Post by: Mr. Saturn on March 20, 2005, 06:40:50 PM
Wow I don't even know what to say about this rumor really, all I've got to say if this is true then its bye bye Nintendo.
Still theres always the possibility this isn't true, perhaps our fine feathered friend Noble~Feather can tell us if this info is true or not?
Post by: Caillan on March 20, 2005, 06:43:29 PM
EDIT: Added link. (The quote is about half way down the page.)
Post by: RickPowers on March 20, 2005, 07:04:57 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2005, 07:51:05 PM
That's obviously a huge flaw but I don't think the fact that the idea is so limiting is proof alone that Nintendo isn't doing it. History has shown that Nintendo is stubborn and doesn't usually care about any other developers' needs besides their own. They didn't care that the Cube's d-pad was useless because they themselves never planned to use it for movement. So realistically if they never planned on making any Rev games that would require two buttons to be pushed at once a touchscreen only controller would suit their needs. I don't think it is a touchscreen because Iwata has said it's not. But "the idea is stupid" is no longer a good enough reason to me to believe Nintendo isn't doing something.
Post by: Urkel on March 20, 2005, 08:28:51 PM
Quote
History has shown that Nintendo is stubborn and doesn't usually care about any other developers' needs besides their own. They didn't care that the Cube's d-pad was useless because they themselves never planned to use it for movement. So realistically if they never planned on making any Rev games that would require two buttons to be pushed at once a touchscreen only controller would suit their needs. I don't think it is a touchscreen because Iwata has said it's not. But "the idea is stupid" is no longer a good enough reason to me to believe Nintendo isn't doing something.
Christ, Ian. Give it a freaking rest! We get it. You don't like how Nintendo has done things at sometime, someplace or somewhere. We know.
What I don't get is how you can still be so pessimistic about absolutely everything Nintendo does. The DS should be enough to show you that Nintendo is changing.
"Nintendo needs to go online! Because I say so! But they never will, because Nintendo is really stupid and stubborn and stubborny stubborn! I'm going to write a 7 paragraph rant on how Nintendo is f*cking up. Because they wont go online. Because they're stubborn. I'm going to assume that absolutly nothing has changed at Nintendo in the last 5 years.
Huh? What's that? The DS is going online... Er... yeah, well... the DS is for casual gamers! I'm a hardcore gamer, dammit! I'm just going to assume that all DS games are going to be short and simplistic, because the launch games are. I'm going to completely ignore the hundreds of games lined up on the DS that aren't short and simplistic... because they'll probably all get cancelled because the PSP will outsell the DS since it has an analog nub, and Nintendo was too stubborn to include an analog stick with the DS. Yeah."
We get it. You don't want Nintendo to make any more mistakes. But you're living in the past. Nintendo is changing.
Post by: slingshot on March 21, 2005, 03:17:38 AM
games with him on my CUBE. Nemo- and believe it or not Winnie the POOh! These games may suck to many gamers playing
for themselves, but it is fun to play something with my son that is up to his speed, not too hard for him to play, or too violent.
And the CG cuts, and actual game play on these Disney kids games are phenominal. So ... by being more versatile and
making games for kids and adults, nintendo is selling me twice as many games- because I'm buying for my very young child,
and myself. I doubt X box has games for kids 3-5 yrs old.
Post by: Grant10k on March 21, 2005, 12:45:54 PM
Post by: Galford on March 21, 2005, 01:28:54 PM
Price and durability.
Though the customization part sounds cool.
Post by: darknight06 on March 21, 2005, 01:50:35 PM
Post by: Pale on March 21, 2005, 02:04:45 PM
QuoteHaha, was that supposed to be funny?
Originally posted by: Galford
I can think of one reason why Nintendo won't use touch screens.
Price and durability.
Post by: KnowsNothing on March 21, 2005, 02:09:26 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on March 21, 2005, 04:23:18 PM
Post by: Galford on March 22, 2005, 03:48:35 AM
"Nintendo has been the only company to really focus on making the controller easy to distinguish by touch alone. Making a touch screen controller, would force you to look at it, and you'd get a lot of fingerprints on it too."
Amen to that
Post by: kennyb27 on March 22, 2005, 05:05:57 AM
Not only could you only have one point of input, but, depending on the developer, the entire layout of the buttons would change for every game. That would suck. I like at least knowing where the buttons are on the controller, even if I have to learn what each of them do. Imagine having to spend at least twice the time in every game learning the controls. Yeah, horrible.
Post by: Pale on March 22, 2005, 05:51:46 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 22, 2005, 06:56:45 AM
It makes sense, touch-screen does not....
Post by: KDR_11k on March 22, 2005, 09:00:20 AM
Post by: Mr. Saturn on March 22, 2005, 10:46:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
Why does everyone (Ian / the media except PGC) like to completely ignore the FACT that Nintendo signed a contract with a company that makes gyroscopes for controllers. How much money Nintendo gave in the contract was undisclosed....hmmm...why? I'll tell you. Nintendo is giving them a large amount of money for them to make a custom gyration unit to be implemented into the controller, kinda like ATI and IBM are making customs chips to be used in the Rev console.
It makes sense, touch-screen does not....
Ok then I'm glad to hear that, but my only question is how exactly would gyroscopic controllers revolutionize the market and cause a paradigm shift? I mean what uses would a gyroscopic controller have anyway?
Post by: Pale on March 22, 2005, 11:13:03 AM
Only problem is it is all very game specific. Coming up with a universal one would be another challenge all together.
Post by: RickPowers on March 22, 2005, 11:41:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
Why does everyone (Ian / the media except PGC) like to completely ignore the FACT that Nintendo signed a contract with a company that makes gyroscopes for controllers. How much money Nintendo gave in the contract was undisclosed....hmmm...why? I'll tell you. Nintendo is giving them a large amount of money for them to make a custom gyration unit to be implemented into the controller, kinda like ATI and IBM are making customs chips to be used in the Rev console.
It makes sense, touch-screen does not....
Simple ... the technology has already been used, several times, in fact. Kirby Tilt & Tumble, Wario Ware Twisted ... the technology is in use. Could Nintendo put it directly into the controller? Sure! Will they? It's hard to say. However, if Nintendo wants to have any hope of using that sort of input in console games, they'd have to either incorporate it into the controller, or release a special controller that can use it.
It's not that people are ignoring it, it's just that there is a logical answer already, and a more obvious one than possible future applications.
Post by: nemo_83 on March 22, 2005, 02:38:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. SaturnQuote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
Why does everyone (Ian / the media except PGC) like to completely ignore the FACT that Nintendo signed a contract with a company that makes gyroscopes for controllers. How much money Nintendo gave in the contract was undisclosed....hmmm...why? I'll tell you. Nintendo is giving them a large amount of money for them to make a custom gyration unit to be implemented into the controller, kinda like ATI and IBM are making customs chips to be used in the Rev console.
It makes sense, touch-screen does not....
Ok then I'm glad to hear that, but my only question is how exactly would gyroscopic controllers revolutionize the market and cause a paradigm shift? I mean what uses would a gyroscopic controller have anyway?
Gyration like an analog stick can use tilting for game input, but Gyration can do something that no analog stick can do. Gyration can detect turning so in a FPS you wouldn't tilt the controller or controllers to look left and right; you would turn the controller left or right. This will be the answer to the age old debate about what controls best? Game console controllers which are geared toward the movement of the character or PC gaming which is geared towards camera control through use of moving the arm to control a mouse for accurate aim. Gyration allows for both these controls to coexist and for console gamers to woop up on some trash talking PC gamers.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 22, 2005, 03:04:31 PM
My answer is more precise aiming. In history it went from D-pad to analog stick to dual analog stick. You can't get much more complicated than dual analog stick. Adding another would be disastrous. So how do you aim more precise when analog-sticks have reached their peak? Gyration, Dual-handed controllers. It will allow for "life-like" precision aiming and expand game abilities ten-fold. Even if it wasn't dual-handed, something like PaleZero mentioned would still allow for greater accuracy. The only problem I see with his idea is some genres seen today would be hard to implement. Fighters for instance would be ridiculous. A dual-handed flight stick type controller, that is essentially a "this-gen" controller split in half, would work for all genres while adding far more precise aiming. It would be like going from Golden-eye, which used the c-buttons for aiming, to Halo with it's dual analog controller. This jump would be far greater than an "upgrade." It would allow games that always relied on button naming, to use actual movements to replicate what needs to be done on-screen. It also opens up many new genres, and sub-genres. An archery game could never realized this gen due to it's lackluster ability to be entertaining. With this controller, you could essentially do all the things needed to fire an arrow, instead of pressing random button 1, that has nothing to do with the actually game itself.
They could add a track-ball for mouse-like aiming, but that isn't simplifing the process any. I use a mouse everyday, yet using a track ball seems ackward to me. I could adapt, but that's because of the "practice" I recieved from this generation games. Once you have to teach hard-core gamers something, you automatically lose.
Post by: attackslug on March 22, 2005, 05:59:46 PM
The one thing that makes this seem pretty unlikely though, is that a gyroscopic controller could easily be produced for other systems. There ought to be omething more "revolutionary" about the system itself, not just the controller.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 22, 2005, 09:26:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: attackslug
I think some kind of gyroscopic controller technology is in the works. Something was said about Revolution's control becoming more accessable to non-gamers. One thing I always notice when watching my parents or non-gamer friends playing something, is that they are always tilting the controller in the direction they want to go. It would make sense, could allow for some interesting new control schemes and gameplay, and seems more realistic than holographic images, VR headgear, etc.
The one thing that makes this seem pretty unlikely though, is that a gyroscopic controller could easily be produced for other systems. There ought to be omething more "revolutionary" about the system itself, not just the controller.
I came to that conclusion myself. Simply putting gyration in a controller doesn't make anything more revolutionary than what we've seen today (looks at Tilt and Tumble). Also, implementing gyration in a controller doesn't seem that hard for companies who at first lacked the feature, and are now trying to play catch up. Nintendo doesn't want their idea stolen, for that would obliterate their perceived advantage. If the idea is of paradigm shift proportions, then one of two things will have to be present in order to prevent other companies from stealing the idea: 1) Make it too costly for the competing companies to all the sudden switch 2) Patent or close a CONTRACT with the provider of the revolutionary aspect, stating that the company only makes products for Nintendo now.
It all makes so much sense and I hate to hype myself up, but all signs point to ------> Dual-Handed Gyration controllers.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 22, 2005, 10:15:12 PM
Post by: slingshot on March 23, 2005, 05:43:31 AM
that there are many different elements that are revolutionary here. FREE WIFI, and a possible controller with gyration.
Who knows what else?...! But these are revolutionary in gaming on their own, combined= with what else- and the REV is
gonna rock!
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2005, 05:48:30 AM
Post by: pitbull on March 23, 2005, 07:11:22 AM
Post by: pitbull on March 23, 2005, 07:13:41 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2005, 07:27:53 AM
Post by: Pale on March 23, 2005, 08:12:44 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 23, 2005, 09:19:14 AM
To me anyways. Sega = ****ty polygonal games with terrible camera views....oh ya don't forget the murder porn.
Post by: pitbull on March 23, 2005, 04:51:41 PM
Post by: The Omen on March 24, 2005, 01:55:40 PM
Quote
Ack, you posted the same thing here and in that other topic! As I said in said other one, do you have a link to said "Ninty meeting"?
He is right. I've mentioned this before. It was at last E3 ,after the so called SK-Ninty split.
In fact, Perrin Kaplan was interviewed and asked why Denis was meeting with NIN behind closed doors and I can't remember the rest.....
Maybe that oft-rumored Sega/Nintendo console will finally come to fruition?
