUS praise among people who have actually played with Nintendo's new controller.
Quote
"A button + b button = 2 primary action buttons, just like the N64."
The N64 has SIX primary action buttons, unless the only N64 game you ever played was Super Mario 64.
How is the d-pad not a suitable replacement for the c-buttons? Even Miyamoto has said that he wished they had put a second d-pad on the N64 controller in place of them.
edit spelling and such
Post by: Pale on September 30, 2005, 09:39:49 AM
That said, having a d-pad up there has many benefits too... so it's really a toss up as to which is better.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 09:54:37 AM
Push C-up and C-down at the same time on the N64 controller. Now push up and down at the same time on a d-pad. You can't. That's why a d-pad is not a suitable replacement.
"From my POV, Nintendo already tried what you're suggesting: they played ball with the other guys. They made a traditional console, didn't make any big mistakes, offered interesting (if at times underwhelming) variations on their traditional games, courted 3rd party developers, etc. It kept NIntendo afloat, but certainly wasn't a resounding success, as I'm sure we agree."
Well that's the big difference in our opinion. Basically what I want from Nintendo what you think they did last gen. You think they played ball with the other guys and failed anyway while I think they showed up to play ball overweight and unprepared and got their ass whooped as a result.
The truth is to defend a lot of the decisions Nintendo made on the Cube you have to make up excuses. When there are no excuses THEN you can say that Nintendo can't compete on even footing.
How can you possibly think that a company that LIED about online plans and then backed out and sabotaged the possibility of third party online games was competing on evenfooting? And that's just one issue.
I could name some Sony and MS mistakes but they were so minor in comparison to Nintendo's and they usually addressed them quickly instead of pretending they weren't there (or in the case of Sony they got lucky as their crappy launch went largely unopposed and they had such a huge lead). You can badmouth MS all you want, and I do, but they tried to meet the fan's needs and addressed issues. Halo was laughed at at E3 but it came out on time and delivered. MS was upfront about their online plans and delivered. Sure it was pay-to-play but at least they had something and they pushed it hard. The controller was a big issue so MS fixed it and without any compatibility problems that I can think of. Weak Japanese support was always a big isssue so for the X360 MS has made deals with Japanese developers. They're addressing an issue and letting the fans know about it. That's why they beat Nintendo. They fixed what was broken and listened to their fans instead of spindoctoring everything and keeping their fans in the dark.
Sony's big problem was cockiness as they fell into the trap of assuming they were untouchable. And eventhough they're still number one it did bite them in the ass as MS is now a potential threat to Sony in North America.
Post by: nemo_83 on September 30, 2005, 10:10:21 AM
At least he alluded to Zelda being forwards compatible with the Rev controller for sword fighting.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 30, 2005, 10:15:40 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 11:21:31 AM
There are also more dead people and more insects and they're probably just as likely to buy a Rev as grandparents are. I think it makes more sense to target people they know are interested in videogames instead of people who aren't and probably won't give a sh!t no matter what Nintendo does.
Though the ideal strategy would be to target both. Sony not only introduced a large group of people to gaming they also stole existing gamers from Nintendo and Sega. If Nintendo really wants to attract a new audience the ideal thing to do is to try to do it while at the same time attracting the existing market. The Rev seems more like a tradeoff, like they don't care if the existing market buys it or not.
Post by: odifiend on September 30, 2005, 12:06:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
There are more grandparents than Xbox and PS3 owners. The potential market for nongamers is huge. Nintendo's trying to attract nongamers because if they succeed, Nintendo now owns a huge share of the market, just like they used to before the PSP arrived.
I really don't know why Nintendo thinks in this manner. If you look at the average American grandparent's opinion on video games, "foolish non-sense" would be the most popluar opinion likely followed by "easy gifts for my grandchildren." Does that not sound like your grandparents? Old people will not be buying the Revolution for themselves, especially if they are a fixed income. Even if the Revolution is the most inviting experience ever, I promise that many old people will not capitalize on it because they are so set in their thinking of what a video game is. Nintendo does have a chance with involved parents though, but that isn't really going to move anymore systems unless you have divorce parents.
And just kind of an aside, a big reason Nintendo has the handheld world on lock is because of games like pokemon and nintendogs - games that give owners incentive to have different versions of the same game and with that multiple GBAs and DSes. (How many people on this board have only one GBA? Pokemon players: how many of you buy versions in pairs? How many people own more than one copy of Nintendogs?) This phenomenon is almost impossible for Nintendo to duplicate in the console world. So I think when Nintendo points to DS as a reason for Revolution's future success, I think you have to take that with a grain of salt, entirely different markets.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 30, 2005, 12:19:29 PM
"I think it makes more sense to target people they know are interested in videogames instead of people who aren't and probably won't give a sh!t no matter what Nintendo does."
Well, that's where you and Nintendo differ. Nintendo thinks, and I agree, that there's this whole big market of people out there that could be playing Nintendo, but aren't. They aren't playing anything. They aren't playing for a reason, and Nintendo is trying to rectify that. They're not like existing gamers, which probably are biased against Nintendo and plan to buy a PS3/Xbox 360. These people are more likely to buy a Nintendo product than a Sony fan is.
However, they've said time and time again that they're still going to support the core gamers. Just because you only choose to hear them talking about nongamers is your problem. Right now you might be seeing an influx of "nongames" for the DS. Well, Nintendo needs to go through with their plans don't they? They need to get these products out there to attract nongamers. But in reality they're supporting the core gamer too. Right now there are a few nongames out, like Brain Training and Nintendogs, but if you look at the rest of the DS schedule it's also got games like Mario Kart and the New Super Mario Bros that are there for the core gamers (I was going to say "for people like you" but then I remembered that you hate fun). There are more regular games for the DS out now and in the pipeline than nongames.
Post by: mantidor on September 30, 2005, 12:27:29 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 30, 2005, 12:54:13 PM
Post by: Caliban on September 30, 2005, 01:03:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If Nintendo really wants to attract a new audience the ideal thing to do is to try to do it while at the same time attracting the existing market. The Rev seems more like a tradeoff, like they don't care if the existing market buys it or not.
Are you stupid in any way possible? Iwata did say that they will make games for the existing players but will also want to do games for other people that aren't common video-gamers. I don't know where in your twisted mind do you come up with these presumptions man. He stated they will support both markets, he didn't say one more than the other, he said both, (and I repeat again) both!!!! Now, I don't mean any insult to you Ian but I think sometimes it just seems that you can't escape your own logic loop and so you can't create other logic paths, and you sometimes over-think too. By the way, if Nintendo seems to want to create new markets don't you think that will create more buisness oportunities for new and old third-party companies that want to release new traditional games? I think it will, but that's just me anyway.
Post by: BigJim on September 30, 2005, 01:31:48 PM
Their idea of an "and" company can alienate segments of their customers, be it genre fans, IP fans, or whatever, because the reality is that Nintendo alone is too small to be an "and" company that can satisfy the broad appeal of their customers.
Yes, Iwata said he'd make games for "everybody" yet again with Revolution. And THAT is a concern. Until Nintendo proves otherwise, Revolution could be more of the same strategy which has *not* worked to "everybody's" satisfaction, and those customers that feel alienated would have valid concern about possibly being alienated again for another 5 years.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on September 30, 2005, 01:41:56 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 01:45:25 PM
They stated that about the DS too. Yet the ratio of first party DS games targetting towards non-gamers and traditional games has been very significantly in favour of non-gamers. In fact I would say until Kirby and Advance Wars came out the only traditional game made by Nintendo on the DS was Super Mario 64 and that's a port. So I look at the favourtism towards the non-gaming market on the DS and thus assume it will be similar on the Rev. Nintendo said they would target both groups with the DS and in my mind they've at best given traditional gamers the bare minimum. Plus nearly all of their brand new ideas are going to non-gamer stuff like Nintendogs, Electroplankton, and that brain teaser thing. The traditional gamers are expected to make due with sequels.
"They're not like existing gamers, which probably are biased against Nintendo and plan to buy a PS3/Xbox 360. These people are more likely to buy a Nintendo product than a Sony fan is."
A Sony fan and a Playstation user are not always the same thing. There are tons of gamers who are not biased against Nintendo but go with the competition simply due to necessity because the third party games they love are on another console. I've always felt that if Nintendo was to target a specific group it should be hardcore gamers. RPG or fighter or shmup or racing nuts all go to the Playstation because that's the only place they can get a decent selection of the genre they love. Nintendo doesn't have enough variety to please them. But they still like Nintendo and regard them as a great developer. If Nintendo early on made sure to attract some of the key developers who make games like that they could establish their console as being the console to get for certain genres and thus attract large groups of hardcore gamers. Sony and MS wouldn't even notice because often console makers (including Nintendo, in fact they're the WORST for this) look too much at the big blockbusters and don't realize the importance of the more underground titles. The PS2 might have GTA3 but what REALLY makes it so huge is that it has so many hardcore genres under lock which keeps groups that may not even like Sony buying it. The Cube really isn't a console for anyone except Nintendo fans. There are no genres or subgenres that it is clearly the best choice for. Even the N64 was the clear multiplayer, platformer, FPS, and wrestling game console. That's the key to stealing away competing userbase. Somehow Sony managed to steal an insanely large chunk of Nintendo's userbase. That's because not everyone who owned a SNES was a Nintendo fan. There are neutral gamers out there who follow their favourite games and those are who you steal from the competition. That's a far safer group to target because Nintendo doesn't have to sell the concept of gaming to them or try to persuade them to take on a new interest. They just have to have the right games on their console early on.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 30, 2005, 02:08:44 PM
Quote
Iwata did say that they will make games for the existing players but will also want to do games for other people that aren't common video-gamers. I don't know where in your twisted mind do you come up with these presumptions man. He stated they will support both markets, he didn't say one more than the other, he said both, (and I repeat again) both!!!!
Nintendo also said they'd target the "mature" market, in addition to the kiddies. They said they could do both. They couldn't.
This time around, they're saying they can expand from "gamer" to "non-gamer", but they've already made more sacrifices to the "gamer" way of thinking, and pinned the blame on the "non-gamer", than they ever did to the kiddie market in their attempt to include the mature.
Perhaps this makes sense, because Nintendo had a lock on the kiddie market which they didn't want to release. And their position in the regular videogames industry is pretty low right now.
But the mature market (carved by Sony out of the mass of non-gaming "former gamers" Nintendo had cast aside long ago) was a proven market, bigger than the kiddie one even. Nobody even knows for sure if Nintendo's new "non-gamer" market even exists.
Also, there seems to be a paradox in this thread and elsewhere, in that the pessimists seem to have more faith in Nintendo's ability to compete than the optimists do.
One or two years ago, Iwata said "The ONLY reason Sony beat us with the PS2 is because they had the advantage of a DVD player, and they launched before us. That will not happen again. We will launch at the same time as, or earlier than our competetors, with superior hardware, unmatched games, and we will win."
Then they found out the Xbox360's launch window, and said that they didn't mean Microsoft. Microsoft's a non-factor. They mean Sony. Nintendo will destroy Sony with the Revolution.
Now, Iwata's all like...
"Specs? Like...on paper? Uhhh... yeah... we're boned. We have no chance to survive. Make our time. But we're pretty sure that non-gamers don't know enough about games to see the difference."
"Does that make us cheaper? Uhhh... no comment. Probably under $400-500. Don't hold me to that."
"PS3 launch date? Umm... well... you see... we're not a Sony third party... yet (hyuck hyuck). So we don't actually know when the PS3 will launch. But it doesn't matter, because we wouldn't be able to compete anyways, and we think we've found a nice little market where we can hide. If you're a gamer, buy a PS3. Then please please pretty please buy a Rev as your second console, because hey, we're still Nintendo, and we need you. I know you guys didn't fall for that defeatist attitude with the GameCube, but this time we really mean it!"
(By the way, if Nintendo doesn't learn to compete, the non-gamer market will move to Sony as they become gamers, just as surely as the kiddie market moved to Sony as they grew up.)
Post by: Renny on September 30, 2005, 02:12:52 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 30, 2005, 02:35:52 PM
I really disagree here. Especially now that the production of games is really picking up. Advance Wars, Kirby, Castlevania, Mario Bros, Mario Kart- all gamers games (there's a lot more). Plus there are games like Trauma Center which are a little of both, which is perfect. As for the nongames...Brain Training, Soft Headed Private School Brain Training (laffo), Nintendogs, uhhh....
"Have you paid attention to this generation?"
I thought we were talking about their next gen strategy. This nongamer business started with the DS and now the Revolution. I see what you're saying about being an "and" company, but the two things this gen were "mature and tiku tiku tiku! " and next gen it's "games and nongames," and so far they're doing a much better job this time around.
"Also, there seems to be a paradox in this thread and elsewhere, in that the pessimists seem to have more faith in Nintendo's ability to compete than the optimists do."
I've noticed this, but if everyone else is like me, the optimists know Nintendo can compete, but don't think they should. And there's no use arguing about it because they're not. I know that Nintendo is a big company and can compete with Sony (Microsoft is in a league of their own, what with their OS profits..), but I don't think they should. I think the route their taking would be much more beneficial for both Nintendo and the gamers. That's win-win
That's not to say that they're not competing with Sony at all, because videogames are videogames, but this time Nintendo's also trying to bring in nongamers."My grandmother plays Dance Dance Revolution and almost bought a PS2 so she could play it."
She's going to hurt herself
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on September 30, 2005, 02:42:34 PM
Maybe you're robots, I dunno, but it seems to me that playing and enjoying means more than having deathmatches about marketshare and features on consoles that are still a long ways off from releasing.
But, that's just me. You're certainly entitled to get heated and such (after all, that's what these boards are for, in a way) but as one gamer to the rest of you, I'm perplexed.
Post by: Artimus on September 30, 2005, 02:48:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
Something struck me as odd recently. I keep an eye pretty closely on all of the arguments you guys have about Nintendo (which is pretty often, I must say), and while I admire your passion on the subject, something keeps bugging me. With all of the time you spend citing supporting examples, business strategies, and so on, how do you find the time to enjoy the stuff? I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
Maybe you're robots, I dunno, but it seems to me that playing and enjoying means more than having deathmatches about marketshare and features on consoles that are still a long ways off from releasing.
But, that's just me. You're certainly entitled to get heated and such (after all, that's what these boards are for, in a way) but as one gamer to the rest of you, I'm perplexed.
There are like 16 hours of wakefulness a day. Assuming you have 9 hours of school or work a day that's 7 hours. Play games for 2. Surf the net 2. Socialize for 2. Argue for 1. Possible!
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 02:48:06 PM
Good point. I think the logic is that this is different and that those interested in Nintendo's non-games won't be interested in what Sony has to offer. But what if Sony changes too. Let's say that this non-gamer thing does take off and Nintendo does very well next gen. What happens if the gen afterwards (or perhaps even sooner) Sony releases their own remote and then steals Nintendo's new market with better marketing and by fixing Nintendo's screwups? Then they're back to square one. Avoiding the competition is at best a short term solution. They have to be able to compete at some point.
Look at the portable market. Nintendo dodged the PSP bullet. Had Sony not overpriced the thing and focused too much on movies Nintendo could have been in serious trouble because the DS was really poorly prepared. So they're okay for now. But what about when Sony releases a PSP followup? What if Sony learns from their mistakes? The threat of a competitor stealing away Nintendo's market is always present. They have to compete. They can't make up new markets forever. There was nothing to stop Sony from taking a shot at the portable market and there's nothing to stop anyone else from entering the "non-gamer" market.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on September 30, 2005, 02:49:54 PM
If you guys only spent one hour a day arguing, this board would be a ghost town.
Post by: Artimus on September 30, 2005, 02:50:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"By the way, if Nintendo doesn't learn to compete, the non-gamer market will move to Sony as they become gamers, just as surely as the I LOVE HALO 2 market moved to Sony as they grew up."
Good point. I think the logic is that this is different and that those interested in Nintendo's non-games won't be interested in what Sony has to offer. But what if Sony changes too. Let's say that this non-gamer thing does take off and Nintendo does very well next gen. What happens if the gen afterwards (or perhaps even sooner) Sony releases their own remote and then steals Nintendo's new market with better marketing and by fixing Nintendo's screwups? Then they're back to square one. Avoiding the competition is at best a short term solution. They have to be able to compete at some point.
Look at the portable market. Nintendo dodged the PSP bullet. Had Sony not overpriced the thing and focused too much on movies Nintendo could have been in serious trouble because the DS was really poorly prepared. So they're okay for now. But what about when Sony releases a PSP followup? What if Sony learns from their mistakes? The threat of a competitor stealing away Nintendo's market is always present. They have to compete. They can't make up new markets forever. There was nothing to stop Sony from taking a shot at the portable market and there's nothing to stop anyone else from entering the "non-gamer" market.
I agree with those sentiments. The disagreement comes when we discuss whether the Revolution is going to improve games or not.
I'm a huge fan of a new generation of control, not such a big fan of the non-gamer thing.
Viewtiful, I'd say most people average less than 2 hours a day socializing. Especially people who go to school. They'd do more on weekends.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2005, 02:53:08 PM
Well I can't play games at work can I?
Though I guess I shouldn't be doing THIS either during that time.Plus it's not like the Cube has been an oasis of game releases lately. It's funny. The less games come out for Nintendo consoles not only do I have more to b!tch about, I have more time to b!tch about it!
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on September 30, 2005, 02:55:07 PM
It's not that I look down upon people arguing about games (it's interesting, after all), but I am rather surprised that you guys do it almost constantly. Maybe it's because the topic of discussion is Nintendo and they're a controversial company.
Edit: Ian, you see, Nintendo does think about you.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 30, 2005, 03:15:50 PM
Quote
Good point. I think the logic is that this is different and that those interested in Nintendo's non-games won't be interested in what Sony has to offer. But what if Sony changes too. Let's say that this non-gamer thing does take off and Nintendo does very well next gen. What happens if the gen afterwards (or perhaps even sooner) Sony releases their own remote and then steals Nintendo's new market with better marketing and by fixing Nintendo's screwups? Then they're back to square one. Avoiding the competition is at best a short term solution. They have to be able to compete at some point.
Look at the portable market. Nintendo dodged the PSP bullet. Had Sony not overpriced the thing and focused too much on movies Nintendo could have been in serious trouble because the DS was really poorly prepared. So they're okay for now. But what about when Sony releases a PSP followup? What if Sony learns from their mistakes? The threat of a competitor stealing away Nintendo's market is always present. They have to compete. They can't make up new markets forever. There was nothing to stop Sony from taking a shot at the portable market and there's nothing to
Hilarity. Even when Nintendo wins, they still lose in your eyes.
Here's what I gatehr from that last post: Right now you think Nintendo is going down the path towards failure, so you want them to change to be more like Sony so they can directly compete. However, what you wrote above is the other way around- Sony is changing to fit Nintendo' style. Yet Nintendo still loses. It doesn't make sense. By that logic Sony is in a pretty bad situation right now.
Post by: stevey on September 30, 2005, 04:01:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
Something struck me as odd recently. I keep an eye pretty closely on all of the arguments you guys have about Nintendo (which is pretty often, I must say), and while I admire your passion on the subject, something keeps bugging me. With all of the time you spend citing supporting examples, business strategies, and so on, how do you find the time to enjoy the stuff? I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
Maybe you're robots, I dunno, but it seems to me that playing and enjoying means more than having deathmatches about marketshare and features on consoles that are still a long ways off from releasing.
But, that's just me. You're certainly entitled to get heated and such (after all, that's what these boards are for, in a way) but as one gamer to the rest of you, I'm perplexed.
I do it by bearly sleep and skip school
Ian why do you wine about every little thing nintendo does I like the new way nintendo going you just seen to want nintendo to go back to the snes age. That age is dead barrie your snes and move on the remote the is the future.
Post by: BigJim on September 30, 2005, 04:35:19 PM
Quote
I keep an eye pretty closely on all of the arguments you guys have about Nintendo (which is pretty often, I must say), and while I admire your passion on the subject, something keeps bugging me. With all of the time you spend citing supporting examples, business strategies, and so on, how do you find the time to enjoy the stuff? I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
It's not so hard. The last game I bought was Star Fox Assault. The next game I plan to buy is Zelda. A full year + of dust collecting awaits my GameCube. I'm one of those customers feeling alienated I described in a previous post. What to do until then? Discuss what Nintendo can do better, of course.
I've been pulling out the older games that I haven't already sold on eBay, and it helps sometimes. If I had new games to play, certainly I'd be playing them right now instead of debating why I don't have any new games to play... or watching Tivo. One or the other.But the lack of fresh epics is an ouchie... (that's a business and statistical term)
I would actually be quite curious to know what Nintendo thinks about the points mentioned in this thread. Nintendo never satisfactorily acknowledges these issues. They're all talking point, talking point, buzzword this, buzzword that. If Nintendo realistically acknowledged these issues, or at least responded to them without being a PR robot (Kaplan, Harrison), they wouldn't be brought up so darn much. At least we'd *know* where they stood for real and there wouldn't need to be a debate. Nintendo fans trying to speak for them (and reciting Nintendo's talking points) doesn't accomplish anything. What if PGC were to touch base with GH and see if they can try to get some kind of interview down that really covers every angle? PGC doesn't seem to do that sort of stuff anymore.
Quote
I thought we were talking about their next gen strategy. This nongamer business started with the DS and now the Revolution. I see what you're saying about being an "and" company, but the two things this gen were "mature and tiku tiku tiku! " and next gen it's "games and nongames," and so far they're doing a much better job this time around.
It's something of a trust issue, as Ian mentioned before. If next-gen turns out to be different from this gen where "everybody" is TRULY represented, and they don't just substitute "mature" with "nongamers" as a new buzzword in some weak proclamation of being an "and" company, then great. But there's been a few too many years of dismissals, doublespeak, and misdirections that a (so far) short term uptick in gamer DS titles will not rectify. So not all of us are accepting Nintendo's talking points wholesale as what will actually happen just yet. I'm not a pessimist as much as I am a skeptic.
Quote
I've noticed this, but if everyone else is like me, the optimists know Nintendo can compete, but don't think they should.
I'm somewhat curious about this point. Why don't people want Nintendo to compete? Is it because they believe they can't win, or they don't care because they accept whatever Nintendo dishes them, or that they'd win to their own ultimate destruction (money), or because they don't know why and just go along with Nintendo because their talking point sounds logical? The REAL reason is usually not the same as the talking point. So I wonder why it's so quickly accepted.
I mean, if Iwata went on stage one day and (overdramatically) declared, "the console business is ours and we will take it back," I don't think too many people would be complaining... at least not until after he bit the head of a chicken off with his teeth to demonstrate his point, laughing manically as the blood ran down his chin and onto his bleached white shirt. The headless body still flapping on the podium before him.
....
Anyway, Yeah. (Thanks to ThePerm for the visual)
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 30, 2005, 04:58:57 PM
Basically, I think Nintendo has the power, financially, to sell out and become Sony. I think Nintendo COULD have an identical business as Sony Computer Entertainment, but I don't think they should, because they would no longer be the Nintendo that I know and am currently enjoying. If they did this I do believe they would be successful (well, depends what you're comparing them to), but they'd lose what makes them Nintendo. So when "faith" was mentioned- I have faith that Nintendo will bring me fun games to play while keeping with their current strategy
That's all
Post by: BigJim on September 30, 2005, 06:04:56 PM
I am concerned, though, that their apparent focus will be too much on the non-gamers. And I know this is yet another touchy issue, but I don't think it's fair for anybody to dismiss the concern.
What we know is that Iwata was on stage for 50 minutes, talking about how awesome they are for making Nintendogs, brain games, showing charts and graphs on the new gamers that came on board with the release of those games, etc. And they used that as a precursor to revealing the Revolution controller. The *context* in which it debuted, and the reasoning they claimed for the controller design, was all wrapped around the nongamer. The "satisfy current gamers" was not a focus, but a bullet point. And to be just a bullet point after their failed attempt of being an "and" company is a valid red flag.
I mean, according to their chart, non-gamers still only made up the minority of Nintendogs sales. But the chart shows that more non-gamers bought Nintendogs than other games, and that is used as their proof of concept. That in itself doesn't sell me. All it tells me is to make more nongames to grow my market. It doesn't tell me to wrap the bulk of my strategy, design my controller, and spend the vast majority of my important 50 minute speech on them. They're marginalized enough as it is in the console market. It's almost like targeting a niche of a niche. At best it's risky. They seem to assume that Nintendo fans will be there no matter what, and these new gamers will just fill their cups to the rim with spoils.
And it's rather strange since the design of the DS is two-handed and very much like the SNES layout. The nongamers managed just fine.
But to bottom line it, I am all for Nintendo being that "and" company, and being the company that draws new people in, but they need to prove that they are big enough to handle it without sacrificing customers in the process. Their history with the GameCube demonstrated that they weren't. And the controller wasn't a good start for next gen since the context of its debut was about the non-gamer. Unless Nintendo considerably beefs up their development studios to be able to adequately accommodate everybody, they aren't going to be any better off in that regard... and next gen could be a rinse and repeat of this gen:
The games will be fun, but will there be enough fun games for "everybody" they make games for? That's the big question. Sadly none of us have the answer. All we have is history, and that's rocky.
They could also start kissing ass and get better 3rd party support, so Nintendo doesn't have to depend so much on their own titles. Jeez. Don't make us beg Valve for Half-Life 3.... Actually, I would gladly beg for that. Many times over. I'd bring kneepads if I had to. But in all honesty, Nintendo kisses nobody's ass. So I'm not holding my breath for that either. But I am open to being surprised and will gladly be the a-hole that was proven wrong for doubting Nintendo. I'd make it my forum title.
Post by: trip1eX on September 30, 2005, 06:38:15 PM
What's funny is that you all bitching about Nintendo will buy a Revolution. You know it. lol.
Post by: Artimus on September 30, 2005, 06:56:12 PM
*orders his $4500 360*
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B020253E
Post by: BigJim on September 30, 2005, 08:13:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: trip1eX
MS came along and lost $4 bil bringing the xbox to market. Nintendo never could have afforded to compete on those terms.
What's funny is that you all bitching about Nintendo will buy a Revolution. You know it. lol.
You're apparently more sure of yourself than they/we are.
Nintendo didn't need to spend a billion a year to compete with MS. They've barely sold more units than Nintendo as it is.
Post by: ruby_onix on September 30, 2005, 09:37:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
Something struck me as odd recently. I keep an eye pretty closely on all of the arguments you guys have about Nintendo (which is pretty often, I must say), and while I admire your passion on the subject, something keeps bugging me. With all of the time you spend citing supporting examples, business strategies, and so on, how do you find the time to enjoy the stuff? I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
The Internet fills a gap in my entertainment time that doesn't conflict much with anything else. Usually random bits of time here and there. I read significantly more than I post.
When I go on a rant, it can take 10-30 minutes to write, depending on it's depth and nearby distractions. It takes out a good chunk of my Internet time, but I don't mind that. I dislike going on rants more than about once a week, simply because I don't like doing it.
When I want to play videogames, I prefer a time when I'm relaxed and have no restrictions on my time.
I would say that an increased job would take a chunk out of my Internet time, and an increased social life would take a chunk out of my videogaming time. If that makes any sense.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 30, 2005, 10:34:19 PM
LOLz
I meet with friends on the weekend and dig into some multiplayerz or just hang out in general. When I want to play, strictly for my own single-player leisure, I require at least a 3 hour block to help soak into the game (immersion, baby). I'll rarely have that kind of opening available to me unless I take away time from something else (homework? interwebbing? media editing? Mail Call?). In turn, I've got a big handfull of games I haven't touched (nor beaten) since I bought them over the past couple years (Mega Man NT hello).
Post by: KDR_11k on September 30, 2005, 11:14:11 PM
Push X and /\ on the Dualshock at the same time. Good luck.
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 01, 2005, 12:18:21 AM
Post by: wandering on October 01, 2005, 01:52:29 AM
The argument I'm not really agreeing with here is that Nintendo is in an either-or position where they can either focus on non-gamers, or gamers, or both at the same time with different tactics for each. But the thing is, since the very beginning, console gaming has always been about catering to EVERYBODY, by providing a product that's easy to set-up and easy to play. The fact that videogames have spiralled down into increasing complexity is a problem that needs fixing... and if it isn't fixed, I imagine videogames will become a dnd-like enthusiast niche entertainment medium that gets overtaken by something else.
So, when people on this board say things like they're going after an unproven niche non-gamer market, that's frankly completely ridiculous. They're going after everyone, by making a more mainstream-friendly console, and I think their strategy will work. Psycho was more popular than more hardcore horror films like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Myst was more popular than Battlefield 1942.
The real issue here, I think, is that people are just not liking the controller. Sorry you don't like it....but you just can't argue that it's not functional. If it didn't have any buttons then that'd be another thing, but it does have buttons. A lot of buttons. Devs love it. It'll work for the majority of games. And for the small minority that need 2 extra buttons and a stick, Nintendo is even providing a traditional controller.
Quote
Well that's the big difference in our opinion. Basically what I want from Nintendo what you think they did last gen. You think they played ball with the other guys and failed anyway while I think they showed up to play ball overweight and unprepared and got their ass whooped as a result.
More like they were a fit lightweight going after two 500-pound gorillas. My metaphor would work better if we were talking about boxing, but you get my point...
Quote
How can you possibly think that a company that LIED about online plans and then backed out and sabotaged the possibility of third party online games was competing on even footing? And that's just one issue.
Quote
Nintendo also said they'd target the "mature" market, in addition to the I LOVE HALO 2s. They said they could do both. They couldn't.
The thing is, Nintendo didn't have the market share. They TRIED to get more mature games, to get more 3rd parties...I'm betting they even really were planning to go online, but felt the market share just wasn't there to do it. THEY DID THEIR BEST, but they were too starved through lack of user base to really succeed against PS2's huge market share (which was won through brand loyalty, not a strong initial games line-up or good hardware or even good-looking hardware) or Microsoft's huge pockets.
And why didn't Nintendo have that market share? Would coming out with a sleek black console, being a little bit better to 3rd parties, etc, REALLY have made that much of a difference? I don't think so. Some of you guys Ian seem to want NIntendo to be the John Kerry of consoles: you think that just doing everything 'right', looking good, and differentiating themselves a minute amount from the competition will be enough to guarantee success. I don't think so. They need to differentiate themselves in a big way, they need to make people stand up and take notice, they need people to feel passionately about them....whether those people like or agree with Nintendo or not. They need to be a George W. or Bill Clinton.
Quote....Social....life....? What is this thing of which you speak?
I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 01, 2005, 05:41:48 AM
Quote
Something struck me as odd recently. I keep an eye pretty closely on all of the arguments you guys have about Nintendo (which is pretty often, I must say), and while I admire your passion on the subject, something keeps bugging me. With all of the time you spend citing supporting examples, business strategies, and so on, how do you find the time to enjoy the stuff? I know I wouldn't be able to be an avid gamer, keep up with my PGC duties, and argue Nintendo all day long and still keep up an average social life.
Maybe you're robots, I dunno, but it seems to me that playing and enjoying means more than having deathmatches about marketshare and features on consoles that are still a long ways off from releasing.
But, that's just me. You're certainly entitled to get heated and such (after all, that's what these boards are for, in a way) but as one gamer to the rest of you, I'm perplexed.
Well I've gotten bored with gaming in recent years, its just not as much fun as it used to be, I play a few nintendo titiles and the occaisional strategy game on the PC and that's it.
As for studying, I'm able to pull in A's with almost no effort, also I have a knack for coding so I rarely ever need to spend much time on my coursework. Also my Classes are at night.
And while I work full time, I have Flex hours so I can choose when I go into the office, plus I'm able to get online while I'm working.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 01, 2005, 06:12:07 AM
So I can enjoy my games
Post by: Caliban on October 01, 2005, 12:42:36 PM
The only thing I could say about the DS is that they should've had a better launch line-up or at least a more regular release of games each month, if they had done that I would've bought it when it came out. I've got 6 DS games (Kirby, Meteos, Polarium, Pac-Pix, Wario-Ware Touched, Nanostray), they are all traditional games but with different input control. I don't think there is any favoritism towards non-gamer games, the fact is that they sold as much or more than some traditional games.
Post by: BigJim on October 01, 2005, 01:56:12 PM
Quote
So, when people on this board say things like they're going after an unproven niche non-gamer market, that's frankly completely ridiculous. They're going after everyone, by making a more mainstream-friendly console, and I think their strategy will work. Psycho was more popular than more hardcore horror films like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Myst was more popular than Battlefield 1942.
The real issue here, I think, is that people are just not liking the controller. Sorry you don't like it....but you just can't argue that it's not functional. If it didn't have any buttons then that'd be another thing, but it does have buttons. A lot of buttons. Devs love it. It'll work for the majority of games. And for the small minority that need 2 extra buttons and a stick, Nintendo is even providing a traditional controller.
Well, there are really two things happening. Nintendo claims their focus on everybody is their reasoning behind the controller. Those that are not satisfied with their "everybody" focus aren't going to approve the concept of the controller wholesale since to them it reads as "more of the same". Since they depend so much on their own games, if Nintendo had a history of proving they were big enough to satiate everybody's thirst, there might not be such a big stink.
Though of course there will also be folks that just don't like the controller, plain and simple. You have those people every generation. I'm not thrilled about it but I'd give it a chance. If/when I see we're not losing more than we're gaining, it'll be non-issue. Consider me unimaginative if you want.
And again, it's not the final design either.You bring up an interesting point about Nintendo trying to do these things. It's hard to tell, since all we see is the final result and executives blowing sunshine up our rears. Surely Nintendo will try again, but after failing once they now have to prove it'll happen for real this time before I buy into the hype. When we start to see real game lists, real game pictures, videos, and demos, then I'll start to pay attention (IF the lineup really is for everybody). Until then I'm a skeptic, and I don't think unreasonable so. Nintendo can do whatever they want; they're Nintendo. The DS will rock before it's done. They're capable of making the Revolution rock too. I just gotta see it to believe it this time.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on October 01, 2005, 01:58:26 PM
Post by: wandering on October 01, 2005, 03:49:59 PM
Quote
after failing once they now have to prove it'll happen for real this time before I buy into the hype.
Fair enough.
It IS true, as you say, that Nintendo tried to get 'everybody'/non-gamers with the gamecube....but they did it in odd ways. The primary problem was that, in spite of Nintendo's focus, the GameCube didn't really offer anything substantial to attract non-gamers away form the PS2/XBOX. Sure, the controller was a little easier to use....but it really wasn't that much different from the competition's. Sure they tried to make the console look more mainstream-friendly....by making it look like a toy. But now, Nintendo seems to have learned from their mistakes and, this time, seems to be doing everything possible to make the average joe interested in their console. Which is good.
...but then, I'm primarally concerned with market share right now. You seem to be primarily concerned about Nintendo's first-party game output.....which doesn't really concern me as much. From my POV, Nintendo makes good games no matter what. (It's true that their Cube and DS era games haven't been as impressive as their games from the NES-N64 eras, but it's not like they're making bad games. Hopefully Miyamoto will take a more active role in REV development and will thus whip things into shape. As for whether their new non-gamer focus will hurt their games, it's too soon to tell. But it's hard to compain about Nintendogs and LOZ:TP. Anyway.....)
So, I'm optimistic. The DS strategy - coming out with a shockingly different and inexpensive system - seemed to work. DS third party support is though the roof, and game variety really doesn't seem to be an issue now as a result. I think that there's a good chance that the REV will wind up following a similiar path to success.
Quote
You know, by now I thought this thread would have imploded like a neutron star.
Yeah, people keep saying the same thing about Nintendo.
Therefore: if this thread implodes, Nintendo will go third party.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 03, 2005, 07:55:28 AM
I don't want Nintendo to sell out either. I don't think that's necessary to compete directly. I think that Nintendo can still be Nintendo and still be different but while still following the same general path. They don't have to be exactly the same as Sony (MS isn't the same as Sony) but they don't have to be totally different either. Nintendo has had problems because of their insistence on being different, even when there's no good reason to be. "We can't distribute demos in a convenient fashion because that's how Sony does it." "We can't have lower licencing fees because that's how Sony does it."
Personally I don't like this non-gamer strategy largely because to me it's Nintendo selling out. They're putting the fans and the gamers that made them who they are on the backburner in favour of this new group of non-gamers. I feel they're largely assuming that just because we're fans that they can treat us like an afterthought and do something totally different that isn't even designed to please us. With the Cube I feel that Nintendo often fell into the trap where they thought that their franchises were the reason Nintendo fans liked them. So we got all sorts of redundant Mario spinoff junk that the Nintendo of only as little as five years ago would never release and Star Fox in name only and Mario being whored out to EA. Nintendo in my opinion still hasn't learned from that as they still promote their franchises as their bread and butter. I didn't become a Nintendo fan because I'm a sequel whore. I became a Nintendo fan because they were the best damn game maker in the world and they rarely made cookie-cutter junk. Nearly everything was essential and every sequel greatly improved on it's predecessor.
Nintendo lost sight of that in the last few years and I feel it's gotten worse as this non-gamer focus has come up. Now it's like Nintendo fans are Nintendo fans because they're Nintendo. Like we're all blind fanboys who follow them everywhere. Well I'm not interested in shallow non-gamer junk. The Nintendo I became a fan of wouldn't shoehorn a franchise character into a glorified mini-game with no depth. By targeting non-gamers Nintendo is altering their games to fit this new market. They're changing their product significantly for a market that currently doesn't even care about them at the likely expense of the market that does. That is selling out and that's a huge reason why I don't like this new focus.
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 03, 2005, 08:27:25 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 03, 2005, 09:11:34 AM
I'll tell you something though: you need to stop parading yourself as the public figure of Nintendo fans. It's getting annoying.
"I became a Nintendo fan because they were the best damn game maker in the world and they rarely made cookie-cutter junk. Nearly everything was essential and every sequel greatly improved on it's predecessor."
Funny, I became a Nintendo fan because they were the best damn game maker in the world. Even back in the NES days they made some cookie-cutter junk though. But you know what? I don't care, I'm not a perfectionist when it comes to other people's work... so long as they make the best games in the world to go along with them, I'm satisfied.
This "EVERYTHING Nintendo does has to be for ME" attitude of yours is something you really need to work on.
"Now it's like Nintendo fans are Nintendo fans because they're Nintendo. Like we're all blind fanboys who follow them everywhere. Well I'm not interested in shallow non-gamer junk. The Nintendo I became a fan of wouldn't shoehorn a franchise character into a glorified mini-game with no depth. By targeting non-gamers Nintendo is altering their games to fit this new market."
Yeah, it's not like Nintendo fans are Nintendo fans because Nintendo still makes Nintendo games... that would be logical and would go against your point. So tell me Ian, what "glorified mini-game with no depth" are you talking about here? Kirby Air Ride? Because that's the only one I can think of, and Nintendo more than made up for that one with the next Kirby game... on the non-gamer portable you hate so much, no less. Of course, you wouldn't know.
You're not interested in what you call shallow non-gamer junk, but other gamers are. Did you somehow miss all the glowing Nintendogs reviews? Are all the people buying the non-games just getting the wrong game by accident? And it's not like Nintendo is only making non-games now... but why take Nintendo's word for it? Have you taken a look at their upcoming DS releases? You know, the list where the traditional games outnumber the non-games? How exactly is Nintendo altering those games to fit the new market? Do you have any evidence or is it all just vague unspecified misgivings? Better yet, is all this whining based on how you imagine Revolution games (which we know nothing about) will control?
"They're changing their product significantly for a market that currently doesn't even care about them at the likely expense of the market that does. That is selling out and that's a huge reason why I don't like this new focus."
No, they're making new product for a market that shows potential at the likely expense of people like you having to watch other people also have fun. Those horrible sell-outs.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 03, 2005, 09:20:10 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 03, 2005, 10:15:38 AM
Post by: ThePerm on October 03, 2005, 10:22:52 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 03, 2005, 11:38:40 AM
Now they're going away from depth and complexity to appeal to non-gamers. The controller is the biggest example of this. A common defense of the two button design is that anything more would scare way non-gamers. Well then so would a whole bunch of Nintendo's most successful and acclaimed games. That's why I'm afraid they're selling out. Because suddenly some of the games they used to make are too complex. They have to limit themselves now. They have to ask themselves "is this too complex?" That's not the classic Nintendo of old. Since when does Nintendo dumb their games down to accomodate a more casual audience? That sounds closer to Sony than anything I've suggested.
Sony primarily targets casual gamers. Non-gamers are the most casual of casual gamers. Nintendo therefore is potentially comprimising the hardcore for the casual for the sake of money. I believe that's what selling out is.
Post by: Pale on October 03, 2005, 11:47:03 AM
Putting 50 buttons on a controller will make any game seem complex. Putting 2 (or 4 or 6 or 8 depending on your point of view) solves that but doesn't mean that the games will be simple. Who says a complex game needs all of those buttons?
Post by: Ian Sane on October 03, 2005, 12:13:58 PM
The last 15 years of game development including games made by Nintendo themselves. I'm not asking for 50 buttons. I'm asking for like six, you know, like we've had since 1991.
If I wanted to make a game on the Rev with the exact same controls as Ocarina of Time I couldn't do it without a huge workaround that probably wouldn't work as well. When Nintendo can't even accurately port some of their greatest games then their controller is probably a little restrictive. There's a difference between being overly complex and being complex enough to allow for needed functionality.
Post by: Pale on October 03, 2005, 02:00:51 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 03, 2005, 02:07:31 PM
Well that's what we've been discussing for the last ten pages. I've say no. I think motion sensing can add to what's there but it's not a suitable outright replacement. You shouldn't have to use the motion sensing feature to make a deep game.
Plus the question is not just "can they make deep games?" but "will they make them and will they give them the same amount of attention as before now that they're targeting non-gamers?" The DS is perfectly capable of deep games but Yoshi's Touch 'n' Go and Pokemon Dash still got made. Nintendo's focus is what concerns me.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 03, 2005, 02:12:59 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on October 03, 2005, 02:46:14 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 03, 2005, 02:52:45 PM
Or something. This post is useless really.
Post by: Pale on October 03, 2005, 03:24:36 PM
Post by: Artimus on October 03, 2005, 03:47:16 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 03, 2005, 04:07:02 PM
And there are people who loved Yoshi Touch 'n Go. Are you saying it shouldn't have been made just because you didn't like it?
There's our disagreement in a nutshell: You think catering to anybody who isn't you means selling out. Keep up that attitude if you want, but don't act surprised when everybody bashes you.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 03, 2005, 04:14:09 PM
Quote
The DS is perfectly capable of deep games but Yoshi's Touch 'n' Go and Pokemon Dash still got made. Nintendo's focus is what concerns me.
Back in the early days of gaming most games were very similar to Y T&G in that they were open ended affairs just about getting more points...Some of us older gamers who were around at that time like to have those type of games made (plus I bet alot of younger gamers liked it to).
Post by: ruby_onix on October 03, 2005, 04:17:24 PM
This is superior on just about every level.
Unfortunately, Nintendo has been designing controllers for eons, and they always know what's right, and don't take unsoliscited ideas, so this will probably never happen. Now we can resume bitching about the controller until E3 2006, at which point Nintendo will probably give us another meager scrap of into to tide us over for months.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 03, 2005, 04:18:52 PM
Post by: Pale on October 03, 2005, 04:47:26 PM
Post by: odifiend on October 03, 2005, 05:13:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
The remote serves its purpose and the shell serves its purpose. Why is that so confusing?
Because if the remote was tweeked, the shell might not be necessary. I am perplexed by the shell and the nunchuku. From Miyamoto's interview, I got the impression that the shell was always in the works. If that were the case, why do we need the nunchuku?
As for nongames and game-games: I am confident in Nintendo's ability to make games, but am worried that since the nunchuku was an addendum brought on by American devs, what that says for Nintendo's launch lineup. Not to say game-games can't be played with just the remote, but I'd guess that will be a rarity the way Miyamoto was talking in a recent interview. It sounds like SSBR will be played with the shell.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 03, 2005, 05:35:43 PM
Quote
If that were the case, why do we need the nunchuku?
I would imagine swinging around a sword would be diffucult without the sword, don't you agree? One would also think that aiming a gun would be impossible without the gun.
Games like that wouldn't be possible wihtout the analog stick, but wouldn't work with just the remote. It doesn't matter how much you tweaked the remote, having the two pieces separate open up new possibilities. And I enjoy new possibilities.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 03, 2005, 05:39:12 PM
Post by: odifiend on October 03, 2005, 05:42:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothingQuote
If that were the case, why do we need the nunchuku?
I would imagine swinging around a sword would be diffucult without the sword, don't you agree? One would also think that aiming a gun would be impossible without the gun.
Games like that wouldn't be possible wihtout the analog stick, but wouldn't work with just the remote. It doesn't matter how much you tweaked the remote, having the two pieces separate open up new possibilities. And I enjoy new possibilities.
Then tweek the remote so that there is no need for the shell. Don't tell me that is an impossibility as well... That was kind of my point. If the nunchuku was Nintendo's answer to not having enough buttons, why not make it so that there was one cure all? The nunchuku or the shell? They basically designed to DO the same thing, why make us buy both of them?
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 03, 2005, 05:46:42 PM
Keep in mind, this must be functional for one-handed use and cannot be so complicated so as to scare away nongamers.
Post by: odifiend on October 03, 2005, 06:04:51 PM
"Keep in mind, this must be functional for one-handed use and cannot be so complicated so as to scare away nongamers. "
Jeebus, people. Non gamers are the same species as us. In fact most non gamers indulge in more 'important' things like movies. If they can operate a tv/dvd/vcr/sat/cable univeral remote, don't tell me 3 more face buttons will make them go screaming into the night...
The bottom line is if movement is the primary means for control in non games, that is what will attract non gamers. It worked for the DS and its stylus, why would the Revolution be any different?
Post by: wandering on October 04, 2005, 12:57:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IanSane
Personally I don't like this non-gamer strategy largely because to me it's Nintendo selling out. They're putting the fans and the gamers that made them who they are on the backburner in favour of this new group of non-gamers.
Nintendo has NEVER, ever, gone after hardcore gamers. They've always gone after the wider market, the average joes.
Quote
They don't have to be exactly the same as Sony (MS isn't the same as Sony) but they don't have to be totally different either.
Blah. And from someone who claims to dislike cookie-cutter sequels....
Quote
[Now they're going away from depth and complexity to appeal to non-gamers.
I doubt this. You're basing this on, what, marketing speak (that you say you don't buy into)? PORTABLE games (like the fantastic Nintendogs)? The fact that the controller is missing a couple of buttons? Sheesh, have you seen Twilight Princess?
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
As for nongames and game-games: I am confident in Nintendo's ability to make games, but am worried that since the nunchuku was an addendum brought on by American devs
I doubt this very highly. If anything, I'd be willing to bet that they started off with a unified two-handed design where both pieces were permanetly connected to each other, before deciding to split them apart and focus on one-handed gameplay for non-gamers.
Quote
I'm no photoshop artist, but that is where all these "just add a couple more buttons" pictures are coming from. If you take the nunchuku into consideration we're down 3 buttons and c-stick.
For the record, we're down 2. The select button counts as a button (just as much as z did, at least.)
And, does it really matter? Looking past this silly notion that every system NEEDS to retain all of the buttons of its predecesor (last I checked, ALL consoles are down quite a bit from, say, the computer keyboard).... can you name any concrete examples in which missing 2 buttons would hamper gameplay in a way that couldn't be fixed even with an added d-pad and motion control?
Quote
The bottom line is if movement is the primary means for control in non games, that is what will attract non gamers. It worked for the DS and its stylus, why would the Revolution be any different?
Because it's doubtful that you could control a REV game with JUST movement.
The 2 button design (A for the thumb, B for the index) is interegal to the whole controller concept. You couldn't just slap more buttons on there willy-nilly, as so many people seem to want Nintendo to do.
Quote
why not make it so that there was one cure all? The nunchuku or the shell?
I look at it thusly: the remote + nunchuck is the ultimate controller, perfectly tuned for the best gameplay experience, with little compromise taken. The remote, by itself, is a simplified version of this controller for simpler games. And the shell is there for classic games and the tiny, minisule, next-to-nothing minority of REV games that need a traditional controller....it's there so that pointless compromises needn't be made to the primary controller. I liken it to the OS9 emulator that's embedded in OSX.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 04, 2005, 01:55:00 AM
Post by: odifiend on October 04, 2005, 03:02:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
[Now they're going away from depth and complexity to appeal to non-gamers.
I doubt this. You're basing this on, what, marketing speak (that you say you don't buy into)? PORTABLE games (like the fantastic Nintendogs)? The fact that the controller is missing a couple of buttons? Sheesh, have you seen Twilight Princess?Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
As for nongames and game-games: I am confident in Nintendo's ability to make games, but am worried that since the nunchuku was an addendum brought on by American devs
I doubt this very highly. If anything, I'd be willing to bet that they started off with a unified two-handed design where both pieces were permanetly connected to each other, before deciding to split them apart and focus on one-handed gameplay for non-gamers.
Quote
I'm no photoshop artist, but that is where all these "just add a couple more buttons" pictures are coming from. If you take the nunchuku into consideration we're down 3 buttons and c-stick.
For the record, we're down 2. The select button counts as a button (just as much as z did, at least.)
And, does it really matter? Looking past this silly notion that every system NEEDS to retain all of the buttons of its predecesor (last I checked, ALL consoles are down quite a bit from, say, the computer keyboard).... can you name any concrete examples in which missing 2 buttons would hamper gameplay in a way that couldn't be fixed even with an added d-pad and motion control?Quote
The bottom line is if movement is the primary means for control in non games, that is what will attract non gamers. It worked for the DS and its stylus, why would the Revolution be any different?
Because it's doubtful that you could control a REV game with JUST movement.
The 2 button design (A for the thumb, B for the index) is interegal to the whole controller concept. You couldn't just slap more buttons on there willy-nilly, as so many people seem to want Nintendo to do.
1) Last I checked TP was a GCN game... And like every other Zelda created I bet it will take advantage of every button.
2) Just going on what Nintendo said, i.e. American devs wouldn't give them the time of day until they came back with the nunchuku.
3) Select button can be a play button maybe if it is shifted upwards to be more accessible. You are pretty inane or simply argumentative to compare the select button to the 'z' button. My finger always rests on z whereas that could never happen with select...
4) LOL, silly notion? Do you mean backwards compatibility, maybe? I have to admit the concept of a customisible controller is facinating, but if you can only access backwards compatibility using the shell that means we are forced to pay for that feature. Was it Miyamoto-san or Iwata-san who liked that Nintendo sold complete out of the box experiences? Plus let's not forget that stubborn 3rd parties may only be using the shell. So if there are two separate expansions, there is a chance at any given time you can't play certain kinds of games.
And even if Nintendo ends up boxing all their expansions with the controller, how much do you think that will cost them (since all customers know it is all about the creator) and us?
Post by: Mario on October 04, 2005, 03:42:35 AM
Quote
The DS is perfectly capable of deep games but Yoshi's Touch 'n' Go and Pokemon Dash still got made.
Yoshi Touch & Go is deep.
Post by: wandering on October 04, 2005, 04:11:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
1) Last I checked TP was a GCN game... And like every other Zelda created I bet it will take advantage of every button.
2) Just going on what Nintendo said, i.e. American devs wouldn't give them the time of day until they came back with the nunchuku.
3) Select button can be a play button maybe if it is shifted upwards to be more accessible. You are pretty inane or simply argumentative to compare the select button to the 'z' button. My finger always rests on z whereas that could never happen with select...
4) LOL, silly notion? Do you mean backwards compatibility, maybe? I have to admit the concept of a customisable controller is fascinating, but if you can only access backwards compatibility using the shell that means we are forced to pay for that feature. Was it Miyamoto-san or Iwata-san who liked that Nintendo sold complete out of the box experiences? Plus let's not forget that stubborn 3rd parties may only be using the shell. So if there are two separate expansions, there is a chance at any given time you can't play certain kinds of games.
1) Right. I'd imagine that a game Nintendo is developing for a home console would be more indicative of what they might produce for their next home console than games Nintendo's developed for a pick-up-n-play portable system. Though we won't know for sure until Nintnedo shows us REV games.
(oh, and whether or not TP uses all of the buttons is a moot point, in my eyes. The REV controller pretty much has all of the functionality of the N64 controller + motion control....and next to no one seemed to have a problem with OOT's control/gameplay.)
2) I don't think Iwata's really indicated that they made the nunchaku at the request of western devs, so much as he indicated that western devs didn't 'get' the controller until they saw the nunchaku. Though I could be wrong.
3) I don't use my middle fingers when I play the cube. So, for me, I have to move, and curl, my index finger to hit the z button (and then, every so often, I have to hit z again....the thing's fairly finicky.)
Just for comparison, the REV metroid demo used select to make samus go into morph ball mode (and people said it was surprisingly easy and comfortable). Imagine the complaints if Prime used Z for the same purpose.
I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was just trying to point out that the select button, which you didn't count, would probably be more functional than what many people consider to be the least functional button on the cube (Z), which you did count.
4)Silly because insisting that something shouldn't change just because that's the way it's always been is ALWAYS silly. If we don't challenge assumptions then we don't evolve.
As for whether requiring the shell to play old games is an ideal solution....no, it isn't. But comprising the REV's primary controller just for the sake of backwards compatibility wouldn't be ideal, either.
Post by: Dasmos on October 04, 2005, 04:38:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"The DS is perfectly capable of deep games but Yoshi's Touch 'n' Go and Pokemon Dash still got made. Nintendo's focus is what concerns me."
And there are people who loved Yoshi Touch 'n Go. Are you saying it shouldn't have been made just because you didn't like it?
Correct me if I am wrong but has Ian ever played a DS game properly? From what I have read he hasn't found a game worthy of picking one up. So he doesn't not like the game, he doesn't like the look of the game. It's not the same thing. Maybe if Ian played so many of the games he hates he would have some merit to his arguments.
I didn't like the look oh Pokemon Dash and sure I didn't like Pokemon Dash after I played it, but this isn't true with all games. I didn't like the look of Yoshi Touch 'n Go either, but I picked it up and had a ball. This also applies to gamnes like Killer 7, that received mixed reviews, that I thought I would have no interest in. So what I am trying to say, just because a game doesn't seem deep and complex, it may well surprise.
Post by: odifiend on October 04, 2005, 08:55:50 AM
Re:1) Not if the new console is using the DS as a model and the Revolution being pushed as easy to pick up and play.
Re: 3) How do you grab in Smash bros? And don't give me any of that shield + attack garbage
You are right, I did not include select in the button count just as I didn't include home. Select is traditionally a menu button, plus it is not that close to the A button to be taken advantage of. I'd have some complaints personally if I had to reach that low for select every time I wanted to be in morph ball mode. Have you played MP2? There are some instances where you want to be in morph ball mode right that second (boss battles esp.), so while MP2 could be possible on NR, it is not ideal without tweeking/shell expansion.
And that would be fine if Nintendo wasn't touting backwards compatibility. I'm not resisting taking away buttons because that's how it has always been, I'm resisting their absence because they are integral part to a feature Nintendo is pushing. Sure you could buy the shell, but then you still need the analoge nunchuku stick. And let's not forget about those of us who have friends and siblings. You're looking at an expensive and confusing proposition (SOMEONE SAVE THE NONGAMERS!1!). Or you could add 2 more conviently placed buttons (relative to select) and split the back B button (creating 2 triggers mirroring the nunchuku), avoiding the shell all together.
EDIT: For clarity hopefully
Post by: wandering on October 07, 2005, 07:18:54 PM
3) A, B: attacks, d-pad: jump, z1: grab, z2: shield, select: taunt (are you forgetting that this game worked with the N64 controller?)
Quote
And that would be fine if Nintendo wasn't touting backwards compatibility. I'm not resisting taking away buttons because that's how it has always been, I'm resisting their absence because they are integral part to a feature Nintendo is pushing. Sure you could buy the shell, but then you still need the analoge nunchuku stick. And let's not forget about those of us who have friends and siblings. You're looking at an expensive and confusing proposition (SOMEONE SAVE THE NONGAMERS!1!). Or you could add 2 more conviently placed buttons (relative to select) and split the back B button (creating 2 triggers mirroring the nunchuku), avoiding the shell all together.
Well, for what it's worth, I'd be willing to bet that a) the shell won't cost extra and b) the REV controller will have at least one more button by the time of release (remember the cube's z button?).
I'll stand by my stance that sacrafices shouldn't be made to the controller just for the sake of backwards compatability. If Nintendo did as you suggested, it wouldn't really work very well with old games (SNES games don't play very well even with the cube controller, and a lot of cube games wouldn't play very well without the c-stick), but nor would it work better for REV games (as it would undermine the controller's simplicity, and require you to move your thumb around a good deal. Nintendo actively tried to avoid requiring the player to move their thumb around with the REV design because they felt that a) moving your thumb around while also holding the controller in one hand and moving your wrist around would be uncomfortable and b) they felt that non-gamers were intimidated by the, uh, level of thumb cordination that modern games required.)
Post by: odifiend on October 08, 2005, 05:03:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
3) A, B: attacks, d-pad: jump, z1: grab, z2: shield, select: taunt (are you forgetting that this game worked with the N64 controller?)
I'll stand by my stance that sacrafices shouldn't be made to the controller just for the sake of backwards compatability. If Nintendo did as you suggested, it wouldn't really work very well with old games (SNES games don't play very well even with the cube controller, and a lot of cube games wouldn't play very well without the c-stick), but nor would it work better for REV games (as it would undermine the controller's simplicity, and require you to move your thumb around a good deal. Nintendo actively tried to avoid requiring the player to move their thumb around with the REV design because they felt that a) moving your thumb around while also holding the controller in one hand and moving your wrist around would be uncomfortable and b) they felt that non-gamers were intimidated by the, uh, level of thumb cordination that modern games required.)
I meant how do you, personally, grab in Melee, with you not using Z and all. And don't forget the N64 controller had more buttons and less moves.
It isn't just backwards compatability though as non exclusive Revolution titles will be using the "traditional" setup. As for SNES games, shell or no shell you'll likely be SOL, since it sounds like the shell is a wavebird clone.
Revolution games can still be simple on a controller with more buttons. Nintendo can take a page out of Kirby Air Ride's book if they insist the game be simple. And all Nintendo has to do is attract non gamers, then they'll become gamers again... MWA HA HA HA HA
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 08, 2005, 05:58:13 AM
Post by: wandering on October 08, 2005, 06:49:30 AM
Quote
I meant how do you, personally, grab in Melee, with you not using Z and all. And don't forget the N64 controller had more buttons and less moves.
Oh, yeah, I grab with the shield.
Though sometimes I'll use z, just for the heck of it, but obviously that doesn't work quite as well because of how I hold the controller.
Quote
It isn't just backwards compatibility though as non exclusive Revolution titles will be using the "traditional" set-up.
I doubt this highly, but we'll see.
I suppose we differ somewhat on what we want out of this system. You, and a lot of other people, want non-gamers to be appeased in some fashion, but want the focus to be on traditional gamers. Whereas I think I'm on the same page as Nintendo- I want the focus to be on non-gamers, with appeasements made to traditional gamers. I know too many people who aren't into gaming, and I want them to be. I want this system to be as mainstream as possible.... and, imo, in order for that to happen the remote absolutely cannot be cluttered with more buttons, and absolutely can't have a traditional button layout. The cube had a large a button, the cube had kirby's air ride, the cube lost. The rev, on the other hand, is offering a mouse-like set-up: that requires, not carefully coordinated thumb movements, but broad wrist strokes and buttons that are assigned to individual fingers rather than locations under a single thumb. It's a brilliant design that surprisingly doesn't do away with much functionality, and messing with it could be absolutely disastrous.
Post by: Mario on October 08, 2005, 07:08:57 AM
Post by: odifiend on October 08, 2005, 07:38:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Shield + A is the only way you should be grabbing in Melee, the Z button is far slower and I find it much harder to pull off. With Shield + A you can just dash at someone and grab them before they know what hit them.
Uh-huh... You find it much slower and much harder to pull off. You can definitely dash and grab with z as well...
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't just backwards compatibility though as non exclusive Revolution titles will be using the "traditional" set-up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt this highly, but we'll see.
It seems to me it would go without saying that a ported game would use traditional design, since the other consoles which carry that game have no other alternative.
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Quote
I know too many people who aren't into gaming, and I want them to be. I want this system to be as mainstream as possible.... imo, in order for that to happen the remote absolutely cannot be cluttered with more buttons, and absolutely can't have a traditional button layout. The cube had a large a button, the cube had kirby's air ride, the cube lost. The rev, on the other hand, is offering a mouse-like set-up: that requires, not carefully coordinated thumb movements, but broad wrist strokes and buttons that are assigned to individual fingers rather than locations under a single thumb. It's a brilliant design that surprisingly doesn't do away with much functionality, and messing with it could be absolutely disastrous.
The DS's success with Nintendogs would suggest you're incorrect. Again, nongamers will be attracted by the movement. Just because Kirby's Air Ride was simple doesn't mean nongamers will instantly flock to it (not that it was advertised). But as the DS has proved just because there are more buttons, doesn't mean nongamers will turn away.
It must do away with functionality if several games need an expansion to be played...
Edit: missed a
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 08, 2005, 08:28:47 AM
Quote
Re: 3) How do you grab in Smash bros? And don't give me any of that shield + attack garbage
I don't think it's garbage, is that hard to understand? I don't have to use my middle finger for playing SSBM, there you go.
Post by: odifiend on October 08, 2005, 08:44:12 AM
and I was responding to this Shield + A is the "only way you should be grabbing in Melee". And if you want to get technical since there are so many duplicate functions in melee, you could still use z to throw without using your middle finger, since L is also shield.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 08, 2005, 09:06:24 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 09, 2005, 07:20:28 AM
