Topic: A more "traditionally designed" controller for Rev?

[KnowsNothing]

Quote
and they should market the hell out of it or next gen will just be a repeat of this gen.

Thank you for mentioning this gen  Ian wants Nintendo to market the traditional controller in the states.  How well did that work out this gen?  If Nintnedo just sticks to what they're doing now, how are they going to improve?  Nintendo has something new, let's embrace that.  The funny part is how Ian has expressed on multiple occasions that this gen is a disspointment because it doesn't "cater" to hime or soemthing, yet when Nintendo changes he complain that they should go back.....

Since advertising was brought up, I started thinking about muliplatform releases.  The Rev version will be different in most cases (dispite was Ian and others may think), are third parties going to advertise its differences or just mention that it's coming out for the Rev?  I think adverts for multiplatform games will (or: should)  just mention "with motion control for Nintendo Revolution" or something towards the end with a small clip of someone playing it.  Imagine the advert for the next bond game where at the end it just says "with revolutionary free motion control for Nintendo Revolution" and it shows someone having a blast while blasting away at the screen, it would show the differences between the systems and at least get people thinking about the Rev.

[wandering]

Quote
Every multiplatform game will use the shell if Nintendo includes it as a standard except for maybe a few oddballs early on that try to be cute and end up controlling like crap compared to their PS3/X360 equivalents.

Several companies have already commited to using the REV's new features. I'd like to think that they recognise that free-hand motion-controlled gameplay is the future. IN fact, I have a feeling they'll make REV games that use the shell about as often as they made N64 games that used the d-pad.

As for Rev games controlling like crap compared to ps2/360 games....it'll be the other way around, I think. Compared to finely-tuned motion control that can sense the every movement of your hand, performing actions by fiddling with sticks and buttons will feel SO last decade.

Quote
American gamers don't like wacky stuff as much

I'm sorry, but FUN is universal.
And what's so whacky about being able to aim with precision in FPSes, move units around with ease in an RTSes, etc?

Quote
I think the ads should treat the shell as the normal controller and the remote is a special part of it that you pull out for some games.

NO, no, no, no, no no no no no no no no. And no. I'm sorry. The ability to play games in a fundamentally new way is the whole point of the console. Saying you should market it with the normal 'old school' controller as standard is like saying you should market the DS with GameBoy compatablity as the primary focus.

[Don'tHate742]

I agree with all those that say they should market the "free-style" controller as hard as possible.

If anything, they can just show the "wand" sliding into the controller shell at the end of the commercial, but only as it mentions that it can play games from past generations.

"With the shell attachment, the Revolution controller transforms into a suitable controller ready to play all past generation games, including the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube." -- During that you could show exactly how the controller fits into its shell, then people playing Super Mario, Super Punch Out! , Goldeneye, and finally Zelda: Twilight Princess, of course all wirelessly. This could all be showed in 10 secs or less.

Detailing the possibilites of the REV controller and showing examples is first priority. Once that's done, run something like I mentioned above.

If a commercial (or better yet, a before-movie trailer) like that ever saw the light of day, it would have people drooling.

[Artimus]

With a killer app this becomes moot. If Mario makes the wand seem amazing then it's an instant sell. Despite popular opinion, the N64 didn't fail because it was bad, it sold like crazy at first. It just fell apart half-way through. Mario 64 totally redefined games, and if Sony hadn't copied it they would never have had much success.

They just need a Mario Rev that makes people think "Wow...this is the next gen!"

[wandering]

Quote
"With the shell attachment, the Revolution controller transforms into a suitable controller ready to play all past generation games...

Ha, I love this idea especially because it would subtley get the message across that xbox and playstation are behind the times.

Quote
With a killer app this becomes moot. If Mario makes the wand seem amazing then it's an instant sell.

Agreed. Everything rests on Miyamoto's shoulder's, really. And I don't think we have to worry about him not delivering the goods.

[NotSoStu]

http://revshell.ytmnd.com/

[Ian Sane]

"The ability to play games in a fundamentally new way is the whole point of the console. Saying you should market it with the normal 'old school' controller as standard is like saying you should market the DS with GameBoy compatablity as the primary focus."

My attitude I guess just differs from Nintendo.  I see the remote as the scary thing that will freak people out.  I think it's very important that the remote is an addition to what already exists rather than a replacement no one asked for or wanted.  Change is scary.  You give people the slighest suggestion that games as they know them are unplayable on the Rev and they will bail.  And I think the concept is even more scary for non-gamers than the traditional controllers.  But then I've always thought the non-gamer approach was stupid to begin with.  I'm more in "damage control" mode, like the remote is liability Nintendo has to hide.

Let's put it this way.  If the Rev flops it will be because of the remote controller.  Therefore I think Nintendo should ease people into it more instead of "Surprise!  New way to play games!"  I think enforcing that traditional gaming is still available should be Nintendo's prime concern.  Otherwise they're basically telling everyone who likes games as they are to take a hike and scaring away traditional gamers is the stupidest thing they could ever do.  They could risk dumping a huge chunk of their existing fanbase over this in favour of an unproven non-gamer demographic.

Nintendo might not see the remote as an extra feature but they should.  Adding to the experience is good.  Changing the experience isn't.  This will bite them in the ass if they force this new method on everyone.

New Coke supposedly tasted better than old Coke but the second they said "we changed Coke" people freaked out.  "We changed Nintendo games" is going to freak people out.  Adding on to what already works is good.  Fixing what isn't broken sucks.

[Bill Aurion]

Changing the experience isn't.

If it's for the better, it sure is...

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The ability to play games in a fundamentally new way is the whole point of the console. Saying you should market it with the normal 'old school' controller as standard is like saying you should market the DS with GameBoy compatablity as the primary focus."

My attitude I guess just differs from Nintendo.  I see the remote as the scary thing that will freak people out.  I think it's very important that the remote is an addition to what already exists rather than a replacement no one asked for or wanted.  Change is scary.  You give people the slighest suggestion that games as they know them are unplayable on the Rev and they will bail.  And I think the concept is even more scary for non-gamers than the traditional controllers.  But then I've always thought the non-gamer approach was stupid to begin with.  I'm more in "damage control" mode, like the remote is liability Nintendo has to hide.

Let's put it this way.  If the Rev flops it will be because of the remote controller.  Therefore I think Nintendo should ease people into it more instead of "Surprise!  New way to play games!"  I think enforcing that traditional gaming is still available should be Nintendo's prime concern.  Otherwise they're basically telling everyone who likes games as they are to take a hike and scaring away traditional gamers is the stupidest thing they could ever do.  They could risk dumping a huge chunk of their existing fanbase over this in favour of an unproven non-gamer demographic.

Nintendo might not see the remote as an extra feature but they should.  Adding to the experience is good.  Changing the experience isn't.  This will bite them in the ass if they force this new method on everyone.

New Coke supposedly tasted better than old Coke but the second they said "we changed Coke" people freaked out.  "We changed Nintendo games" is going to freak people out.  Adding on to what already works is good.  Fixing what isn't broken sucks.

You nailed it on the head. Damage control. Which is exactly why your point of view has little relevance: you don't like the controller and want it gone. That's like getting a Hussein to run United States tourism.

You keep mentioning the 'if it isn't broken' thing. The problem is that you don't care if the new way is better. 2D gaming wasn't broken, the dpad wasn't broken, does that mean we should just get rid of the analog stick as fast as possible? No.

You're a broken record Ian. I know very well even if everyone in the world realizes that this new way of play is so much better than the old that they immediately sell their 360s and PS3s, you'll sitll be bitching and moaning.

"Yes it's better, but the colours are wrong!"
"Yes it's better, but the old was ok too!"
"Yes it's better, but Iwata is ugly!"
"Yes it's better, but video games are a waste of time!"
"Yes it's better, but I'm still refusing to accept it because I'm Ian!"

[Caliban]

Oooooooooooooo comparing Coke with Games, Ian your insane, I'm saying this in a non-insulting and funny way btw. Well I don't see the problem of Nintendo adding more ways to play games (i do not agree it is change) and we have seen that with the DS.  

[PaLaDiN]

Ian, you do have a point, but only if the new way of playing games is worse than the old one. The problem is that you're going into damage control when there's no real evidence of damage yet.

Doing things your way will only label the new controller as a gimmick. The old way has already been advertised this gen and the last and the one before that... advertising it any more is futile because it's already a standard. Neither Sony nor Microsoft will spend much time advertising their controllers next gen because the concept is already out there and has already been advertised. At most, all I expect from them on that end is a blurb about "wireless freedom". They're not going to come out and say "You can control games the way you've done it for years now!" because the justified reaction to that is "so what?"

Nintendo's new controller is new and unproven and therefore must be advertised heavily to have the best chance of success. You're convinced that it's a gimmick so they should market is as such, but what you fail to see is that marketing it as such would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're telling Nintendo to say "Play games the way you always have! or if you want, try this weird surprise" instead of "Surprise, a new way of playing games! Try it out, you'll love it! And even if you don't like it, you can go back to playing them the way you always have."

Do you see what you're doing? You're trying to reassure people that the new controller is just a random Nintendo brainfart that will go away eventually, before they've even tried it. That's going to go over well.

Your coke analogy... Do you think New Coke would have sold better if they advertised old coke instead? Do you think old coke sales went down because of the people freaked out by new coke? Because Nintendo is offering both new coke and old coke. People end up hating new coke, Nintendo can still fall back on old coke. But don't ask them to throw new coke out there all alone, by itself, without some sort of advertisement, because that's just dooming it from the start and forcing themselves to fall back on old coke before new coke even gets a chance.

[stevey]

"Fixing what isn't broken sucks. "

YOUR F-ING INSANE!!! Ian video game are broke! The new game for the 360 are the same as the xbox but higher poly. If you dont see what wrong with that then go ahead and buy a 360 we kept the fun for the devoted failful genuine nintendo fanboys. if you still want to play nintendo buy a ds and feel why nintendo going to win the next-gen.  

[KnowsNothing]

I bet if Nintendo revealed the controller the way Ian wants them to advertise it, he would label the removeable remote as a "gimmick."  Or something equally insane.

Edit: oh whoops, paladin said it first

[Rellik]

I don't think the new remote controller is an "addition" at all - yes, it IS meant to replace the kind of controller we know and love, where applicable.

I see that people are saying that people will feel threatened by the "SURPRISE, whole new gaming paradigm!!" - I think Nintendo can avoid this if they just market it right.  It's not a hard concept for reasoning people to understand - I think they've really hit the nail on the head here.  The developers know it - even the 3rd party ones, even the ones who make generic sports games and first person shooters.  This is basically the holy grail, the gateway to the next stage in gaming - it's definitely NOT something you can call an "addition", like GC-GBA connectivity was.

I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, or that it will succeed - but the concept, the POTENTIAL greatness is the revolutionary part of it, at this point.  I say unleash it on the public and DEMONSTRATE to them why they need a Revolution - don't sheepishly pack it in as an "addition" to a standard controller.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I've been thinking through all the complaints about the REvolution controller, and we have to realize that change is what got us to the "traditional" controller in the first place. Do any of you remember that most games, in the time of Atari that a joystick was used? Or even before that things were less complex, change didn't require any damage control, in fact Nintendo was the one that kicked off the traditional controller in the first place. All I see the Revolution controller as is a controller that is a slightly larger step from the traditional joystick to a joypad whose main purpose is to better immerse the player in the game. Change didn't hurt NES, and I don't believe it will hurt Revolution.

[Artimus]

Nintendo was lucky because games crashed before the NES, so change was welcome. This time they have the innovation but no crash, so they have to prove how good it is, they don't get a benefit of a doubt.

Though reading all the hands on impressions must give everyone hope. IGN, Gamespot, 1UP all loved it. They said all it needs is full-fledged games. And if Nintendo can't manage that, they deserve not to run out of business!

[NRevolutionR]

I believe you mean to say that they WOULD deserve to go out of bussiness

[Don'tHate742]

All Nintendo has to do is show games?

Isn't that already Nintendo's main attraction?

I think we all bought a SNES/N64/GC because of Nintendo's philosophy of creativity and quality. If all they have to do to win supporters is show a game that's high in quality and deep in creativity and immersitivity(which they set the standard in), then I think we can all relax....sit back, and enjoy the show.

[BlackNMild2k1]

wasn't sure where to post this, but here looks as good as anywhere

Quote
Someone posted this in the Shack thread:

" "How does it compare to a mouse?"

From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.

There is no lag.

There is no error.

It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.

At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it was true.

I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed at them.

But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that I don't need to use a mouse ever again.

Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.

Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll (rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to explore.

\from an attendee "

http://forums.3drealms.com

well I'm sold, where do I put down a deposit?

[Artimus]

The roll thing was something I though of earlier. Think how easy to turn around in an FPS. Just tilt it! Wicked.

[mantidor]

getting out the "Ian" in me I think that now we wont get revs controller fakes but rather fake impressions from supposedly people who have tried it saying how much it rocks/sucks and that that impression might very well be made up.

ps: no hard felings on Ian, Im always looking forward to read his posts even if they are so negative some times ^_^

[wandering]

Quote
"Change is scary."

Yes, but it's also necessary.
One of things I love about Nintendo is that they're the ones who instigate change and they're still successful, which is actually a pretty rare thing.

Quote
"Let's put it this way. If the Rev flops it will be because of the remote controller."

If the Rev succeeds it will be because of the remote controller.

Quote
"Therefore I think Nintendo should ease people into it more instead of "Surprise! New way to play games!""

At a certain point, when the water's a little a cold, you just have to jump in. Nintendo shouldn't ease people into the water any more slowly than they are already are. They're already giving us the controller info early so that we can get acclimated to it during the next 12 months. They're already providing people with the option to play using traditional styles. And they will almost certainly be enticing us to take the plunge with irresistible new software.

Quote
"Adding on to what already works is good. Fixing what isn't broken sucks."

Except you could also have argued that the atari joystick wasn't broken, that the d-pad wasn't broken, that silent movies weren't broken, etc. Almost a decade ago, Nintendo introduced analogue control on a 2-d plane. Now, they're introducing true 3-d control. The future is here and the possibilities are limitless. Sorry that it's also a little scary.

Fortunately for everybody, Nintendo’s introduced new video game standards before, and they're pretty good at it. They'll make sure the transition will go as smoothly as possible: First, they're giving people a traditional-style pad, (much like how they offered a mostly useless d-pad with the N64), and  second, they're almost certainly going to come out with an amazing Miyamtoto-designed Mario game or similar that will help everyone see the advantages of this new control setup.

 

[Ian Sane]

"If it's for the better, it sure is..."

If it's better then it's improving something, not changing.  I'm getting picky on wording here but there's a difference.  This isn't really "better".  It's really up to opinion.  You might like this new way of playing better than the old way but you might not.  It's just a different way to play games and how much "better" it is will differ for everyone.  Adding another feature to something that already is proven is easier to define as "better".  The same controller but with a remote addition IS better because it builds on something instead of replacing it.  With the shell the Rev controller does everything that could be done before plus more.  The remote on it's own can't do that.  It's just different and therefore isn't likely to be considered "better" by as many people as a mere addition to what already works would.

"I bet if Nintendo revealed the controller the way Ian wants them to advertise it, he would label the removeable remote as a 'gimmick.' Or something equally insane."

Not likely.  Adding to what was already there is what I wanted from the Rev controller.  I wanted assurance that I could play the games of the past as well as the future.  My biggest concern was that Nintendo was going to make something incapable of playing old games.  I voiced my concern on that when the "no A or B button" rumours came up or whenever someone suggested a bizarre design.  A normal controller with a new feature added is what I wanted.  The Rev controller may end up being that depending on decisions Nintendo makes from now until launch.

"we have to realize that change is what got us to the "traditional" controller in the first place. Do any of you remember that most games, in the time of Atari that a joystick was used?"

It's a little different.  A joystick and a d-pad are fairly similar.  The goal for both was to have digital movement in eight directions.  Every Atari game would translate to the NES fairly smoothly.  Analog control didn't replace the d-pad because it was too different.  D-pad games didn't work as well.  This is an even bigger change.  We're looking at movement replacing buttons.  That's a huge difference.  The transition from joystick to d-pad is much easier.  Did you ever have a problem playing arcade ports on the NES or SNES?  Not likely except maybe some fighting games.  But most of us would have difficulty playing Cube games with just the remote.

"Ian video game are broke! The new game for the 360 are the same as the xbox but higher poly."

Are Nintendo games broke?  That's what we're really talking about here.  Do any of you think in general that Nintendo's Cube games are broken and need to be fixed?  I don't give a crap if EA makes the same crap forever.  Nintendo's my favourite developer and, with a few exceptions, their games aren't broken.  I don't like the direction Sony and MS are taking gaming but this isn't how I want that to be fixed.  I want gaming to go in the direction Nintendo took it in their prime, back when something like Pikmin would have sold like GTA or Halo.  This isn't the solution.  This could kill gaming as I love it.  With Sega no longer in the console business Nintendo is the only console maker left who truly knows how to make brilliant games with the current model.  So if they change to some new model then there's no one left.

[wandering]

Okay, here's the thing, if you have faith in Nintendo's games, then why don't you have faith in the controller that Nintendo designed specifically to improve Nintendo games?

Quote
It's just a different way to play games and how much "better" it is will differ for everyone. Adding another feature to something that already is proven is easier to define as "better". The same controller but with a remote addition IS better because it builds on something instead of replacing it.

Yeah, but at a certain point.... look, you can have filet mingon, or you can have pizza. But you can't really have filet mingon pizza.

Quote
I want gaming to go in the direction Nintendo took it in their prime, back when something like Pikmin would have sold like GTA or Halo."

The problem is, pikmin didn't sell like GTA or Halo. How do you propose they should change this, if not by introducing an exciting new control scheme?

Further, I just don't understand how this control 'breaks' current control in any real sense. If the remote didn't have any buttons, then I would agree with you. But here, they've removed 2 buttons and an analogue stick and replaced them with a revolutionary new control device, because they felt this would make a controller all-around better. And I think I agree with them.  

[Artimus]

I think Nintendo's Cube games could sure as heck use a little more effort. Especially the Mario franchises. It's like they went from constant-delaying perfection to never-delaying near-perfection. So many Gamecube games need just that little extra polish (or finish in the case of Wind Waker).

And there is better. Because the old does still exist. The question is how much better can you make the same formula without a change? Sure there will always be new and fun games but innovation is way down. How many major console games have been innovative lately? Katamary Damacy?

Ian, if the new was is just as good then what's the problem? The system will still play your favorite classics (ALL of them) plus provide fresh new experiences, plus attract more people, plus do better for Nintendo, etc.