Topic: Let's Talk Controller

[Don'tHate742]

I think your taking it to literally....

I think he meant that all you would do is pull the arrow back and release it LIKE an archer would. You don't actually have to coordinate the angle at which you pull the arrow back, just that you pull the arrow back. The left hand is what aims, nothing else. And aiming wouldn't be that hard, since a target would be onscreen (not like duckhunt). So basically he's saying it's the same as it's always been (maybe a bit different regarding the camera view) but now there's a little more interactivity in the game besides just pressing the A button. And for one, I agree with him....that's what the controller is all about (allowing arm movements if you didn't read my post above).

Ugh...after reading my post again, I really need to read what I post before I post (terrible grammatical errors).

[Spak-Spang]

To be fair, I don't mind having a controller that is in two parts, I just don't want it to connect together, because I don't to have a game that demands they be put together and then the controller breaks.

As well, some of your concepts sound very cool, and revolutionary, but in practice will be very difficult to impliment.  We are talking much more advanced programming than we have this current generation.  It would be a very hard product to design games for.  

[Guitar Smasher]

No, I'm not saying it has to realistically model real-life.  I agree, keep it simple, and I thought my examples did.  Moving a bow isn't hard.  Stick your bow-arm out and move it left, right, up and down.  That isn't tough at all, and since the bow on the screen is moving, you can see where you're aiming.  Stick you cord arm out pull it back.  I don't know if I'm perfectly conveying what I'm imagining, but I can tell you there's very little skill required.  Same for swing a sword.  You don't have have years of training in fencing to be able to swing a sword.   Of course the game wouldn't even be that precise; a simple swing would register a hit.  The point I was trying to make was it's fun to push a button and see your character swing, but it's even funner to do the swining yourself.  Of course it can difficult and complicated, but it can also be made easy.  I mean, you don't want a game that measures the angle and velocity of your throw, that's too difficult.   But if it just recognizes that you threw the ball, that can make it easy and fun.  Even so, I'd be tempted to release the controller, so I don't know if that's a game I'd play...  

[Spak-Spang]

Guitar Smasher:  I know your examples are simple.  But think about this.  You are having to design a game that can interpret movement from people of all shapes, sizes, ages.  A child pulling back would be different than an adult.  If you try to make the game where the further you pull back the further it will go it would almost be impossible.  If you don't, then its a gimmick, that a regular controller would be more responsive and easier.  If you hold the controller differently than it was designed then the gyroscope controls could be altered or slightly mixed up.  It basically won't allow you to do really advanced stuff.

A different technology but a similar problem is the Police 911 games and another Sword fighting game.  It used laser sensors to detect your movment and then respond to it one screen.  It was very slow, and very clunky.  

If Nintendo did it right, then it could be very revolutionary and groundbreaking, but I don't expect other companies to get the same high quality.  then what?  

I like the idea, I just am looking at it skeptically, because I just don't see it as feesable, but I would love to be proven wrong.

[Don'tHate742]

What you said brings up some good points, but I believe you could fix the "how is it going to work for everybody" question pretty easily. You could add a sensitivity option; the higher you go the more sensitive it is. So for a small child, it would be at let's say 8 or 9, but for someone who has a pretty healthy wingspan it could be adjusted to 2 or 3. Everyone else is in between. I'm sure when FPS become popular with this format, more people will choose to use a higher sensitivity so they can look faster (ala Halo and such).

Also every game that allows multiplayer should have a profile option, so you don't have to keep changing the sensitivity. You can do it once for the people you usually play with, and a defualt could also be used (set a 5).  

[nemo_83]

I assume gyration can be programed to cause the bow be pulled back by tilting the right controller backwards.  By using gyration instead of an analog stick and button you are free to use the analog stick for more accurate foot movement and multitasking between camera and secondary weapons on face buttons.  With gyration you could give the same side slash to every enemy like on the old 2d games, but you would be driven by fun and challenging AI to use your imagination and get good at sword fighting by playing a video game.  Also who can argue with a little workout.

I feel it is inevitable that a bridged controller will become obsolete as we take steps towards VR, and there is no time like the present to push a free handed pair of controllers.  

Nintendo has stated they are removing the dpad and basic face buttons on the Revolution controller, which translates to either a controller with nothing but analog sticks or they have replaced the dpad and face buttons with something better.  The best alternative I can think to put in the place of the empty places the dpad and face buttons leave behind on a console named Revolution is a trackball and wheel like in my drawing.  

[Spak-Spang]

Oh no doubt its doable, and with enough skilled programming, tweaking, and $$$ yeah this setup could work.  Then if a game needs a traditional controller just use the Gamecube controllers.

Here is the issue though.  3rd Parties.

You just made it:

1)Very hard to port products over.
2)You would have to question the quality control over those games.

I also have a few doubts on this easy multitasking.  Not having to think about the camera is easier than better controller manipulation.  Say some how you got everything to work perfect.  

Is it really going to be easier and more responsive, to:

1)Move the camera around with an analog stick,
2)Block and attack with shield and sword.
3)Use another analog stick and buttons to perform advance manuvers?

What happens with you have a large group of people over, it makes the room requirement to play games much greater, as everybody needs their space to play.  

[Guitar Smasher]

Well you could implement it so that it goes into 'manual' mode only when you're z-targeting.  That'll put the camera behind you, giving you the optimal perspective, and you not having to control it.  You don't need an analog stick for advance maneuvers, you could simply map those to buttons.  For example, simple swing = swing controller;  spin attack = push A + swing controller.

[Ian Sane]

One thing that one has to ask when thinking of an alternate control scheme like this is "does this improve what we have now?"  When you first played Ocarina of Time did you think "boy this would be a million times cooler if I could shoot arrows by simulating firing a bow with my hands!"?  Odds are you didn't.  The game is no worse by having to use buttons.  In fact that game is less cumbersome since the concept of using a button is VERY easy for anyone to wrap their head around.

I see motion control in the formats being presented as different just to be different.  It doesn't improve on current controller design.  It's like using the touch screen to control Mario in Super Mario 64 DS.  Sure it's unique and different but it's not better than an analog stick or even as good.

Plus having an entire console that bases its controller around motion sounds like a big pain in the ass more than anything else.  Once in a while it would be cool but an entire system that focuses just on that type of game?  That's as restrictive and unappealing as a system that only plays light gun games or only plays steering wheel games or dare I say the Virtual Boy.  I know I would never buy a console that requires every game to be an aerobic exercise and few would.

[KDR_11k]

Of course it would enhance the game. Maybe not Zelda's archery moments but sword and gun fighting in general. It's also much faster for turns and aiming and would allow for things impossible to simulate on a normal controller (say, bowling). Imagine a game where you play a character with two independantly controllable guns, you could fire one at one opponent while aiming in another direction with the other one. Imagine playing online (I believe the Rev will do that, Nintendo knows that online will reach profitability during its lifespan), some FPS: You are sniping at a few enemies below. Suddently you hear the faint sound of a careless assassinsneaking up on you. Instead of turning around you hold one gun behind your back and pull the trigger. The payoff comes in the form of a series of profanities uttered by your would-be attacker. Don't you think that IS a new form of freedom?

[nemo_83]

The point is to create a controller that makes it hard to port games to systems other than the Revolution.  Swords, guns, and whips are usually what gyration will be used for.  Some weapons like the bow would require two hands to opperate in real life, so why not in the game too.  Like with the DS people will enjoy the aspect of playing the game again, just this time they need more than one good port of an old Mario game that doesn't use the new controller hardware for the Revolution's launch.

Gyration will take over the control of the hands of the character, which means that the face buttons will be deserted to nothing more than dpad like functions, scrolling through comands like in Metroid Prime and RS2.  The face buttons could be used for kicks and jumping in fighting games while the gyros are used for the hands.  The triggers will take over as the attack buttons.  

In Zelda you would likely press the trigger in combination with tilting the gyro to use the sword.  In the end you end up using fewer buttons during combat.  You would move forward and backward and straff left and right with the analog stick, turning the character left and right with the gyros.  The camera would work like the old 2d ones, at a safe distance above the character so you can see all around you.  The only time you would need the camera over the shoulder is to aim up or down, you never had to worry about that in the old 2d games and perhaps we nolonger should.  In Zelda the face buttons could be used for jumping, rolling, map, and picking up items and throwing them.  With my design the wheel could be used alternatively for turning the character left and right, though the gyros could still cause it.  The track ball could tilt the camera around the character on one side of the controller and the second trackball or wheel on the other controller could zoom the camera in and out.  This allows you to fix it anywhere you want to quickly.  The shoulder mounted scroll wheels could scroll through Link's items for each hand.  Some weapons would require you to select the same weapon on each hand to use, long swords, hammer, ball and chain, mace, and bow and arrow.

I think first person shooters would work great.  You could perform melee attacks, aim with seperate hands, straff, turn, move, sniper, jump, and perform stealth moves much easier than on the old SNES style controllers.  

[Ian Sane]

"The point is to create a controller that makes it hard to port games to systems other than the Revolution."

But the result would be that it would be hard to port games TO the Revolution.  Nintendo is the LAST PLACE console maker in North America.  Developers don't make games for Nintendo's console and then port to the others they make games for the other consoles and maybe port to Nintendo's.  This strategy would just amplify the current problem of so many games being released on all the consoles but Nintendo's.

[PaLaDiN]

"But the result would be that it would be hard to port games TO the Revolution."

Not necessarily. Think about a NES controller with a stick instead of a dpad, since that seems to be the analogy du jour.

[Don'tHate742]

Ugh....Ian, your not getting it...and really none of you are.

The controller is soppose to to creat options WHILE not restricting any game made today, in the past, or in the future. If you really read my description for this controller, you would understand that it is EXACTLY like the controllers seen today (two analog sticks/D-pad/face buttions/triggers) with a few major modifications.

It is a controller seen today, essentially split in two. So you can play any games seen today, but at a more relaxed state since your hands don't have to be so close to each other. Now the controller should connect to each other, but really only for charging the controller.

The reason why it is split into two is for the fact of successfully emulating arm/wrist movements....NOT HAND/FINGER MOVEMENTS. You can't emulate the individually finger movements unless you had a gyration glove of some sort. So every game that used the gyration that i'm decribing, would focus only on arm movements (bowling, bow and arrow, boxing). This opens many options of how to play games as well as what you play in those games. As KDR mentioned, a bowling game is now possible, but what about a golf game or even tennis. Does this constrict what is ported or even made for the REV.? Nope; not in the least bit. Why? Becuase the controller has the exact same configuration.

Now to deal with the camera issue. The camera in lets say Zelda should be exactly the same as it always was. It should be at a nice distance away so you can see around you, but it shouldn't be just above you (ala 2-d). It should be at an angle like it always was and dynamic.  Now regarding coordinating your sword slashes with the camera, there is no need.  When you slash, you slash forward....always. If you wanted to slash 90 degrees to the left (according to the camera view) you would point to the left with the joystick and slash with your arm forward. I don't know about the actually movement of the gryoscope, but it should be more than just a tilt, becuase chances are you'll be tilting like crazy without even knowing. A short quick shadow slash through the air should suffice. Now so there is no confusion, you can slash a little to the left as well as a little to the right. This is Link's range of attack. For example, Link has 3 enemy's in front of him. 1 is right in front, the other two 45 degrees to each side. Link can hit all three with out having to turn. You determine where to hit by slashing there. If on the foward-right, you slash forward right. Same works with blocking. Now you can't criss cross your arms becuase that would be ridiculous and maybe the requirement to slash should be extended to prevent this (so instead of slashing you hit your own arm, physically stopping you from slashing.) Like if you block left, and want to slash right, you can't. There isn't sufficient room to do so with your arm in the way. But who knows if that solves the problem. Of course Z-targeting could completely obliterate that idea, since Link never attacked multiple enemys before at once (except for the spin-attack), but it would still include the concept of slashing forward only.

What about GuitarSmashers mechanic to use the bow? I think it's perfect. There shouldn't be a target on the screen though, but it should show the bow over Link's shoulder. The horse/bow view should be different yet still as easy to use (maybe a target ridicule ((or what ever it is called)) could be used). It should be far enough so you can see alot of enemies. Also shooting an arrow shouldn't be like when standing, it should be mapped to a button. I know what your saying (Ian), and that it doesn't make it cooler or anything, and even maybe complicates the process when you have to immitate the process of firing an arrow. Well sure it complicates the process, but it's not like shooting an arrow was really fun in the first place. You aimed it at an Eye on the wall, you fired and it opened a door. Great. Really I mean it; great. But, it would just seem alot cooler if you had to aim your fire arrow yourself, pull back and release it so you can destroy that iced roped with the huge wieght attached to it, gaining you access into the hole that it breaks into the floor.

With a FPS, it might seem complicated in theory but I bet in practice it would feel very intuitive.  Let's say you see a helicopter flying by you. You would essentially point at it with your left fist (not like if the helicopter was real). Your brain would automatically coordinate your fist with what you see on-screen, so if you are looking to low you would fix how your looking by lifting your fist upwards. Seems easy enough for me.
Now what if you see the another helicopter fly by. You would point at it with your left fist, then with your right fist you would aim your rocket launcher with the target ridicule that is independent of the camera (so you can aim at any thing on-screen and not just the center of the screen, then press the right trigger. Now both fists may be very close to each other, and that's okay, but that would only happen when you are looking directly at what your aiming at. Which of course might happen alot, but the fact that you can seperate the two adds alot of effects impossible in today's gaming world. Like shooting behind you.
It gets complicated with dual weapons. I think that if one weapon's target ridicule is the same as the camera's view, then it could easily be solved. So you can look and fire at something (ofcourse aiming as you would do today, with the target ridicule in the middle) but then also have a free arm with a gun that can shoot in any direction; anywhere, even behind you.
So why don't they just make it one handed play when you play with one gun? I'm sure they can make that an option, but people will opt for the freedom of aiming seperately from what you look at. Plus how cool would it be to crouch under something and shoot without looking?       Damn cool.
This also frees up the right analog stick, which could be used for anything simple or even complicated. What if you plant a remote mine, and as your being chased, you turn around and start to fire with both guns ablaze. Now while your doing that, you simply with your thumb, flick the joystick (the right, becuase the left is for moving), instantly detonating the mine and killing a bunch of people. The right stick essentially becomes another button, but maybe with some clever thinking it can become a brilliant mechanic.
If you choose, there is an option making the controllers similar to Timesplitters or Halo (the left for moving / the right for aiming). So no contraints here. But you will be at a serious disadvantage. How you could shoot two different people with that setup? Now grenades and such shouldn't evovle you throwing them in real-life, it should be like it is now. It would be to hectic and wouldn't make sense really, since you have to aim with the arm your going to throw the grenade with.

What other type of contraint are you talking about Ian. I think I could go through every genre out there and show you how it could work without any fualts. Why? becuase it's exactly the same configuration (I don't know how many times I said that; alot maybe). What about fighting....it might be kinda icky if you control the punches, for the sole fact that using special moves could either be really hard to do or insanely cheap (imagine doing the Ryu hadoken, in real life.....now imagine someone doing that motion every second.) Maybe it could work with some well thought out contraints but who wants to jump in the air to do a Ryu uppercut? Stupid question. Also most fighting games have punches that are weaker but faster, then a medium punch, then a fierce punch. How would you emulate that?

A boxing game would be awesome though. Just think about actually beating up a virtual guy with no help from the middle man's techniques; all you. I think it should be even more simplied that you don't even move, except for dodge, step left/step right, kinda similar to Punch Out. And those movements could be controlled easily somehow. Blocking should be on you, but I don't know how well that would work. Multiplayer would be halarious.

How about a music game. Imagine having a bunch of drums available for you to "play". Even a drumkit. Now what about if you play with your friends? That would be hysterical. I would by that game in a second. Surely better than buying drums myself. They should include simple riffs resembling reggae or a flute or something to compliment the drumming. That's a game with a mass amount of replay. DRUM TRIP!

reply please

[Ian Sane]

Don'thate my concerns are not really just for your idea it's more for the whole concept of using motion for control.  You're not talking about it but most people who suggest this idea act like there shouldn't even be buttons.  If your controller can operate exactly like a normal controller (and that means it can connect as one piece since two seperate hands is more awkward) then it's a pretty good idea.  I just don't like the idea of turning Zelda in a sword swing excercise game.  That's not what Zelda is about.  The vibe I get from most people here that motion control should be used for all games bugs me.  It shouldn't.  Using buttons is much easier and in most cases should be the preferred method.

I do however really like the drumkit idea.  The only problem I see is a lack of resistance.  Still it would be pretty cool.  I would love it if you could set up chords and notes for the guitar and set up what bars they play for and in what timing but you have to act out strumming the chord yourself.  So you set up the E chord to play for four bars but the strumming pattern is based on how you move your hand.  The chord them switches to G at the right time but in that timing you can just strum the chord once or go all speed metal on it.  And then you can incorporate a mic and messure how hard the person blows into it for brass and woodwind instruments.  Okay you've sold we on the idea provided it is only used when it's really needed and isn't just thrown into every game just because it can.

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Don'thate my concerns are not really just for your idea it's more for the whole concept of using motion for control.  You're not talking about it but most people who suggest this idea act like there shouldn't even be buttons.  If your controller can operate exactly like a normal controller (and that means it can connect as one piece since two seperate hands is more awkward) then it's a pretty good idea.  I just don't like the idea of turning Zelda in a sword swing excercise game.  That's not what Zelda is about.  The vibe I get from most people here that motion control should be used for all games bugs me.  It shouldn't.  Using buttons is much easier and in most cases should be the preferred method.

Actually, after reading that. I agree, Link shouldn't become a sword swing excersize. Exactly, it wouldn't be zelda. Zelda's more about adventure than it is action, and the sword concept would just be hypocritical of that. That doesn't mean though, that the adventure part can't  benefit from the gyration concept. I stand by the arrow idea, but I think there are better ways to invovle gyration, than just replacing a mechanic that essentially "wasn't broke." Right now I can't really think of any new features, but I know something is out there, something big. I just can't think of what it is.

Also how do you know it would feel ackward controlling a two piece controller? The picture I have in my mind makes it look very comfertable. You could play like you always would, but now with your hands at any distance. They could still be parallel with each other, if you wanted. Unless you press inwards on your controllers, I see no other reason than lack of knowledge for making you think it is awkward. Of course, I lack knowledge about how it would actually feel also. Lucky for me, I always wanted a controller like this. I play games usually with my hand on the edge of my pants, resting past my crotch area (where the pants split into seperate legs). I always thought it would be more comfertable to rest just my hands on each upper thigh (considerably apart), instead of resting both my arms on my legs. Then there's playing on an arm chair. Most people rest there arms on the arm rests, then holds their controller upright (as in the back is a little higher and the bottom is a little lower than horizantal) without thinking, so they can see their trigger finger (unless it's an xbox controller, where that's impossible or uncomfertable, I forget which). Now imagine resting your arms then letting your hands fall comfertably, just hanging. You could play like that. If you still wanted to play like I described before, you could, but with your arms at any angle you wanted. You could even play with your elbows against the arm rest with your wrist arm area falling back on your biceps, so each hand is to either side of your face......if you wanted. You could even play with one arm in the elbow position like I described, with the other resting on the arm rest, with you leaning towards your "elbow" arm. What about playing on a couch or with your arm around a girl or something...its all possible. And personally I love it.

Try it if you haven't already, with your hands as fists...the possibilties are endless.

[Ian Sane]

I think the problem with having a two piece controller is mostly pyschological.  Once it's broken into two pieces to me it seems like it becomes two devices that I have to control at the same time.  That just sounds ackward.  Plus there's the issue of leverage.  Having two hands on one device makes it easier to balance.  When you are tapping buttons at a fast rate your "analog stick" hand is helping you keep hold of the controller at a flat angle.  Otherwise as you push there's going to be a tendency for your wrist to turn and for the controller half to move.  It probably won't matter to everyone but I know I would have difficulty with it.

[Bill Aurion]

Agreed...Plus, that kind of thinking is completely opposite of Ninty's wish for simplicity and to bring new people into gaming...I sure know if I had never played games before and I saw I had to use two thingies to move things on a screen I'd say "No way"...

[nemo_83]

since your tv remote works standard with one hand, would you be willing to go now to a controller that required both hands?  the point is that eventually it is going to go to a two controller setup.  look at any science fiction anime.  the thought of being able to do things intuitivly straight through the movement of your hands like in reality rather than through a complicated combination of button mashing that has no relation to what is happening on screen is glamorous.  the thought it would complicate things is ridiculous, it is as simple as being able to control the character's hands or camera without taking your thumb off of what ever it is regularly on.  at the same time it is flexible so developers don't end up saying things like, wow I wish the gamer had a third hand so he could use a third joystick.  instead nintendo could make each prong a wireless flight stick controlled by arm movement rather than fidly button mashing.  

would you rather hear for five years how MS steped up to the plate by being the first company to make dual flight stick control available out of the box and how Nintendo never remotely delivered on their promise of a revolution.  

[KDR_11k]

You know, PC users have two controllers in front of them all the time.

[Artimus]

But both of the PC controllers rest on a table, therefore being steadied.

[Don'tHate742]

Can I ask you a question? Thanks.

Can you hold up a fist and repeatedly tap your trigger finger with your thumb? Now can you do that without making your wrist or hand move; keeping them steady while you tap? Now can you hold up a fist and move your thumb in every direction while keeping your wrist steady? Can you act like your clicking a trigger with your pointer finger while moving your thumb all around, with ofcourse, keeping you wrist steady? Wow, you did it! You can play one handed! Don't believe me? Pick up your mouse so your thumb rests on the left button, and you have a firm grip of it sideways (with your palm on the right side, and your fingers curled on the left). Act like your pressing the trigger with your pointer finger, then click randomly with your thumb all over the left button as well as the middle scroll wheel). Now it may feel like a strain to reach downwards.....that's cuase it's a mouse. I'm try to prove a point here (hehe pun).

Anyways, it is not as complicated as you guys make it out to be. Really it seems more simple than holding a controller to me. The two part controller would be thick enough that you always have a good grip on it, plus like I mentioned before, it would have a strap that goes around your hand/wrist.

EDIT:  The strap should be optional, becuase it would be a pain to put it on over and over again (especially if your playing a single-player game with your friend). Anyways, the controller would be like the handle of a gun sort of, to put it in propective. Like the lightgun you used with duck hunt or something, but more egornomic and better to hold for long periods of time. Maybe a grippy rubber area along the back side of it. Also the button area would be at an angle, with the top titled above the horizantal as well as the bottom being lower than the horizantal. The top part would kinda go over your trigger finger, giving it a mold to fit snugly under. And the joystick would be..........forget it i'm going to draw this thing with my shody skills, but ohwell, it will be worth it to know you understand what i picture.

[Don'tHate742]

MOHAHAHAHAH! I've done it! HERE! It's brilliant.............Actually it's pretty crappy. I bet you wouldn't have guessed I used photoshop 7.0. With all it's fancy features, I stuck to two controls.....pencil and eraser. Oh ya, who's the photo guru now?!


Oh ya...before I forget. The buttons and color aren't finalized. It was just easy to make. Now, with the actual button layout (there is a button under the thumb), that's not how I expect them to look like, nor should they be the same color.

[KDR_11k]

Try using the brush instead of the pencil.

[pudu]

Well Don'tHate I have to hand it to you.  At first I was having a certain amount of trouble fully grasping how your idea might work but those drawings really helped me visualize.

With the strap on and the the finger grips keeping the hand in the right position would actually be easy.  If the only thing you had to do to tighten or loosen the strap was pull the strap to tighten and press a release button to loosen then it wouldn't be too big of a deal.  

I had an idea of actually using a device inside the controller that would tighted and loosen it for you with the push of a button.  Another, more cost effective, idea would be to have a spring-loaded strap that applied constant resistance like a tape measure does.  And to assure it wouldn't become bothersome during extended play sessions have a "stop" mechanism much like a tape measure.