Topic: Touch! - Games that wouldn't be the same without a Touch Screen

[UncleBob]

So - this topic comes up every so often... and it has surfaced again.

I'm a fan of the touch screen for gaming.  I was before the DS came out - I would play those MEGATouch machines you see in bars/pizza places and I knew then that touch screen gaming would be awesome.

That isn't to say that there hasn't been a lot of missteps in the world of touch screen gaming.  Super Mario 64 DS comes to mind.

But there have been a large number of games that have greatly benefited from the ability to use the touch screen.  I'd like to throw out a few, then, I'd like y'all to mention some of your favorites.

In no particular order:

Brain Age 1 & 2 - I can't imagine trying to play these without the quick strokes of a pen to answer questions.

CrossworDS - I'm sure there are a few other Crossword puzzle games on the DS, but this is the only one I've played.  I LOVE being able to just write the words... I couldn't stand such a game if I had to select letters on a fake keyboard or such.

Planet Puzzle League/Puzzle Quest - Possible with a cursor?  Sure.  Not nearly as fun though.

Professor Layton - So many of these puzzles just wouldn't be possible without a touch screen.

Trace Memory/Hotel Dusk/Last Window - After replaying Uninvited on the NES recently, I really, really am thankful for the touch screen interface for point-and-click type adventures.  Heck, even Another Code R isn't as enjoyable using the Wii Remote vs. the touch screen.

Elite Beat Agents - Best rhythm game ever.  Don't tell me touch screen gaming is useless.

[Nemo]

Meteos and Kirby: Canvas Curse were both really fun.

[NWR_insanolord]

I've been playing a lot of Mario's Picross on the 3DS VC lately, and I'm really missing the touch controls of the DS version. And while touch controls improve traditional Picross, I'm not sure how you'd do Picross 3D without them.

But since this is in response to an Ian Sane post, and he would dismiss most of these titles for being "casual", as ludicrous a description as that would be for Ouendan/EBA, I'll give him this one: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The touch screen elements added to the 3DS remake make it the best version of the game, and would be tough to pull off in any other way.

[lolmonade]

But since this is in response to an Ian Sane post, and he would dismiss most of these titles for being "casual", as ludicrous a description as that would be for Ouendan/EBA, I'll give him this one: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The touch screen elements added to the 3DS remake make it the best version of the game, and would be tough to pull off in any other way.

The Ocarina of Time Remake is one of the reasons i'm most excited for Wii U.  The touch screen menu navigation and item swapping changed the way you played that game for the better, and makes it hard for me to sit with it on my Wii.

[BlackNMild2k1]

[ejamer]

Did anyone else enjoy Pac-Pix?  I know it's not a deep game... but I'd love to buy via eShop and have it as a quick "always available" time waster on my 3DS.

It might sound silly, but I really like having a touch screen for Fritz Chess. Playing using the d-pad would work without issue... but loses some of the tactile feel that I associate with board games and makes me feel distanced from the game for some reason.

Meteos and Kirby: Canvas Curse were both really fun.

A huge YES to both of these games.


Finally, I want to mention Animal Crossing: Wild World. The single biggest improvement made after the GameCube release is the addition of touch/pointer controls. Selling goods to Tom Nook suddenly became much quicker, writing letters to town residents was no longer an annoying chore, and designing your own content was more convenient.  They also did a great job of mixing touch and traditional controls - letting you easily change up on the fly depending on what you felt more comfortable with and what made sense.

[Uncle_Optimus]

Are we considering iOS games? 'Cuz there, anything that favours direct input (menu-based or games where you don't control some sort of on-screen avatar, generally) works beautifully with touch.
I believe one of the keys though is the capacitive tech and I really hope the WiiU Padlet will incorporate it in the final design. Fumbling with a stylus has grown to be a no-no in my gaming profile...even all those wonderful years with DS games, I would just use a finger if I could get away with it. (Ditto on Meteos love tho, stylus required on that small screen!)

I find it interesting that so many core gamers seem opposed to having a touch screen on their main gaming controller (as opposed to the touch screen BEING the main controller)...the possibilities of the asymmetric display can be very promising not just as a menu or aux info screen but also as a configurable input. Steel Diver with analog sticks to carefully steer your craft and a submarine control panel overlay on the touch screen would be sweet (or a similar game where you control a complex mecha, begging for this one).

[fixyourface0814]

Picross 3D was already mentioned, but it REALLY is a fantastic game, and it feels great to use the touch screen to break the pieces of the puzzle. Other than that, a lot of the games I play on my DS/3DS don't have much touch functionality outside of the random purposes (like using your banked power up in Mario, etc). I like the touch screen, but it just seems many of the games I play shy away from forcing it upon you too often.

[Ian Sane]

But since this is in response to an Ian Sane post, and he would dismiss most of these titles for being "casual", as ludicrous a description as that would be for Ouendan/EBA, I'll give him this one: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The touch screen elements added to the 3DS remake make it the best version of the game, and would be tough to pull off in any other way.

Oh come on!  A REMAKE?!  Ocarina of Time was already the "greatest game ever" before the DS even existed.  It already plays like a dream without a touchscreen.

I see touchscreens and motion controls like I see a light gun or a steeling wheel.  It's a specialized input that works well for certain games but it not nearly broad enough to be standard issue.  The times where Nintendo clumsily forces their usage in games that have no business using them proves my point.  D-pad, analog stick, face buttons, shoulder triggers - THOSE are broad enough and used by so many games to be considered standard.

Since the DS included the touchscreen and all the normal controller elements and had a suitable hardware boost it's really just an extra.  It doesn't make sense to have special controller accessories for a handheld so including it makes sense.  FORCING it's use when not needed is stupid but including it on the system is not.  The Wii pissed me off because the normal controller was the optional accessory and the system itself had nothing else distinguishing it from its predecessor except the controller.  It was like if the SNES was just the NES with the mouse included.

You can list a handful of games that need the touchscreen.  Compare that to a real standard like the analog stick where the "list" would be almost every N64 game and almost every console game PERIOD since 2000.  When something is a true standard that is the sort of usage it gets.

Judging by the DS, the Wii U will have a handful of games that use the tablet really well, plus a bunch where it is awkwardly shoehorned in, and then hopefully a whole lot that just don't use it at all.  It is a good novelty controller for certain games and nothing more.

Stuff like having to touch the screen to use your banked power up in NSMB is just the worst.  No one would ever put something like that into a game unless they had some inferiority complex about the touchscreen and felt they had to "prove" it's worth by forcing its usage.  If Nintendo actually had confidence in the thing they wouldn't do things like that because logically it makes no sense to put something like that in a game that otherwise never uses the touchscreen at all.  Nintendo knows the touchscreen and motion control aren't fit to be standard or they would never force their usage.  When something is a natural fit you don't have to force it.

[NWR_insanolord]

I wouldn't want to play any other version of OoT ever again because the touch screen stuff made an amazing game even better.

I just don't get your whole obsession with this idea of a "standard" when it comes to controls, Ian. No input mechanism is universal. You mention analog sticks, but there's a reason every console since their introduction also includes a D-Pad, and that's because there are lots of circumstances where an analog stick isn't ideal. I'd argue a touch screen is at least as useful as a D-Pad on a modern console, either as a primary control method or a supplementary thing like in OoT 3D

[lolmonade]

I bought Sim City on my iPhone a year back.  I think that series of game or Roller Coaster Tycoon would work wonderfully if a stylus was compatible for the iPhone (Yes, I know there technically are some, but they seem prohibitively expensive based on when I looked once).  Using your finger on a touch screen for Sim games is too imprecise to be fluid, but playing a Sim City game where your city in beautiful graphical detail is shown on the television and a simple grid where you place buildings/roads/utilities on the U-Mote using a Stylus seems like a really good input interface for this type of game.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo made a big stink when the Wii debuted about introducing a new standard with motion control.  My attitude was that the previous standard (which ironically Nintendo created) was pretty much unanimously adored so the whole "problem" Nintendo was trying to solve didn't exist.  And they weren't building on the standard they were replacing it which is a pretty arrogant thing to do.  I had considerable concerns about the accuracy of motion control and how suitable it would be as the new way of controlling videogames.  And I was right.  Nintendo resold me a Gamecube on the promise of this new controller which turned out to be a worthless joke.  They essentially swindled me, so I'm going to be pretty damn hard on this nonsense.

I don't like how Nintendo treats these "innovative" ideas.  They're lame gimmicks but they act like they're on par with the d-pad and then shoehorn them into numerous games they don't belong.  If they didn't do that I probably wouldn't care.  But there are Zelda games that control like **** now.  The Wii was full of games that would have been great but were frustrating to play because of the controls.  I think Nintendo would make better games if they never thought of the idea of using these gimmicky ideas.

I compare these ideas to the analog stick as well because it's a example of great Nintendo controller innovation.  Any controller idea that isn't broad enough to become an industry standard is not something Nintendo should spend considerable time with... and yet that's exactly they do.  If they didn't waste time trying to "prove" concepts that aren't that hot like the touchscreen they would make BETTER GAMES.  Of course the Wii U continues down the same path and we're going to have to deal with wonky ass controls until Nintendo stops with this nonsense.

[UncleBob]

Ian,

Are you more concerned with touch controls when they're shoehorned in or just the simple fact that they exist as a quasi-standard on the DS/3DS?

[Dan Laser]

We've really got some great games (and improvements to gameplay) thanks to touch controls. I agree with all of the games mentioned so far.

Trauma Center is another series that I feel really needs touch controls. The pointer controls work, too, but I do like having the solid surface of the touch screen to work against.

XX/XY and Rub Rabbits wouldn't exist without the touch screen!

[Uncle_Optimus]

(Quality rant about Nintendo control gimmicks)

Ian Sane, While many core gamers can readily agree with the points you make, it doesn't change the problems Nintendo must face to stay competitive in this industry. One of the key challenges of this past decade plus has been differentiation...the factors that make one platform stand out from the competition.

Nintendo has tried the strategy to fight their competitors on similar terms with similar technology, types of games and yes, controls. Their key differentiator would be their own strong lineup of software. The GameCube, home to many fine games, was sadly a sales disaster for an entrenched company like Nintendo with few other revenue streams to balance a disappointing console business.

This, perhaps moreso than their stated desire to "expand the market", is why we got the Wii. They could not afford to go toe-to-toe with their bigger, richer rivals (one of whom willingly shoveled away billions over the course of 7 years or so) but they needed a differentiating factor to sell the market on their otherwise underpowered hardware. You may believe the system was a dud and a disappointment, but flipping through not just their console sales but their software sales, man I am inclined to disagree. If anything, had they not chosen the path of "gimmickry" they may well be on their death bed instead of sitting on a comfortable amount of cash and ready to kick off with this next console in an advantageous position.

Now this brings us to the Wii U and touch controls. Touch controls have now driven not only the most successful dedicated gaming platform in history (DS) but it is also the salient control method on arguably the largest gaming platforms ever seen (mobile platforms, specifically iOS and Android). If touch screens really are "not so hot" as a game input method their must be an awful lot of really foolish people out there who have been cheating themselves.

As someone who has enjoyed games on his DS and now iPod Touch immensely, I am of course inclined to disagree. Rather, I see that UPad as both a step Nintendo must take to separate themselves from rivals but also as a logical progression. A majority of customers are now familiar and comfortable with touch screen controls and to omit them from a new game platform may now seem archaic...I am super curious how Sony and MS respond because they have other big challenges of their own to address.

(BTW, I largely agree with your sentiment about the core gamer UX on the Wii...for one thing I think they communicated  terribly with their most loyal customers, for another it is a shame they did not have the confidence to implement motion+ from day 1. Maybe it could have enhanced the UX beyond just novelty status for core gamers? Oh well.)

[ejamer]

Nintendo made a big stink when the Wii debuted about introducing a new standard with motion control.  My attitude was that the previous standard (which ironically Nintendo created) was pretty much unanimously adored so the whole "problem" Nintendo was trying to solve didn't exist.  And they weren't building on the standard they were replacing it which is a pretty arrogant thing to do.  I had considerable concerns about the accuracy of motion control and how suitable it would be as the new way of controlling videogames.  And I was right.  Nintendo resold me a Gamecube on the promise of this new controller which turned out to be a worthless joke.  They essentially swindled me, so I'm going to be pretty damn hard on this nonsense.

I don't like how Nintendo treats these "innovative" ideas.  They're lame gimmicks but they act like they're on par with the d-pad and then shoehorn them into numerous games they don't belong.  If they didn't do that I probably wouldn't care.  But there are Zelda games that control like **** now.  The Wii was full of games that would have been great but were frustrating to play because of the controls.  I think Nintendo would make better games if they never thought of the idea of using these gimmicky ideas.

I compare these ideas to the analog stick as well because it's a example of great Nintendo controller innovation.  Any controller idea that isn't broad enough to become an industry standard is not something Nintendo should spend considerable time with... and yet that's exactly they do.  If they didn't waste time trying to "prove" concepts that aren't that hot like the touchscreen they would make BETTER GAMES.  Of course the Wii U continues down the same path and we're going to have to deal with wonky ass controls until Nintendo stops with this nonsense.

Are you serious?  Arrogance is the right word, but maybe it's applied in the wrong direction with that post...


Standard controls might have been "universally adored" among core gamers who have grown up playing games, but that's a small market and hardly could be called universal in the big scheme of things.  The very reason Nintendo was so successful with Wii is because they they expanded the audience that their games would appeal to by reducing the barrier of entry of complex controls. Maybe you didn't enjoy Wii Sports, but there hasn't been a more influential or widely played killer app in years (exception: Angry Birds).


And regarding "industry standards", please remind which system doesn't currently include some form of motion controls right now?  Sony has an almost direct rip off of the Wii control scheme. Microsoft uses a different type of motion control, but still makes Kinect a major part of their marketing and sales pitch these days.


If you don't like touch/motion/pointer controls, that's fine. Everyone has different opinions about what feels best, and that's fine. I totally agree that it can be annoying when developers shoehorn novel control schemes into their games instead of finding the best match for that particular game.  But don't act like the new control schemes Nintendo has introduced with this generation were failures or didn't have a permanent effect on how video games are viewed, played, and created.

[Adrock]

My attitude was that the previous standard (which ironically Nintendo created) was pretty much unanimously adored so the whole "problem" Nintendo was trying to solve didn't exist.

That wasn't the problem. Nintendo was facing diminishing market share. Therefore, the problem Nintendo was trying to solve was "how do we get people to care about Nintendo again?" You can argue that Nintendo got themselves into that predicament and I'm inclined to agree. However, that's water under the bridge. Nintendo can't redo N64 and Gamecube. Once that problem existed, Nintendo had to solve it and making Ian's Hardcore Nintendo Console © wasn't the right answer. It would have gotten buried by PS3 and 360. I can't say that for sure but probably when looking at how people viewed Nintendo pre-2006. Of course, they have new problems now but they're addressing them accordingly. You can moan about how Nintendo abandonned you but really, they're trying to figure out how to get your money. Maybe they're not doing it to your liking but that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

And Ian, no disrespect, but this "I essentially got swindled" act is total ****. You can try to pass the buck on Nintendo but you freely gave them your money and continued to do so. You can only get swindled if you accept the terms, if you allow yourself to get swindled. At some point, you should have stopped giving them money for something you were displeased with but you didn't so you don't get to wash your hands of all responsibility. You don't get to complain when you're basically saying, "This sucks but take my money anyway."

So, remain skeptical of Wii U. That's fine. I think that's fair considering how you felt about the Wii. It's certainly a better choice than just blindly dropping hundreds of $ on hardware. "Fool me once, shame on you" right?

If you don't like touch/motion/pointer controls, that's fine. Everyone has different opinions about what feels best, and that's fine. I totally agree that it can be annoying when developers shoehorn novel control schemes into their games instead of finding the best match for that particular game.  But don't act like the Nintendo has introduced with new control schemes were failures or didn't have a permanent effect on how video games are viewed, played, and created.

I agree. Like it or not, motion controls has a place in gaming. It just has to be used appropriately. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[Ian Sane]

Ian,

Are you more concerned with touch controls when they're shoehorned in or just the simple fact that they exist as a quasi-standard on the DS/3DS?

I don't like it when touch or motion controls are shoehorned into games where they don't belong.  I don't like it when games have imprecise controls because of this forced usage and there is no reason for them to not at least provide the option of traditional controls.  If they existed on the system as standard issue I wouldn't care IF Nintendo didn't promote them as a big selling point and thus felt the need to force them into every game to "prove" their worth.

If Nintendo's attitude towards them changed that would be fine.  Same with their attitude towards casuals.  I don't care if casuals play the same system I do or not.  I only care when I feel Nintendo compromises the games normally aimed at me to accomodate the casuals.  Don't bork the Wii hardware or ruin DKC Returns with stupid controls and I wouldn't care.

I disagree with the idea that Nintendo had to go with motion control to survive.  Nintendo's biggest problem was that they constantly shot themselves in the foot and just constantly gave their detractors reasons to reject them.  And they still do that.  They constantly goof up totally avoidable and obvious stuff and nickle and dime their customers on chincy things.  They could have learned from their mistakes and shaped up and I think they would have done fine because they made better games than the other guys.  The Wii was more Nintendo bypassing the need to learn from their mistakes by focusing on a new market that wouldn't notice their flaws.  They found a way where they didn't have to improve (and conveniently admit that they had made mistakes and were wrong).

Essentially there were two paths to take, the one they did, and the one where they just shape up and stop sabotaging themselves with the core market.  I think they could have succeeded financially with either one.  Saying that they were doomed with the core market and had to go to the casuals is actually pretty arrogant.  It's easier for Nintendo to act like the whole thing is hopeless then to admit that it is obtainable if they admit their mistakes and address them.  Though ironically Nintendo is actually admiting they goofed stuff up with the Wii.  They can't ignore their shortcomings forever.  They have to eventually address them or die off.

[Adrock]

I disagree with the idea that Nintendo had to go with motion control to survive.

Nintendo had to rethink their business model because they were getting outplayed. Motion controls wasn't the only option but it's hard to argue that it didn't work. Nintendo only has videogames. They have nothing else to fall back on. Losing market share ultimately means losing money and lots of it in the long run. I'm pretty impressed by Nintendo's ability to think outside the box there.

Where we mainly disagree is that I don't think Nintendo could have marketed what would essentially have just been a Nintendo branded 360. You would buy that and been thrilled. I would have to. However, that doesn't convince people who don't like or play Nintendo games to care. Neither did the Wii but where the Wii succeeded was getting people who didn't play anything to play something. This is Wii U's main issue. Here we have a console built for core appeal but that doesn't mean the core audience is going to give a ****. Nintendo seems to be hoping that the tablet controller can change the experience enough to convince people to care. Personally, I don't know if it's going to work. I'll probably love it but I'm already a Nintendo fan.

[Ian Sane]

I'm just of the idea that it wasn't marketing that was really holding Nintendo back (though their marketing in the Cube era wasn't that hot).  In most direct comparisons the Cube was often inferior to the competition.  So you're almost but not quite as good as the PS2 and Xbox?  Yeah, that's going to sell.  The Cube wasn't the best at ANYTHING and it was often the worst at something.

Nintendo's problems are these:
-They fail to match the features that all of their competitors offer and that are considered industry standard or are clearly where the industry is going (ie: optical discs, online gaming).
-They insist on doing things in some unique Nintendo way, even when there is a standard industry convention that everyone is already used to and likes to use.  While this is good if there is some clear way they can improve things, often the change is arbitrary, like Nintendo doesn't want to admit that anyone else has good ideas so they have to re-invent the wheel every time.
-They treat everyone outside of Nintendo as some sort of threat to their bottom line.  This includes third parties, retailers, the media and their own customers.

Nintendo is probably the best game developer in the entire world.  They also make very reliable products.  Their games are typically bug free and their physical hardware is usually reliable.  Their problem is this arrogance which is the cause of those three issues I listed above.  If they address that, they're set.  They can do it, they just stubbornly refuse to.

[Uncle_Optimus]

Ian, with the Gamecube Nintendo was trying to right the wrongs of the N64 and recapture the market lead using the prevalent industry product strategy: iterate their hardware to be more powerful along expected guidelines and eliminate weaknesses from the previous platform.
The 'Cube was thus of comparable power to its two rivals (and truth be told generally could output superior graphics to the PS2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/858/13) and was made easier to develop for especially after the complex N64 (and this is a characteristic that seems to carry forward in Nintendo's following platforms).

This "sustaining" strategy was a failure.

The brand cachet Sony developed behind Playstation, combined with the BEST third part support, the coveted DVD player functionality and early mover advantage allowed them to blow away their rivals. Meanwhile, MS took enough other customers that didn't want a PS2 while cultivating their XBox brand for future products.

There is no doubt there are some clear deficiencies Nintendo can address that every modern platform is going to need if they want to survive going forward, chief among them a robust online platform strategy.

But achieving this, what else can they do to match their competitors? Whatever they do to "combat their arrogance" and get in line with rivals, history hints that it won't be enough. 
Instead, they have to be different, and the differences likely must include (but are not limited to): being Cheaper AND having a (hopefully) hit controller innovation AND delivering lots of attractive Nintendo games aimed at different or multiple segments AND expanding their platform services beyond what they and their rivals have done (and what new competitors like Apple intend to do).

I am curious what specifically you would have them do?

[Uncle_Optimus]

Oops I think the thread is derailed.
Did I mention that the Steel Diver type of game is really cool with a touchscreen to reproduce a controller panel? If so I probably mentioned that a complex mech-piloting game along the lines of Steel Battalion (but maybe with Robotech jets) would be....noice.

[lolmonade]

Ian, with the Gamecube Nintendo was trying to right the wrongs of the N64 and recapture the market lead using the prevalent industry product strategy: iterate their hardware to be more powerful along expected guidelines and eliminate weaknesses from the previous platform.
The 'Cube was thus of comparable power to its two rivals (and truth be told generally could output superior graphics to the PS2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/858/13) and was made easier to develop for especially after the complex N64 (and this is a characteristic that seems to carry forward in Nintendo's following platforms).

This "sustaining" strategy was a failure.

The brand cachet Sony developed behind Playstation, combined with the BEST third part support, the coveted DVD player functionality and early mover advantage allowed them to blow away their rivals. Meanwhile, MS took enough other customers that didn't want a PS2 while cultivating their XBox brand for future products.

There is no doubt there are some clear deficiencies Nintendo can address that every modern platform is going to need if they want to survive going forward, chief among them a robust online platform strategy.

But achieving this, what else can they do to match their competitors? Whatever they do to "combat their arrogance" and get in line with rivals, history hints that it won't be enough. 
Instead, they have to be different, and the differences likely must include (but are not limited to): being Cheaper AND having a (hopefully) hit controller innovation AND delivering lots of attractive Nintendo games aimed at different or multiple segments AND expanding their platform services beyond what they and their rivals have done (and what new competitors like Apple intend to do).

I am curious what specifically you would have them do?

I started writing up almost exactly what you wrote....Nintendo won't succeed in the market with just a strategy of mimicking the other console features.  They took an alternate strategy with the Wii, and while it may have alienated some people like Ian Sane and some other core gamers, they struck gold financially by generating a new market segment to sell to.
 
I see Wii U as Nintendo trying to walk a tightrope of appeasing core gamers while trying to bring in the casual ipad touch-control users with the U-Mote Tablet controller, and i'm not as sure they'll be successful this console generation because I believe the U-Mote will be too complex for the casual user and people like Ian Sane will wonder why they're paying $400 for a console that isn't a giant leap ahead of PS3/XBOX in tech just so they can use a new remote with a tablet in it.

[Uncle_Optimus]

I hope it's not $400 dollars! If it is, that better at least buy us a multitouch capacitive screen (last I heard its resistive-single)

[Luigi Dude]

The Wii U is not going to be $400.  After the 3DS launch disaster because of the high price, Nintendo is not going to make the Wii's successor $150 more expensive then the Wii was at launch.  At most the Wii U will be $300, which is $50 more then the Wii was at launch like the Wii was $50 more then the Gamecube was at launch..