Topic: EDITORIALS: Controller Conundrum

[Karl Castaneda #2]

With the Wii almost here, we’ve got to know: is the Wiimote actually better than a regular controller?

In a recent interview with Nintendo Dream, Shigeru Miyamoto revealed that GameCube games may be getting facelifts for the Wii. While the question of how extensive the improvements would be still hasn’t been answered, it brings up an interesting question: is the Wii remote so powerful an asset that its mere inclusion can drastically improve a game?    

This has already been brought up with a more high-profile game that’s actually launching with the Wii. With Twilight Princess, the Nintendo faithful seem to be split up into two camps: those who want to play it with a GameCube controller and those willing to take the plunge with the remote. I haven’t played it with either, so I’m not qualified to comment on either method’s positives or negatives, but the general consensus has become pretty vocal about wanting the option to play both on the same disk, just in case. Having played TP on both the GameCube in 2005 and on the Wii in 2006, PGC Director Jonathan Metts had this to say:    

“Zelda on GameCube felt like a very direct sequel to Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker with different graphics.  Due to the brevity of the demo, it was hard to tell how the game would set itself apart in terms of gameplay.  Zelda on Wii feels dramatically different for the series, but at least in the E3 demo, not necessarily better."    

For more on this issue, read Evan Burchfield's open letter to Nintendo.    

It’s that insecurity that makes the whole transition somewhat nervous for yours truly. Nintendo’s taking a big gamble on the Wii, and if the remote can’t “wow" someone with their first impression, trouble is afoot. It all boils down to whether Twilight Princess plays better on the GameCube, or on its big-brother Wii.    

This question ties into whether or not the controller can play a “normal game" more intuitively than its predecessor. At this point, it’s hard to say. While RTS, hack-and-slashes, and FPS titles seem custom-fit for Nintendo’s new method of control, would a game like Super Smash Bros. really benefit from it? Probably not. It mostly has to do with how clumsy people are in real life, and that the exact movement readily available by pushing buttons isn’t easily replicated by actual movement.    

This obviously won’t be a problem with games belonging to the Touch Generation brand or something like Trauma Center, where the objective is based around responding your hand’s movement, and with WarioWare, it’s a match made in heaven. Will Prince of Persia Wii be better than Two Thrones, though? Time will tell, and that, more than anything else, is what’s bothering me.    

It sure wasn’t this stressful last time. When the analog stick debuted on the N64, it ushered in a new age of 3D manipulation, but did anyone decide to switch up the control scheme and repackage their game as new? Did anyone see analog control as so great an innovation that it fundamentally changed the experience, and acted upon it immediately?    

The truth of the matter was, it was a great addition to the controller, and it succeeded the D-Pad as the predominant method to play games. It didn’t annihilate it, however - we still see the D-Pad on every major gamepad - and in truth, I actually prefer the latter for certain genres (chiefly fighting games).    

The Wii remote is different, though. Whereas the D-Pad-to-analog transition just put your thumb in a different spot and made it rotate instead of jump, the Wii is a kinetic force - it removes another boundary between you and the digital world, and will fundamentally change the experience. We just don’t know if that’s for the better yet.    

So will these "enhanced titles" be good games? Probably. Better than the first ones? Maybe. Better specifically because of the control scheme?    

As much as I hate to say it, time will have to tell.

[Kairon]

All the hubbub over the Wii controller is overblown in my opinion.

Zelda:TP will be a good game, and in the end that's what players will take away from the experience and as long as the controls are not horrible, most players, especially that sea of casual players, will totally latch onto it and buy into the Wii controllers.

As long as the games are essentially good and well-thought out, only hardcore, intellectual, and idealistic players will agonize over whether the control method itself is essentially improving their games. The vast sea of other gamers out there will just play, and then naturally believe.

After all, look at the DS toch screen. Hardcore gamers STILL question whether it's just a sparkling innovation. Heck, I, a Nintendo FANBOI for life, can't name 5 games that I feel truly utilized the touch screen to improve the game on a basis of essentials. If you ask this gamer, the DS failed the exact question that you're asking for the Wii.

But evidently, that hasn't proven to be a bad thing. Seen the latest sales numbers?

The Wii doesn't need to essentially improve EVERY SINGLE ONE of the videogames that use its controller. It just needs to hold its ground respectably everywhere else while it excels at Wii Sports, party games, non-games, Trauma Center, and all those games just over that new blue ocean horizon.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[mantidor]

One of my biggest concerns is sensitivity, I saw that cursor in all those games shaking uncontrollably and it made me feel very frustrated. Maybe the people playing them sucked, maybe the sensitivity can be adjusted, but not one single demo made me feel ok with it, so I really want to try it in those scenarios when you need to point precisely, to see if it really is fun or just frustrating.

[Bill Aurion]

Just how many threads do we need that threaten to re-flame the TP Wii controls debate?

[Mario]

^^ Hey, DS has some awesome touch screen games that would suck with normal controls, like Yoshi Touch N Go. Wii will have games like that too. It's only Twilight Princess that will suck with them, because it's an ACTUAL GC game. Battalian Wars Wii and Mario Football Wii are being made from the ground up for Wii. The Zelda example is stupid for the Wii as a whole, those games are better comparisons, and from what i've seen of BWii it looks to control a lot better.

Also remember the Wii doesn't just introduce the new controls, things like the online gameplay will improve BWii and that's also something the GC couldn't do.

The point when playing a game is to forget you're using a controller, all this talk about the controls is putting the focus on the wrong thing. Zelda TP will feel awkward with it but that's just because it will be a mediocre game on Wii.

[Smoke39]

I don't think the remote will lend itself particularly well to every single type of game, just like purely touch controls don't lend themselves to every single type of game.  Which is why we have the classic controller for the Wii and a d-pad and buttons on the DS.  It's up to developers to intellligently utilize whatever works best for what they're trying to do.  There'll always be games that lazily use classic input methods where something new could work better, and games that shoehorn in new control methods just because it's novel, but then there'll be some really awesome games that just get it right.

[Karl Castaneda #2]

At least one more, Bill.

The DS example isn't entirely valid since it's basically a GBA with a couple more buttons anda  touch screen. The Wii controller is not a GameCube controller with an extra feature - it's a complete re-design. If it was, why would Nintendo need the shell/VC conroller?

I feel that Zelda is a perfect example for this issue, since it's a "normal" game being outfitted for Wii control. The point of the editorial isn't to say that the Wiimote isn't a good controller - far from it. The point is that I'm still not convinced that the Wii is superior for playing conventional titles a'la the GameCube.

Mario, the GameCube couldn't go online? Phantasy Star fans would disagree with you. Yeah, Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection will be a lot more organized, but online isn't a feature exclusive to the Wii as far as Nintendo consoles go.

As for Battalion Wars II, it's funny you mention that. In the original version of the editorial, I talked about it for a little, but Jonny suggested (and I agreed), that it and Strikers are sequels more than they're facelifts, at least from what we've seen. This piece is aimed at those "enhanced games."

Am I gonna buy a Wii? Hellz yeah. Will Trauma Center, Dragon Quest, WarioWare, Wii Sports, etc be awesome? Hellz yeah. Will the conventional titles being ported over (whether from the GameCube or otherwise) be better than their counterparts? That's a different story. I'm willing to take the ride, but it doesn't make me any less insecure about it.  

[IceCold]

On a related note, it's rumoured that Nintendo is having problems while producing units of the controller..

Quote
Translated"The factory has received a purchasing order for the Wii controller and a sample, but is still stuck in the testing phase. From the feedback of testers, currently the Wiimote and nunchuck still have a lot of small issues, such as buttons that aren't sensitive, and that it's hard to press two buttons together, (there's even no response occasionally), and that the current sample is easily damaged - using the controller in normal situation will produce some noise, etc. Entering September, if the above hardware problems cannot be fixed, it will directly affect Wii's selling strategy.

Also, the factory has not received the Wii console from Nintendo yet - currently, they are testing samples using a dedicated machine only for testing, which means that after an up-to-standard sample is produced, it still needs to be sent back to Japan to be tested by Nintendo for a second time. The Wii controller uses bluetooth technology for real-time data transfer, and infrared for "space location", and the second phase of testing procedures maybe even tougher!"

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I don't think the remote will lend itself particularly well to every single type of game, just like purely touch controls don't lend themselves to every single type of game.  Which is why we have the nunchuck attachement for the Wii and a d-pad and buttons on the DS.  It's up to developers to intellligently utilize whatever works best for what they're trying to do.  There'll always be games that lazily use classic input methods where something new could work better, and games that shoehorn in new control methods just because it's novel, but then there'll be some really awesome games that just get it right.

Fixed.

Seriously people, all the nunchuck attachment loses compared to the GC is the c-stick. And when it gains gyroscopes at the same time...

We just don't need to fall back to a GC controller or a classic controller that we're not always sure is there. We've got a nunchuck attachment that we're 100% sure they have already, and that does the job almost as well... and even better once we implement a couple simple motion sensor g!mmicks.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[ShyGuy]

So much for a kinder, gentler PGC.. what's next, "Editorials: I starve my Nintendog and chop down my friend's trees in AC" ?

[Smoke39]

I disagree.  The nunchaku provides a normal-style joystick, but you're still left with fewer buttons than a regular controller.  I don't believe gestures are a good replacement for button presses in every single type of game.

[Kairon]

Well, the simple fact that everyone will have a nunchuck but not everyone will have a GC or Classic controller should be the most telling thing.

But if we put the GC controller and Wii controller together, then of course there are some things that don't transfer over perfectly, but for the most part the Wii+Nunchuck offer enough functionality without the motion sensing, and POTENTIALLY more with well-thought-out use of motion sensing, that I don't see a need for a Classic controller AT ALL unless we're playing VC titles.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[King of Twitch]

I was going to say "Why haven't they been able to "prove" their promise to even a close supporter in the press 2 months before launch?" but it might help to know which wii games Karl has played if not Zelda TP. Otherwise this thing reads like a Pre-E3 document

[Mario]

Alright, so what are the conventional GC titles being ported over to Wii going to be then? Zelda TP is the only one I know of.

[BigJim]

Nintendo has poorly communicated their case for the new interface. Like I said, they need this controller more than we do. They haven't demonstrated any "ZOMG" killer apps to prove their point. Half of the demos we've seen have gone in the opposite direction with things like Wii Sports and Symphony. The other half make no particularly awesome use of it. Red Steel is arguably the only one of the lot with potential.

As has been brought up before, not unlike the DS, it's a *different* way to play. It's not yet proven whether it's really next-level and so obvious that it becomes a new standard. I'm not counting on them being able to. Even only a fraction of DS's lineup thus far has made the case for the touch screen, and they're 2 years in.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
After all, look at the DS toch screen. Hardcore gamers STILL question whether it's just a sparkling innovation. Heck, I, a Nintendo FANBOI for life, can't name 5 games that I feel truly utilized the touch screen to improve the game on a basis of essentials. If you ask this gamer, the DS failed the exact question that you're asking for the Wii.

Animal Crossing: Wild World
Big Brain Academy
Brain Age
Electroplankton
Kirby: Canvas Curse
Nintendogs
Wario Ware: Touched!
Super Mario 64 DS/New Super Mario Bros. - Mini Games

That's a little more than five, but...

I think what people forget about the DS is that it isn't *just* about the touch screen.  Perhaps this is Nintendo's fault for the whole "Touching is Good" stuff, but the DS also has the wireless multiplayer/WiFi support, the microphone, and, of course, Dual Screens.  Just because every game doesn't make use of every feature doesn't mean that the DS failed to do what it set out to do - give us a new way to play games.  Heck, something as simple as push mode Tetris would have been crap on the GBA - and it alone is worth a DS purchase, IMHO.

It's going to be the same with Wii.  There will be games that make full use of the controller's motion sensing.  Games that use the secondary speaker.  Games that use the online play.  Games that use the whole "WiiConnect24" when you're sleeping bit.  Games that use DS connectivity.  Games that use the super-secret other thing that Nintendo isn't telling us about.  There will be very few games that make use of all the features - and one or two that do it well.

[Pale]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Battalian Wars Wii and Mario Football Wii are being made from the ground up for Wii.

I guess... if using the same engine and adding some additional features is the same as "from the ground up."  Face it man.  Those games are essentially the same thing as what Nintendo is doing with Zelda.  Everything just has silly Zelda hate because they think Nintendo is messing with some holy figure.

Edit: I guess some may call them sequels.  I think the only difference is that they aren't games with stories.  Because Zelda's story will be repeated it's a little different, but as far as development is concerned, I personally think it's the exact same thing.

[edgeblade69]

I personally am planning to pick up the Wii version of ZTP, and not the GCN one. Why? Because it's pointless for me to buy 2 versions of a game which is 99.9% the same. And I'd rather spend the extra $50-60 on a another game like a Red Steel, or MP3, etc.

I think a lot of you are unfairly doubting Nintendo. Everyone doubted Nintendo when the DS was first announced and as its features were slowly revealed and Nintendo has destroyed everything in its path with the DS. Even the almighty Sony can't touch Nintendo in the portable market. Granted portables and consoles are somewhat different, but the core concept between DS and Wii is the same IMO. And that is why the Wii will continue where DS is now and prove to be a success for Nintendo and possibly take them back to the late SNES/early N64 days.  

[TheYoungerPlumber]

I want traditional games on my Wii.  Like others have said, I don't need a game to benefit from Wii's new control features to be happy, but if the controls *get in the way* that's a problem.  I've seen it with a few DS games--mostly because develoeprs don't always think about how players must switch between touch and buttons.  I don't think that will be as much of a problem with Wii, though calibration and gesturing could be bigger monsters.

[SixthAngel]

I think the games will benefit greatly from the controller.

Guitar Heroes is a game that could easily (and can be) played on a regular controller but doing so makes the game suck.  It is fun to actually perform actions instead of just pressing buttons.

[JonLeung]

I think the Wii will need more RPGs, if anything (the small number of them on the N64 and GameCube frustrate me) and for most of those you just need two buttons - cancel and accept - and you don't typically need to be fast with the D-pad, so the controller can be held in one hand, or it can be held like a NES controller, and either way would work fine.

I'm mostly concerned about fighting games, that require near-instant access to 4-6 buttons as well as a stick or D-pad (depending on the game, I may prefer the D-pad).  But considering that new 2D fighting games have been on a decline for years now, with even KoF ending their 2D insistence, we may only find them on the VC, in which case we'd likely already be using the classic controller already.

I think they can find a way to adapt many games to Wii controls, and decently, too, as I don't think any genre other than oldschool fighting games needs several buttons accessible all at once.

Whether or not people want to adapt (if it's at all unnatural for a particular genre), I guess is the real question.  Certainly an argument for more games to fully utilize what it offers and for those games to get a lot of exposure.  I'm beginning to think Red Steel is getting overrated but it will need to be experienced by everyone who considers themselves an FPS fan.  Without exposure, it won't even matter if it's the epitome of absolute revolutionary improvement.

[trip1eX]

The Wii controller was developed for 2 reasons.  

One was to attract a new market of consumers who don't play games much and don't like the idea of manipulating current controllers and the other was to provide a new play experience for existing gamers.  

These two reasons (along with the lower price, low noise, small size, WiiConnect24, ..) let Nintendo differentiate their console from the competition.  The controller  is really Nintendo's Hi-Def.

Anyway since everyone on this board are gamers then the controller is about giving us new experiences.   It's not about being superior per se.  But about the new exeperience.  I think that's an important point.   Yeah obivously the new experience will be crap if you can't easily replicate the actions required of you with the new controller.  But I think that's true of even today's games in which you have bad controls.  

Is playing WiiTennis by swinging the controller 'superior' to hitting a button?  I think that depends on what you mean by superior.  I'd like to say that it looks like more fun tho.  And the newness of the controller experience is something that will get me to purchase many games I wouldn't have otherwise purchased.  

 

[Ian Sane]

I don't think Nintendo's goal was ever to make a "better" controller.  I think the main reason they made this new controller is marketing.  This controller is new and different and kinda weird and that has attracted more attention towards the Wii.  Concern over how the remote will handle "normal" games has always been a hot topic, but the Wii does still have some big hype which the Cube pretty much never had.  Nintendo was being ignored and now everyone is talking about them.  The controller is pretty much the reason for that.

Plus we all know they're trying for a wider audience.  They said that the reason they went with a remote design was because everyone is familiar with a TV remote.  When designing a "better" controller you're going to pay attention to things like comfort and functionality, not how inviting the appearance is to people who normally don't play games.  That is what a marketer pays attention to, not an engineer.

I think another incentive for the design was that Nintendo probably recognizes that their franchise games on the Cube weren't quite up to par with their N64 equivalents.  I think they wanted to force themselves to do new things and something like a touchscreen and motion control accomplishes that.  Mario on the Wii HAS to feel newer than Super Mario Sunshine did just because motion control is something new and different.

I think the problem though is that they have no safety net.  The DS has worked out okay even if there is debate on the merits of the touchscreen.  But let's assume it didn't work out.  What if the touchscreen was a huge failure?  Nintendo could still have just resorted to making more GBA-style games if they had to.  Everything that was on their previous portables is still there.  They could always have gotten by with the DS as just a 3D capable Gameboy.  The Wii doesn't have this option because they removed so many elements from the Cube controller.  It's just way more different than the DS is.  The Wii isn't even really backwards compatible with the Cube unless you use a Cube controller.  If motion control totally bombed Nintendo couldn't just fall back on using the Wii as a "normal" console with a cool online mode unless they started packaging in the traditional controller as the standard.  Now they could do that if needed but it would be a big hassle and the Wii's already sold at that point wouldn't have the new standard controller.  The risk is so much higher.

[getter77]

Seems to me all Nintnedo really has to do to prove their mettle is to have some folk sit down and play some involved games while everybody else watches.  For example, have Reggie and Miyamoto somehow engage in a full blown swordfight with all the trimmings through a LAN or WiFi dealie.  Then let a few other people play and make a live tournament outta it with the prize being an actual "legit" Master Sword.

This kind of thing would pretty sweepingly dispel worries about the controller not being able to work well enough.  The proof of everything lies in nothing other than the games themselves...so Nintendo will hopefully bring everything to bear.

[PopeReal]

I think this a lot of worrying over nothing.  The only type of game that doesn't suit this new control style well is fighting games, and as you can see Nintendo isn't "forcing" you to use it (Smash Bros).  Pretty soon we will all be used to the Wii controller and these debates will be over....