Post by: BlackGriffen on June 01, 2004, 02:00:37 PM
Second, the z trigger is useless as it is. It might be worth it to make two z buttons (z1 and z2 or zL and zR), one on the inside of each grip. I don't know how sensitive it should be (a stiff click or like L and R have at the bottom of their range of motion or like the face buttons) .This is primarily for FPSes, so it would be nice if it were digital.
What ideas do you have?
BlackGriffen
P.S. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time, but props to the user in the Old PGC forums (the green themed ones before PGC switched to external hosting) who thought that a touchscreen on a gamepad would be a good idea.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 01, 2004, 02:50:54 PM
Yes I know it's quite generic and doesn't push the envelope but dammit I want all games to play well on it, not just first party titles. The Cube's button layout is cool for a title like Metroid Prime but sucks for a 2D fighting games. A traditional design would be accomodating and realistically would work for both Metroid Prime AND 2D fighting games thus giving us the best of both worlds. I would rather have a controller that works pretty good for all games than one that works great for some and sh!tty for others.
I posted that pic a while ago and people complained about having two z-buttons. I don't want two buttons exactly like that I just want two digital buttons in front of the analog triggers so we have the same amount of buttons as the PS2 (and likely PS3) controller so it makes ports work better. Having six face buttons works too. The analog sticks also have to "click" like the Xbox and PS2 controllers to match the competition. There's no point in having less features and options when there's room to include them.
One addition I would like to include however would be a built in screen right on the controller. That way Nintendo can make games like Four Swords without having us buy four $100 GBAs (or DS's) to play it. I imagine the controllers would cost less to make and sell than a full-on portable system. Plus it would give the N5 a feature that the competition likely wouldn't have. It could be a touchscreen even.
Wireless should be standard. The controllers can have detachable cords to plug into the system if you don't want to use batteries.
I really don't like the idea of having a touch screen for the buttons themselves. That's just WAY too different and people (like myself) would have a hard time adapting to it. It would turn off tons of people. I know I would have second thoughts if that was the standard controller. With controllers generic design is GOOD. Mandatory touchscreen input would be seen as a controller problem by a lot of people and realistically there's no major advantage to it beyond the "wow neato" factor.
Oh and I think a mouse should come standard with all N5s. That would really open up game design possibilities and if it's included then 100% of N5 owners have one thus making it worthwhile for third parties to use it.
Post by: RABicle on June 02, 2004, 02:52:36 AM
QuoteAs I read that and it sunk in I literally said 'woah' outloud. That is a truly fantastic thought, it warped my mind, I had to hold my head for a minute just to comtemplate it's awesome-ness. But then I remembered how annoying the touch sensative buttons can be compared to teh real thing. But still a custom moulded button layout is beyond awesome.
First, I would replace the A button region with a rounded black & white touch sensitive LCD. That way, Devs who want a Sony style layout need only implement it.
QuoteWell there is kinda, it's cheaper. I like the way I spend less money on memory cards and controllers than my PS2/Xbox friends, money I can spend on better games. However I think the PS2/PSX has proved that 4 shoulder buttons should be standard. Anyone who disagrees should play Prince of Persia in PS2 and then play it on Xbox or Cube.
There's no point in having less features and options when there's room to include them.
Wireless should be standard, along with devices to charge them.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on June 02, 2004, 05:09:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
One addition I would like to include however would be a built in screen right on the controller. That way Nintendo can make games like Four Swords without having us buy four $100 GBAs (or DS's) to play it. I imagine the controllers would cost less to make and sell than a full-on portable system. Plus it would give the N5 a feature that the competition likely wouldn't have. It could be a touchscreen even.
I've also been having that idea.
"would be a built in screen right on the controller."
Do you mean the screen positioned at the middle of the controller? That is my idea.
Having a built in screen raises 2 issues. (1) It will rise the cost of the controller. (2) You don't the want controller to be too wide, b/c of the added screen in the middle. And b/c of that, the screen may need to be small.
Post by: Draygaia on June 02, 2004, 09:53:03 AM
I like them to keep the L/R buttons of the GC. They feel like Top and Trigger buttons at the same time. But I also like the fact that PSOne had four of them so I think instead of two the GC's z button they put an extra set of buttons for your middle fingers. The z-button still got interesting for a while and it gave me ideas. They would be cool two extra scroll buttons. Great for swapping items.
As for thumb buttons I think Nintendo should decide that one. They always come of with something interesting every generation. Everybody else just copies of the SNes.
The right joystick IMO should exchange positions with the thumb buttons and turn into a d-pad PSOne style. I thought c-buttons of the N64 were awesome in another way. They were great for Zelda, Goldeneye (FPS in general on the thing), etc Other than a game like Ape Escape I can't really think of any other game that really used the right joystick well. That why I bring back the c-button style but more like the PSOne d-pad instead. Maybe add a button in the middle since I never really stuck my thumb in the middle of the c-buttons.
People complain about controlllers being too big or small and the thing I notice the most about sizes was the handle length. They should be long since if you picture a long stick a small hand won't notice the length feel but a big hand will be happy about it.
The left joystick is fine but I would like them to make that into a button.
I would like them to ignore making it look cool until the very end. Comfort is what is important and I watch my screen when I play games. I don't look at my controller thinking about giving it a 3/10 on a review just to make seem bad.
Some points where your last two weak fingers can just apply pressure for some action on the handle rather than actually adding two buttons
I would like some tilt action in there. This would make controlling certain games interesting. I would like to see it with the Samus Morph Ball.
A tiny screen on the top like the Dreamcast just not on a mem card. To me this is much better than having to have a GBA and is something you can experience not just on the DS.
Two memory card slots since there probably wasn't enough room on on the GC console for four slots and it makes things somewhat more convenient and so we don't have to buy another controller backup data.
I also think it should use wire but still be able to play wireless. The wire would be for charging the rumble and I want the rumble and you can disconnect the wire when it is done charging. The rumble is a much better alternative as some in-game indicator rather than some onscreen distraction or a sound you probably won't hear since you'll probably be so into the game.
I know its a lot of stuff but to me as long as you have a lot of features w/o affecting the feel in a negative way it gives the developers more options instead of limits.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 02, 2004, 11:11:29 AM
Okay obviously the screen is too small in that "mockup" but the idea is that the only about half of the screen takes up controller space. The top half would be a little "chunk" above the solid controller and it would be thin so that your hands can fit behind it to use the triggers.
Another possibility which would keep the cost of the controllers down is to have an expansion port like the N64 controller had that a seperately purchased screen can attach to. Connectivity games can be made to either use Gameboys or use the existing controller with the screen attachment. I suppose some games could just use the screen attachment since there would be more buttons available. I assume a seperate screen would cost much less than a full on Gameboy and it would be good for people who buy a multiplayer connectivity games like FFCC that don't have four GBAs among their group of friends. They could throw one of the screens in with the system itself to ensure that a lot of people have them.
Post by: Shorty McNostril on June 02, 2004, 02:23:31 PM
Post by: skyfire on June 03, 2004, 12:54:01 PM
I assume most of us don't look at the controller when we play, we just move our digits around and we know where everything is because we can feel it. Having a LCD that can be programmed for whatever buttons to be used would be hard to discern where the buttons are on the screen since it would be smooth normally so some kind of tactile interface would be needed so any player could find said button on the screen.
Ofcourse there is also the cost and durability issues to contend with but hey! this is Nintendo, if they can't figure it out no one can
.Post by: Ian Sane on June 03, 2004, 02:46:43 PM
Well I imagine it would be as thin as the top half of a GBA SP so I don't think it would too fragile. And I subscribe to the philosophy that if you break controllers, scratch games, spill beer on your console, etc. you're a f*cking idiot and deserve to have to buy stuff over again.
Post by: Draygaia on June 03, 2004, 02:58:01 PM
I just noticed the error of my idea. It is so damn expensive.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 05, 2004, 08:20:55 AM
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 05, 2004, 11:07:36 AM
If true, you're right, that puts the kibosh on my particular idea. Not on touch screens altogether, but just on that particular idea.
BG
Post by: PugGTI on June 24, 2004, 05:23:15 AM
Post by: Chode2234 on June 24, 2004, 06:09:49 AM
Im going to call it Rev from now on, is that OK?
Post by: Ian Sane on June 24, 2004, 07:40:24 AM
Now imagine adding a second analog stick to the other side, adding a digital "click" to the analog L and R buttons like the Cube controller has, make sure there's both a start and select button, and make the analog sticks click and you've got a controller that can play any of the competition's games and any NES, SNES, N64, and GC game ever. I can't think of any game that wouldn't work with that design.
If I have time and can find a good picture of the Saturn 3D controller I may try to make a mockup later today.
Post by: Oldskool on June 27, 2004, 10:08:17 AM
Post by: Draygaia on July 16, 2004, 05:09:14 AM
Also the console tablet idea is pretty cool. Having a screen where you can touch your way through things (The DC controller screen idea might just come true!) is also pretty cool. Its like an extension of the buttons but not putting too many on the controller.
The camera idea is also awesome. Not entirely new since some of the ideas can be done already. Would be great create a game level out of your house.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 16, 2004, 07:34:29 AM
I hate that idea. Zelda isn't a damn fencing game. It's about exploring dungeons and having an adventure. Making you actually have to sword fight is just going to complicate things.
That's what I thought was so off about IGN's ideas. Most of those ideas were really complicated and to me don't really fit Nintendo's plans to simplify things and attract new gamers. A lot of them also sounded neat but really didn't seem like they would necessarily be fun. When writing that they seemed to just think about "could they do this" instead of "should they do this" "would this actually make a game better".
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 16, 2004, 07:48:31 AM
My perfect controller would be basically the same as the GC controller, except the Z button would be another trigger like the DC controller...And maybe add another one...It's also been already confirmed that the Revolution won't be "dual-screened," so you can count the "tablet" idea out...
Post by: ThePerm on July 25, 2004, 12:29:52 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 27, 2004, 07:25:20 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 27, 2004, 08:52:33 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 28, 2004, 05:42:56 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 09, 2004, 11:49:53 PM
This way games can still be ported to from the Sony and Microsoft systems and Nintendo gets to flex its creative muscle and introduce new ways for us to play.
As to what the non standard controller should be, I think something along the lines of a gyroscope based controller, using technology similar to what's shown here: Gyration Ultra GT
Instead of a mouse or tv remote like shape, I propose something like a flight joystick handle minus the base.
Think of what something like this could be used for:
You could point it at the screen like a gun in Duckhunt and the crosshairs would track with your movement.
You could swing it like a sword in a Light Saber fighting game.
You could use it as a tennis racket, a baseball bat, or a golf club. (a company called Xavix is already doing something similar )
You could use it like a mouse for games that work better under a point and click interface like SimCity or Warcraft
What do you guys think?
Post by: PugGTI on October 11, 2004, 02:43:35 AM
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on October 11, 2004, 05:19:42 AM
Post by: UncleBob on October 11, 2004, 07:50:45 PM
Both D-Pads would be replaced with thumbsticks (not C-Sticks... blarg) and either GCN or SNES buttons added in place of the A/B Buttons... One D-Pad moved to the left side, in place of the start/select buttons. The Start/Select button(s) would be placed smack dab in the middle.
That's just my ideas, of course...
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2004, 08:33:21 PM
I like that idea. The problem with making an innovative controller is that if it's too innovative this problem appears where only exclusive titles use it well and multiplatform releases, ports, remakes, or compilations don't. Although I find the Cube controller to be really comfortable to hold after a couple years of using it I've come to the conclusion that it's not a well designed controller. It's designed too much with only Nintendo first party titles in mind. The "innovative" button configuration just doesn't work well for genres like fighting games or multiplatform titles designed around a setup used since the SNES (one Nintendo ironically standardized). And of course the d-pad sucks, likely because Nintendo had no plans to use it and thus put no effort into its design. When designing a controller you have to think about how everyone is going to use it, not just yourself. You have to think about games from the past as well and make sure that EVERYTHING ever made works. Controllers should be evolutionary not revolutionary.
So therefore having two controllers with different functionality works best because then Nintendo can go batsh!t with whatever weird idea they want and not completely f*ck up all the third party games. There's only one problem. Multiplayer is more important now than it was with the NES. With the NES you only needed two regular controllers and one lightgun. With the Revolution you would likely need four regular controllers and four "wacky" controllers to fully utilize the lineup. Though it might work out if the "wacky" controller is only used for a few titles like most "novelty" controllers.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 25, 2004, 10:24:15 PM
I dont think they should put a screen on the next controller because that would mean that the controller would have to be one piece of hardware rather than two independent handles with independent gyration. Sure steering wheel simulation could be easier if the controller were one piece of plastic but that kills all of the posibilities and flexibilities offered by having two handles. Imagine operating camera, character movement, aim, and your grappling beam all indepently in Metroid Revolution. Imagine grabbing anything you want with the grappling beam and using it like a tentacle you can grab, throw, or pull anything while still firing with full aim control independent of camera control. Sony and MS sound like they are going to go with cameras and traditional controllers. Thus they leave it up to the developer to come up with ways to control the game rather than supplying a way like gyration would. It seems Sony wants the success or failure of the camera technology as a controlling mechanism to be on the shoulders of the third party developers. You give people enough rope and they'll hang themselves. I would rather have something more accurate like gyration. With cameras you usually only get two dimensions of data. Up down and left right. With gyration you could also get forward and backward tilting and if you use gyration handles in conjunction with a camera then anything is possible.
I dont care for a screen that I have to look down at when my eyes shouldn't have to leave the screen. For god's sake Nintendo needs to go online. I dont know a person with a Cube that doesn't also have internet. I also don't know anyone personally that has a Cube but doesn't also happen to have broadband. But I dont know anyone who plays their Cube online.
The only alternative controller that has worked for Nintendo on a large scale has been the Wavebird. It doesn't change anything about the Cube controller, but it offers an alternative way of playing. I feel that Nintendo will have standard wireless controllers next generation and cords will be the alternative. They could just package detachable cords that can be used when the batteries are low or you want rumble, buzzing, heat, cold, and other sensations generated by the controller.
Post by: Colyma on November 05, 2004, 07:39:53 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2004, 06:04:41 AM
Assuming this works okay I think having something like this would be great for the Revolution controller. Aside from the Cube's d-pad's size one problem is that it's in an awkward position. Since a controller has to be analog stick centric or d-pad centric something is going to be in an awkward position. But with this you can just switch where you want the control options to be.
And since this controller only costs $20 we can probably assume that the technology needed to have interchangable controls isn't too expensive.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2004, 06:32:19 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 06, 2004, 08:13:34 PM
Post by: MODE_RED on December 10, 2004, 12:02:30 PM
To add to your list, I think it's about time for controllers to have their own speakers and sound effects to compliment the built-in rumble.
This would heighten the feeling of swinging a lightsabre or firing guns. It also gives your game system a speaker channel that is right in front of you, which is perfect for scaring the crap out of someone. Especially if that someone has been playing so longnon-stop that he/she is constipated.
Post by: Surge on December 10, 2004, 10:31:08 PM
I really enjoyed the ability to change the face configuration on the Phoenix™ Revolution controller. Its something different than from the same type of controllers third parties publish and it is defiantaly something that Nintendo needs to take in to consideration when their next console comes out. Nintendo games have always been awesome, but they have limited their audience way too much for way too many reasons. So indeed a Revolution is coming now that Nintendo is getting serious [("Touch it")<-----DS]
Post by: BlackGriffen on December 13, 2004, 12:27:20 PM
* Custom layouts - the user can configure the controller in a way most comfortable to him/her
* Cheap repairs - main joystick giving out? No problem - you only have to replace the joystick instead of the whole darn controller. Same for other modules.
* Custom modules - Nintendo can produce custom modules specialized for different games, and also permit third parties to include such modules with games.
The downsides:
* Modules will be comparatively easy to lose - but that shouldn't be a huge problem.
* Games will need to be able to deal with crazy non-standard modules.
Thus, Nintendo will have to come up with a sensible standard layout. The modules will then have to contain information on what sort of control they are (eg analog stick, X number of digital buttons, touch screen, etc), and preferably a picture that can be plastered onto controller setup screens. There will have to be some kind of standard way to deal with these as well (how buttons map, etc). The games will also have to have a detection system built in to ensure that the controller has been configured with enough digital buttons and appropriate analog components to play the game.
Much promise, but much complexity needed to achieve that promise.
BlackGriffen
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 14, 2004, 08:31:49 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 23, 2004, 10:24:45 AM
Rumour has it that the Revolution controller will have no d-pad or A/B buttons.
Now it's entirely possible that Nintendo simply is not calling the buttons "A" and "B" so that it doesn't necessarily mean anything (just don't use shapes). But no d-pad is certainly major.
In my opinion dropping the d-pad is a bad move. The effectively useless d-pad on the Cube made games that require digital control very difficult to play (Tony Hawk) or in some cases just outright unplayable (Capcom vs SNK 2). If there is no d-pad then right away most fighting games, shmups, and retro compilations are unplayable. That's just enforcing a huge limitation on game design for no reason.
Now sure I haven't seen the controller yet so you could say I'm jumping to conclusions and that Nintendo has figured something out I'm just not thinking. Well that could be true but Nintendo's last two controllers were designed with a "no one but us is going to use this" attitude so history suggests that they'll have a similar attitude this time, designing a controller for them but not third parties. Plus the DS shows that an alternative method is not always a feasible solution (as demonstrated by unsuccessful attempts to emulate analog stick functionality with a touchscreen). The Nintendo of the last few years doesn't seem like the type of company that gives a sh!t about removing functionality that they themselves wouldn't think to use. There's no noticable difference from the Nintendo that designed the inflexible Gamecube controller so why would I think their approach to controller design would be any different?
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 23, 2004, 11:20:00 AM
Didn't Iwata say that he wanted the Revolution's controller to be like the computer in "Minority Report"?
So maybe its like a series of touchscreens and "Eye toy" like input devices so you don't even need buttons or thumbsticks to control.
It'll be like a cross between the DS and Eye toy, with voice recognition maybe even have technology similar to the bongo drums in Donkey konga and other non-traditional input devices.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 24, 2004, 06:54:47 AM
It may be that Nintendo will kill itself off by not caring what the other developers want to do, but I'll be right there enjoying the innovative games while it happens.
One other thing: I wish everyone would take a hint from Nintendo and come up with differently-shaped controller buttons. I found the Cube controller way easier to learn than either the PS2 or Xbox controllers simply because the buttons aren't all the same. That doesn't mean they need to come up with crazy configurations, either, they could just copy the SNES design and make half of the buttons curved in and the other half curved out. It makes a big difference, in my opinion.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 24, 2004, 07:21:58 AM
That's the problem: I don't want to have to buy two consoles. The Cube may be slim on third party exclusives but in general I can find at last one game of each type on it. If the Revolution is too different then certain genres just aren't going to exist on it. Plus keep in mind that Metroid and Zelda and Mario currently follow "traditional" design. If the controller is too weird we won't even be able to play those classic games in the form we're used to. Giving up third party games sucks but it's doable. Giving up Zelda as I know it for some weird gyro-controller just outright blows and would turn me off of current games for good. That's an extreme but it's a fear I have. I also don't want Nintendo to do something that would kill themselves off. I don't want companies like EA buying Mario and that would happen if Nintendo went broke.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on December 24, 2004, 10:09:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane the DS shows that an alternative method is not always a feasible solution (as demonstrated by unsuccessful attempts to emulate analog stick functionality with a touchscreen).
i'll say this one more time: analog touchscreen control is NOT hard to operate... it takes 20 minutes (tops) to learn how to effectively move Mario around. All it takes is a little coordination. even the turnaround jump that everyone complains about is not that hard to pull off if you watch the analog target.
but oh wait! watching the bottom screen and the top screen is too difficult, right? get better.
(that's the end of my rant. it's short and bitter and not neccessarily directed at you, Ian, but I notice that you seem to be the most outspoken DiSsapointed DS fan)
Post by: Jensen on December 24, 2004, 01:44:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Stimutacs AddictQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane the DS shows that an alternative method is not always a feasible solution (as demonstrated by unsuccessful attempts to emulate analog stick functionality with a touchscreen).
i'll say this one more time: analog touchscreen control is NOT hard to operate... it takes 20 minutes (tops) to learn how to effectively move Mario around. All it takes is a little coordination. even the turnaround jump that everyone complains about is not that hard to pull off if you watch the analog target.
but oh wait! watching the bottom screen and the top screen is too difficult, right? get better.
(that's the end of my rant. it's short and bitter and not neccessarily directed at you, Ian, but I notice that you seem to be the most outspoken DiSsapointed DS fan)
Fighting with the controls should not be part of the game. The controls should be as simple as possible to make the on-screen character do what you want him to do. The controller should be a transparent layer between you and the game. (this is part of the reason I dislike games like street fighter 2).
Most of the Mario 64 DS mini-games are incredibly easy to control, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are easy games.
This doesn't mean I want to simplify games.
Post by: roxics on December 26, 2004, 08:51:21 AM
The only things I would do different is allow for swappable controls like the example revolution control for the PS2. That is a very cool and useful idea. I've had it before myself and I'm glad to see it made it to a controller. I would also take out the Z button and add a clickable scroll wheel on each side above the L and R buttons. That would be great for scrolling through menus and even changing viewpoints on first person shooters. One of the things I don't like about Halo for the Xbox is how you need to use the second analog stick to move your viewpoint. It's too difficult to get it exactly where you want it. But if you were able to use the scroll wheel on the top right to swing your characters eyes up and down and the one of the top left to swing your characters eyes left and right it would be easier.
I would also make the cord detachable. Then you could buy a wireless unit that would snap into even the standard controllers. It would have the wireless unit with an outside mounted lithium-ion battery. I say outside mounted battery so that you could get different sizes. A big one for longer gameplay with a heavier feeling controller or a slim battery with a light weight feel. But the wireless unit would be optional to keep the cost down on standard controllers. Yet at the same time not requiring you to buy a totally new controller to go wireless.
Another novel idea would be to have buttons that light up. Each button would have a bright colored LED to use as guide lights. That way games can show you button combinations or games with certain special moves you have to wait for can suddenly have a blinking button telling you that you can now use that button to perform that action.
I would also like the see a headphone and mic jack at the botton of the controller between the two handles. With a volume knob and mute button. It would be great for when you just want to wear headphones or when you play online games that require a headset with mic.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 27, 2004, 11:16:55 AM
Hmmm.
This is very interesting. The Button Combo makes me wonder what the new configuration is.
The D-PAD could mean anything. It could just mean that Nintendo managed a way to combine D-PAD control with an Analog control stick...or that Nintendo just wants to simply the controller and take the D-PAD element that is hardly used out.
However, the A/B button thing is baffling. It begs the question will there be buttons at all?
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on December 27, 2004, 12:32:51 PM
What I can envision is 2 analog sticks and no face buttons. One analog stick on the left like Gamecube's and one on the right in the exact same spot (centered, not off to the the bottom left) The buttons would be 4 or 3 R buttons and 4 or 3 L buttons.
To visualize this just picture how your fingers curl up behind a controller and put an analog button for each finger (shaped for your finger like the Gamecube's R and L buttons) and you'll get the picture. I know it's a little far fetched and completely out of the norm but with this layout, you'll never have to move your finger to reach a button since all your fingers are already on top of a button. This could go against their idea of simplifing things though and I am not exactly sure how easy it'll be to adapt to a controller of that nature but I would sure love to try one out lol.
The last poster (sorry forgot to see their SN) mentioned some good features for the controller but I have one other one that hasn't been mentioned. I would KILL lol for memory card saves to be implemented into controllers thus eliminating the need for memory cards. You can save your games direct to your controller. Whenever you visit a freinds house you can take your controller, which already has your custom control settings and game saves, and not have to worry bout memory cards. Maybe even put a small screen on the center of the controller to manage your files instead of on the TV screen. Another nice feature would be to let you put your name as a screen saver on the small screen so people know who's controller is who's. It'll personalize your controller in a way, making more of a connection lol
Post by: nemo_83 on December 29, 2004, 05:39:38 PM
Post by: Morien on December 30, 2004, 01:52:00 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 30, 2004, 06:41:27 AM
When creating character profiles and game files would it just default to controller 1 or do you choose? What happens when your controller gets old or messed up, or you want a friend to borrow a controller?
Right now memory sticks are getting cheaper and cheaper and more stable than ever. I still like the idea of memory stick saves than a hard drive. I guess you could have both but that seems like overkill.
The idea of full analog buttons are interesting...but it also makes controlling games more complicated than simplier. Nintendo is trying to bring gaming back to an easier style of play not more complicated.
As well Analog buttons will work for certain games and not others. PS2 tried to have analog buttons that could do both functions, and it isn't very successful. The analog feels just off and hard to determine where you are on the button.
If Nintendo could figure away to get D-PAD responses from an analog stick and still have analog stick functionality that would be an awesome improvement, but I do not think the same is possible with the buttons.
I also understand what Ian Sane is worried about with Touch Screen controllers not having the ability to have the same response that buttons have, because you can't feel when you are pushing the buttons in. However that is one single (albet large) downside, to an otherwise pretty amazing setup of allowing you to design a controller with unlimited button configurations. Will it work? I have no idea, but it would be revolutionary.
Post by: nickmitch on December 30, 2004, 02:24:41 PM
On a serious note: the memory controller idea might require cords and the screen would hurt battery life.
Post by: Jensen on December 30, 2004, 08:30:35 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on January 01, 2005, 02:16:03 PM
Post by: meldavid on January 02, 2005, 12:53:11 AM
Post by: Zach on January 02, 2005, 07:52:10 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on January 02, 2005, 12:31:43 PM
Post by: Artimus on January 02, 2005, 01:12:17 PM
Post by: Zach on January 02, 2005, 01:28:46 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2005, 11:41:09 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 07, 2005, 04:34:56 AM
You don't?
Well I remember it. It disorientated you, it was very heavy and the play mechanic was anything but intuitive. It was pretty darn bad.
We haven't advanced enough for VR to be a functional gaming system yet...and I have my doubts if we will ever get to that point.
We will have to design a light helmet that gives true depth perception that won't disorientate the player, and be able to give truely responsive controls which feel natural.
That is alot of ifs, that will be hard to impliment.
Post by: MODE_RED on January 07, 2005, 09:37:36 AM
Most of you have also speculated that these controller sticks would also have one analog stick each and at least two trigger/shoulder buttons each -possibly as many as four. I agree. At least one person had the idea that these controller sticks could have detachable cords and use wireless technology. I agree with this as well.
Well, I'd like to throw out some (a little over 10) improvements and additions to these well-treaded concepts...
1st, No D-Pad means missing digital control right? Not exactly. Let's say the Left Analog Stick is called the A stick, and it is locked into a neutral position by the game. Now imagine that the top of the A stick can tilt like a D-Pad... VOILA! Instant D-Pad.
2nd, No A button? Not entirely. The A stick, much like the Gamecube's comfy L and R shoulder buttons, can be pressed and clicked (and not in a cheey 8-bit light-gun sort of way). So just tap on the A Stick and VOILA! Instant A button.
3rd, No B button? Same as the 2nd idea, just tap the B Stick on the Right Controller Stick for B-button heaven.
4th, The top of each analog stick can tilt and rotate, making it easier to make circular motions with your thumbs and, in combination with the analog pressure/button click feature of these sticks, you can also manipulate on-screen action in a deeper, 3rd dimension.
5th, The game can configure the functions of these analog A and B sticks, locking or unlocking certain features of them to customize them for specific game purposes.
6th, Each whole controller stick itself has a hand strap and/or grip guard so that you do not have to grip ANYTHING to still hold the controller sticks comfortably in your hand with all buttons readily available to your fingers. This allows you to stretch your fingers and rest your hands during length play sessions.
7th, Each controller stick has force-feedback rumble in two places, one near the Analog Stick especially useful for simulating guns, and one in the grip using low-octave sound vibrations that make the whole controller stick vibrate in your hands as if it were a humming engine.
8th, **Speakers in the controller sticks can emit weapon, object and ambient sound effects to simulate the motions you are making with your hands and arms and the sounds emitted by the objects in your hands and/or your immediate environment. These sound effects can be continued by speakers/subwoofer in the Revolution console itself that are designed to emulate surround sound and also by your surround sound emulating headset/surround sound speaker system. Combined with the force feedback, these sound effects will complete the "sell" of things like guns, light sabers, baseball bats, squeeling microphones and bowling balls in your hands.**
9th, The controller sticks are aware of each other, meaning they know how far away from each other they are and whether they are above, below or beside each other. This gives you a much wider range of possible motions you can make to control the onscreen action, like crossing over your arms during gunfighting, or trying to emulate a flurry of punches from Muhammed Ali.
10th, The controller glows in a certain spot so you can match colors to know which player is which and which controller belong to him or her.
Now if you take all the actions that regular controller buttons perform today and translate them into scroll-wheel features, motions you make with your hands and arms, or the new style analog sticks that I describe above, and add the built-in sound effects into the controller and the new "hum" vibration and gun recoil effect, all of a sudden you're having more fun playing your games than you were before and you don't need 50 bajillion buttons to do it.
~Charles Mallory, aka Mode Red, formerly of Shiny Entertainment (Enter the Matrix, I'm in the credits Special Thanks)
Email: blacknlatino@yahoo.com
Post by: Dirk Temporo on January 07, 2005, 11:26:54 AM
Post by: MODE_RED on January 07, 2005, 03:30:24 PM
I call this "THE FLOATING ANALOG STICK".
If you haven't seen my previous post, you should check it out!
Post by: BlkPaladin on January 07, 2005, 07:46:53 PM
The thing is that the Revolution's showing is a little ways away and anything can change between now and then.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on January 08, 2005, 01:58:25 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 08, 2005, 09:02:59 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on January 11, 2005, 11:56:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MODE_RED
To see what I was talking about in one of the 10 improvements/additions to the Revolution controller, namely rotation of the Analog Stick, click here.
I call this "THE FLOATING ANALOG STICK".
If you haven't seen my previous post, you should check it out!
That's freaking awesome. I think your idea about the crossing the arms is pretty intuitive. The idea of the top of the analog stick being capable of tilting like a dpad is great, and the internal rotation is brilliant.
I've been really curious as to what developers would use wheel technology for on the new controllers if it were built into the shoulder buttons and/or analog sticks. The options made possible for camera controls and menu scrolling are facinating.
I keep reading about controllers with speakers in them next generation. I give the idea the thumbs up and wonder if they would include speakers with a VR helmet if they released one. I would love to hear Darth Vader's breathing coming from my helmet rather than the tv. I hope that if there are speakers built into the controller(s) then the sound will change as we tilt the controller (lightsabers).
I like the way my cel phone's buttons are illuminated and wish my console controller did that, at least when it is plugged in.
With packaged in microphones developers could use the players voice for analog controls based on volume, note, and pitch and not just as spoken digital commands. I don't ever want to have to say jump or shoot to do either. Instead I want to play instruments in games by singing into the microphone. I want to be able to have an infinite number of combos activating different comands (opening doors for example) requiring certain notes to be hit. I want to be able to yell at an enemy and get their attention leading them into a trap while I or a friend waits around the corner. I would like for some really ambitious voice recognition technology that masks the characters voice to everything I say along with facial animations. I'm hoping Oddworld will bring Abe to the Revolution and DS.
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 12, 2005, 07:59:19 AM
As I look at your idea, I can't help but feel its too complicated.
Nintendo is looking for ways to make games more intuitive to play, and create a controller that feels natural, and will be instantly comfortable and accessable. Your design really doesn't offer that at all.
The more I think about what Nintendo is thinking up the more I realize it will probably be more traditional than we think...and I am tired of trying to figure it out. I hope this year Nintendo shows us something about this new system at E3. I really don't care about seeing games, all I want to see is tech demos that are playable with the new control system...whatever it is.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 12, 2005, 11:25:01 AM
It looks good, but like any good design you'd need to look through it more. Very intuitive thinking, though.
Post by: nemo_83 on January 12, 2005, 07:09:54 PM
Post by: skyfire on January 20, 2005, 10:45:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MODE_RED
To see what I was talking about in one of the 10 improvements/additions to the Revolution controller, namely rotation of the Analog Stick, click here.
I call this "THE FLOATING ANALOG STICK".
If you haven't seen my previous post, you should check it out!
That sounds a lot like the NES MAX controller. It's d-pad was a circle within a circle too and you moved it around just like that. I've always wished for the max design to make a return, it was really my favorite NES controller.
Post by: Noble~Feather on January 20, 2005, 11:07:46 AM
Haha, just kidding, just kidding.
Post by: nemo_83 on January 20, 2005, 03:49:12 PM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on January 21, 2005, 07:46:12 PM
The Dual Independent Handle Controller
Quick Summary: A controller featuring detachable handles, gyroscopic control, as well as traditionnal control support.
Features: - (2) detachable handles including 3 gyroscopes in each.
- (1) primary analog stick
- (1) analog C-stick
- (1) digital D-pad
- (4) face buttons (A, B, X, Y)
- (2) Z-triggers
- (2) analog shoulder buttons (L/R)
- Start/Select buttons
- Wireless RF (standard)
- (2) rechargeable batteries
Now I must explain to you my desires for this controller. I wanted a controller that could feature not-yet-possible control options, as well as traditionnal controls, and even GameCube-compatible controls (in the case of backwards-compatability). Sounds pretty much impossible, right? Well, I think I've got something that could do all of the above.
First of all, and most importantly, is the 'not-yet-possible' aspect. It's looking quite likely that gyroscopic control will be part of the actual controller, and I like the idea. But I must mention that I don't think that a single controller can take proper advantage of 'motion' control. In my opinion, that would be quite limiting. In what game or real life action involving motion, do you keep your hands parallel, and the same distance apart? This is why I propose two independent motion sensors - one for each hand. Let me give a few examples how this could be well used.
1. Zelda - you could actually physically swing the handle, as if it were your sword.
2. Mario Kart - instead of pushing a button to throw a item, you could simulate throwing with a handle (just don't release).
3. FPS - move forward/backwards with primary stick; strafe (swing L/R), lean (rotate L/R), dive (swing + jump button) with left handle; aim weapon with right handle.
4. Sports Games - obvious (and for once, original).
Do you get what I'm trying to convey here? Is this not capable of many original control options?
The next desire of mine was to retain traditionnal controls. If you'll notice, every GameCube button is still here, and there are even more buttons to match the competion. One feature I like, is the appication of both L/R buttons and Z-buttons on each handle. In a better drawing, they'd be slightly offset, and I'm sure Nintendo will make them as comfortable as can be.
Now I think I should point out what Nintendo would likely drop.
- diamond pattern for face buttons - in favour of Cube layout
- select button - I don't need one, but if the comdefenestration does, then better include it
- d-pad - outdated in comparison with other features
- Z-buttons - 'too complicated'
*Note that most of these alterations are assuming no Cube-compatability. If it is compatible, then the controls must remain pretty much the same.
Now for the toughest part, making it work. If each handle is going to be independent, then each will need its own set of gyroscopes, and RF transmitters. Also, each handle would have to be separately powered, since each is wireless. And each would have to attach to the central part, for traditionnal controls. What I suggest, is having one rechargeable battery, in each handle. These would be charged by small 'plugs', on both sides of the central unit, which would plug into a wall socket. This might sound slightly outrageous, but I believe it's the best way to make everything work.
Ok, so by now I hope you're thinking "this sounds super-cool, but I have a major concern: cost". Well let me try to estimate the cost. Please note that I'm going to use Canadian funds, since this is what I'm most familiar with. Also note that I'm not a technology producer, and I'm only making guesses at what these components would cost, in mass production.
Base cost of standard GameCube Controller - $30
Minus $10 for Cube tech becoming more affordable
Plus $10 for two sets of gyroscopes
Plus $10 for 2 RF transmitters
Plus $10 for rechargeable batteries + hookup components (if a WaveBird can get 100 hours out of 2 AA batteries, then no need for any expensive batteries)
TOTAL COST: $50 (CDN)
My God! FIFTY DOLLARS! I must be crazy. But let me tell you, I'm willing to pay this amount for this controller. Look at what it can do. Gaming can be infinitely more fun (exaggeration, yes), and it's ok by me, if I have to pay a bit more for it. But hey, this is my dream.
So please, let me know what you think. I appreciate all comments and criticisms.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 21, 2005, 09:10:16 PM
I only have a few minor criticisms. First the d-pad and second analog stick are too high up. That just doesn't look very ergonomic. It would easy to just vertically stretch the bottom so that they're lower down. Second I'm worried about battery usage. I'm not sure how to solve that one though. Finally I suggest that instead of three pieces you split the controller down the middle and have only two. That makes one less piece to lose and you can still use the d-pad and second analog stick while doing the seperated hands thing.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 21, 2005, 09:30:24 PM
I think there was a similar controller available for the PC once though I don't know whether it used gyros.
Post by: ShyGuy on January 22, 2005, 10:35:31 PM
And I'm sure Miyamoto would find clever new uses for it as well.
Post by: Renny on January 23, 2005, 05:58:59 AM
As far as Revolution's controller: Just give me gyration control in the GCN controller with the few necessary tweaks listed by others here and I'm happy. The Cube's controller is so close to perfect, I'd hate to see it stray too far from what it has established just for the sake of change. I'm sure Nintendo will surprise us somehow.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on January 23, 2005, 01:40:49 PM
that's about it. wireless controllers will be the norm from now on. OMFG that liek changesz gaeming 4oreveR
Post by: nemo_83 on January 23, 2005, 05:05:13 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 23, 2005, 07:26:56 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on January 24, 2005, 12:38:01 AM
I would rather have four floating analog sticks than have only two floating analog sticks and no face buttons. They would be making quite a statement with their console if the controller had nothing but analog sticks on the top of it.
Post by: Caillan on January 24, 2005, 12:55:18 AM
Post by: Artimus on January 24, 2005, 01:20:25 AM
Post by: Caillan on January 24, 2005, 01:34:32 AM
Post by: RABicle on January 24, 2005, 02:17:17 AM
Nintendo are also looking at the possibilty of a Pully add on.
Post by: Mario on January 24, 2005, 03:05:52 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 24, 2005, 04:24:43 AM
Post by: Mario on January 24, 2005, 11:55:32 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on January 24, 2005, 02:19:52 PM
Quote
Gaming Age Forums wrote:
There’s already been at least one dodgy “leak” before about the Revolution, but supposedly the same tipster who dished some reliable early dirt on the DS has also given up some details about Nintendo’s next-generation game console. Here’s what this guy is claiming:
* That Nintendo is building gyroscopes into the controllers, presumably to add some sort of motion-control aspect to games.
* The console will have dual processors and built-in broadband (we’re assuming Ethernet, but maybe also WiFi?).
* There are no plans to connect the DS to the Revolution, but there could be some integration with the Game Boy Evolution.
* The Revolution will have four controller ports, a hard drive, and support for high-resolution displays and Dolby Digital 5.1 channel surround sound.
* The console will be backwards-compatibility with GameCube games, and in what would only be a swipe at Sony, its drive will use HD-DVD, rather than Blu-ray, discs.
* The console will launch with a new Mario game (of course), and there is a new Zelda game in the works.
* There’s some teaser stuff at the end about how the truly “revolutionary” part of the new console is going to be something that “is nothing new technically speaking. It’s just something that hasn’t really been applied to video games before.” The tipster also claims that his source would only tell him that “touching is good but feeling is better.”
We’re not even going to front that this stuff is all for real or not—we simply won’t know for sure until Nintendo unveils this thing at E3.
Take from it what you will, but I also heard a rumour that ATi is involved with the next controller somehow.......
Post by: nemo_83 on February 18, 2005, 11:37:01 AM
http://photobucket.com/albums/v695/nemo_83/?action=view¤t=rev.jpg
there are more in my bucket in my signature
Post by: Ian Sane on February 18, 2005, 11:48:15 AM
It's an interesting design but I don't like it. It looks like I have to completely re-learn how to play games in order to use it. Plus it just doesn't look like it would work well with a lot of existing games. I don't think it would be possible to play Street Fighter on it with any sort of accuracy for example. Plus using only one hand would make it near impossible to move and push buttons at the same time which is crucial for games. To me it looks like a deliberate attempt to change traditional controller design but doesn't provide a superior design. It just looks like change for the sake of change. It's really creative but creativity is not important for controllers, practicality is. Some of the ideas however might work really well if you applied them to something that requires two hands.
Still I would like a better description on how it exactly works. What is the button wheel lock?
Post by: nemo_83 on February 20, 2005, 09:28:09 AM
The button wheel could be unlocked rotated and locked in place again. If you thought the fire button should be at the bottom instead of the jump button on the wheel you would just rotate the buttons to where you want them without having to remove plugs from the controller like some third party designs.
More importantly you could unlock the button wheel and use it for turning, steering, or scrolling.
I don't feel that it is being different for the purpose of being different. The Cube controller is different for the purpose of being different rather than meeting standards set by the competition. Street Fighter was the only game that worried me when I designed it and is the primary reason I put buttons on the wheel. It would still be uncomfortable to play a traditional button mashing fighter, but that is a risk I think is worth taking in order to get more racing games on Nintendo's next system. I used Mode Red's floating analog stick http://www.geocities.com/drkdoubleo/ModeRedFloatStick.bmp which is a unique feature that the present controllers don't have. Aside from the design, the way the buttons are in a circle and the way the analog stick is almost at a diagonal; there are several innovations not featured on present consoles. There is the button wheel lock, the wheel mechanic, the track ball, grip, a gyro, and a shoulder mounted scroll wheel. It features more than just the standard number of buttons allowing it to play "normal" games but gives you new options that have never been seen on a controller together.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 20, 2005, 07:31:35 PM
Okay I like that idea. Aside from moving the buttons you could also have the option of going with a diamond or square layout if that sort of thing would matter to someone. In theory that sort of button moving functionality could be done with software that changes what each botton is mapped to. But that would give up the steering functionality which could be really cool.
As for the two one handed idea how about you make it so that the two halves can join together just to give people more flexibility.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 21, 2005, 01:11:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The button wheel could be unlocked rotated and locked in place again. If you thought the fire button should be at the bottom instead of the jump button on the wheel you would just rotate the buttons to where you want them without having to remove plugs from the controller like some third party designs."
Okay I like that idea. Aside from moving the buttons you could also have the option of going with a diamond or square layout if that sort of thing would matter to someone. In theory that sort of button moving functionality could be done with software that changes what each botton is mapped to. But that would give up the steering functionality which could be really cool.
As for the two one handed idea how about you make it so that the two halves can join together just to give people more flexibility.
A mechanism allowing for the two halves to be locked together would be easy to implement, and allow for another alternative for steering wheels using two gyros together.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 21, 2005, 05:29:59 PM
I agree with Ian that it should split into two instead of three....I mean who has a third arm, and if you weren't intended to use those buttons in a particular game, I see no need to completely remove them. If it splits into two, I forsee many fun game mechanics available. At first I thought about that Matrix scene (first one) where Neo walks into a building with a bunch of weapons then he sprays two uzi's with his arms criss crossed, obviously killing everyone. With this controller you could simulate that. I think the analog stick should always act if your facing the tv, with forward being forward, and not left if your arm is facing left. So you criss cross your arms while pressing forward on the left stick (or right I don't know) then pressing both triggers on each part of the controller; successfully creating the scene from the matrix.
I think the controller piece should also be light, so there isn't any strain after playing for say 30 minutes. Either light or include a strap or something for each part that goes around your hand. Also the controller parts should be switchable. The left should be able to become the right and vice versa. That way the side that has the buttons could be switched with the side that has the analog stick and D-pad. Maybe a switch could be included so the gyroscopic information could also swich and not display backwards.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 22, 2005, 04:11:01 AM
I want a controller that is solid, and that I won't have to worry about dropping, the connectors breaking, or even the analog stick getting worn out. I want a controller with solid button placement, solid design, and is functional.
I do not want something that is too abstract, easy to break, or has needless complications.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 22, 2005, 09:48:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
After reading whom ever posted the idea about the splitting controller. I dub it brilliant.
I agree with Ian that it should split into two instead of three....I mean who has a third arm, and if you weren't intended to use those buttons in a particular game, I see no need to completely remove them. If it splits into two, I forsee many fun game mechanics available. At first I thought about that Matrix scene (first one) where Neo walks into a building with a bunch of weapons then he sprays two uzi's with his arms criss crossed, obviously killing everyone. With this controller you could simulate that. I think the analog stick should always act if your facing the tv, with forward being forward, and not left if your arm is facing left. So you criss cross your arms while pressing forward on the left stick (or right I don't know) then pressing both triggers on each part of the controller; successfully creating the scene from the matrix.
I think the controller piece should also be light, so there isn't any strain after playing for say 30 minutes. Either light or include a strap or something for each part that goes around your hand. Also the controller parts should be switchable. The left should be able to become the right and vice versa. That way the side that has the buttons could be switched with the side that has the analog stick and D-pad. Maybe a switch could be included so the gyroscopic information could also swich and not display backwards.
there will be no dapd on the Revolution controller according to Nintendo. in my design both controllers would have exactly the same functions on them. you could use the button wheel as a dpad if you wanted.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 22, 2005, 10:05:03 AM
The way I see it (the controller); it would be the first step into the future of virtual reality. I really think that if they haven't already implented this type of control for next generation, then it will be undoubtedly be in the generation after.
To be more clear, the controller will have two parts: One side with an analog stick similar to that seen today as well as a D-pad; The other side will have 4 buttons or more and another analog stick similar to the configuration seen on any of today's controller. Now both parts will feature triggers (I mean real triggers like those on the Xbox) to accompany both trigger fingers. Now either a button or yet another trigger should be placed on the back of each part of the controller to be used by the middle finger. Since the middle finger is longer than the trigger finger, the trigger/button should be towards the inside of the handle, as well as being smaller since the middle finger is also weaker. Both handles should feel very easy to hold, and every button/stick should be easily reached and used. Now both handles should have their own method of sending information from the controller to the controller port (obviously neccessary for a two part controller). It also must be wireless; I don't know what that does for the rumble feature, but which ones better: Gyration or rumble feature. Now both parts should be able to hook up to one another and still feel comfertable. The attachment process shouldn't be complicated. Maybe one side fits inside another and locks. Either way it should invovle a one step process. And for disconjoining them, you simply press a button or switch; nothing complicated. Both parts should also include a strap of some sort so you can let go of the controller, but still have it attached to you. If your worried about dropping it, then worry no more, the rest is your fualt. Now this would help out with games solely based on the gyration aspect.
Now each part will be sensitive to the way it is moved around (gyration or whatever). Games don't have to support the feature, but most could use it here and there (even in say, a football game). If you don't yet understand what i'm trying to get at, then maybe a couple of real-life examples. For starters imagine a racing game, where your left hand is one the top of the wheel and your right is on a hand brake/boost. When you make a turn to the left, simply rotate your arm left in a circle. If you want to use the hand brake, you press the right trigger and you can act like your pulling the hand brake then pushing it back down when you excellerate (the trigger on the left part is used for excelleration). If pulling the said handbrake isn't that intuitive in practice, then it could just be pressing the right trigger. And if you didn't want to use any gyration aspects; you can also do that. The whole point is that it adds possiblities, while not constricting others. Even apart from the gyration situation, I myself would still rather use a two piece controller anyday for any game, becuase imagine how comfertable it must be to relax with two hands completely seperate from one another yet still actively in the game.
Another example would be if your playing a football game. Everything would control exactly the same, but some moments could be changed to allow user gyration inputs. Like for instance, you throw to your reciever normally like you would in today's game and as the ball flys through the air, you run to catch. When you catch the ball, YOU actually catch the ball. It isn't simply pressing a button called catch. You actually complete the motion of catching the ball, while pressing catch. Since you and the reciever are aligned (right is the recievers right also), you can easily immitate the catch if the camera view is decent. They can even make a game where all you do is virtually catch a ball. They can even immitate you catching an egg, where you have to move your hand down as you catch it so there isn't enough resistance for the egg to break. Simple things like that could become fun.
Now what about Link? When riding your horse, the concept of the racing game can be borrowed. You rotate your arm left to turn your horse left, you can pull back to make your horse stop, you can pull back faster for your horse to rise up and ney. Now with your free hand you can take hold of Link's sword, and physically deal out blows. Now what if you whip out your bow, you can aim in the direction you want and at the same time control where your horse is going. This seperates the control from Link and his horse. Also a side cam could showing the Link from the opposite side your aiming. If you aim foward it's behind you; if you to the left and upwards, it's behind you and tilted up to show what you are looking at. You may not be able to see where he is going but you can quickly aim forward if you really need to know. Now link is left handed so I don't know how that would work with the controls being meant for a right-handed person but it could be solved somehow. What about just regular fighting? You would actually take control of link's shield and his sword. You can't just pressing shield to block an attack, you have to block the attack yourself and actually in the direction it's coming from. This could help with the octoroks. Now jumping and all that movement, besides the actually arm movements could be put on the button configuration.
More games could come out taking advantage of this type of controller, such as a boxing game or even golf. Anything dealing with your arms and hands could be easily implemented into anygame. Imagine the WarioWare REV, where you one mini-game is where you feed fatty. You see a huge kid with a bunch of food in front of him and your soppose to move your arms as if stuffing your own face. And what about shake the tree, or stir the pudding. I think you get my point.
Now how could you (Spak-Spang) be such against a controller like this.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on February 22, 2005, 11:06:00 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2005, 11:27:30 AM
Imagine if you had to actually move your arm as if you were throwing a pass in football when playing Madden. You would SUCK unless you're a good football player in real life. If it was accurate enough you have to be a legit NFL quarterback to throw a pass in the videogame. And if the computer AI was any good you would be schooled because it would Gary who has only played touch football in gym class vs the real life New England Patriots. It's a neat idea in theory but there is a huge advantage in having complex skills that require a lot of training and talent mapped to a single button press.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 22, 2005, 11:54:29 AM
I think he meant that all you would do is pull the arrow back and release it LIKE an archer would. You don't actually have to coordinate the angle at which you pull the arrow back, just that you pull the arrow back. The left hand is what aims, nothing else. And aiming wouldn't be that hard, since a target would be onscreen (not like duckhunt). So basically he's saying it's the same as it's always been (maybe a bit different regarding the camera view) but now there's a little more interactivity in the game besides just pressing the A button. And for one, I agree with him....that's what the controller is all about (allowing arm movements if you didn't read my post above).
Ugh...after reading my post again, I really need to read what I post before I post (terrible grammatical errors).
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 22, 2005, 11:59:18 AM
As well, some of your concepts sound very cool, and revolutionary, but in practice will be very difficult to impliment. We are talking much more advanced programming than we have this current generation. It would be a very hard product to design games for.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on February 22, 2005, 12:06:03 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 22, 2005, 04:05:38 PM
A different technology but a similar problem is the Police 911 games and another Sword fighting game. It used laser sensors to detect your movment and then respond to it one screen. It was very slow, and very clunky.
If Nintendo did it right, then it could be very revolutionary and groundbreaking, but I don't expect other companies to get the same high quality. then what?
I like the idea, I just am looking at it skeptically, because I just don't see it as feesable, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 22, 2005, 04:35:04 PM
Also every game that allows multiplayer should have a profile option, so you don't have to keep changing the sensitivity. You can do it once for the people you usually play with, and a defualt could also be used (set a 5).
Post by: nemo_83 on February 22, 2005, 05:04:33 PM
I feel it is inevitable that a bridged controller will become obsolete as we take steps towards VR, and there is no time like the present to push a free handed pair of controllers.
Nintendo has stated they are removing the dpad and basic face buttons on the Revolution controller, which translates to either a controller with nothing but analog sticks or they have replaced the dpad and face buttons with something better. The best alternative I can think to put in the place of the empty places the dpad and face buttons leave behind on a console named Revolution is a trackball and wheel like in my drawing.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 22, 2005, 05:28:49 PM
Here is the issue though. 3rd Parties.
You just made it:
1)Very hard to port products over.
2)You would have to question the quality control over those games.
I also have a few doubts on this easy multitasking. Not having to think about the camera is easier than better controller manipulation. Say some how you got everything to work perfect.
Is it really going to be easier and more responsive, to:
1)Move the camera around with an analog stick,
2)Block and attack with shield and sword.
3)Use another analog stick and buttons to perform advance manuvers?
What happens with you have a large group of people over, it makes the room requirement to play games much greater, as everybody needs their space to play.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on February 22, 2005, 06:21:04 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2005, 07:42:15 PM
I see motion control in the formats being presented as different just to be different. It doesn't improve on current controller design. It's like using the touch screen to control Mario in Super Mario 64 DS. Sure it's unique and different but it's not better than an analog stick or even as good.
Plus having an entire console that bases its controller around motion sounds like a big pain in the ass more than anything else. Once in a while it would be cool but an entire system that focuses just on that type of game? That's as restrictive and unappealing as a system that only plays light gun games or only plays steering wheel games or dare I say the Virtual Boy. I know I would never buy a console that requires every game to be an aerobic exercise and few would.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 23, 2005, 06:41:14 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on February 23, 2005, 09:41:42 AM
Gyration will take over the control of the hands of the character, which means that the face buttons will be deserted to nothing more than dpad like functions, scrolling through comands like in Metroid Prime and RS2. The face buttons could be used for kicks and jumping in fighting games while the gyros are used for the hands. The triggers will take over as the attack buttons.
In Zelda you would likely press the trigger in combination with tilting the gyro to use the sword. In the end you end up using fewer buttons during combat. You would move forward and backward and straff left and right with the analog stick, turning the character left and right with the gyros. The camera would work like the old 2d ones, at a safe distance above the character so you can see all around you. The only time you would need the camera over the shoulder is to aim up or down, you never had to worry about that in the old 2d games and perhaps we nolonger should. In Zelda the face buttons could be used for jumping, rolling, map, and picking up items and throwing them. With my design the wheel could be used alternatively for turning the character left and right, though the gyros could still cause it. The track ball could tilt the camera around the character on one side of the controller and the second trackball or wheel on the other controller could zoom the camera in and out. This allows you to fix it anywhere you want to quickly. The shoulder mounted scroll wheels could scroll through Link's items for each hand. Some weapons would require you to select the same weapon on each hand to use, long swords, hammer, ball and chain, mace, and bow and arrow.
I think first person shooters would work great. You could perform melee attacks, aim with seperate hands, straff, turn, move, sniper, jump, and perform stealth moves much easier than on the old SNES style controllers.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 10:11:50 AM
But the result would be that it would be hard to port games TO the Revolution. Nintendo is the LAST PLACE console maker in North America. Developers don't make games for Nintendo's console and then port to the others they make games for the other consoles and maybe port to Nintendo's. This strategy would just amplify the current problem of so many games being released on all the consoles but Nintendo's.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 23, 2005, 11:05:36 AM
Not necessarily. Think about a NES controller with a stick instead of a dpad, since that seems to be the analogy du jour.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 23, 2005, 01:14:46 PM
The controller is soppose to to creat options WHILE not restricting any game made today, in the past, or in the future. If you really read my description for this controller, you would understand that it is EXACTLY like the controllers seen today (two analog sticks/D-pad/face buttions/triggers) with a few major modifications.
It is a controller seen today, essentially split in two. So you can play any games seen today, but at a more relaxed state since your hands don't have to be so close to each other. Now the controller should connect to each other, but really only for charging the controller.
The reason why it is split into two is for the fact of successfully emulating arm/wrist movements....NOT HAND/FINGER MOVEMENTS. You can't emulate the individually finger movements unless you had a gyration glove of some sort. So every game that used the gyration that i'm decribing, would focus only on arm movements (bowling, bow and arrow, boxing). This opens many options of how to play games as well as what you play in those games. As KDR mentioned, a bowling game is now possible, but what about a golf game or even tennis. Does this constrict what is ported or even made for the REV.? Nope; not in the least bit. Why? Becuase the controller has the exact same configuration.
Now to deal with the camera issue. The camera in lets say Zelda should be exactly the same as it always was. It should be at a nice distance away so you can see around you, but it shouldn't be just above you (ala 2-d). It should be at an angle like it always was and dynamic. Now regarding coordinating your sword slashes with the camera, there is no need. When you slash, you slash forward....always. If you wanted to slash 90 degrees to the left (according to the camera view) you would point to the left with the joystick and slash with your arm forward. I don't know about the actually movement of the gryoscope, but it should be more than just a tilt, becuase chances are you'll be tilting like crazy without even knowing. A short quick shadow slash through the air should suffice. Now so there is no confusion, you can slash a little to the left as well as a little to the right. This is Link's range of attack. For example, Link has 3 enemy's in front of him. 1 is right in front, the other two 45 degrees to each side. Link can hit all three with out having to turn. You determine where to hit by slashing there. If on the foward-right, you slash forward right. Same works with blocking. Now you can't criss cross your arms becuase that would be ridiculous and maybe the requirement to slash should be extended to prevent this (so instead of slashing you hit your own arm, physically stopping you from slashing.) Like if you block left, and want to slash right, you can't. There isn't sufficient room to do so with your arm in the way. But who knows if that solves the problem. Of course Z-targeting could completely obliterate that idea, since Link never attacked multiple enemys before at once (except for the spin-attack), but it would still include the concept of slashing forward only.
What about GuitarSmashers mechanic to use the bow? I think it's perfect. There shouldn't be a target on the screen though, but it should show the bow over Link's shoulder. The horse/bow view should be different yet still as easy to use (maybe a target ridicule ((or what ever it is called)) could be used). It should be far enough so you can see alot of enemies. Also shooting an arrow shouldn't be like when standing, it should be mapped to a button. I know what your saying (Ian), and that it doesn't make it cooler or anything, and even maybe complicates the process when you have to immitate the process of firing an arrow. Well sure it complicates the process, but it's not like shooting an arrow was really fun in the first place. You aimed it at an Eye on the wall, you fired and it opened a door. Great. Really I mean it; great. But, it would just seem alot cooler if you had to aim your fire arrow yourself, pull back and release it so you can destroy that iced roped with the huge wieght attached to it, gaining you access into the hole that it breaks into the floor.
With a FPS, it might seem complicated in theory but I bet in practice it would feel very intuitive. Let's say you see a helicopter flying by you. You would essentially point at it with your left fist (not like if the helicopter was real). Your brain would automatically coordinate your fist with what you see on-screen, so if you are looking to low you would fix how your looking by lifting your fist upwards. Seems easy enough for me.
Now what if you see the another helicopter fly by. You would point at it with your left fist, then with your right fist you would aim your rocket launcher with the target ridicule that is independent of the camera (so you can aim at any thing on-screen and not just the center of the screen, then press the right trigger. Now both fists may be very close to each other, and that's okay, but that would only happen when you are looking directly at what your aiming at. Which of course might happen alot, but the fact that you can seperate the two adds alot of effects impossible in today's gaming world. Like shooting behind you.
It gets complicated with dual weapons. I think that if one weapon's target ridicule is the same as the camera's view, then it could easily be solved. So you can look and fire at something (ofcourse aiming as you would do today, with the target ridicule in the middle) but then also have a free arm with a gun that can shoot in any direction; anywhere, even behind you.
So why don't they just make it one handed play when you play with one gun? I'm sure they can make that an option, but people will opt for the freedom of aiming seperately from what you look at. Plus how cool would it be to crouch under something and shoot without looking? Damn cool.
This also frees up the right analog stick, which could be used for anything simple or even complicated. What if you plant a remote mine, and as your being chased, you turn around and start to fire with both guns ablaze. Now while your doing that, you simply with your thumb, flick the joystick (the right, becuase the left is for moving), instantly detonating the mine and killing a bunch of people. The right stick essentially becomes another button, but maybe with some clever thinking it can become a brilliant mechanic.
If you choose, there is an option making the controllers similar to Timesplitters or Halo (the left for moving / the right for aiming). So no contraints here. But you will be at a serious disadvantage. How you could shoot two different people with that setup? Now grenades and such shouldn't evovle you throwing them in real-life, it should be like it is now. It would be to hectic and wouldn't make sense really, since you have to aim with the arm your going to throw the grenade with.
What other type of contraint are you talking about Ian. I think I could go through every genre out there and show you how it could work without any fualts. Why? becuase it's exactly the same configuration (I don't know how many times I said that; alot maybe). What about fighting....it might be kinda icky if you control the punches, for the sole fact that using special moves could either be really hard to do or insanely cheap (imagine doing the Ryu hadoken, in real life.....now imagine someone doing that motion every second.) Maybe it could work with some well thought out contraints but who wants to jump in the air to do a Ryu uppercut? Stupid question. Also most fighting games have punches that are weaker but faster, then a medium punch, then a fierce punch. How would you emulate that?
A boxing game would be awesome though. Just think about actually beating up a virtual guy with no help from the middle man's techniques; all you. I think it should be even more simplied that you don't even move, except for dodge, step left/step right, kinda similar to Punch Out. And those movements could be controlled easily somehow. Blocking should be on you, but I don't know how well that would work. Multiplayer would be halarious.
How about a music game. Imagine having a bunch of drums available for you to "play". Even a drumkit. Now what about if you play with your friends? That would be hysterical. I would by that game in a second. Surely better than buying drums myself. They should include simple riffs resembling reggae or a flute or something to compliment the drumming. That's a game with a mass amount of replay. DRUM TRIP!
reply please
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 01:53:51 PM
I do however really like the drumkit idea. The only problem I see is a lack of resistance. Still it would be pretty cool. I would love it if you could set up chords and notes for the guitar and set up what bars they play for and in what timing but you have to act out strumming the chord yourself. So you set up the E chord to play for four bars but the strumming pattern is based on how you move your hand. The chord them switches to G at the right time but in that timing you can just strum the chord once or go all speed metal on it. And then you can incorporate a mic and messure how hard the person blows into it for brass and woodwind instruments. Okay you've sold we on the idea provided it is only used when it's really needed and isn't just thrown into every game just because it can.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 23, 2005, 02:58:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Don'thate my concerns are not really just for your idea it's more for the whole concept of using motion for control. You're not talking about it but most people who suggest this idea act like there shouldn't even be buttons. If your controller can operate exactly like a normal controller (and that means it can connect as one piece since two seperate hands is more awkward) then it's a pretty good idea. I just don't like the idea of turning Zelda in a sword swing excercise game. That's not what Zelda is about. The vibe I get from most people here that motion control should be used for all games bugs me. It shouldn't. Using buttons is much easier and in most cases should be the preferred method.
Actually, after reading that. I agree, Link shouldn't become a sword swing excersize. Exactly, it wouldn't be zelda. Zelda's more about adventure than it is action, and the sword concept would just be hypocritical of that. That doesn't mean though, that the adventure part can't benefit from the gyration concept. I stand by the arrow idea, but I think there are better ways to invovle gyration, than just replacing a mechanic that essentially "wasn't broke." Right now I can't really think of any new features, but I know something is out there, something big. I just can't think of what it is.
Also how do you know it would feel ackward controlling a two piece controller? The picture I have in my mind makes it look very comfertable. You could play like you always would, but now with your hands at any distance. They could still be parallel with each other, if you wanted. Unless you press inwards on your controllers, I see no other reason than lack of knowledge for making you think it is awkward. Of course, I lack knowledge about how it would actually feel also. Lucky for me, I always wanted a controller like this. I play games usually with my hand on the edge of my pants, resting past my crotch area (where the pants split into seperate legs). I always thought it would be more comfertable to rest just my hands on each upper thigh (considerably apart), instead of resting both my arms on my legs. Then there's playing on an arm chair. Most people rest there arms on the arm rests, then holds their controller upright (as in the back is a little higher and the bottom is a little lower than horizantal) without thinking, so they can see their trigger finger (unless it's an xbox controller, where that's impossible or uncomfertable, I forget which). Now imagine resting your arms then letting your hands fall comfertably, just hanging. You could play like that. If you still wanted to play like I described before, you could, but with your arms at any angle you wanted. You could even play with your elbows against the arm rest with your wrist arm area falling back on your biceps, so each hand is to either side of your face......if you wanted. You could even play with one arm in the elbow position like I described, with the other resting on the arm rest, with you leaning towards your "elbow" arm. What about playing on a couch or with your arm around a girl or something...its all possible. And personally I love it.
Try it if you haven't already, with your hands as fists...the possibilties are endless.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 05:53:31 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 05:57:37 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on February 23, 2005, 06:13:00 PM
would you rather hear for five years how MS steped up to the plate by being the first company to make dual flight stick control available out of the box and how Nintendo never remotely delivered on their promise of a revolution.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 24, 2005, 06:46:06 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 24, 2005, 07:42:32 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 24, 2005, 10:23:54 AM
Can you hold up a fist and repeatedly tap your trigger finger with your thumb? Now can you do that without making your wrist or hand move; keeping them steady while you tap? Now can you hold up a fist and move your thumb in every direction while keeping your wrist steady? Can you act like your clicking a trigger with your pointer finger while moving your thumb all around, with ofcourse, keeping you wrist steady? Wow, you did it! You can play one handed! Don't believe me? Pick up your mouse so your thumb rests on the left button, and you have a firm grip of it sideways (with your palm on the right side, and your fingers curled on the left). Act like your pressing the trigger with your pointer finger, then click randomly with your thumb all over the left button as well as the middle scroll wheel). Now it may feel like a strain to reach downwards.....that's cuase it's a mouse. I'm try to prove a point here (hehe pun).
Anyways, it is not as complicated as you guys make it out to be. Really it seems more simple than holding a controller to me. The two part controller would be thick enough that you always have a good grip on it, plus like I mentioned before, it would have a strap that goes around your hand/wrist.
EDIT: The strap should be optional, becuase it would be a pain to put it on over and over again (especially if your playing a single-player game with your friend). Anyways, the controller would be like the handle of a gun sort of, to put it in propective. Like the lightgun you used with duck hunt or something, but more egornomic and better to hold for long periods of time. Maybe a grippy rubber area along the back side of it. Also the button area would be at an angle, with the top titled above the horizantal as well as the bottom being lower than the horizantal. The top part would kinda go over your trigger finger, giving it a mold to fit snugly under. And the joystick would be..........forget it i'm going to draw this thing with my shody skills, but ohwell, it will be worth it to know you understand what i picture.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 24, 2005, 12:52:59 PM
Oh ya...before I forget. The buttons and color aren't finalized. It was just easy to make. Now, with the actual button layout (there is a button under the thumb), that's not how I expect them to look like, nor should they be the same color.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 25, 2005, 08:38:13 PM
Post by: pudu on February 26, 2005, 05:44:12 AM
With the strap on and the the finger grips keeping the hand in the right position would actually be easy. If the only thing you had to do to tighten or loosen the strap was pull the strap to tighten and press a release button to loosen then it wouldn't be too big of a deal.
I had an idea of actually using a device inside the controller that would tighted and loosen it for you with the push of a button. Another, more cost effective, idea would be to have a spring-loaded strap that applied constant resistance like a tape measure does. And to assure it wouldn't become bothersome during extended play sessions have a "stop" mechanism much like a tape measure.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 26, 2005, 09:03:10 AM
I know from personal experiences that people who completely sucked at Halo (my brother for one), though they tried to get good, just couldn't see the fun in playing with the controls. It was too hard; to move and aim with two joysticks is extremely complicated. Now when my brother plays it on the computer, with controls he can easily grasp....he has a blast. He loses frequently but he loses cuase he isn't that experienced and not becuase of translating what he wants to do onto the controller. I think the REV can do the same thing, but with all games, and not just FPS (which are extremely easy to play on the PC). If people can feel that they have the gun in their hand, or their fist in a boxing glove, or anything else; they will automatically relate to the game, instantly making it easier (to control that is).
Post by: nemo_83 on March 02, 2005, 12:18:46 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 03, 2005, 05:29:51 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 03, 2005, 05:50:05 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 03, 2005, 10:15:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
That's a pretty interesting possibility, Don'tHate. Do you intend to have a controller for each hand? I mean, it'd be amazing if they could incorporate some device that could sense the distance between the two, sense motion in the controller. It'd feel very natural to use the entire controller to move if you held it in one hand, I think, and it could provide some great potential.
I'm not understanding what you mean. Could you explain further? To clarify myself and my design goals -- The main reasons for having a controller for each hand is to allow: 1. each hand to seperately control different aspects of the game and 2. to allow previous games or ports to be playable on the REV. It is still possible to have a one-handed game, such as Metriod. Where you aim with your arm and shoot like you would a gun. The face buttons would be used for turning into a ball (using the analog stick to move) and other metriod functions, while the analog stick can be used for selecting views and such in non-ball mode (maybe you hold down the second trigger to switch the analog menu from different views to guns). Also, Super Monkey Ball could easily be one-handed, and more fun.
That's it really. I included two joysticks in the design as well as a sufficient amount of face buttons and triggers, to allow for games that don't take advantage of the gyroscope. It would be a pain in the arse if developers, developing multi-console games, had to transform the controls to use your hands instead of the sticks (I wish they would though). It's to say "Hey, we're the weird and innovative Nintendo. We like making games more fun and interactive; however, that doesn't me you can't make the games the way you want! Everything can be done with Nintendo!" Something like that would attract new developers, while at the same time not turning others away.
Also to clarify the use of the straps that fit around your hand. It is to keep the controller in the palm in your hand, and provide proper leverage for pushing buttons rapidly.
Post by: nemo_83 on March 03, 2005, 02:50:59 PM
Post by: BlackGriffen on March 15, 2005, 09:44:47 PM
If you check out the new issue of GameInformer (GameStop's glorified ad) they have an article on the next gen consoles. Mostly, they focus on Microsoft and Sony, but mostly Microsoft. At the end, however, they make a claim that, while I suggested it a while ago in this thread (I think), sounds tough to believe at best. GI is claiming that the Rev controller will be touch screen based. To what extent, in what areas, etc they don't say. While I am obviously intrigued by the idea, I'm also concerned about the problems with touch screens:
- The lack of tactile feedback can make touch screens imprecise.
- Touch screens, AFAIK, only let you touch one place (ie no button combos)
- The lack of consistency in layout will likely up the learning curve on most games.
- Porting games will be difficult at best
#1 is a real problem if developers try to do the obvious thing and just draw buttons on the screen and expect the gamer to hit them. Without the feel of a button to them gamers they're in the right place, there'll be a lot of missed presses. This problem is only made worse if devs are all using non-sandard layouts because gamers can't build up muscle memory of where the press (the only thing that saves the sorry ass of the PS2 with it's 4 identical face buttons - the SNES at least differentiated between the XY and AB buttons). Because of that, control schemes will likely have to be gesture based (eg make a line, make a circle, the joystick replacement in SM64DS, etc) instead of "touch here" based. Without solving the first problem, I can't see them replacing digital buttons with touch screens. One or more analog sticks, maybe. GameInformer specifically mentioned joysticks and shoulder buttons going, so maybe it's only a replacement for the analog interfaces.
The last one, however, is the killer. If anyone thinks Nintendo has third party support problems now, having a controller that can't handle the control schemes of cross platform titles will absolutely kill it.
I'm very intrigued, but also pessimistic. Nintendo needs to do more than just have an interesting idea - they need to make it workable and have it fit in the market so third parties aren't scared off.
That said, there's one thing we know for certain that should alleviate everyone's fears - GameCube backwards compatibility. The revolution cannot be backwards compatible in any kind of meaningful way unless it has the ability to mimic standard control schemes in a way that doesn't require tuning software (that is to say two sticks, digital buttons, d-pad, and shoulder buttons). Given that, I see three possibilities: first, and most likely IMHO, GameInformer is full of it; second, Nintendo solved all aforementioned problems and has something really interesting/potentially genius coming down the pipe; or third, Nintendo's execs have gone insane and decided to commit corporate seppuku in that quirky way that only Nintendo could.
I suppose it's also possible that the Rev could simply use the same controller ports as the GC - then they could say that backwards compatability requires a GC controller (knowing Ninty they'd try to make a quick $5 on adaptors
). In that case, IMHO, Nintendo would be working on scenario three (corporate suicide). Let's hope that's not the case.BlackGriffen
Post by: Caillan on March 15, 2005, 10:00:01 PM
Post by: slingshot on March 16, 2005, 02:43:45 AM
tv screen playing a game that requires your focus- you cannot be looking away to locate a buttons image on your controler.
That would make things very difficult. A screen could be useful in some way- (but that should be through connectivity of the
DS) Trust me- Nin is up to something new and different and exciting- they won't cut and paste something that we just
got from them in the DS and call it revolutionary.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 16, 2005, 07:19:30 AM
BlackGriffen sited the obvious flaw in using a touchscreen for buttons. Personally I see no advantage whatsoever for using it as a replacement for analog sticks. Super Mario 64 DS' controls SUCK. They're a broken workaround for a system with no analog stick and they're greatly inferior to traditional controls. Now that doesn't mean all touchscreen control sucks but as a replacement for an analog stick or d-pad it's useless. Touchscreen control is different. It's not a replacement.
I think the problem with Nintendo's approach to the Revolution can summed up with this quote from an interview with Iwata that was posted on IGN recently. "We have a number of candidates for a new interface but are not ready to reveal them." That suggests to me that they did what I was afraid they would do. Instead of discovering a new better way to do things and adapting to it they decided to change things without any real plan on what to change. They just want to make the Revolution different to be different instead of to improve. Why else would they not have decided what the new interface is? They want the Revolution to be different but have no actual reason to make it different.
I figure the Rev controller will either be one of three things:
1. Basically the same thing as the Cube controller except with one minor addition. Disappointing for those expecting a "revolution" but thankfully traditional enough to not wang everything. Nintendo will make one or two games that use the new feature and then it will just be ignored and we'll get familar style games.
2. Something completely bizarre that while different is functionally very restrictive and severely limits control options. The Revolution either completely bombs with no third party support or Nintendo wises up and releases a normal controller shortly after. If the normal controller is released things settle down a bit but the Rev suffers poor third party support due to the poor first impression. Another possibility is Nintendo reveals this weirdo controller at E3 and it goes over very poorly so they redesign the thing to something more normal (ie: option 1) before launch.
3. Something that truly is groundbreaking and changes gaming forever. This is the most unlikely occurance due to the rarity of such historical ideas.
Personally I think 1 is the most likely due to Cube backwards compatibility and that fact that although Nintendo is odd at times I give them enough credit to not be so insane as to completely ruin their whole business over one idea.
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 16, 2005, 08:03:17 AM
That would be quite revolutionary, and I can see some amazing ways to design games for it. It could be awesome.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 16, 2005, 08:08:09 AM
Maybe you can take it that manner if you are the negative, angsty type that can't think positively...I say it's because Ninty has a lot of ideas and is still deciding on which ones they should finalize in the system (as in combinations of features)...I am 100% positive there is at least a main theme behind the interfaces Ninty is looking over...
Post by: nemo_83 on March 16, 2005, 11:13:20 AM
can't forget that cub.ign has also said that EA told them that there was a touch screen on the Revolution controller
hopefully this is not the revolutionary aspect, hopefully there isn't a damn touch screen on the controller cause i refuse to play a game in which i have to look down at the controller
Post by: SgtShiversBen on March 16, 2005, 12:19:51 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 16, 2005, 12:59:33 PM
I also think that there is NO WAY they'll have a touch-screen on the controller. Though sales prove the DS popular, many.....very many media officials have been negative towards the idea, and are skeptical of it's idea. Even I, a Nintendo fan, is holding out from buying the DS till I see something worth buying (can't wait to see E3!). Showing a touch-screen controller would make the entire media and most of the Nintendo fan-base let out a big sigh. Plus, since they have already introduced a product using the touch-screen, it won't be seen as revolutionary since it's already been done. Not to mention the contract with Gyration regarding an UNDISCLOSED amount to use their products. Maybe a combination of the two, but touch-screen alone....very, very unlikely. I know I'm leaning towards my idea, but it is so blatanly revolutionary to games that it had to of crossed a few R&D minds. It may be hard to implement correctly, that's why i'm guessing they have many mock ups. Still, the fact that they have a contract with Gyrations points ----> to it's use.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 16, 2005, 01:18:23 PM
True but Nintendo probably doesn't care about something like that. Sales prove the DS popular. I think the DS needs some work but I doubt Nintendo cares if I don't buy one provided that millions of other people do. I doubt it's a touchscreen but I don't think Nintendo would make a decision like that because a lot of the media aren't impressed with the concept thus far.
"You saw it as having COMPLETELY different ideas, and I think that's wrong way to look at it."
Yeah that is how I interpreted it. It could just be "do we include this or this AND this".
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 16, 2005, 02:33:37 PM
You're right, and with that mentality, they could make a decision that's "cool" on the revolutionary meter (7 of 10). Japanese people might eat it up, but americans might just see it as another gimmick, as well as some developers. If Nintendo plans on getting out of third place state-wide and second place world-wide, they need to step it up. They have many competent employees and a simple brain-storm in a group of 15-20 individuals, everyday for about a month, should yeild a really great idea. Hell, we as forum go-ers have came up with great possibilities, not to mention the media, with most of it's ideas tossed between a few people. Nintendo can do this.........they have to. Only a really appealing Revolution, or a really appealing Portable GC can pull Nintendo out of third place.
I also re-did my concept. It's relatively the same, but is ALOT easier to understand what the hell i'm talking a about. Colors, buttons....blah blah blah not finalized. Go ahead give it a click http://tinypic.com/28sgut . Admire my Rev logo, and kneel before my artistic might! hehe
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 16, 2005, 05:19:21 PM
If you included an analog stick on the left as normal, 4 Trigger Buttons, 2 analog with Trigger click function, and 2 Digital, a Right planted Touch Screen could work for other buttons. Specially if its designed to respond well to pressure.
Here is the idea:
Allow the Right interface to become anything you need. If you want to create a driving game that requires precision driving, you can use a touch screen to choose speed, and then just slide the thumb across the speedometer to speed up or slow down.
Or a game that simulates driving a giant mech could have switchs and icons switch up and down to play.
If the controller is erganomical enough, and the buttons were well layed out it could be just like normal to play the games.
Also they could design the touch screen with a small indent for a thumb resting point to help gamers have a feel where their fingers are on the controls.
I see no problem with this setup.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 17, 2005, 01:28:44 AM
It has to many flaws as a button-replacement mechanism. Having real buttons is essential for accurate play. They could still include a touchscreen, but it would have to be implemented like the DS. Again, it's not very revolutionary anyways.....
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 17, 2005, 03:44:17 AM
Simple for a fighting game You have the Thumb rest and you have a button above, below, left, right. once you "press the Button" then it will activate. The Button can demand a certain amount of pressure and not just rub against the screen and have it triggered.
You could also have 4 regular buttons, as well as the analog stick.
Another idea would be to include a few face buttons along with a touchscreen. I don't know how comfortable that would be in the long run but its possible to work.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 17, 2005, 03:56:21 PM
I really think Nintendo knows what they want from their games, but what they don't know is how much of a risk they want to take. Let's take your touch-screen idea. They want to use it.....somehow. Should they make the whole controller one big touch-screen? Or should they make it a normal controller with buttons and a touch-screen? Or anything in between?
That's what they are debating right now; the interface in which they wish to have the revolutionary aspect integrated in. They may have multiple revolutionary aspects, although, I know they have one that is in every mock-up they make. Personally, I hope they lean to the side that provides less risk.
Post by: mantidor on March 17, 2005, 06:13:54 PM
But then comes the media
they will bash to death the idea and Nintendo for doing it, every site from gamespot to ign would call it gimmicky and such, and they ultimately will lead everyone of their readers to hate the controller...[/paranoid mode]well, hopefully everything will turn out well
Post by: KDR_11k on March 18, 2005, 02:14:18 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 18, 2005, 04:48:17 AM
I doubt it greatly, and I hope I'm right come E3.
EDIT: Oh ya I just remembered something that most people are forgeting. It seems that the common consensus believes that the touch-screen will be almost exactly like the DS's, maybe a few cosmetic changes and smaller size.....Still, It will be a screen that you view, as well as a touch-screen. You know how expensive it would be to put just a normal screen on each Rev controller? The cost of each controller would be $50 at the least.
Post by: vudu on March 18, 2005, 08:33:47 AM
Would it be possible to have a controller that has removable/changeable face plates? I know it wouldn't be possible on the types of controllers we have the current generation, but bear with me for a second.
Here’s my idea. The controller has a removable face (by face, I mean the side that faces you with all the buttons/controls), and underneath the face is a small touch screen. The controller face would literally fit right over the touch screen, and the nodes (for lack of a better term) on the bottom of each button would hover right above the touch screen until pressed. The touch screen would be programmed (most likely through a game's option menu) to recognize pressure in certain spots as a button press and operate accordingly.
(To better describe what I’m picturing, the face plate could technically be removed and a game could be played just by pressing the appropriate spots on the touch pad that would normally be pressed by the button. However, the touch screen would just recognize touch—there would be no video playback on it.)
If this possible, Nintendo could include a few different place plates (each with different button placement) with each controller. Each face plate would have the same buttons, but with different placements and/or button sizes.
It would also be possible to have a variable amount of buttons. A simple beat ‘em up could have two large face buttons, while a more complex game could have six or eight (or more) smaller buttons at its disposal.
The gamer could change the face plates easily, so each game could have a controller design that was best suited for it. For example, if there were four face buttons and two shoulder buttons on the "regular version" of the controller, there could be a special face plate that would put the two shoulder buttons on the main face, letting there be six face buttons. This might be good for fighting games that use the quick/medium/fierce punch/kick scheme. On games with a context sensitive button that is used quite frequently (like Zelda and RE4) the main button would be much larger than the others.
Developers could (of course) design games to work best with a certain face plate, but the gamer would be free to use whichever one he liked best.
In addition to this, the face plate could be removed completely, and the gamer would have a small touch pad that he could use for games programmed to take advantage of it. I’m not sure if it would be possible to have the analog stick as part of the touch pad interface, or if it would be separate and the touch pad just on the right side of the controller (where the buttons normally are).
Is this technically possible? Would it be possible to make a controller like this that didn’t cost an arm and a leg? Would this be a “revolutionary” controller design, or would it confuse the consumer?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 18, 2005, 09:11:43 AM
Post by: pitbull on March 24, 2005, 01:22:35 AM
Post by: pitbull on March 24, 2005, 01:27:52 AM
Post by: slingshot on March 24, 2005, 03:59:16 AM
If this isn't the very epitome of contradictions, I don't know what is. In closing, I agree 100%.
Post by: pitbull on March 24, 2005, 01:30:13 PM
Post by: wandering on March 29, 2005, 12:50:13 PM
Anyway, I want to say something about output real quick, and the whole rumor regarding you being able to "feel" games. I think the answer is porbably air.
At disney, they use air all the time to simulate all kinds of things. Compressed air is used to simulate the experience of something touching you and moving across your body. Examples: (ride spoilers) In a bug's life, they simulate bees stinging you and bugs crawiling on you. In California's Honey I shrunk the audience, they use air to simulate mice crawling up your legs. (end spoilers)
Disney also blows air on you all the time to, for example, simulate monsters breathing on you, and arrows/other things whizzing past you.
How could they put this into a controller? I'm not 100% sure...But here's what I'm imagining: (1) air holes on the grips that can simulate touch, and (2) places on the controller that blow air directly onto your face/body. (that second one might be kind of hard to implement since people hold controllers in different positions. If it blows air 360 degrees in all directions, though...)
Now combine the air with hot/cold output, built-in-controller speakers, and built-in rumble, and you've got a pretty cool and immersive set up.
Post by: nickmitch on March 29, 2005, 04:22:37 PM
Otherwise I think it's really neato.
Post by: zakkiel on March 29, 2005, 05:10:41 PM
Post by: slingshot on March 30, 2005, 03:42:36 AM
Post by: Ekim3909 on March 30, 2005, 06:10:22 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on March 30, 2005, 03:28:11 PM
's powerful eyebrow commanded me to make this post...Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 31, 2005, 12:58:11 PM
Go to the http://thenintendorevolution.blogspot.com/ to find out what I'm talking about.
It's a very interesting idea that supports my idea almost to the "T". Except for it not being wireless, it has all the necessary functions to be the controller of my dreams. You can almost assume it will be used in conjuction with Gyration. Also, it leaves the possibility of not-using a cord, although it does show how the cord would connect.
Come on Nintendo.......your so close to making your system the best of all!
Post by: Grant10k on March 31, 2005, 01:19:24 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 31, 2005, 01:36:13 PM
The idea of using the bongos as a cover is just too brilliant for words assuming that's what this is. Of course if that's what it is now we know and realistically Sony and MS could know too.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 31, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 31, 2005, 01:44:39 PM
I'm expecting something slightly more... esoteric, perhaps.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 31, 2005, 01:49:02 PM
As bill said....not much longer to E3, and everyday I feel Nintendo is edging towards the right idea.....
Post by: Talon on March 31, 2005, 02:03:31 PM
Post by: Grant10k on March 31, 2005, 03:20:11 PM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on March 31, 2005, 05:51:24 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 01, 2005, 04:46:52 AM
So those who know what the f*** those words mean...translate please! You also need a tiff viewer to view the images.
Anyways here's the link:
Linky
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 04, 2005, 09:30:32 AM
If you look at the pictures in the patent above, things get a little more confusing.....actually alot more confusing.
In one picture, it shows both "bongos" connecting directly to each other. In other, there is a cord connecting both parts. It seems as if the parts of controller will have a tape-measure type cord that can connect at many various distances. I think we already knew this part.
A very interesting tidbit is revealed in another picture that displays a chart, it shows that the controller could have as many as 7 buttons! All the buttons seen on the GameCube are accounted for (including Z), as well as the D-pad, L-R triggers and both analog sticks. Each retains it's name, such as the C-stick still being called the C-stick.
In another picture, it shows some sort of attachment that allows the controller to connect directly to the TV through RCA cables......I don't know what to make of this.....Maybe some sort of interactivity for those that use both a computer monitor and a TV.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 04, 2005, 10:38:12 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 04, 2005, 12:11:30 PM
I think back to many interviews where Nintendo stated that a final controller design hasn't been decided yet. I bet this is one of the finalists, and they wanted to patient it, even if they don't use it.
What I mean is, it is still very pausible to use wireless connection with the controllers. In fact, it would be easier for Nintendo to create a wireless version really.
The only question with wireless would be if that would cause too many wireless signals. 4 to the console for multiplayer, 4 to each break away half. That means 8 signals possible crossing and interfering. Even more at LAN parties.
What is more likely is the same protocols for the Wireless WaveBird will be used to communicate with the system, however a wire would be used to communicate between systems.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 04, 2005, 12:29:45 PM
If they use WiFi to connect from console to controller, then RF from part 1 to part 2, that could theoritically cut the number of interfering waves in half. Since WiFi doesn't get confused with many signals such as RF, it could be used for everything, although bandwidth is still a problem.
A combination would be the best. LAN will most likely stay at 16 players max for anything, with FPS being the only exception possibly. 16 players means 16 RF signals, which can already be handeld today by the Wavebird if I remember correctly.
Post by: wandering on April 05, 2005, 01:47:25 AM
A controller that is more intuitive and more functional that Gamecube's. A controller that will make your mother want to play revolution just as much as you do.
And here it is. My Revolution controller design.
Left controller. Right controller. ANd, the (unlikely but cool) Revolution immersion helmet
Try to ignore the fact that I can't draw.
HISTORY
This is the third or fourth version of the same basic design. I drew this one after seeing don't hate's design: I liked his so much a stole from it a bit. In particular, I added a d-pad and a c-stick, which weren't in any of my previous designs, and also stopped trying to make both controllers usable for both hands.
Those changes aside, I think I came up with the design more-or-less independently. Back when I came up with my very first design, people were still theorizing that the controller would just be a gamecube controller with gyration, or a single handle with gyration. This didn't make much sense to me: I thought it would be really awkward to move a controller around and, say, push buttons and move an anolog stick with the same hand. So I split the controller in two: one hand controlling the analog stick and buttons, and the other controlling gyration.
The main problem was figuring out how one hand could have that much control. It hit me: give each finger a button. In my original design, one hand held a stick with four buttons along the back, an anolog stick under the thumb, and a start button centered under that. And the other hand wore a gyration glove. The design slowly got better and more plausible after that.
FEATURES
move your character and perform actions with one hand. Experience finely-tuned motion control with the other: depending on the game, you might be able to swing swords, aim guns, or even tilt the entire playing field
left input:
-one analog stick that doubles as a button
-one d-pad
-start button
- four finger buttons to replace GameCube's 4 face buttons. Finger buttons are better than regular face buttons because: 1)there's no bias for or against any particular kind of game, 2) button combos are much easier. Because of that, the 4 buttons can essentially function as 15.
right input:
-one analog stick that doubles as a button.
-fire button under the thumb; alt fire button under the index finger. These buttons are specifically designed for supporting the gyration control. For example: if you are controlling a sword with your right hand, you might push the fire button to do a jab.
-touch sensitive panel for the rest of the right hand's fingers. This panel senses when your hand is gripping the controller. If you release your grip, most games will stop registering your hand's movements (essentially so you can scratch your nose without swinging your sword).
Revolution immersion helmet: headphones that allow you to hear noise from the tv; 3d-glasses; and microphone.
output (not pictured):
-button-specific rumble. Because each finger has it's own button, each finger can have it's own specific feedback. In-game tutorials could tell you which button to push directly without a beginner having to search the controller for that specific button.
-built in lighting. For the buttons that aren't always under a finger (start button, analog sticks, d-pad) there is a circle around each of them that can pulsate with light. Again, this is so beginners can know instantly where to press without having to search the controller for the right button.
-built-in game-controlled resistance for both analog sticks.
-built in rumble for each hand.
-built-in speakers for each hand.
-built-in hot-cold output for each hand.
-built in air(?) output for each hand. This output allows you to feel, at the very least, something moving forward/backward/up/down across the palm of your hand.
Output from unknown location: (either the left-handed controller or revolution immersion helmet). Blows air directly onto your body.
other features:
-10-15 hours of battery life.
-controllers can be plugged into revolution for easy charging. Can be played while plugged in.
-controllers can be stored in the revolution for maximum portability.
GAMEPLAY
Imagine you're playing metroid. You land on the planet, And the moment you step out of your ship your hands turn cold. You can feel pricks of rain.
You move around with the anolog stick, jump with the index button, and morph ball with the middle button. You move your right arm to look around. You spot an enemy. You scan it with the d-pad first, then you ready your weapon and aim. You hold down the fire button, and you feel your right hand start to warm up and shake. You release, and you feel and hear a powerful blast move down your hand and out into the planet. Your hand cools down.
YOu move into the next area, and can feel the heat as you approach a pool of lava. Suddenly, a monster bursts from the deep. He roars and you can feel his breath on your face. You steady your aim, and press the alt fire button to launch a missile, and can feel it as the monster explodes in front of you.
FEATURES NOT INCLUDED
secondary screen: Already proven useful for a lot of things but: 1) It would make the controller feel too complex. 2) it would be really annoying to have companies force you to constantly look down at the screen in single player games, just to see your health bar or something. Because, if it's there, it WILL be used in every single game.
touch-sensitve buttons: possible; each finger has it's own button. But, it would be annoying not to be able to rest your fingers on the buttons.
button 'rings' that can be pulled as well as pushed: Kind of cool idea, but it would make games way too complex and unintuitive.
8 buttons, 4 per hand; motion sensing in both hands: Again, useful for some things, but otherwise it would be like a giant house with no walls on the inside. Developers (and players) wouldn't know what to do with all that freedom.
all buttons containing the ability to be pushed up, down, left or right, like a d-pad: again, too much complexity.
Even better feedback for right-hand gyration: Even with rumble and everything, the gyro controller is like the DS's touch screen: no feedback. Ideally, there would be something that could stop the gyration controller in mid-air, but I can't think of a realistic way to do that.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
controllers might cause serious hand cramps.
Battery life.
playing cube games might be awkward. Still, backwards compatibility shouldn't be the first priority. You can always (hopefully) plug in a classic cube controller into your revolution.
OKay, yeesh, it's late. This post is too long, and probably unreadable. Sorry.
(edit: spelling and such)
Post by: slingshot on April 05, 2005, 05:45:46 AM
a gyro controller, though, there is no need for both analog and d pad. I think one would suffice.
Post by: wandering on April 05, 2005, 06:05:10 AM
Post by: wandering on April 05, 2005, 06:48:43 AM
Anyway, couple of cool things:
Games can be loaded directly to the controller:
[0106] In addition, in the first embodiment and the second embodiment, only a case in which the operating apparatus 10 is used by being connected to the game machine 100 is described. However, if the operating apparatus 10 is integrally provided with a storage medium (ROM) for storing a game program and so on, a memory, and a CPU for processing a program of a game program and so on, it is possible to enjoy playing a game by directly connecting the operating apparatus 10 to a television receiver.
The controllers might have a Wireless connection:
[0099] It is noted that although in the second embodiment, the second housing 16 and the third housing 18 are electrically connected by use of the cable, there is no need to be restricted thereto. That is, another method such as connecting via an electromagnetic wave (for example, electric wave or infrared rays) in a wireless manner may be applied.
Odd that they'd throw that out there when 80% of the patent is spent describing the friggen wired connection between the two controllers, but whatever.
I'm getting really, really excited about this thing.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 05, 2005, 07:53:57 AM
I am so glad they threw that in there. It could be another ploy to trick those looking at the patent....or not.
However, it gives the possibility for the second part (or right controller) of being wireless. That is the most crucial part if made wireless. It allows for more freedom, especially with a FPS. I wouldn't mind if the other part of the controller is attatched top the console; however, Reggie did state a very interesting qoute about how the tethered to the console days....are over.
Is it possible for a gyration to control something on-screen, while allowing force-feedback? That would make a killer racing game....on par with racing wheels.
Very good time to be an Nintendo fan!
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 05, 2005, 08:25:13 AM
The biggest problem is with the buttons for each finger. Realistically it your pinkie and ring fingers are not good fingers to use for buttons. They aren't very strong, and will be mostly used to keep the controller held and steady. Also with four finger buttons, it would be very likely to accidentally push another button, specially using fingers you don't normally use.
One Button on the side should be enough for each controller. If not, then no more than 2.
The other problem with that design is that it doesn't form into a traditonal controller very easily. You mentioned the button layout is wierd, and it is...but also the playing a game usually designed for one solid controller split into two would be difficult, and that design isn't very practical for combining the controller to one unit.
I would predict this. If this information is being used for the Revolution controller then:
1)The Controller will have two versions out. A left handed version and a Right handed version. The difference will be layouts reversed.
2)The Right controller will have 4 buttons. One Big Button as a thumb resting place, surrounded (Gamecube Style) by 3 other buttons.
3)Two Analog triggers on the Side of the controllers with that digital click feature.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 05, 2005, 10:10:58 AM
Maybe Nintendo failed to patent the analog stick for the N64 or it was already in the free domain, I don't know. Cearly they want to protect themselves this time. Honestly I don't know if this patent is strong enough to hold in court (the idea needs to be novel enough), but Sony probably doesn't want to gamble with their controller.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 05, 2005, 11:13:13 AM
With your idea wandering: It breaks out of the normal too much. People would have to re-adjust themselves to use it, even those that don't play games often. I like the ideas of putting buttons on the back of the controller; however, you put too many. Personally, I can only see 4 buttons on the back (2 on each part). The two other fingers on our hand (pinky, ring) are used entirely for balance. That's why robots have 2 "fingers" instead of 4 (thumbs not a finger); the other 2 aren't needed.
A trigger/button for the middle finger would have to be easier to push and a little off-center when compared to the pointer-finger's trigger, to accomade for it's length. I tried to show that with my echtings, but failed I geuss. Also, you were correct about needing the joysticks and D-pad. It'll allow for complete backwards compatibility, and also an option for those who don't want to use gyration. Also, it allows for another axis (x/y) that could be used for moving. More importantly, a few genres can't use gyration for a method of full control, unless a more intuitive way to play those games is creative. The fighting genre comes to mind as well as Sports (Madden, NBA street), and anything 2-D.
As I see it, a GameCube controller, split into two with an second trigger for each part, would be about the best.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 05, 2005, 10:20:05 PM
I could see a trigger combined with a scroll wheel (look at the shape of the Cube trigger) coupled with a regular scroll wheel above it similar to the z button's placement above the Cube's trigger but only featuring a digital click unlike the trigger wheel. Our brains are wired to use our first two fingers and thumbs best. Actually the thumb and first finger are the most articulate digits.
Post by: slingshot on April 06, 2005, 04:26:05 AM
around the screen- you would only need action buttons of some kind.
PS- make sure you read my post on WHAT ELSE GYROS CAN DO...
Post by: wandering on April 06, 2005, 08:20:26 AM
You guys might be right regarding our ring and pinky not being able to handle it though. (though we can type with them, at least.) And you're definatley right that my controllers couldn't be put together to form one.
--
Don'tHate: regarding the controller being a gamecube controller split in two- all of Nintendo's comments point to the controller being easier/more intuitive to use than a gamecube controller. That, combined with the rumors regarding the end of traditional buttons, lead me to feel like the basic controller button layout would be drastically rethought - taken one step beyond just centering the a-button - while still maintaing the same functionality everybody was worried the revolution would get rid of.
Gyration feels like an added feature that would make certain videogame actions a lot easier, but wouldn't really make a standard controller any more intuitive/less intimidating to the non-gamer.
But- I could be wrong. DS has traditional face buttons, but still has a lot games that use nothing but the more intuitive touch screen. It manages to draw in a lot of casual non-gamers.
Pushing buttons with the gyro hand would still be awkward, though. Imagine you're playing Mario Sunshine and you're using the gyration to control your water pack. Now imagine, as you're squirting and aiming your water pack, you push a button on the gyration controller to jump. It would feel weird.
[edited-in point] Though - on the other other other hand, your 4 triggers (2 buttons for the left hand) help. In your design, I actually thought those were just finger rests - I didn't know you had put triggers in at all, sorry.
--
Regarding the patent: Nintendo might be able to patent a controller that can split in two, but they can't patent gyration or motion-controlled gameplay. Or even a two-handed controller.
It's the N64 all over again: Nintendo made a 3-pronged controller that sony couldn't copy (I don't know if it was actually patented). Nintendo's controller allowed you to switch between traditional digital gameplay and new, analog gameplay. Sony took that, and turned right around and came out with something even better. It still utilized the analog stick that Nintendo themselves didn't come up with and so couldn't patent, and used a new layout that allowed the user to switch between the two control methods in a different way.
--
(edit: readabilty)
edit2:
Sorry, I know this post is too long already. But, I think I've got something here. Throw my design out. Take Don'tHate's design and replace the cube-style 4 face buttons with N64-style 2. Not a huge change - but it shifts the focus, which is important.
In the left hand you've got an analog stick and a d-pad for your thumb. And you've got one button for your index finger and one button for middle finger: the x and y buttons. Now, in the other hand, the gyro controller, you've now got two thumb buttons: the a and b buttons. And a c-stick. And for your left hand's index and middle fingers, you've got L and R. (and for your ring and pinky, you've got a sensor, just to see when your hand is closed around the controller.)
Now, put these two controller halves together and you've got a pretty standard controller. Old school 2 face buttons instead of 4. 4 triggers instead of 2. Split the controller, and you've got 2 primary action buttons for your left hand (x and y), for actions not related to the gyro (jumping in mario, performing context-sensitve actions in Zelda.) And on the other hand you've got 2 primary action buttons (a and b), for actions directly related to the gyro (firing in metroid, squirting a water pack in mario, jabbing your sword or something in zelda).
And, just foir spice, you've got a d-pad, a c-stick, and 2 extra buttons.
You pretty much lose the ability for button-specific rumble, but, that's okay.
(edits 3-4: minor corrections, spelling, clarification)
(edit 5: changed the spelling of 'clarifaction'.
Okay, I'm done now.)
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 06, 2005, 10:46:06 AM
The C-stick was put there for 2 reasons: 1) To allow those who didn't want to use gyration, to be able to switch to dual analog, and to also allow for no excuse for not porting a game ("we don't want to program a new code to make use of gyration" - developer). 2) For quickly switching items. It cannot be used as 4 buttons....or even 2. It's a stick, and pushing a stick to 'jump' or to 'punch' is awkward (look at CAP Vs. SNK:EO, though my friend had a blast). I put 4, because 4 has become the standard. Really I don't think a well thought out game would use all 4 buttons, or even all 6, but still, it must conform to what people are use to and what dev's want.
Let's take your example: Mario. You said it would be awkward to aim and push buttons at the same time. Your right, but why would it be awkward? Why does it feel okay when we squeeze our trigger finger, rather than pushing a button? It's because the thumb bends below your own trigger finger. It's hard to explain, but imagine holding my controller design, and hitting buttons. You should see your thumb bend downwards to the level of your trigger finger and lower. This causes the awkwardness. Now, imagine using my controller but this time with the top of it higher than your trigger, so it kinda sticks out of your hand. Your thumb should be at a 45* angle from your trigger finger. Your thumb would rest gently on the controller face without any bending involved. This would be much more comfortable. Since the controller face is at a 45* angle from the rest of the controller, the face of the buttons would also be facing you, so you could hold it out in front of you and see what buttons your pushing without diverting your attention.
Also, look at any remote control today. People easily aim and push a button; however, holding something bigger needs more thought input to deal with any awkwardness.....it's a good point, and I will re-do my design.
Post by: wandering on April 06, 2005, 12:18:14 PM
I wasn't saying it would be awkard in terms of finger positioning (I thought your controller looked very comfortable, with a lot of thought put into ergonamics. Though what you're saying now is probably true.)... it's, ah,
Okay. Mario example again. You're moving your right hand around to control your water pack. In your brain, your right hand has essentially become your water pack. Pushing a button on your right hand, your water pack, to squirt water would be fine. Pushing a button on your waterpack in order to jump would be very awkward. That's what I'm saying.
I was suggesting to shift the focus by changing the central cluster of 4 buttons under your right thumb to merely 2. And making the 2 trigger buttons on your left hand more...central. So, essentially, on your right hand you would have a primary button and a secondary button, for performing actions related to whatever you're controlling with your right hand (a waterpack, a sword, a gun). On your left hand, you'd have a primary button and a secondary button as well, for performing actions related to whatever you're controlling with your left hand (your character's body, probably). That's still 4 main buttons, just distributed differently.
On another note, why would you need to control camera and aiming seperatley in an FPS?
On another another note, if both hands are gyro-controlled, which I wasn't thinking, and analog sticks aren't as central...I might be able to realize my crazy dream and create a controller with 6 buttons, 3 per hand, one per finger...must draw...
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 06, 2005, 01:13:38 PM
The brain would essentially have to trick itself or get use to it, for it not to become awkward. Who knows though, it may not be. I think something even trickier would be moving and aiming all with one hand (Metriod). We'd have to see it in practice to make sure, but again, it does sound very awkward.
On another note, why would you need to control camera and aiming seperatley in an FPS?
It would open up the possibilty for FPS's and FPA's tenfold. All shooters have been constricted to the X and Y axisis (sp). For the first time ever, Z could come into play...........How, you ask?
The right hand's gyration could control your gun solely, while the left hand controls the camera (your head). This allows for the "gun" part to shoot anywhere on-screen like a light-gun, but also anywhere off-screen. It's like playing an arcade shooter, with you pointing a gun towards the screen, although this time, the gyration could map your x,y,z coordinates and literally let you shoot anywhere, even behind you. If gyration's as sensitive as I think it is, it could tell which way your holding the gun (i.e. sideways, upside-down, and so forth). So moving tilting the gun down, but not lowering it, shoots towards the "ground." While aiming straight up into the air, with your "gun" parrellel to the ground, will shoot the air.
The possibilities explode. You could shoot around the wall; over a crate; behind you; and even shoot yourself, all with human-like accuracy! Dual-weapons are popular though, and they must be included in any outstanding FPS. A solution: If the second gun is mapped on your left hand, where what you look at is what you shoot (similar to Halo), it could easily be implemented. The aiming circle could be in the middle of your camera, so you would have to aim your camera view then shoot (again, exactly like Halo). The possibilities open up to where you can shoot two people at the same time, even if they are in opposite directions.
All that with the added functionality of Force-Feedback, and you have a very deep experience. Although, I don't think Force-Feedback is possible while using gyration for mapping, nor is it neccesary.
Post by: wandering on April 07, 2005, 10:05:02 AM
Though now you're controlling 3 things (camera + movement in one hand, gun in the other) with 2 controllers, so, I that it would be awkward.
Now, if you could control the camera with a VR helmet......
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 07, 2005, 11:16:10 AM
I don't see this game being released for the non-gamers, with it most likely be developed by some other developer besides Nintendo. Us, hardcore gamers, can deal with the ackwardness as we've done in the past. I remember when two analogue sticks were very ackward to play with. Still, the problem holds...
It may sound confusing, but in practice, it could be easy. To straif in a circle rotating to the left, you would move your camera hand left with the joystick pointing towards the right. You wouldn't tilt your hand, which would cause some strain and more awkwardness. It would also cause more strain when strafing right. As far as I see it though, straifing in a circle would be the only problem. I mean anyone would easily be able to run forward at what they want, and when juking back and forth, all you would do is move the joystick side-to-side, with your aiming hand compensating for the movement. Aiming would be easy and precise.
I've seen many players (including my bro) give up on console shooters because it was too hard for them to look and move, not to mention to aim also. They move while there camera is going haywire, with it looking at their feet or up in the sky. Finally, they could jump in and be ok from the start. Running at what they want to kill, shooting at what they want to shoot. However, those that play more often can develope their straifing skills and become pros.
I just thought of a really cool idea for that FPS. Imagine driving and shooting at the same time! No more need for two people in a car, or a car that can shoot. You could drive circles around someone and act out in real life the movement of you shooting out your "window." That be crazy fun!
Post by: Morales on April 08, 2005, 09:06:38 AM
I've heard alot of rumours and honestly I actually like quite a few of them. So I mixed and matched and added a few additions and came up with what I believe to be the ultimate controller.
Picture a normal wavebird. Now take away the d-pad, c stick and face buttons. Scared you yet? Good. haha. This concept is built around gyroscopes of course. Perhaps the most important thing about this controller is that it can be split in half (ala a recent patent filed by Nintendo) for one-handed gaming. I expect many of Nintendo's games would use this setup.
Now, I'd pretty much keep the trigger buttons the way they are. They really need to be utilized better though this generation. Where the z button is currently I'd put a mouse wheel, because mouse wheels rock. For symmetry throw one on the left side as well.
There will be no face buttons as we currently know them. What I envision is a raised circular area about the size of the space that the current face buttons rest on. This area will be able to be depressed as a button. The catch is that this area will be made with the stuff they make laptop touch pads with. This will not only enable rubbing and wacky stuff like that, but it will be able to detect where you are actually pressing the button. I can see this circular area broken into four quadrants and used much like four normal face buttons. You wouldn't even have to take your thumb off the area to press the dif. areas though. For example, in a fighting game, let's say a combo involved hitting a jab and then a fierce punch. Jab could be mapped to the top portion and fierce to the bottom. All you'd have to do is roll your thumb down to pull it off. It should not be a problem feeling where your thumb is hitting because of the raised circular nature of the area.
Finally, I would have the grips of the conroller be pressure sensitive to enable squeezing. This adds essentially two more input methods and could be used for a bunch of cool things. A couple things that come to mind are perhaps if you are hanging from a rope, to cross it hand over hand, maybe you would alternate squeezing the left and right grips. In a sword fight, perhaps if your grip sucks, when a baddie hits your sword, he'll knock it right out of your hand.
This controller is simple, especially if broken into halves. However, count how many inputs it has - two mouse wheels, two triggers, two grips, and a face button that can be one big button, four smaller quadrants, or whatever you want. The gyroscopes will take the place of the c-stick for cube games and whatnot. The analog stick should be depressable as well. Why not?
Ok, I know this is long, but what do you guys think? I know it's more of an evolution of other people's ideas, but I was just frustrated that every design I saw had some glaring flaw. I really think this would work. In fact, I may just make the damn thing myself.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 08, 2005, 09:36:57 AM
I don't know why you think a touch-pad is so neccessary. A raised circular area seems like it would do more damage than good. Do you really need that wacky, rubbing stuff? Unlike your idea, the point of a touch-SCREEN is for more accurate mouse-like controller, however, a touch-pad isn't a mouse....it's a horrible rendition of a mouse that laptops only use because it's small and flat. Anyways, if you leave the wacky and rubbing stuff to the DS, there is no point in having touch-pad buttons. Regular buttons would do just fine. Furthermore, it would likely raise the price, and be a dumbed down addition of the touch-screen which Iwata stated won't be on the controller.
I'm all for the pressure sensitive grips, and your right, it would add that extra edge if developers actually use it. What I don't get though, is the mouse-scrolling wheels.....what the hell are they? If your talking about a mouse ball, then there is no way in hell that 1 of them would fit where the Z-button is today, and not only would it feel un-natural, but uncomfortable as well.
Sorry to rant off on your idea, but frankly, I just don't get it....Maybe the pic will help?
Post by: Morales on April 08, 2005, 09:58:02 AM
I'm talking about mouse wheels not balls. The thing in the middle of the two buttons that you use to scroll. It can also be depressed as a button. Basically, it would be good for going through menus, inventory, etc, but the best example I can give for use would be switching weopons in a shooter.
Hope this clears things up. I'll work on getting the pic up.
Post by: trip1eX on April 10, 2005, 10:40:31 AM
The gyroscope thing could be sweet. I wonder tho how well it would work for say aiming in an fps game cause you'd have to keep your controller position fairly neutral when you're not aiming.
Anyway I think Iwata made it clear Nintendo is making a controller that will look inviting to Moms. That doesn't speak well for those us of looking for something revolutionary for gamers like a controller that could aim with mouse-like precision and accuracy.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on April 10, 2005, 01:07:05 PM
A lot of you have the same concern as I; if Nintendo does something too drastically different with the Revolution controller, than traditional games (Zelda, Mario, etc.) just won't play like they used to. I don't freaking want to swipe my sword by throwing my controller in the air, I want to swipe it by pressing the B button, dammit. And I'm damn positive that Nintendo realizes this. They know that playing it safe is the best way to play (interesting article at n-sider.com, check it out). This is why I don't believe any of this gyro/touch screen bullsh!t.
Gyros...just no, I'm sorry.
As for touch screens...yes, it is an interesting concept for developers to be able to come up with their own control schemes. But that's just the reason touch screen analog doesn't work for me in Mario 64 DS - not being able to feel it just bugs me. Especially with face buttons...you don't want to have to look at the controller to find the button, you just want to press it. That's why camera control in SM64DS didn't work for me either.
I think Donkey Konga/DDR/Duck Hunt/Track and Field/etc. may hint at what the control scheme will be for Revolution...simply, there won't be any standard control scheme, but rather there may be a controller designed specifically for certain games. Like there may be some 15 Revolution controllers, certain ones compatible with certain games. Sure, there's cost, but I think developers would be smart enough to...no, scratch that. Nintendo would be smart enough to either offer the controllers at an affordable price or include all of the controllers with the system for no additional cost. Yeah, Nintendo'd lose money, but if it plays out like it should, Nintendo'd regain the money from software sales.
idk, just random babbling.
Another theory I like is that Revolution has a double meaning...possibly the turn of something. lol, the real reason I like that theory is because a double-meaning sounds like something Nintendo would definitely do.
That's all I've got for now.
Post by: wushupants on April 10, 2005, 08:55:58 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on April 11, 2005, 05:05:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wushupants
Hmm... controller... I think it should be something you can use all your 10 fingers on. For example, a sphere held with hands almost wide open. I know someone probably wrote something similar to what I'm gonna say but, I'm not gonna read 7 pages-plus worth of random ideas. Now, this sphere should have analog "pads" for each finger similar to a normal control pad, but in a more circular fashion (along the lines of the xbox one, but with more comfort for your finger), and with more sensitivity for pushing in any direction, and also with analog sensitivity for how much pressure you apply to the press. And each half of this sphere could be slightly rotated by each hand respectively in opposite diretions to detach completely, and then both halves used individually while placed on any surface. With their own rumble/shock features, adjustable levels of sensitivity, wireless connectivity, and a conveniently placed hand-wrap for and awesome grip. Sounds awesome, innovative, and expensive. The system might as well be integrated in it too. Only kidding. Ok, I'm done.
How would you like to get your hands on this sphere? http://www.forcedimension.com/fd/avs/home/
Post by: Morales on April 17, 2005, 08:29:33 PM
Finally, here is a basic concept on my controller. I wasn't going to bother posting it since it didn't get a good reception, but now I'm seeing copycat designs on other forums and it's pissing me off a little. hehe. Honestly, I'd be happier if Nintendo themselves copied. Really I don't think that the controller will be the Revolution in and of itself at all. The Revolution is going to be a campaign by Nintendo towards an incredibly versatile and person-friendly system. All wireless controllers, wireless AV out using NEC technology, one console sending multiple signals to other tv and computer monitors in the house, free wireless online play, and a system with enough cpu power and RAM to do this while looking comparable to the other systems.
I think that Nintendo will however, tout it's new interface as a Revolution. If they weren't sure about gyros already, I'm sure they are now that so many rumors are going around and the fact that they're so cheap for Nintendo to get. They'll probably market a mic and a camera if they aren't included outright. And they'll most likely continue to push innovative peripherals as they always have from the zapper, to the power glove, to the GBA/GC connector cable to the bongo drums.
Sorry for that rant. I just don't want people to think too hard about how to totally reinvent gaming. The things I've stated would make for a superb gaming system. Nintendo never stated there was going to be one thing or one technology that would constitute the Revolution.
Post by: Morales on April 17, 2005, 09:27:43 PM
Post by: MODE_RED on April 22, 2005, 01:06:32 PM
The left side or left hand controller would be a more traditional layout with the addition of gyroscopes. Both controllers would contain gyroscopes, but the left-handed controller would be the primary means of controlling movement, while using the right-handed controller or both controllers together for movement would be secondary.
I see both left and right handed controllers containing sensors that track where the controllers are in relation to each other, to the Revolution, and to the controllers of other players. This allows players to perform complex actions with their arms including dance moves and player to player interaction.
Shaking, tilting, raising, lowering, swinging, extending your arms and such would be primary methods of interaction in Nintendo's titles.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on April 22, 2005, 03:24:31 PM
actually, Miyamoto did express how much fun he and his family had playing this game.... SAmba is teh REV!!!1
Post by: nickmitch on April 22, 2005, 03:37:05 PM
Post by: Robotor on April 23, 2005, 03:39:46 PM
Alright this is what I want. Generic button layout, and it can have however many triggers you want back there I don't care.
One side is stable, one side has the gyration technology. The cord connecting them discourages full arm swings, which is something I am agianst. I think using one analoge stick and a gryation handle would work very well in a lot of genres. In an action game a quick flick of the wrist could swing the sword and consecutive flicks set up combos. In an FPS you move with the analoge stick and aim with the gyration "handle" for lack of better word. The handle could be used for sweeps in a fighting game, and hadukens would become that much more satisfying. Tennis games could use the handle for swings, as well as golf games.
The base opens up even more possibiltys, as a rod could be lifted out of it and the controller attached to it like a steering wheel for racing games. Or the controller could be attached in the same manner as a flight stick for flight sims.
This gyration thing could work really well, the more I think about it the more I like it.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on April 24, 2005, 04:30:54 PM
maybe you'd just have to keep the controller still while booting up
Post by: Robotor on April 25, 2005, 11:44:00 AM
Post by: zakkiel on April 25, 2005, 03:20:28 PM
Post by: trip1eX on April 26, 2005, 08:20:33 AM
Post by: decoyman on April 29, 2005, 08:58:56 PM
There're watches that use the kinetic energy generated from walking/moving around to power them. Could this be used as at least a supplementary form of power for the controller, to help extend battery life maybe?
Granted, I don't know a lot (ok, anything at all, really) about how these watches work. And I'm pretty sure there'd need to be a "main" power source (batteries of some kind)... but hey, we're talking about revolutionary controllers here, right?
Post by: zakkiel on April 30, 2005, 02:27:06 PM
Post by: nickmitch on May 01, 2005, 11:26:28 AM
Post by: trip1eX on May 06, 2005, 10:30:45 AM
Future Controller?
Post by: nemo_83 on May 06, 2005, 01:45:12 PM
Post by: trip1eX on May 06, 2005, 01:56:47 PM
but the fact someone is working on it is interesting.
Post by: nemo_83 on May 06, 2005, 09:08:38 PM
Post by: trip1eX on May 07, 2005, 06:38:35 AM
It's time for a new controller
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 07, 2005, 09:27:58 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on May 08, 2005, 04:30:09 AM
A touchscreen would be so much better than any controller with a trackball. I mean really?! How popular are trackball mice? There not...
People want smoothness, not roundness.....
Post by: trip1eX on May 08, 2005, 07:08:50 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on May 14, 2005, 03:12:59 PM
try that link, the last one didn't work
Post by: Don'tHate742 on May 15, 2005, 12:01:23 AM
Score one for Don'tHate's design...
Post by: nemo_83 on May 15, 2005, 11:21:02 PM
