We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.
Wii

Revolution 'Easy to Port' to, Claims Nintendo

by Steven Rodriguez - December 7, 2005, 10:43 pm PST
Total comments: 92

Revolution controller shouldn't be that much of a problem for multi-platform publishing, says Reggie.

Investment firm UBS is holding its 33rd Annual Global Media Conference this week in New York City. Representatives from just about every major news, information, and entertainment media company got together to talk about industry trends and their visions for the future. The game industry was well-represented with Activision, Atari, Take-Two and Microsoft in attendance, along with Nintendo of America.

Nintendo VP of sales and marketing Reggie Fils-Aime was on hand to explain Nintendo's current situation in the market and plans for the future. The presentation given at the event was virtually a carbon copy of the one given to the gaming media at Nintendo Gamers' Summit a month ago, aside from some updated sales numbers. Nintendogs, for example, has now surpassed 950,000 units sold worldwide, and is sure to hit a million by the end of the year.

Fils-Aime also touched base on Revolution, giving out the same information that we've known since Tokyo Game Show in September. However, Nintendo is now making a new claim about the Revolution. According to the presentation slides shown during his speech, game makers will find that the system will be “easy to port” games to, despite the unique controller interface that Revolution will bring to the table.

When elaborating on that point, Reggie didn't make it sound quite that easy. “Porting games... that's as easy or as complex as any team wants it to be.” He elaborated on the traditional controller shell, stating that developers could simply use that if they wanted to port over a game to Revolution with little effort. “But the most ambitious of the developers,” said Reggie, “will write new code, different code, to allow the controller to be taken into brand new directions.”

Only time will tell exactly how many ports the Nintendo Revolution will get, and whether or not the freestyle pointer or nunchaku controller will work for or against Nintendo in that regard. Add this one onto the list of questions that will finally be answered at E3 2006, when Nintendo will reveal everything there is to know about Revolution.

Talkback

Ian SaneDecember 07, 2005

Well done. About a week ago 1UP had a developer roundtable and the concept of porting came up. And after IGN opened their Revolution section this issue came up again, not just relating to the controller but the hardware itself and how being the "weakest" might make ports harder. So Nintendo addresses this and assures that it's not an issue. Now maybe they were planning on saying this anyway since this was obviously a planning presentation but either way the timing is perfect. If only Nintendo did this sort of thing more often.

Plus this is almost a comfirmation that the shell will be a standard part of the controller. It's not quite one because, well, "third parties can just use the shell" has been a common defense for this issue from fans for a while now and it doesn't actually provide proof that it will be widely supported. But with Nintendo actually saying it it's easier to feel comfortable about. They at least are aware of the issue and plan on using the shell to solve it. It's very encouraging.

WindyManSteven Rodriguez, Staff AlumnusDecember 07, 2005

Oops, forgot to mention that this speech occured on Monday. So the specs speculation hadn't blown up by then.

Remember that Nintendo doesn't feel that the graphics difference between what they've got and what the competition's got isn't going to be that big of the deal. Out of everyone in the world, they're the only ones in the position to make that call, because they're the only ones that can make the comparison. Everyone should remember that.

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Plus this is almost a comfirmation that the shell will be a standard part of the controller. It's not quite one because, well, "third parties can just use the shell" has been a common defense for this issue from fans for a while now and it doesn't actually provide proof that it will be widely supported. But with Nintendo actually saying it it's easier to feel comfortable about. They at least are aware of the issue and plan on using the shell to solve it. It's very encouraging.


Well, I don't know about that. I think Nintendo may be shooting themselves in the foot with this whole controller shell nonsense. I may elaborate on that a bit later.

NephilimDecember 07, 2005

they keep talking about the shell but they havnt confirmed it comes with the console
it makes me worry

Bill AurionDecember 07, 2005

Considering that the shell is just that, a shell, I don't assume it'll be very expensive...Remember that the GC controller is also usable...Either way, it's NOT a big deal...

Well, I don't know about that. I think Nintendo may be shooting themselves in the foot with this whole controller shell nonsense. I may elaborate on that a bit later.

-- That would make an interesting editorial, since I and many others feel the exact opposite.

ArtimusDecember 07, 2005

The shell basically says the new controller is as good as the old, but not a replacement.

People aren't going to buy the Rev to get a game they can get with better graphics on the XBOX or PS3. If third party games largely use the shell, the system will be a major flop.

Why? Because it has more buttons than the remote?

NinGurl69 *hugglesDecember 07, 2005

Cuz there'll be an influx of 3rd party games that offer absolutely nothing new, nor better compared to their originally intended platforms.

BuzzyBeetle333December 07, 2005

Mmm.... Ports!

SarailDecember 07, 2005

Considering how much crap comes out of 3rd parties these days, I think I'll be a-ok if none of that junk ends up on my Revolution. EA can kiss my Nintendo-loving arse for all I care.

Flames_of_chaosLukasz Balicki, Staff AlumnusDecember 07, 2005

I still think its a neat idea that the rev remote is still active while its in the shell so maybe some 3rd party may comeup that uses a standard control scheme but with the rev wand mechanics or in some sence a enhanced port with the unique mechanics.

couchmonkeyDecember 08, 2005

I'd be more comfortable if he were saying that there's a quick and easy way to convert traditional controls to the new system. That's wishful thinking, to a degree, but it would be nice if Nintendo offered some recipes for developers wanting to port, say, an FPS to the Rev.

Instead he's saying use the shell, which comforts me because some clownboat in that roundtable implied that Nintendo is forcing devs to map the controls to the non-traditional controller, but makes me anxious because it means Rev third party support may be limited mainly to graphically inferior ports of 360 and PS3 games. To be honest, I do want some of those - I'd love to have a new Street Fighter with traditional controls, for instance - but I don't want dumbed-down ports to be 90% of the third party support. I think that's the reason some people are annoyed about the controller shell: it allows developers to stick to old control schemes and sends mixed messages to consumers about the new controller's importance.

Bill AurionDecember 08, 2005

"I'd be more comfortable if he were saying that there's a quick and easy way to convert traditional controls to the new system."

Retro took TWO weeks to implement Rev controls to a traditional game...Sounds rather quick to me...

I'll probably say this many times in the next few months, but on the power issue, remember that the GameCube was considered vastly underpowered before we first saw games for it. We interviewed Denis Dyack that year and he said that were worried at first, but they kept pushing the system harder and harder, and it kept performing better and better. I expect that Revolution, even if it is the weakest system overall, will be much more powerful than the specs would lead you to believe, and that may be exactly why Nintendo does not plan to release the specs at all.

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"Oops, forgot to mention that this speech occured on Monday. So the specs speculation hadn't blown up by then."

Ah dang. You're ruining this feeling I got.

"People aren't going to buy the Rev to get a game they can get with better graphics on the XBOX or PS3."

You're assuming that any Rev game that uses the shell is a port. Why can't someone make an exclusive game for the Rev that uses traditional controls? For all we know Nintendo themselves will release some games like that. In fact I'd prefer it. I don't want to adapt to an unfamiliar control scheme for SSB when the existing one works perfectly fine the way it is.

There are two problems with the shell. The first is just the very fact that they even need one. If your controller is so different and weird that you're not confident that all games will work on it then you designed a pretty lousy controller. You don't just toss standard functionality off willy-nilly unless you're absolutely sure it is being replaced. The remote isn't the future of gaming if they need the shell. It's just a nifty novelty controller like a dance pad or a lightgun. Now I'm not saying they should ditch the shell because I think they need it. I'm saying the remote shouldn't be so restrictive that they need one in the first place.

Second they absolutely HAVE to include the shell with every controller. The shell and the remote together should be the standard: one controller with two pieces. And Nintendo should have shown both at the same time. If the shell doesn't come with each controller no third party will support it because the entire userbase won't have it and no one is going to make a game that uses standard controller design that can only be used by a portion of the userbase. Not when the Rev is by default the last place console and the competition ensures that 100% of their userbases uses the standard design. Cube controllers don't work either for the same reason. Sure we have them but no one who buys a Rev but didn't own a Cube will. Calling it the "shell" is a mistake in itself just because it suggests that it's an accessory. Both parts should be the standard. The remote just provides something different but the shell and the remote provides everything the competition has plus MORE.

I think Nintendo has become so focused on being different from the competition that they've completely missed the fact that they have the opportunity to both match the competition and offer something different at the same time. That could give them a huge advantage and they're totally ignoring it. Instead they're just the oddball.

"You don't just toss standard functionality off willy-nilly unless you're absolutely sure it is being replaced. The remote isn't the future of gaming if they need the shell."

I look at the shell like a security blanket. It's Nintendo's way of easing people into using the new controller that have been raised on the XBox/PS2 standard.

PaLaDiNDecember 08, 2005

Ian, the two parts of your argument conflict. If they include the shell with every controller, people will think the same thing you are, that they need the old controller design because the new one isn't good enough.

There's a reason everyone is assuming that the shell will only be used by ports, and the reason is that some developers are lazy and will not exert the effort of trying to make their games more intuitive for simple ports. Any other reason for using the old controller would mean the death of the new one.

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"It's Nintendo's way of easing people into using the new controller that have been raised on the XBox/PS2 standard."

Ironically it's actually Nintendo's standard we've been raised on.

"If they include the shell with every controller, people will think the same thing you are, that they need the old controller design because the new one isn't good enough."

I felt that way before I even heard of the shell. The second I saw the remote I thought it wasn't good enough.

PaLaDiNDecember 08, 2005

"I felt that way before I even heard of the shell. The second I saw the remote I thought it wasn't good enough."

Okay, fair enough. I think most everybody who's seen the controller and hasn't played it yet had that impression at first.

There are people who do think it's good enough though. Nintendo using/relying extensively on the shell would tell them "sorry, we led you on, this new controller thing isn't working out." What's the point of trusting in the new controller if even Nintendo itself doesn't?

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"What's the point of trusting in the new controller if even Nintendo itself doesn't?"

Well that's the point. Nintendo doesn't trust in the new controller. Therefore it's a lousy design that they never should have gone with in the first place. They can't suddenly get confident in their design and it will all be cool. There's a reason they aren't and that can't go away if they get rid of the shell. I'm not confident in it, I already know they're not confident in it either, and that means it's not a new standard and it should be and it won't become one just because Nintendo forces it to be.

PaLaDiNDecember 08, 2005

Wait, what?

Nintendo seems plenty trusting in their new controller... what are you talking about?

BlackNMild2k1December 08, 2005

The point of the new controller is not to be able to play traditional (read: standard) games in a tradional way, thats the point of the shell. The point of the new controller is to play new and very untraditional games in new and very untradional ways, and with a little creativity it can be adapted to play some existing franchises in new and intuitive ways.

If nintendo wasn't confident in their remote controller then why would they make it the center piece of the Rev so far? If they weren't 100% confident in anything, I would guess that it is the specs(in comparison to the competition), not the controller, which is the talk of all the developers that mention the Rev.

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"Nintendo seems plenty trusting in their new controller... what are you talking about?"

They have a shell available to play traditional games. If they were confident that this remote design they wouldn't bother with one because there's no need. A real standard should be able to adapt to all previous games that used the standard controllers of the past. You said that the problem with the shell is that if Nintendo pushes it too hard then people are going to assume they don't trust it. I'm going a step further and saying that they very fact that they even made one shows they don't trust it.

Or I guess it's possible that NCL trusts it (actually that's very likely) but some third parties and likely some NOA execs don't and thus they came up with the shell to please them. But even then, the very fact that they have to make a shell to appease these people should be a big alarm going off in NCL's heads.

KnowsNothingDecember 08, 2005

I don't think Nintendo should even make a controller for the Revolution, then no one will complain about it.

PaLaDiNDecember 08, 2005

Actually I think it's just to simplify porting for lazy devs, so they don't have an excuse like "we couldn't bother figuring out how to convert it to the Rev". Ports have been canned from the GC for less.

Nintendo is definitely confident in their new controller though... hell they're gambling pretty much everything on this controller.

odifiendDecember 08, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Nintendo seems plenty trusting in their new controller... what are you talking about?"

They have a shell available to play traditional games. If they were confident that this remote design they wouldn't bother with one because there's no need. A real standard should be able to adapt to all previous games that used the standard controllers of the past. You said that the problem with the shell is that if Nintendo pushes it too hard then people are going to assume they don't trust it. I'm going a step further and saying that they very fact that they even made one shows they don't trust it.

Or I guess it's possible that NCL trusts it (actually that's very likely) but some third parties and likely some NOA execs don't and thus they came up with the shell to please them. But even then, the very fact that they have to make a shell to appease these people should be a big alarm going off in NCL's heads.


Ian, my man, what are we going to do with you? Why don't you dig out that analog stick vs. digital pad argument/defense you have saved in Microsoft Word somewhere and apply it to the new controller. For somebody who always talks about Nintendo not being an 'AND' company, the shell (if it is packed in) is the perfect solution.

WindyMan, when is later?

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"For somebody who always talks about Nintendo not being an 'AND' company, the shell (if it is packed in) is the perfect solution."

It IS a perfect solution... if handled correctly. That's my original point and I've gotten sidetracked by all this talk about how having the shell sends the message that the remote isn't good enough. That's correct. It does send that message and if that's a big deal then maybe Nintendo should have put more thought into the Rev controller.

ArtimusDecember 08, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Nintendo seems plenty trusting in their new controller... what are you talking about?"

They have a shell available to play traditional games. If they were confident that this remote design they wouldn't bother with one because there's no need. A real standard should be able to adapt to all previous games that used the standard controllers of the past. You said that the problem with the shell is that if Nintendo pushes it too hard then people are going to assume they don't trust it. I'm going a step further and saying that they very fact that they even made one shows they don't trust it.

Or I guess it's possible that NCL trusts it (actually that's very likely) but some third parties and likely some NOA execs don't and thus they came up with the shell to please them. But even then, the very fact that they have to make a shell to appease these people should be a big alarm going off in NCL's heads.


I think you, Ian, are the reason they have a shell. You and people like you who use every single possible thing you can to rip apart the Revolution. If they didn't have a shell then you'd say they were abanoning every current gamer. Now that they do you say they don't believe in the new idea.

ANSWER me this question: Do you or do you not understand that Nintendo is not interested in the stauts quo?

Because it comes down to that: they don't want to do the things you bitch and moan they should. Plain and simple. Yet you do not seem to get that. I wish Matt at IGN would come and kick your face in.

KDR_11kDecember 08, 2005

Now I'm not saying they should ditch the shell because I think they need it. I'm saying the remote shouldn't be so restrictive that they need one in the first place.

I don't think that's really possible. While they might be able to stuff the rod full of buttons it wouldn't be comfortable for use as a traditional controler without grips and grips would compromise the rod's primary function. The shell design allows them to optimize each addon for its purpose instead of having to account for other purposes as well.

Look at the NGage (or most other convergence devices). The thing has a horrible form factor because it has to work for so many purposes and each purpose conflicts with another one. E.g. it needs the speaker and mic to work as a phone but as a game machine it need s buttons and a dpad in those places. That got us sidetalking. Or the numpad. That's horribly confusing for games but absolutely necessary to work as a cellphone. Try it with other devices. Use the GC controller to point at things. Try to hold a DS like a telephone. Or think of arcade sticks, flight sticks, racing wheels and gamepads. Fewer purposes means fewer design goals and therefore lower chance of conflicting goals. Nintendo wants a controller that's both intuitive for newbies and familiar for regulars. That's mutually exclusive. They could have made a hybrid that noone is happy with or they can do what they do which is offer the ability to make the controller adapt to your (or the developer's) preferences.

As for "replacing earlier standards": PCs have shipped for years with CD drives, then writers, then DVD writers yet they still included the 3.5" floppy drive (I think most manufacturers don't include them nowadays but it took nearly ten years to phase them out). Why? CD ROM was the new standard and great and everything but for some purposes the 3.5" floppy was superior. But instead of making some ugly chimera of a technology they went for a medium that does not 100% replace the earlier one but offers huge advantages nonetheless. If they had insisted that CDs are just as writable as floppies, the technology would have been a lot messier and taken much longer to gain a foothold.

Bill AurionDecember 08, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
That's my original point and I've gotten sidetracked by all this talk about how having the shell sends the message that the remote isn't good enough. That's correct. It does send that message and if that's a big deal then maybe Nintendo should have put more thought into the Rev controller.

Nintendo can't win, they are doomed! Let's totally squash hopes for new gameplay by just doing more of the same! Thank GOD you aren't running the show...

steveyDecember 08, 2005

"they keep talking about the shell but they havnt confirmed it comes with the console
it makes me worry "

Relaxs they confirmed that a long time ago at the IWATATON!!!

Ian SaneDecember 08, 2005

"Let's totally squash hopes for new gameplay by just doing more of the same!"

At least I don't think that gaming as it is is dead. If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional controller then they're no longer the brilliant game designers they were and might as well just quit.

"Do you or do you not understand that Nintendo is not interested in the status quo?"

Oh I see that and that's a big reason why I'm complaining. I think this direction they're going in will be their downfall and thus as a fan I'm pretty upset about that. The only way I can see it succeeding is if this non-gamer strategy works but then as a "real" gamer I'm left out in the cold. With Nintendo's plan I see either Nintendo dying or Nintendo turning into something that doesn't consider me part of their audience anymore. I don't want either to happen so I'm going to be vocal about what I think is taking them down those paths.

"I don't think that's really possible. While they might be able to stuff the rod full of buttons it wouldn't be comfortable for use as a traditional controler without grips and grips would compromise the rod's primary function. The shell design allows them to optimize each addon for its purpose instead of having to account for other purposes as well."

That's true. It is a flexible design provided the shell is included with every controller. But that's a big "if" and I think it alone could make a huge difference in the Rev's success. It's hard to think that Nintendo will provide the flexibility needed thought just because they've been inflexible dickheads since the N64. To me it's more expected for Nintendo to force the remote on us as the standard than to include both parts.

"Thank GOD you aren't running the show"

Bill if I was running the show Nintendo would never have given you the idea that a new controller is a requirement for new gameplay or that non-gamers need to be targetted or that HD is bad or that a remote is even a good idea and thus you wouldn't care.

KnowsNothingDecember 08, 2005

snapshot20051105215107.jpg

Hostile CreationDecember 08, 2005

Ian, your logic is totally flawed. First you complain about the new controller. Nintendo provides a shell because they realize it's impractical to jump straight into an entirely new medium of control. Many developers, Nintendo included, will make plenty of games using the new controller.
Also, Nintendo is utterly capable of making games with a standard controller, better games than most other developers are making. However, they're the only people in the industry who create hardware and are willing to innovate and take a risk. Plenty of developers innovate in their games, and Nintendo does as well, but Nintendo is the only company that's willing to broaden the field of gaming and our minds as gamers.

That's no goddamn reason to complain.

ShyGuyDecember 08, 2005

Ian, would you be really happy if Nintendo went third party?

denjet78December 08, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Bill if I was running the show Nintendo would never have given you the idea that a new controller is a requirement for new gameplay or that non-gamers need to be targetted or that HD is bad or that a remote is even a good idea and thus you wouldn't care.


It sounds to me like you also would have never thought of a crosspad, or a diamond button layout, or shoulder buttons, or force feedback, or anologue control because they weren't "needed" before they were introduced to mainstream gaming now were they? It wasn't until Nintendo decided to impliment those changes, the same type of changes that you're arguing against now, that gamers came to realize that there was more out there. Until we see how Nintendo's choices play out you're really only arguing semantics now aren't you... especially if Sony decides to jump the shark and throw 3D motion sensing into the PS3 controller. Remember how after the Rev controller was shown that Sony came out and declared that the controller they had shown previously wasn't the finished unit? You're going to tell me that wasn't a reactionary statement? What was there to react to if this new controller is such a dead end?

Either way you're showing the true signs of a human being: Fear of the Unknown.

And as for the shell... Can anyone else realize that they need it for other purposes besides 3rd party ports? I mean, maybe it's also meant to be used to play old games with? You know, the whole "virtual console" thing? Anyone remember that? Besides, Nintendo's always kept full functionality from previous generations in it's controllers, all the way back to the NES. And remember what happened the last time Nintendo tried to remove a depreciated controller component, the d-pad, from the GC controller? Almost EVERYONE had a heartattack!

But it really seems that no matter what they do, they're never going to win. They come out with a completely new controller that makes gaming 10x more intuitive but developers are actually going to have to "THINK" about how to use it. They're doomed. They announce a shell that makes it compatable with not only the other two consoles but also alows you to use the "virtual console". They're sending mixed signals! They don't really believe in their new controller! Still doomed.

Really, from a casual observer your argument seems to be: "Nintendo isn't Sony! They're doomed!" or "Nintendo isn't Microsoft! They're doomed!" Which basically breaks down to: "Nintendo hasn't sold out gaming! They're doomed!"

Me personally, I don't care what 3rd parties do with the system. They can bite me for all I care, the level of tripe they force feed the gaming market now a days and people eat it up like it's caviar. I don't care how many triangles it can push or how many textures it can layer or even how much RAM it has. It's going to have NINTENDO games and it's going to have a completely new and intreaging interface. I'm practically wetting myself in anticipation here.

Every time Nintendo's adds a new feature to their controllers, its become standard industry wide. I don't see anything to worry about... well, other than if you're looking for something to worry about.

*steps down from soapbox*

Bill AurionDecember 08, 2005

Quote

But it really seems that no matter what they do, they're never going to win. They come out with a completely new controller that makes gaming 10x more intuitive but developers are actually going to have to "THINK" about how to use it. They're doomed. They announce a shell that makes it compatable with not only the other two consoles but also alows you to use the "virtual console". They're sending mixed signals! They don't really believe in their new controller! Still doomed.

It's an Ian wet-dream...

wanderingDecember 08, 2005

"At least I don't think that gaming as it is is dead. If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional controller then they're no longer the brilliant game designers they were and might as well just quit."

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional arcade standard of shooting enemies instead of jumping on them then they're not brilliant game designers and might as well just quit.

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional single screen instead of 2 (Game and Watch) then they're not brilliant game designers and might as well just quit.

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional controller with a single joystick and a single button then they're not the brilliant game designers they once were and might as well just quit.

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using the traditional d-pad and 2 button scheme then they're not the brilliant game designers they once were and might as well just quit.

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using the traditional d-pad instead of some sparkling innovationy analogue stick, then they're not the brilliant designers they once were and might as well just quit.

If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using the traditional one screen standard for portables instead ot some gimicky dual-screen touch-screen enabled design, then they're not the brilliant designers they once were and might as well just quit.

Well put wandering. Innovation occurs as much on the hardware side as it does on the software side.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

PaLaDiNDecember 08, 2005

I don't think Ian would be happy if Nintendo went third party.

He's fine with Nintendo innovating hardware as long as they don't innovate it in a way he doesn't like.

KDR_11kDecember 08, 2005

At least I don't think that gaming as it is is dead. If Nintendo can't think of new ideas using a traditional controller then they're no longer the brilliant game designers they were and might as well just quit.

1. Nintendo's design process for controllers reportedly works by having developers file requests for controller features with game ideas attached and if enough requests are made a feature is implemented. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo had a huge stack of game ideas doable with the rod by now.

2. Nintendo alone cannot keep the system up and "yet another generic console except it's by Nintendo" wouldn't catch much attention with third parties. Additionally, third parties, especially EA, like to keep their games low-risk. They'll reuse proven formulas ad nauseum. By changing the controller and giving the Revolution the public perception of a system for new kinds of games the old "this is safe" paradigmas get thrown out and third parties start thinking about new types of games because they aren't sure the old formulas will sell as well as they previously did. Nintendo is shaking up the publishers, not the controls.

3. Next-gen is turning out rather underwhelming. People expect a huge step forward when they shell out the money for new hardware and the x360 has made lots of people unhappy because it delivered only a small step. Even the mainstream media is panning the system!

I don't care how many triangles it can push or how many textures it can layer or even how much RAM it has.

Personally I DO care how much RAM it has because more RAM == larger game world in memory == larger draw distance and larger range of interaction (ever played a game from the X series? The entire universe keeps moving no matter where you are. Streaming can't make up for that).

mantidorDecember 09, 2005

how can the GC render games like the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess when its RAM is so small?

KDR_11kDecember 09, 2005

We don't know how large the gameworld in TP will be but for Wind Waker it's easy: It loads only one island into memory, the rest is just sprites or VERY simplified versions of the islands. And nothing happens on the other islands while you are gone. The system doesn't simulate e.g. a monster attack at some far off island while you're shopping in Port Monee (whatever that's called in the english version). While that's fine for a static world like Wind Waker's, it'd make games like X much less interesting.

ShyGuyDecember 09, 2005

I donno, those little buggers in Animal Crossing do all sorts of crap even when I have the disc and memory card out of the system. Nintendo magic this is...

couchmonkeyDecember 09, 2005

Quote

"Retro took TWO weeks to implement Rev controls to a traditional game...Sounds rather quick to me...
"

It does sound good, but it may not sound as good to a developer trying to cram a title onto several systems within a one-year development cycle (see Prince of Persia), and those who played the Metroid Prime II demo mentioned that it had occassional bugs. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few extra weeks of tweaking and bug-stomping to do on the controls. Not to mention Retro probably has access to developer support from Nintendo that third party developers could only dream of.

I don't want to be too pessimistic, but I really feel that unless the system matches or outsells the other two, third parties are going to be hesitant to throw multiplatform support at the Revoution.

Bill AurionDecember 09, 2005

You make it sound like that's something new to us... face-icon-small-tongue.gif

Seriously, it won't be getting any worse than it is now...

Ian SaneDecember 09, 2005

"It sounds to me like you also would have never thought of a crosspad, or a diamond button layout, or shoulder buttons, or force feedback, or anologue control because they weren't 'needed' before they were introduced to mainstream gaming now were they?"

I thought all of those ideas were brilliant the second I saw them. Ever since I saw Kirby's Tilt 'n' Tumble I thought "they gotta put motion control into a standard controller". But the remote doesn't just add to what's there like Nintendo's previous controllers did. It takes away previously standard features. We basically have an NES controller with motion control. Nintendo's taking a step forward after taking three steps back. Now if the shell and the remote together were the standard then it would be different. It would be like taking what's there and adding a removable motion sensor wand. Maybe in the end that's what we'll get but Nintendo has only really pushed the remote thus far.

"Additionally, third parties, especially EA, like to keep their games low-risk. They'll reuse proven formulas ad nauseum. By changing the controller and giving the Revolution the public perception of a system for new kinds of games the old 'this is safe' paradigmas get thrown out and third parties start thinking about new types of games because they aren't sure the old formulas will sell as well as they previously did."

That's a pipe dream. Third parties won't abandon the "safe" designs because those will still sell on the much more successful competing consoles. Nintendo doesn't have enough "hand" in the industry to throw out an old standard and introduce a completely new one. If a developer has to think about how to get their game to play on the Rev and it's the last place console anyway why should they even bother? Nintendo can add to what's there but only the market leader could try to drop an existing standard.

odifiendDecember 09, 2005

Ian, the market starts over every generation. By default, Xbox360 is the next gen market leader right now. In fact according to reports, the Sony is making it pretty uncomfortable for developers with regards to the PS3. Most PS3 news lately has talked about how developers are dropping it for the Xbox360. Add to that factors such as Sony will mostly likely be forced to sell it higher than the core Xbox360 due to its BluRay player, and already we are gearing up for a shift in power in the so called 'console wars'. Add to that the investment required for 3rd parties to compete with monster 3rd parties like EA who will be sinking tens of millions in their PS3 and Xbox360 games. To assume that Nintendo can't force a shift when the the alternative to the Revolution's familiar hardware is Sony's complex cell and the Xbox360's multiprocessor is being delusional.

Ian SaneDecember 09, 2005

"Ian, the market starts over every generation."

Not really. Momentum from the previous generation directly affects the next one. Nintendo had very little momentum going in with the Cube because the N64 ended with such a whimper and it made it harder for the Cube to get out of its shadow. The Xbox 360 has a lot of momentum because the Xbox just kept going up since it launched. The DS survived a horrible launch because the GBA was so successful. People typically follow the trends. Nintendo's market share is dropping so the assumption for consumers and publishers is that that trend is going to continue and the Rev is not going to have a chance at doing any better than the Cube next gen. It's kind of unfair but that's just how it works. It takes a lot of effort to change people's expectations.

odifiendDecember 09, 2005

Momentum influences next gen sales, yes, but regardless of the Playstation 2 selling 80 million systems, how many systems has the PS3 sold? Nintendo has proved that alienating 3rd parties can stop any accumulated momentum. Using recent reports, I predict the same for Sony meaning this gen's market leader has little bearing on next gen.

Avinash_TyagiDecember 09, 2005

So far this argument has been centered around why the shell isn needed and whether it shows the Revwand as being inferior.

What's not being taken into account is how this in fact makes the Revwand superior to all other controls, because while the Revwand can control games found not only on all other consoles, it can also control other types of games not found on any other console, its far more versatile than the 360 or PS3 controllers in that regard, because any game found on those systems are possible on the REV, but many games found on the Rev will not be possible on those systems.

As for the fear that most 3rd parties will use the shell only, so what? Who buys nintendo systems for third party games?

People buy Nintendo for Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, Metroid, Pikmin, Nintendogs and so on. And you'd better realize that nintendo games will not use the shell.

Third parties are there to fill the gaps between first party titles and if the Shell is needed to keep them around so be it, but the big draw will still be the ninty made games, lets also not forget that some devs are more daring an willing to try to dev for the wand, and that many more will follow after ninty shows them how its done.

So basically the whole people won't buy the Rev to play downgraded versions of PS3 and 360 games is perfectly right, they won't, but they wouldn't anyways, they'll buy it to play Zelda, Mario, AC, etc.

Ian SaneDecember 09, 2005

"What's not being taken into account is how this in fact makes the Revwand superior to all other controls, because while the Revwand can control games found not only on all other consoles, it can also control other types of games not found on any other console, its far more versatile than the 360 or PS3 controllers in that regard, because any game found on those systems are possible on the REV, but many games found on the Rev will not be possible on those systems."

I agree with that. But Nintendo isn't really promoting that. It's widely assumed the shell is just for ports.

"Who buys nintendo systems for third party games?"

Ten years ago when Nintendo was a relevent force in gaming a lot of people did. Nintendo's problems are all because people have adopted this attitude that a Ninendo console is just for Nintendo games. Why else do many third party games on the Cube flop? And I'm not just talking about crummy ports. There are good third party games that get ignored.

KDR_11kDecember 09, 2005

I have to agree with Ian on that, you don't buy a system for Nintendo games, you buy it for games. If this boils down to "Nintendo or the rest of the industry" I wouldn't side with Nintendo. I bought the Cube because I wanted games that differ from what I played on the PC. Ended up buying a PS2 because the Cube didn't offer enough. Now I'm no longer even really looking at the GC shelf in stores because I know there are no really interesting games coming out for the system anymore. The PS2 on the other hand is getting lots of support. I have bought two Cube games this year and the system is gathering dust most of the time. That shouldn't happen. And that's the problem if you have only Nintendo giving the platform any real support.

Hostile CreationDecember 09, 2005

"We basically have an NES controller with motion control. Nintendo's taking a step forward after taking three steps back."

Wow, that's stunningly idiotic. How is providing the next step toward completely immersive games (which will have NO buttons at all) taking three steps back? I fail to recognize the correlation. Would adding twelve buttons to the controller be a more reasonable solution, making games even more complex and alienating? Further running the moronic "gamer" perspective deeper into the ditch it's dug itself into?

The only reason we had controllers and buttons in the first place is because we weren't capable of providing immersive technology.

GoldenPhoenixDecember 09, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I have to agree with Ian on that, you don't buy a system for Nintendo games, you buy it for games. If this boils down to "Nintendo or the rest of the industry" I wouldn't side with Nintendo. I bought the Cube because I wanted games that differ from what I played on the PC. Ended up buying a PS2 because the Cube didn't offer enough. Now I'm no longer even really looking at the GC shelf in stores because I know there are no really interesting games coming out for the system anymore. The PS2 on the other hand is getting lots of support. I have bought two Cube games this year and the system is gathering dust most of the time. That shouldn't happen. And that's the problem if you have only Nintendo giving the platform any real support.



That is funny, for me it is the other way around. In fact I sold my PS2 because of the lack of unique or even fun games, all I see when I go to the PS2 section is alot of mainstream games like GTA, which I really do not care about. The only game I care to play for it is SoC, but I am not buying a PS2 just for one game.

Bill AurionDecember 09, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
The only reason we had controllers and buttons in the first place is because we weren't capable of providing immersive technology.

Quoted for freaking truth...

ssj4_androidDecember 09, 2005

I call BS on being easy to port to. I'd think going from one system to one a half or a third as powerful as the rest won't be easy. Third parties developed for the lowest common denominator with the PS2. But with Nintendo, and a system so much weaker than the rest, I don't see that happening. And, there do seem to be quite a few smaller game developers releasing games on Live Arcade.

KDR_11kDecember 09, 2005

That is funny, for me it is the other way around. In fact I sold my PS2 because of the lack of unique or even fun games

Compared to the PC market the PS2 is filled to the brim with innovation.

Avinash_TyagiDecember 10, 2005

Quote

Ten years ago when Nintendo was a relevent force in gaming a lot of people did. Nintendo's problems are all because people have adopted this attitude that a Ninendo console is just for Nintendo games. Why else do many third party games on the Cube flop? And I'm not just talking about crummy ports. There are good third party games that get ignored.


Not really, the good third party games, Soul calibur 2, RE4, Viewtiful Joe, etc. sold better on the cube than on the PS2 or Xbox, so when a good third party game arrives people pick it up.

the problem is most third party games released on the cube are crap on a stick at best, and then people wonder why third party games flop.

wanderingDecember 10, 2005

Quote

I thought all of those ideas were brilliant the second I saw them. Ever since I saw Kirby's Tilt 'n' Tumble I thought "they gotta put motion control into a standard controller". But the remote doesn't just add to what's there like Nintendo's previous controllers did. It takes away previously standard features. We basically have an NES controller with motion control.


I'm not sure, Ian, how you couild be happy with the n64 controller but not happy with the REV controller... becasue the n64 controller was almost as big of a departure. With the n64, they replaced the d-pad with a hard-to-use analogue stick (oh, I know they allowed the use of a d-pad on the controller....by utilizing a multi-pring solution that was far more clumsy and confusing than the multi-attachment solution they're using for the rev, but that's beside the point. The point is, you couldn't, say, play Mario 64 with a d-pad if you wanted to.) And, they replaced the snes' diamond button configuration with 2 primary buttons and what was essentially a second d-pad. And, they removed the long-standard select button. The psx controller was a natural evolution of the snes pad...the n64 controller was, on the other hand, a huge departure.

Of course, if you look closely, almost all of NIntendo's controllers have been huge departures from the norm. The only consistant 'standard' Nintendo has utilized in nearly every one of their controllers/handhelds has been the a and b buttons. Everything else has always traditionally been fair game. With the snes, they gave us the x and y buttons, which were intentionally colored and off-set in such a way so as to make clear they were secondary, in addition to the standard a and b. With the N64, Nintendo replaced the x and y buttons with 4 small c-buttons that were intended more for camera control than action. With the cube, Nintendo replaced the c buttons with 2 secondary, grey, bean-shaped x and y buttons, and added another analogue stick for camera control. With the rev, Nintendo is replacing the x and y buttons again with a d-pad, and is replacing the secondary analogue stick with motion control. Oh the humanity!

IN ADDITION, realizing that a small minority won't be content with the drastic, unbearable change from 6 action buttons, a d-pad, the z-button and 2 analogue sticks to 5 action buttons, a d-pad, 1 analogue stick, and motion control - Nintendo is also providing a traditional shell that mimics the functionality of old school controllers. This in the fine tradition of the n64 controller, which had the unecessary but appreciated addition of a third prong with an old-school d-pad.

So, really, Ian, what on earth is the problem? If Nintendo had replaced the cube controller with a motion controlled wand with no buttons whatsover I could see the merit of your complaints....but, as it stands, does the loss of 2 buttons REALLY mean that much to you?

Quote

Now if the shell and the remote together were the standard then it would be different. It would be like taking what's there and adding a removable motion sensor wand. Maybe in the end that's what we'll get but Nintendo has only really pushed the remote thus far.

What does it matter? The setup you suggest would give devs the option of using either a standard controller + motion control setup and freestyle motion control setup. Since developers already have the option of using both of these setups (as well as the undoutably superior wand + nunchaku setup), why do you care what Nintendo 'pushes'? Developers have the ability to use whatever they feel is best for their games, isn't that what you'd consider to be the important thing?

BiLdItUp1December 10, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Quote

Ten years ago when Nintendo was a relevent force in gaming a lot of people did. Nintendo's problems are all because people have adopted this attitude that a Nintendo console is just for Nintendo games. Why else do many third party games on the Cube flop? And I'm not just talking about crummy ports. There are good third party games that get ignored.


Not really, the good third party games, Soul calibur 2, RE4, Viewtiful Joe, etc. sold better on the cube than on the PS2 or Xbox, so when a good third party game arrives people pick it up.

the problem is most third party games released on the cube are crap on a stick at best, and then people wonder why third party games flop.



Let's be honest - SC2 sold more because of Link; and RE4 was a flop on the cube as far as I know, or at least, it didn't sell the million+ copies it was capable of, and I'm sure it sold more on PS2 - unless you could give me a link proving me wrong. Viewtiful Joe I don't know about.

But let's be honest - if somethign isn't as groundbreaking as the three games you mentioned, does that mean they could be automatically filed under 'crap?' That seems to be implicitly what you're saying here. There are other games, which I'm sure Ian will be all too happy to list for you, that were ignored because of the perception that Nintendo systems are for Nintendo games, which was only introduced with the n64/Dream Team-related BS. And then pointing to SC2 to justify farming out IP to make things better only makes the perception worse, I suppose.

The perception that third-parties are somehow all inferior to Nintendo - and I'm speaking of the Nintendo of today - just because they are third parties is wrong, discriminatory even. And I don't know how encouraging Nintendo has been to change this idea. Marketing for an exclusive third party GC game, I believe, has never really happened on a large scale.

All that crap said - as a casual gamer, I'm pretty happy with the Cube. I probably play games far less than most people on the site, so game draughts aren't an issue for me. Still, I wish it could have been like the PS2 content-wise, and I'm not sure that Nintendo is doing all they can to make that happen, or if it's even one of their goals.

ArtimusDecember 10, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
Let's be honest - SC2 sold more because of Link; and RE4 was a flop on the cube as far as I know, or at least, it didn't sell the million+ copies it was capable of, and I'm sure it sold more on PS2 - unless you could give me a link proving me wrong. Viewtiful Joe I don't know about.


Viewtiful Joe DEFINITELY sold better, like 5 times more at least. RE4 sold much better in America on the GCN (500,000 or so to what'll be less than 200,000 on the PS2) but better on the PS2 in japan (probably similar numbers, in reverse). SC2 may have sold more because of Link, but both the other consoles had exclusive characters too.

BlackNMild2k1December 10, 2005

If I remember right RE4 GC has sold >1million worldwide and RE4 PS2 has sold <350,000 in the US & Jap(no idea about Euro), but it just came out in Japan about a week or so ago.

BiLdItUp1December 10, 2005

Maybe the games listed then are anomalies, because we could safely say that most third party games sell worse on Cube than other consoles, even though it's installed base difference between it and xbox is only 1 or 2 mil. at best in the US.

As for RE4 PS2 selling less - know that I think about it, it makes sense, since its been out for far less time and has a lot more to compete with. RE4 is one of the only games of its kind on GC, but it's lost in a sea of other action/horror type games available on PS2, even though those games may be inferior.

Link is more popular among GameCube owners than Heihachi among PS2 owners or Spawn among Xbox owners.

On Viewtiful Joe flunking on PS2 - I don't know if I could explain that. Maybe because of the competition thing again, but I think it's because different games sell well on GC than on PS2; GC gamers may be fundamentally different than PS2 gamers. Or something. I dunno, I don't wanna think right now. Gnight.

ArtimusDecember 10, 2005

Anyone else think Katamary Damacy was far better suited to GCN? Not to mention the DS...

Stimutacs AddictDecember 10, 2005

yes but the ps2 is omnipresent this generation. if you are going to publish a game then you are a fool to not consider the ps2.

GoldenPhoenixDecember 10, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
That is funny, for me it is the other way around. In fact I sold my PS2 because of the lack of unique or even fun games

Compared to the PC market the PS2 is filled to the brim with innovation.


Like what? I hate when people use arguments like "Well I have a ton of reasons", all I want is some examples of unique and FUN games. None of the big name games are innovative, except for a couple like Shadow of the Collossus and Ico (though even they weren't big). All I see on the PS2 is a bunch of RPGs, ports, mainstream series like FF, MGS, GTA and racing games none of which I care about (I buy all the ports for Xbox). My PS2 gathered dust for 1 year because of the lack of games that I cared about that were solely on PS2.

KDR_11kDecember 10, 2005

There's been a long time since the PC had any game like Final Fantasy. MGS and GTA I don't care about and I think those are available for the PC, too. On the PC it's all FPS, RTS, mediocre Adventure or MMORPG. Even the traditional D&D RPG is dying out and the differences between those other PC games are shrinking (Doom 3 is exactly the same as Half Life 2, FEAR or Quake 4, RTSes except for Perimeter are feeling more and more alike too, MMORPGs aren't fun in first place). Sure, many PS2 games may be standard fare for consoles but hell, I never had a PS1 so I don't care (and we're comparing it to the PC market).

Out of my small collection of games there are many that have no somewhat recent PC complements (the ones not listed are 2d fighters, the PC has TONS of those): Project Zero, Rez*, Nightshade, Final Fantasy X, Crimson Tears*, Tekken 5, Star Ocean: Till The End Of Time, Gungrave: Overdose, Dead Or Alive 2*, Xenosaga Ep. 2. Whether you find any of those fun is your choice but Katamari Damacy and God Of War seem to be very popular and fun games as well (both of which aren't sold in this country).

*= I know those suck but there are no PC titles like them.

Hostile CreationDecember 11, 2005

" Anyone else think Katamary Damacy was far better suited to GCN? Not to mention the DS..."

Absolutely. And Okami, which I may get a PS2 just to play.

KDR_11kDecember 11, 2005

KD used the analog sticks in a symmetric fashion, you know how much people complain about that when you do it on the GC.

Hostile CreationDecember 11, 2005

Ah yeah. I've only ever seen it played, so I tend to forget about the control scheme.
Still, no excuse for putting it on PSP and not DS. Also, no one should have even thought about putting Okami on the PS2. It was made for DS. Or better, Revolution.

Ian SaneDecember 12, 2005

"I'm not sure, Ian, how you couild be happy with the n64 controller but not happy with the REV controller... becasue the n64 controller was almost as big of a departure."

The N64 controller just took what was on the SNES controller and added to it (except the select button). Every SNES game ever made except for like Super Scope or mouse games could be played perfectly on the N64 controller. All you have to do is map select to one of the C buttons or something. I'd say that Nintendo did a far better job on keeping what was already there on the N64 than they even did on the Cube since the Cube's d-pad was so lazily thrown on.

"why do you care what Nintendo 'pushes'? Developers have the ability to use whatever they feel is best for their games, isn't that what you'd consider to be the important thing?"

Nintendo's enthusiasm or lack thereof plays a big part in what gets widely supported. Any third party could have gone online with the Cube but in the end only Sega used the feature. That's because Nintendo clearly wasn't interested in the feature themselves. They didn't push it or promote it and in fact discouraged its use with all their damage control about how they weren't going online. If Nintendo is all "rah rah the remote is all you need" then third parties won't use the shell. Nintendo themselves have to support it and push it as important or no one else will take the initiative.

And anyone who doesn't realize that the PS2 library is much more innovative than the current PC gaming scene is blind. PC gaming is like five games being made over and over again. It's a shame because in the early 90s PC gaming was really innovative.

Hmm... so which would you rather have Ian?

Would you prefer Nintendo going "rah rah rah" over the rev controller and developers jumping onto that bandwagon wholesale since Nintendo is leading on how awesome the controller makes gaming...

...or would it be good (or bad) for developers to resort to traditional control safety with Nintendo taking the lead in getting the shell widely adopted versus just the revmote?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ian SaneDecember 12, 2005

Why can't they just get it so that developers use whatever is appropriate for the situation? Like I've said before both parts together should be considered the standard.

BiLdItUp1December 12, 2005

The scariest part is - what if the shell turns out to be vaporware, like the SD adapter, the 64DD, the component video cables (only available from Nintendo's site), and onlie support among many other things promised but? Has anyone told us the shell exists outside of Jim Merrick? Maybe Reggie said it in the interview and I missed it; I sure hope so.

NinGurl69 *hugglesDecember 12, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
the component video cables (only available from Nintendo's site)


LOL you mean only available from HONG KONG IMPORTERS. Lik-sang/Play-asia and ebay sellers are making a pretty penny off desperate component cable customers.

Nintendo FAILS at OVERSEAS SHIPPING.

Bill AurionDecember 12, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
The scariest part is - what if the shell turns out to be vaporware, like the SD adapter, the 64DD, the component video cables (only available from Nintendo's site), and onlie support among many other things promised but? Has anyone told us the shell exists outside of Jim Merrick? Maybe Reggie said it in the interview and I missed it; I sure hope so.

Come on people, Iwata said it himself at TGS...Reggie said it again fairly recently...

ssj4_androidDecember 12, 2005

It's almost guarenteed that there will be many less third party games available for the Revolution than there were for the Gamecube though.

Karl Castaneda #2December 12, 2005

On the subject of the shell, there was a recent interview with Jeff Kalles (former Associate Producter at NOA), where he matter-o-factly states that there is a shell controller for the Revolution; whether or not it'll be packaged in with the console, he said he wasn't 100% sure.

mantidorDecember 12, 2005

what? why the hell is that "guarenteed"? There are several factors there. The GC has improved third party support a lot compared to the N64, the controller might scare third parties, but absolutely all the developers that have talked about it have shown interest, and, theres always the shell and/or GC controller (why is that people keep and keep forgetting these?). No, Im not saying that a increase in third party support is a sure thing, but also is not a sure thing that it will be less.

Avinash_TyagiDecember 12, 2005

Miyamato has said they are working on the shell as well.

BiLdItUp1December 12, 2005

Aight, thanks guys for assuaging my concerns.

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Why can't they just get it so that developers use whatever is appropriate for the situation? Like I've said before both parts together should be considered the standard.


Ah, so Nintendo basically has to push BOTH the rev controller and the shell. Gotcha.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

IceColdDecember 12, 2005

Quote

Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Quote

Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
The scariest part is - what if the shell turns out to be vaporware, like the SD adapter, the 64DD, the component video cables (only available from Nintendo's site), and onlie support among many other things promised but? Has anyone told us the shell exists outside of Jim Merrick? Maybe Reggie said it in the interview and I missed it; I sure hope so.

Come on people, Iwata said it himself at TGS...Reggie said it again fairly recently...
And how can there not be a shell, what with the downloadable classics? Cube controllers can't play all the N64 games.

Speaking of which, for the shell, I'd like to see a modified Wavebird with a better D-Pad, another analogue stick instead of the C-Stick, and a fixed Z button to make it, um, softer, and more accessible.

Then I'd like a diamond SNES face button layout, BUT on the top right, directly opposite the X botton (SNES) and to the right of the A button, I would like another button. This would work perfectly for all the consoles, since for the N64, there would be three C buttons (left, down and right) and the Z can be used as an up C.

Sorry I can't draw this out well, but it would be great for the shell.

Hostile CreationDecember 12, 2005

I imagine there will be ads that depict people playing with the Revmote (probably the majority of ads), and a few with the shell. Some of them might feature the download system, where you can use the shell or the sideways remote, and advertise the shell concept along with it.

nickmitchDecember 12, 2005

I think that Nintendo should have all the commercials end off with something that shows the remote, numchck and shell. Just have the remote fly on the screen, then show it attatched with the numchuck and then have it fall in to the shell and close off with the logo.

ssj4_androidDecember 13, 2005

I do think it will make a difference if this "shell" comes with the system and all seperate controllers.

wanderingDecember 13, 2005

I don't think there's any need to promote the shell, TVman. That's the kind of thing that will spread through word of mouth. Nintendo needs to expend all their effort on explaining the revmote to people.

Quote

Originally posted by: IanSane
Why can't they just get it so that developers use whatever is appropriate for the situation? Like I've said before both parts together should be considered the standard.

I agree that the shell should be included with every console, if not every controller. I also agree that if, say, ubisoft wants Splinter Cell to use the shell, they should be able to do that with no problems and no lost sales.

But, the shell just shouldn't be 'pushed' as an equal to the revmote, imho. It's not equal - it won't be used as much as the revmote (just by nature of the fact that most devs won't need the measly 2 extra buttons and relocated d-pad the shell will provide) and it's more self-explanatory than the remote. Besides, you start pushing 2 'standards' and you get an n-gage or psp. ('It plays movies! It's a cell phone! It plays games! It plays music! It slices! It dices!'). Splitting focus like that is confusing and off-putting for the consumer, imo.

Ian SaneDecember 14, 2005

"It's not equal - it won't be used as much as the revmote (just by nature of the fact that most devs won't need the measly 2 extra buttons and relocated d-pad the shell will provide)"

What are you talking about? The shell is supposed to provide something comparable to the Cube controller. Are you thinking of the nunchuk? We haven't officially been told what's on the shell yet but I'm pretty sure it's not just two extra buttons.

We don't know that the shell will provide something comparable to the Cube controller. Nintendo hasn't used that term, only "traditional" or "retro."

And since we're looking at the GC controllers being perfectly capable of being plugged in, perhaps the shell will resemble the N64 controller as much as it does the Cube controller.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

wanderingDecember 16, 2005

Quote

What are you talking about? The shell is supposed to provide something comparable to the Cube controller. Are you thinking of the nunchuk? We haven't officially been told what's on the shell yet but I'm pretty sure it's not just two extra buttons.

I was thinking shell vs. revmote + nunchaku.

ShyGuyDecember 16, 2005

shevmotechuka!

I wouldn't be suprised if nintendo re-released classic SNES and N64 controllers to go with the download service.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement