Post by: nemo_83 on February 06, 2006, 03:51:51 PM
gamepad shell
Edit: pick a flavor
I think you guys can tell which ones have face buttons.
The second one on the first row has a circular scroll wheel around a small trackball.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 06, 2006, 03:54:39 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on February 06, 2006, 03:55:07 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on February 06, 2006, 03:58:39 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 06, 2006, 04:05:55 PM
In regards to 2: No, trackballs suck. Stop harping about them.
Post by: UncleBob on February 06, 2006, 04:10:29 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on February 06, 2006, 04:39:19 PM
So, imagine the hardware alone is $199 (with one remote, cords, and nunchuck); you spend five to fifteen bucks on a shell, and you still could buy the full package for the visor, a game, and online launch deal for much less than buying the PS3 hardware with nothing else. The revolution could be marketed as a self sufficient home console where 360 and PS3 need a $500-$12000 TV to get the full experience. The drawing is rough, but a visual aid was needed.
The shell is based around a pad shown before the remote was revealed; the controller appeared to have a port which something slid inside, diamond pattern face buttons, scroll wheels, and basically everything you see except that there is a trackball and it is in the primary position on the right side, and there are two dpads.
And trackballs have recieved great reviews for first person shooters; the mechanic offers something different. My replacing the second analog stick with a second dpad shows how well I feel the dual analog setup has worked out.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 06, 2006, 04:51:11 PM
Except you already have the revmote, and some people might complain that it's not too traditional for a traditional attachment.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 06, 2006, 05:10:17 PM
Post by: nickmitch on February 06, 2006, 06:05:33 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 06, 2006, 06:15:16 PM
GET OFF MY INTERNETS
Post by: Ian Sane on February 07, 2006, 06:21:10 AM
Exactly. The whole point of a shell is to provide a "normal" controller for games that would be better suited for it. If you remove the face buttons then there's no point at all in even having the shell. Saying "well you can use the motion control for this" doesn't make sense. The whole idea is that you don't have to map traditional functionality to the remote.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 07, 2006, 12:24:22 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 07, 2006, 12:48:39 PM
I would figure a stubborn Nintendo fan would go with a more uniform button layout considering the Cube is the only Nintendo game system to not use that setup.
"The dpad can serve as face buttons"
Arrgh! How many times does this have to be explained? You can't push two directions at once with a d-pad and thus it is not a substitute for buttons that allow any combination of simultaneous button pushes.
If you're substituting anything then you're missing the point of the shell. Buttons should be buttons, analog sticks should be analog sticks, d-pads should be d-pads. The whole reason there is a shell is because with something as precise as game controls substitutions don't cut it. If they did we would just have the remote.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 07, 2006, 06:56:41 PM
Post by: Dasmos on February 08, 2006, 12:28:38 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on February 08, 2006, 10:11:09 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2006, 11:18:05 AM
Why waste so much money and energy on making a personal video head-mounted display with todays technology when you can keep things on the TV screen, and retain the motion-sensor features on a voice headset without all that bulk and eyestrain?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2006, 11:19:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The dpad can serve as face buttons"
Arrgh! How many times does this have to be explained? You can't push two directions at once with a d-pad and thus it is not a substitute for buttons that allow any combination of simultaneous button pushes.
How do D-Pads detect diagonal inputs?
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2006, 11:44:24 AM
Push up and down at the same time on a d-pad. If you can do that then I have no case.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2006, 11:54:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"How do D-Pads detect diagonal inputs?"
Push up and down at the same time on a d-pad. If you can do that then I have no case.
I agree with you that a D-pad lacks the full utilization of a 4 button setup, but I'd like to point out that a D-pad is in fact capable of handling multi-directional presses.
...give me an example of a game that requires you to push "up" and "down" on the four button setup and, in addition to that, explain why this was good or necessary under the game's control scheme.
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2006, 01:06:47 PM
Some fighting games require simultaneous pushes of three buttons at once. It's not a widely used option and typically you're not going to make a game like that. I wouldn't even consider it good game design. But the option is there and it would be unnecessarily limiting to remove it for no reason. Plus can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be to use d-pad diagonals to simulate pushing two buttons at once? When I push two buttons at once I rest my thumb over both of them. Pushing a diagonal requires me to push "between" the two buttons. It's a different dynamic and one that would be hard to get used to, particularly for a retro game. Plus d-pads are rough and uncomfortable and pressing diagonals is a lot more imprecise than using buttons. If you asked anyone if they would prefer face buttons or a d-pad they would pick face buttons.
I can't think of ANY advantages to using a d-pad over buttons for non-movement functions and I can think of disadvantages for it. So if there are no advantages and some disadvantages then it makes no sense to replace buttons. The only arguement for using a d-pad for buttons pushes is to defend Nintendo's decision to only have two buttons on the Rev controller. In fact no one would even SUGGEST the idea otherwise. It's nothing but a knee-jerk "Nintendo can do no wrong" reaction.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2006, 02:02:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"...give me an example of a game that requires you to push "up" and "down" on the four button setup and, in addition to that, explain why this was good or necessary under the game's control scheme."
Some fighting games require simultaneous pushes of three buttons at once. It's not a widely used option and typically you're not going to make a game like that. I wouldn't even consider it good game design. But the option is there and it would be unnecessarily limiting to remove it for no reason. Plus can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be to use d-pad diagonals to simulate pushing two buttons at once? When I push two buttons at once I rest my thumb over both of them. Pushing a diagonal requires me to push "between" the two buttons. It's a different dynamic and one that would be hard to get used to, particularly for a retro game. Plus d-pads are rough and uncomfortable and pressing diagonals is a lot more imprecise than using buttons. If you asked anyone if they would prefer face buttons or a d-pad they would pick face buttons.
I can't think of ANY advantages to using a d-pad over buttons for non-movement functions and I can think of disadvantages for it. So if there are no advantages and some disadvantages then it makes no sense to replace buttons. The only arguement for using a d-pad for buttons pushes is to defend Nintendo's decision to only have two buttons on the Rev controller. In fact no one would even SUGGEST the idea otherwise. It's nothing but a knee-jerk "Nintendo can do no wrong" reaction.
We're both approaching this from different places Iansane. If I read you correctly, it appears that you're working on the assumption that control schemes accumulate upon what's come before them.
I'm approaching this from a different viewpoint: Why do we need to use one finger to press 2 buttons at all?
Like you said, I don't even consider this good design to force the player to do such a thing as press two buttons in two different places with the same finger. This has arisen because of the increasing need for digital input as controllers and gameplay systems become more complex, and is only possible at all because buttons happen to be small enough and close enough to mash together with your thumb.
But these problems are increasingly being addressed with Nintendo's direction in control methods. The DS' touch screen allows you to throw as many digital functions on the touch screen without forcing the player to acess arcane button combinations. For example, the D-pad, c-stick and several buttons were used in metroid prime to select items, weapons, and modes. In Metroid hunters, these functions that took up so much of the controller is simply handled on the touch screen. This is an example of the benefits of a simplified, streamlined, and less arcane interface that Nintendo is moving towards.
Now consider the Revolution controller in a nun-chuck setup. Everyone assumes that you can look with the revoltuion controller, but why are they restricting it to a 2-dimensional field? The controller can easily take over the functions of moving forward, backwards, and strafing through simple translocation (the controller is held forward = forward movement) or rotation (rotate in the direction to strafe). This frees up the analog stick for a Secret of Mana style ring menu (or I-pod style touch-circle input) that's vastly superior to any button combination you can demand.
And that's just one alternative.
But anyways, what you appear to be saying is this: Nintendo could and should replace the D-Pad on the Rev with a 4-button setup like the C-buttons on the N64.
My opinion is that will work against what Nintendo is trying to accomplish. With Nintendo moving to simplify and streamline interfaces (removing multiple button functions and placing them in a single more accessible interface ala the DS' touch screen), with Miyamoto's past comments on wanting to make a one-button game (or at least a game which is as simple as can be, which explains his lack of use for the GC's D-pad), and with the very real need to keep the controller as casual friendly as possible (There's a very large psychological bonus you get when you use a directional cross as opposed to 4 buttons), this goes in the opposite direction of what Nintendo's trying to achieve.
Now, you can claim that I am defending Nintendo, but really, I am just explaining the disconnects between your proposal and their intentions. I have long given up on caring about whether Nintendo is doing something wrong or something right, I now only truly care about whether they're doing something true to their intentions. I could weather any disappointment as long as Nintendo did what they truly wished to do, and as we can see in the recently surfaced images of several of the revolution controller's previous versions, Nintendo's tried many, many ways (almost certainly including your proposal) to deal with what eventually became a normal D-pad.
I believe that, for the reasons I state above, and the fact that Miyamoto himself has probably tinkered with the 4-button instead of D-pad scheme, we can safely say that Nintendo has maed a very rational choice as to why the D-pad, and not 4 buttons, is at the top of the Rev controller.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2006, 04:04:17 PM
No I'm not. I'm saying that the face buttons shouldn't be replaced by a d-pad. The d-pad should stay because it provides a different function: digital movement. It's a better design for that purpose.
"I believe that, for the reasons I state above, and the fact that Miyamoto himself has probably tinkered with the 4-button instead of D-pad scheme, we can safely say that Nintendo has maed a very rational choice as to why the D-pad, and not 4 buttons, is at the top of the Rev controller."
We can't say anything. Nintendo isn't infallible. They made all sorts of decisions that I considered totally irrational on the Cube and many of these decisions hurt them. The d-pad is on the top of the remote because it makes sense to. That's an ideal location for movement controls. I have no problem with the d-pad's presence on the remote. My problem is with the lack of buttons.
Post by: IceCold on February 08, 2006, 04:38:39 PM
However, there are some problems with this, and ultimately, I don't think it will work. First, there's a reason there's only one face button; using face buttons combined with the motion sensing would be extremely complicated, not only for nongamers but for gamers too. Imagine moving the thing around while still haveing to press buttons. And also, my layout would not be friendly to games that aspire for one-handed controls..
Post by: nemo_83 on February 08, 2006, 05:02:45 PM
I always thought the N64 should have been a two pronged pad with two dpads in the secondary positions like the Virtual Boy.
Post by: BigJim on February 08, 2006, 07:21:19 PM
The only reason I can think of to keep the D-pad there is that it is more visually appealing. Functionally, however, using a d-pad for actions rather than movement has always been awkward to me. It would be fine for something like weapon swapping, but not on the fly actions. Going from A to a d-pad direction would be silly when, like Ian, I am used to resting my thumb between buttons for immediate reaction.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2006, 08:32:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"But anyways, what you appear to be saying is this: Nintendo could and should replace the D-Pad on the Rev with a 4-button setup like the C-buttons on the N64."
No I'm not. I'm saying that the face buttons shouldn't be replaced by a d-pad. The d-pad should stay because it provides a different function: digital movement. It's a better design for that purpose.
"I believe that, for the reasons I state above, and the fact that Miyamoto himself has probably tinkered with the 4-button instead of D-pad scheme, we can safely say that Nintendo has maed a very rational choice as to why the D-pad, and not 4 buttons, is at the top of the Rev controller."
We can't say anything. Nintendo isn't infallible. They made all sorts of decisions that I considered totally irrational on the Cube and many of these decisions hurt them. The d-pad is on the top of the remote because it makes sense to. That's an ideal location for movement controls. I have no problem with the d-pad's presence on the remote. My problem is with the lack of buttons.
Oh, ok. Well, Nintendo isn't replacing face buttons with the D-pad, players are. Nintendo is removing the need for face buttons by creating a deeper more versatile control method. Compare to my DS example.
And you'll notice that I didn't say that Nintendo is infallible, nor that they made the correct choice. I said that they made a rational decision, meaning that they evaluated all their possible options, including your TV-Remote Button surrounded by a circle of 4 buttons set-up, and ended up with what we have now based on the criteria they set.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on February 09, 2006, 02:30:06 PM
Another way is to take the nunchuck/remote combo and introduce a cheap simple frame piece between them (concealing the cord) that holds the two halves together and gives the gamer other, often traditional, mechanics placed in secondary positions. This would be low cost enough that third parties would package in custom frames.
