Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on August 30, 2006, 07:54:55 PM
In a recent interview with Nintendo Dream, Shigeru Miyamoto revealed that GameCube games may be getting facelifts for the Wii. While the question of how extensive the improvements would be still hasn’t been answered, it brings up an interesting question: is the Wii remote so powerful an asset that its mere inclusion can drastically improve a game?
This has already been brought up with a more high-profile game that’s actually launching with the Wii. With Twilight Princess, the Nintendo faithful seem to be split up into two camps: those who want to play it with a GameCube controller and those willing to take the plunge with the remote. I haven’t played it with either, so I’m not qualified to comment on either method’s positives or negatives, but the general consensus has become pretty vocal about wanting the option to play both on the same disk, just in case. Having played TP on both the GameCube in 2005 and on the Wii in 2006, PGC Director Jonathan Metts had this to say:
“Zelda on GameCube felt like a very direct sequel to Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker with different graphics. Due to the brevity of the demo, it was hard to tell how the game would set itself apart in terms of gameplay. Zelda on Wii feels dramatically different for the series, but at least in the E3 demo, not necessarily better."
For more on this issue, read Evan Burchfield's open letter to Nintendo.
It’s that insecurity that makes the whole transition somewhat nervous for yours truly. Nintendo’s taking a big gamble on the Wii, and if the remote can’t “wow" someone with their first impression, trouble is afoot. It all boils down to whether Twilight Princess plays better on the GameCube, or on its big-brother Wii.
This question ties into whether or not the controller can play a “normal game" more intuitively than its predecessor. At this point, it’s hard to say. While RTS, hack-and-slashes, and FPS titles seem custom-fit for Nintendo’s new method of control, would a game like Super Smash Bros. really benefit from it? Probably not. It mostly has to do with how clumsy people are in real life, and that the exact movement readily available by pushing buttons isn’t easily replicated by actual movement.
This obviously won’t be a problem with games belonging to the Touch Generation brand or something like Trauma Center, where the objective is based around responding your hand’s movement, and with WarioWare, it’s a match made in heaven. Will Prince of Persia Wii be better than Two Thrones, though? Time will tell, and that, more than anything else, is what’s bothering me.
It sure wasn’t this stressful last time. When the analog stick debuted on the N64, it ushered in a new age of 3D manipulation, but did anyone decide to switch up the control scheme and repackage their game as new? Did anyone see analog control as so great an innovation that it fundamentally changed the experience, and acted upon it immediately?
The truth of the matter was, it was a great addition to the controller, and it succeeded the D-Pad as the predominant method to play games. It didn’t annihilate it, however - we still see the D-Pad on every major gamepad - and in truth, I actually prefer the latter for certain genres (chiefly fighting games).
The Wii remote is different, though. Whereas the D-Pad-to-analog transition just put your thumb in a different spot and made it rotate instead of jump, the Wii is a kinetic force - it removes another boundary between you and the digital world, and will fundamentally change the experience. We just don’t know if that’s for the better yet.
So will these "enhanced titles" be good games? Probably. Better than the first ones? Maybe. Better specifically because of the control scheme?
As much as I hate to say it, time will have to tell.
Post by: Kairon on August 30, 2006, 08:32:26 PM
Zelda:TP will be a good game, and in the end that's what players will take away from the experience and as long as the controls are not horrible, most players, especially that sea of casual players, will totally latch onto it and buy into the Wii controllers.
As long as the games are essentially good and well-thought out, only hardcore, intellectual, and idealistic players will agonize over whether the control method itself is essentially improving their games. The vast sea of other gamers out there will just play, and then naturally believe.
After all, look at the DS toch screen. Hardcore gamers STILL question whether it's just a sparkling innovation. Heck, I, a Nintendo FANBOI for life, can't name 5 games that I feel truly utilized the touch screen to improve the game on a basis of essentials. If you ask this gamer, the DS failed the exact question that you're asking for the Wii.
But evidently, that hasn't proven to be a bad thing. Seen the latest sales numbers?
The Wii doesn't need to essentially improve EVERY SINGLE ONE of the videogames that use its controller. It just needs to hold its ground respectably everywhere else while it excels at Wii Sports, party games, non-games, Trauma Center, and all those games just over that new blue ocean horizon.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: mantidor on August 30, 2006, 08:44:40 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 30, 2006, 08:52:20 PM
Post by: Mario on August 30, 2006, 08:56:02 PM
Also remember the Wii doesn't just introduce the new controls, things like the online gameplay will improve BWii and that's also something the GC couldn't do.
The point when playing a game is to forget you're using a controller, all this talk about the controls is putting the focus on the wrong thing. Zelda TP will feel awkward with it but that's just because it will be a mediocre game on Wii.
Post by: Smoke39 on August 30, 2006, 09:08:59 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on August 30, 2006, 09:10:29 PM
The DS example isn't entirely valid since it's basically a GBA with a couple more buttons anda touch screen. The Wii controller is not a GameCube controller with an extra feature - it's a complete re-design. If it was, why would Nintendo need the shell/VC conroller?
I feel that Zelda is a perfect example for this issue, since it's a "normal" game being outfitted for Wii control. The point of the editorial isn't to say that the Wiimote isn't a good controller - far from it. The point is that I'm still not convinced that the Wii is superior for playing conventional titles a'la the GameCube.
Mario, the GameCube couldn't go online? Phantasy Star fans would disagree with you. Yeah, Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection will be a lot more organized, but online isn't a feature exclusive to the Wii as far as Nintendo consoles go.
As for Battalion Wars II, it's funny you mention that. In the original version of the editorial, I talked about it for a little, but Jonny suggested (and I agreed), that it and Strikers are sequels more than they're facelifts, at least from what we've seen. This piece is aimed at those "enhanced games."
Am I gonna buy a Wii? Hellz yeah. Will Trauma Center, Dragon Quest, WarioWare, Wii Sports, etc be awesome? Hellz yeah. Will the conventional titles being ported over (whether from the GameCube or otherwise) be better than their counterparts? That's a different story. I'm willing to take the ride, but it doesn't make me any less insecure about it.
Post by: IceCold on August 30, 2006, 09:10:55 PM
Quote
Translated
"The factory has received a purchasing order for the Wii controller and a sample, but is still stuck in the testing phase. From the feedback of testers, currently the Wiimote and nunchuck still have a lot of small issues, such as buttons that aren't sensitive, and that it's hard to press two buttons together, (there's even no response occasionally), and that the current sample is easily damaged - using the controller in normal situation will produce some noise, etc. Entering September, if the above hardware problems cannot be fixed, it will directly affect Wii's selling strategy.
Also, the factory has not received the Wii console from Nintendo yet - currently, they are testing samples using a dedicated machine only for testing, which means that after an up-to-standard sample is produced, it still needs to be sent back to Japan to be tested by Nintendo for a second time. The Wii controller uses bluetooth technology for real-time data transfer, and infrared for "space location", and the second phase of testing procedures maybe even tougher!"
Post by: Kairon on August 30, 2006, 09:16:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I don't think the remote will lend itself particularly well to every single type of game, just like purely touch controls don't lend themselves to every single type of game. Which is why we have the nunchuck attachement for the Wii and a d-pad and buttons on the DS. It's up to developers to intellligently utilize whatever works best for what they're trying to do. There'll always be games that lazily use classic input methods where something new could work better, and games that shoehorn in new control methods just because it's novel, but then there'll be some really awesome games that just get it right.
Fixed.
Seriously people, all the nunchuck attachment loses compared to the GC is the c-stick. And when it gains gyroscopes at the same time...
We just don't need to fall back to a GC controller or a classic controller that we're not always sure is there. We've got a nunchuck attachment that we're 100% sure they have already, and that does the job almost as well... and even better once we implement a couple simple motion sensor g!mmicks.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on August 30, 2006, 09:38:12 PM
Post by: Smoke39 on August 30, 2006, 09:38:57 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 30, 2006, 09:47:28 PM
But if we put the GC controller and Wii controller together, then of course there are some things that don't transfer over perfectly, but for the most part the Wii+Nunchuck offer enough functionality without the motion sensing, and POTENTIALLY more with well-thought-out use of motion sensing, that I don't see a need for a Classic controller AT ALL unless we're playing VC titles.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: King of Twitch on August 30, 2006, 10:20:44 PM
Post by: Mario on August 30, 2006, 11:28:02 PM
Post by: BigJim on August 30, 2006, 11:28:10 PM
As has been brought up before, not unlike the DS, it's a *different* way to play. It's not yet proven whether it's really next-level and so obvious that it becomes a new standard. I'm not counting on them being able to. Even only a fraction of DS's lineup thus far has made the case for the touch screen, and they're 2 years in.
Post by: UncleBob on August 31, 2006, 04:22:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
After all, look at the DS toch screen. Hardcore gamers STILL question whether it's just a sparkling innovation. Heck, I, a Nintendo FANBOI for life, can't name 5 games that I feel truly utilized the touch screen to improve the game on a basis of essentials. If you ask this gamer, the DS failed the exact question that you're asking for the Wii.
Animal Crossing: Wild World
Big Brain Academy
Brain Age
Electroplankton
Kirby: Canvas Curse
Nintendogs
Wario Ware: Touched!
Super Mario 64 DS/New Super Mario Bros. - Mini Games
That's a little more than five, but...
I think what people forget about the DS is that it isn't *just* about the touch screen. Perhaps this is Nintendo's fault for the whole "Touching is Good" stuff, but the DS also has the wireless multiplayer/WiFi support, the microphone, and, of course, Dual Screens. Just because every game doesn't make use of every feature doesn't mean that the DS failed to do what it set out to do - give us a new way to play games. Heck, something as simple as push mode Tetris would have been crap on the GBA - and it alone is worth a DS purchase, IMHO.
It's going to be the same with Wii. There will be games that make full use of the controller's motion sensing. Games that use the secondary speaker. Games that use the online play. Games that use the whole "WiiConnect24" when you're sleeping bit. Games that use DS connectivity. Games that use the super-secret other thing that Nintendo isn't telling us about. There will be very few games that make use of all the features - and one or two that do it well.
Post by: Pale on August 31, 2006, 04:54:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Battalian Wars Wii and Mario Football Wii are being made from the ground up for Wii.
I guess... if using the same engine and adding some additional features is the same as "from the ground up." Face it man. Those games are essentially the same thing as what Nintendo is doing with Zelda. Everything just has silly Zelda hate because they think Nintendo is messing with some holy figure.
Edit: I guess some may call them sequels. I think the only difference is that they aren't games with stories. Because Zelda's story will be repeated it's a little different, but as far as development is concerned, I personally think it's the exact same thing.
Post by: edgeblade69 on August 31, 2006, 05:30:10 AM
I think a lot of you are unfairly doubting Nintendo. Everyone doubted Nintendo when the DS was first announced and as its features were slowly revealed and Nintendo has destroyed everything in its path with the DS. Even the almighty Sony can't touch Nintendo in the portable market. Granted portables and consoles are somewhat different, but the core concept between DS and Wii is the same IMO. And that is why the Wii will continue where DS is now and prove to be a success for Nintendo and possibly take them back to the late SNES/early N64 days.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on August 31, 2006, 05:30:13 AM
Post by: SixthAngel on August 31, 2006, 05:48:29 AM
Guitar Heroes is a game that could easily (and can be) played on a regular controller but doing so makes the game suck. It is fun to actually perform actions instead of just pressing buttons.
Post by: JonLeung on August 31, 2006, 08:01:09 AM
I'm mostly concerned about fighting games, that require near-instant access to 4-6 buttons as well as a stick or D-pad (depending on the game, I may prefer the D-pad). But considering that new 2D fighting games have been on a decline for years now, with even KoF ending their 2D insistence, we may only find them on the VC, in which case we'd likely already be using the classic controller already.
I think they can find a way to adapt many games to Wii controls, and decently, too, as I don't think any genre other than oldschool fighting games needs several buttons accessible all at once.
Whether or not people want to adapt (if it's at all unnatural for a particular genre), I guess is the real question. Certainly an argument for more games to fully utilize what it offers and for those games to get a lot of exposure. I'm beginning to think Red Steel is getting overrated but it will need to be experienced by everyone who considers themselves an FPS fan. Without exposure, it won't even matter if it's the epitome of absolute revolutionary improvement.
Post by: trip1eX on August 31, 2006, 08:28:17 AM
One was to attract a new market of consumers who don't play games much and don't like the idea of manipulating current controllers and the other was to provide a new play experience for existing gamers.
These two reasons (along with the lower price, low noise, small size, WiiConnect24, ..) let Nintendo differentiate their console from the competition. The controller is really Nintendo's Hi-Def.
Anyway since everyone on this board are gamers then the controller is about giving us new experiences. It's not about being superior per se. But about the new exeperience. I think that's an important point. Yeah obivously the new experience will be crap if you can't easily replicate the actions required of you with the new controller. But I think that's true of even today's games in which you have bad controls.
Is playing WiiTennis by swinging the controller 'superior' to hitting a button? I think that depends on what you mean by superior. I'd like to say that it looks like more fun tho. And the newness of the controller experience is something that will get me to purchase many games I wouldn't have otherwise purchased.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 31, 2006, 08:41:11 AM
Plus we all know they're trying for a wider audience. They said that the reason they went with a remote design was because everyone is familiar with a TV remote. When designing a "better" controller you're going to pay attention to things like comfort and functionality, not how inviting the appearance is to people who normally don't play games. That is what a marketer pays attention to, not an engineer.
I think another incentive for the design was that Nintendo probably recognizes that their franchise games on the Cube weren't quite up to par with their N64 equivalents. I think they wanted to force themselves to do new things and something like a touchscreen and motion control accomplishes that. Mario on the Wii HAS to feel newer than Super Mario Sunshine did just because motion control is something new and different.
I think the problem though is that they have no safety net. The DS has worked out okay even if there is debate on the merits of the touchscreen. But let's assume it didn't work out. What if the touchscreen was a huge failure? Nintendo could still have just resorted to making more GBA-style games if they had to. Everything that was on their previous portables is still there. They could always have gotten by with the DS as just a 3D capable Gameboy. The Wii doesn't have this option because they removed so many elements from the Cube controller. It's just way more different than the DS is. The Wii isn't even really backwards compatible with the Cube unless you use a Cube controller. If motion control totally bombed Nintendo couldn't just fall back on using the Wii as a "normal" console with a cool online mode unless they started packaging in the traditional controller as the standard. Now they could do that if needed but it would be a big hassle and the Wii's already sold at that point wouldn't have the new standard controller. The risk is so much higher.
Post by: getter77 on August 31, 2006, 10:22:50 AM
This kind of thing would pretty sweepingly dispel worries about the controller not being able to work well enough. The proof of everything lies in nothing other than the games themselves...so Nintendo will hopefully bring everything to bear.
Post by: PopeReal on August 31, 2006, 10:33:17 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 31, 2006, 10:35:32 AM
And really, I don't think it'll fail. Even if it's not used for new gameplay mechanisms it reduces the abstraction from the interface allowing the people who find current controllers too complex to play a game. Someone can forget which button turns left or does a barrel roll but they would never ask "which way do I have to move this to move left?". Each gesture is a distinct action whereas pushing a button only differs in where that button is and that location rarely bears any relation to the purpose of the button. Why do you think games that only use the mouse and one button are so popular with the casuals? Only the cursor movement needs to be remembered, the rest is interacting with a GUI.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 10:50:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't think Nintendo's goal was ever to make a "better" controller.
I disagree. I believe that the Wiimote is a "better" controller in the same way that the DS' touch screen is a better controller. It doesn't apply everywhere, but when you get a game like Brain Age with it, *sigh* I wouldn't have it any other way.
Like with the DS, I expect the Wii controller to not essentially improve all games, but to be absolutely positively amazingly pwnful for some games and game types that utilize it to its full potential.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: hudsonhawk on August 31, 2006, 11:13:10 AM
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical. I love the DS and recognize that it allows for certain game types that wouldn't have been possible on any other system, I don't find that it adds to the core experience, it simply expands the possibilities.
I'm glad to see someone else expressing some healthy skepticism about the Wii. Everyone everywhere is so infatuated with the idea that I don't think they've stopped to think that once the honeymoon wears off, this will just be another control mechanism and nothing more.
I've owned every single Nintendo console ever made. Even the Virtual Boy. I thought the DS was cool from the get go, thought the Virtual Boy was a cool vision, and loved the analog stick from day one. But unlike most people here, and really most gamers in general, I'm personally skeptical that the Wiimote will actually be immersive and enhancing of the experience. I'm afraid that in the end it will just be a pointer with a joystick attached and nothing more.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 11:18:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
They haven't demonstrated any "ZOMG" killer apps to prove their point. Half of the demos we've seen have gone in the opposite direction with things like Wii Sports and Symphony.
Did you think the same thing with Brain Age and Nintendogs?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Acefondu on August 31, 2006, 11:21:10 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on August 31, 2006, 11:32:25 AM
Well it is a better safety net than nothing at all to fall back on. If they had a safety net like they did with the DS then it would mean that they had a normal controller with something special added to it. And honestly the way Sony is goofing up just not sucking will pretty much ensure Nintendo will do better this time around.
"I disagree. I believe that the Wiimote is a 'better' controller in the same way that the DS' touch screen is a better controller. It doesn't apply everywhere, but when you get a game like Brain Age with it, *sigh* I wouldn't have it any other way."
I wouldn't consider a controller that works better for some games and worse for others to be "better", just different. A "better" design would do virtually everything better. An example would be the NES controller which was better than Atari's old joystick design in pretty much every way. I wouldn't consider an analog stick to be better than a d-pad for example since both are superior for certain games. I would consider the N64 controller to be better than the SNES one, however, because it can do everything the SNES can plus more. Regarding control, the DS is better than the GBA because it can do everything the GBA can plus more.
Post by: PopeReal on August 31, 2006, 11:39:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
Good editorial. I think the poster child for this question shouldn't be Zelda, which has been debated into the ground, but rather Red Steel. Why? Because if it weren't for the Wiimote, no one would be even remotely interested in this game. If the interactivity from the Wiimote doesn't end up adding fundamentally to the experience it will just be a generic FPS.
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical. I love the DS and recognize that it allows for certain game types that wouldn't have been possible on any other system, I don't find that it adds to the core experience, it simply expands the possibilities.
I'm glad to see someone else expressing some healthy skepticism about the Wii. Everyone everywhere is so infatuated with the idea that I don't think they've stopped to think that once the honeymoon wears off, this will just be another control mechanism and nothing more.
I've owned every single Nintendo console ever made. Even the Virtual Boy. I thought the DS was cool from the get go, thought the Virtual Boy was a cool vision, and loved the analog stick from day one. But unlike most people here, and really most gamers in general, I'm personally skeptical that the Wiimote will actually be immersive and enhancing of the experience. I'm afraid that in the end it will just be a pointer with a joystick attached and nothing more.
Actually on planetgamecube I think more people agree with you than with me. A lot of people seem real nervous about the Wii now. All that E3 momentum has turned into panic now that the release draws near it seems. I for one am not sweating it, but soon we will see if I should have been.
Post by: couchmonkey on August 31, 2006, 12:10:25 PM
Now the doubters have Sony's mistakes to fall back on if Wii manages to dominate.I have my skeptical moments about Wii, I worry it won't work as well as I hope. In fact I'm pretty sure it won't work as well as I hope. And yet, I still find the concept way more exciting than Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. Where are Microsoft and Sony going to go with their next generation systems? 10,000 characters on screen instead of 1000? Who cares? Somewhat better A.I. and physics? Nice, but not something that's going to get people's hearts racing. I think Nintendo is the only company that's thinking ahead more than five years.
Wait, that's not quite true. Sony and Microsoft are thinking ahead, but they're thinking ahead to what video format people will be using. As a gamer, I can honestly say, "Who gives a crap?" Where will the games be in five years? I'm hoping there's more to it than HDTV and another hundred million polygons. Nintendo is trying to give us more than that - it's trying to bring motion into games and it's trying to bring new players into games. That's exciting, and I think Nintendo is going to reap the benefits. I think even if Sony was really on the ball with PS3, Wii would still be getting the attention it is right now, becuase it's a great idea.
Post by: animecyberat on August 31, 2006, 12:47:02 PM
Also Fighitng games are one of my favorite genres and I still cant figure out how to make it work with Wii.
I agree with the editorial we all just have to wait and see.
Post by: mantidor on August 31, 2006, 12:55:37 PM
Post by: denjet78 on August 31, 2006, 01:10:12 PM
Quote
Without deviation, progress is not possible.
(Frank Zappa)
Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.
(Thomas Edison)
The most damaging phrase in the language is, "It's always been done that way."
(Rear Admiral Grace Hopper)
So much havoc has optimism wrought in this world that pessimism appears not only a legitimate way of looking at things but a moral duty.
(Christopher Spranger)
Quality has to be caused, not controlled.
(Philip Crosby)
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature.
(Tom Robbins)
Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships.
(George Bernard Shaw)
It is a bad plan that admits of no modifications.
(Publius Syrus)
Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention largely because they regard such departure as criticism of themselves.
(Bertrand Russell)
The illusion of progress can be achieved by simply rearranging the terms of description so that new acronyms are created.
(Scott Smith)
The best way to be ready for the future is to invent it.
(John Sculley)
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
(Robert A Heinlein)
Like a man who has worn eyeglasses so long that he forgets he has them on, we forget that the world looks to us the way it does because we have become used to seeing it that way through a particular set of lenses.
(Kenich Ohmae)
Fundamental progress has to do with the reinterpretation of basic ideas.
(Alfred North Whitehead)
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
Fifty years into the First Computing Era some of us in the computing arena have come to realize we’ve made a false start, and for us to finally be able to produce lasting, correct, beautiful, usable, scalable, enjoyable software that stands the tests of time and moral human endeavor, we need to start over.
(Richard P Gabriel)
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 01:27:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Although comparisons with the DS are obvious they aren't very accurate, we have relative knowledge of how a touchscreen works with games because is almost the same as using a mouse, while the remote is completly new, we have little to no experience with 3D controls. So even if Nintendo's strategy worked for the DS it doesn't automatically means it will work in the wii, it gives more confidence in the strategy though.
Are you kidding me? You have a LIFETIME of experience with 3D controls.
This is why my dad pushes the controller forward when he wants to run faster in Madden.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 01:30:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
A few good quotes
Thank you. That warms an objectivist's heart. *sniff*
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on August 31, 2006, 02:04:11 PM
Post by: BigJim on August 31, 2006, 02:52:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: BigJim
They haven't demonstrated any "ZOMG" killer apps to prove their point. Half of the demos we've seen have gone in the opposite direction with things like Wii Sports and Symphony.
Did you think the same thing with Brain Age and Nintendogs?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
What I *thought* was irrelevance because I didn't care about either. But that doesn't matter. Like I said, a fraction of the lineup makes the point for the DS. If you're asking if I think they're g!mmicks like Symphony, no.
The DS, at least, is easier to adopt because it's a traditional portable PLUS touch screen. The Wii doesn't have that luxury. They're gonna live or die on the Wiimote, despite the classic controller. So far, with no ZOMG content OR fail-safe, they're still left with something to prove.
Post by: mantidor on August 31, 2006, 03:01:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Although comparisons with the DS are obvious they aren't very accurate, we have relative knowledge of how a touchscreen works with games because is almost the same as using a mouse, while the remote is completly new, we have little to no experience with 3D controls. So even if Nintendo's strategy worked for the DS it doesn't automatically means it will work in the wii, it gives more confidence in the strategy though.
Are you kidding me? You have a LIFETIME of experience with 3D controls.
This is why my dad pushes the controller forward when he wants to run faster in Madden.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Thats no experience at all and you know it.
Post by: Acefondu on August 31, 2006, 05:06:29 PM
Post by: wandering on August 31, 2006, 05:42:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I wouldn't consider a controller that works better for some games and worse for others to be "better", just different. A "better" design would do virtually everything better. An example would be the NES controller which was better than Atari's old joystick design in pretty much every way.
I disagree. They didn't add to the classic joystick design - they replaced it. The NES controller wasn't better, it was just different. What if there were problems with the d-pad - problems like thumb fatigue? There was no safety net to fall back on. Much better was the Atari 5200 controller, which took the joystick from the Atari 2600 controller and then added to it.
Post by: denjet78 on August 31, 2006, 06:30:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
What if there were problems with the d-pad - problems like thumb fatigue?
Actually there was a major issue with the original NES controller. Playing with it for too long caused something that doctors dubbed Nintendo-itis. I think Nintendo was even sued over it at one point. Because of that, Nintendo went so far as to offer anyone who requested one, a special glove designed to help aleviate it. All you had to do was trace your hand on a piece of paper and send it into them, no questions asked.
That didn't stop people from playing though.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 06:47:02 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on August 31, 2006, 07:19:53 PM
Hmm, leveling the playing field. Maybe that what all the haters are secretly afraid of. That they will become buggy whip makers.
Post by: Mario on August 31, 2006, 07:51:33 PM
Quote
Nintendo was being ignored and now everyone is talking about them. The controller is pretty much the reason for that.
No, the DS is.
Nintendogs and Brain Training are the two games that SOLELY rely on the DS's new features, and they are the same two games responsible for this market expansion. PSP and DS would be neck-and-neck without those games. More evidence that whenever Nintendo attempts to do something too samey they are just seen as a "Sony-Lite".
Before you say "oh but who cares about this new non-market it doesn't even count" there is NO WAY New Super Mario Bros would be selling so well now without Nintendogs and Brain Training greatly expanding the DS userbase. Almost any game released on DS in Japan is GUARANTEED to make a profit, thanks to the HUGE rapidly growing userbase, which is thanks to Nintendogs and Brain Training, which exist thanks to the BRAND NEW CONTROLS! Huzzuh!
So if you want to go by the DS example, then new control scheme = MAXIMUM PROFIT AND MARKET SHARE! More games! More variety! Everyone wins!
Post by: Ian Sane on August 31, 2006, 08:17:13 PM
Well I meant specifically regarding the console market where they were completely ignored and now have a buzz going. The DS is the portable market where Nintendo has been the market leader since 1989. The buzz around the Wii is unrelated to the DS' popularity. The Wii has a buzz because of the Wii itself.
Plus as amazing as the DS is doing in Japan it did go from market leader to market leader which is probably a whole sh!t load easier to do than to go from bottom of the barrel to market leader.
Post by: 18 Days on August 31, 2006, 08:25:32 PM
Post by: PopeReal on August 31, 2006, 08:31:44 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 08:32:00 PM
~Carmine M. red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: 18 Days on August 31, 2006, 08:34:19 PM
~ Potentially F. Name
dont@care.com
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 31, 2006, 08:38:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"No, the DS is."
Well I meant specifically regarding the console market where they were completely ignored and now have a buzz going.
That tends to happen when you have a new console launching in the not too distant future. Do you think everyone was constantly excited about Xbox thoughout its life?
"OH BOY THAT XBOX WHAT IS IT GOING TO SURPRISE ME WITH TODAY ^____^ BEST, WINNER"
"You're standing way too close to me, move over to the other side of the urinal please"
"EVERYDAY IS EXCITING DAY ^__^"
"STOP WAVING IT ABOUT YOU'RE GETTING IT ON MY SHOES HOLY CRAP"
Post by: wandering on August 31, 2006, 08:45:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"No, the DS is."
Well I meant specifically regarding the console market where they were completely ignored and now have a buzz going. The DS is the portable market where Nintendo has been the market leader since 1989. The buzz around the Wii is unrelated to the DS' popularity. The Wii has a buzz because of the Wii itself.
I dunno, I've heard alot of people say the DS has let them understand the Wii and it's potential.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2006, 08:59:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: 18 Days
No one remembers that
~ Potentially F. Name
dont@care.com
/sad
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on August 31, 2006, 09:21:04 PM
Post by: IceCold on August 31, 2006, 09:22:09 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 31, 2006, 09:43:32 PM
Post by: animecyberat on September 01, 2006, 12:20:25 PM
I didnt like the N64 as much either and thats what worries me about the Wii, it is forcing peopel who are comfoprtable with the way they are to change, as far as FPSes go I am excited, as far as fighting games and NORMAL (non FPS) action game I am worried.
Also I am still unconvinced that Sports games will benefit except the ones tailoer to the controller, IE golf and tennes and the like, football doesnt seam to benefit at all neither does basketball. and I still hate the idea of playing a racing game witht cotnroller tilted sideways, tahst just stupid IMO, I always use steering wheel controller period and they act like they wont even make them cuz the motion sensors are 'better.'
So far I se Zelda as having potential and as far as that goes I may have fun playing that, Mario on the other hand, doesnt seam to impress me much so far. MP3 and Red Steel sound good but there are bettere FPSes out there and we havent heard about any of them coming to Wii so I dont care if Red Steel is teh SH@* to play if they games I WANT to play don't get made for the system.
That deosnt mena I don't have faith in Nintendo but I ams till shakiey on the controller and I think the ones who argue it with out admitin there are concerns arre just blindly following Nintendo and wont listen to anyones honest concerns because they will eat up anything Nintendo makes.
I HOPE the Wii is a success and i HOPE desperatley it does work out, but I still haev, justifiable doubts about the controller and so shoudl any one else. you can not blindly say it will work if you havent tried it yet and the peopel who have still have doubs what teh HELL does that say?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 02, 2006, 12:57:59 PM
Post by: IceCold on September 03, 2006, 05:54:10 PM
QuoteBut you do like the GameCube right? Without the 64, the Cube wouldn't be possible. It's all about adapting to the controller, and it always has been..
I didnt like the N64 as much either and thats what worries me about the Wii, it is forcing peopel who are comfoprtable with the way they are to change
Post by: Ceric on September 04, 2006, 05:12:05 AM
A few points.
The quotes earlier from different people where good.
Any game manafacture will make a new controller only if they beleive it will actually be better. Hence why we still have Dual Shock style controller for the PS3.
Have you ever played a GBA or earlier game and thought "You know this would have been better with more buttons"? Developers will adapt to the situation given to them.
The secret is with any technology that has a lot of features is to stop yourself from being a "Jack of All Trades". Do I beleive that every game will use the Wiipointer and the Accelormeter in the Nunchuku. Nope. I wouldn't be surprised if some game released and it's just the analog and four buttons for the most part. As we saw on the DS, just because a feature is their doesn't mean you have to use it. In fact like with Mario Kart it was better that they didn't use it. I liken having a lot of features to my Christmas list. I have really cheap stuff to really expensive stuff. Why? To give people variety and depth to choose from. Though what generally happens is people look at it and go you must be crazy. They don't get the concept. Most people think if its on a list that it needs to be used or addressed somehow.
Will the controller be a problem don't know. Though the manafacturing thing mentioned earlier was interesting.
