Post by: ThePerm on November 04, 2005, 08:55:16 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on November 04, 2005, 09:25:23 AM
Edit: It was not a good idea to use Nintendogs as an example of "expanding" the market as that piece of software only speaks to me of abandoning the core audience software wise. Nintendo is addressing the needs of the core audience with the Revolution controller, but they are not going to address the wants of the core audience if they chose to use it to release software like Nintendogs on it.
Jebus Christ! The adapter is fourty dollars! You could probably find two wifi modems for that much.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 04, 2005, 09:34:27 AM
Quote
It is interesting the stories that we are taking Electroplankton online so that we don't have to sell it into retail and not give into retail margins. It is a bunch of hooie. The reason that we are selling this online is that we believe online is the best way to go after the target consumer that is going to play this game. It is the most efficient way to go.
At first I was like 'That doesn't make any sense, limiting yourself to selling exclusivley online can't possibly better attract an audience than selling it both online and in stores," but then I read that last sentance. Basically it's what most of us expected, it's much more cost-effective to sell it online-only.
I read the whole thing but don't feel like commenting on it any more. It was a good read, I just wish I could have seen all of the visual tools he used.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 04, 2005, 09:44:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothingQuote
It is interesting the stories that we are taking Electroplankton online so that we don't have to sell it into retail and not give into retail margins. It is a bunch of hooie. The reason that we are selling this online is that we believe online is the best way to go after the target consumer that is going to play this game. It is the most efficient way to go.
At first I was like 'That doesn't make any sense, limiting yourself to selling exclusivley online can't possibly better attract an audience than selling it both online and in stores," but then I read that last sentance. Basically it's what most of us expected, it's much more cost-effective to sell it online-only.
I read the whole thing but don't feel like commenting on it any more. It was a good read, I just wish I could have seen all of the visual tools he used.
But how do they expect to sell a noncore game to noncore gamers when only core gamers know its out and how to get it. Part of the advantage of having physical stores is that noncore gamers can come in and look around knowing nothing as they do and happen upon something queer like Electroplankton that applies to them that they can actually understand and enjoy. Non gamers are not going to scavenge the internet for rare niche music games. Non gamers are going to go into EB and look around; when gamers go to buy a game, usually they have an idea of what they are going to get or at least know what they won't be getting.
Post by: ThePerm on November 04, 2005, 09:57:58 AM
i just imagine the first adopter will create many adopters later on. It worked for psx suprisingly. There was a time when n64 outsold playstation by a million. Then FFVII came out....
Post by: TMW on November 04, 2005, 10:35:17 AM
I loved it when Reggie was all "I take my orders directly from Iwata and Miyamoto".
Post by: Ian Sane on November 04, 2005, 10:39:54 AM
Well I guess if hardcore Nintendo nuts are the target demographic then what he's saying is true but non-gamers were supposed to be the target when they first debuted the game.
Post by: IceCold on November 04, 2005, 10:44:44 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 04, 2005, 10:53:26 AM
So, you'd rather they stuck to marketing it towards non-gamers after non-gamers failed to buy it? You can't hit the target every time, you know. At least they're not continuing in a failed effort... if they did that, we both know you'd start comparing it to connectivity and start that crap up all over again, Ian. You have a contingency bitching plan for every single possible outcome of Nintendo's decisions.
So, how about those brain games? I hear they're not being sold online.
"But later he said that they did it because it was the most efficient way to go, which obviously means that it was cost-effective."
No, it means the people they're trying to sell the game to will buy it online. The medium suits the target, hence, more efficiency.
"That's exactly what I don't want. Zelda isn't about swinging a sword. It's about an adventure."
You're right. Swinging swords has no place in adventures. Adventures preclude sword swinging. If there is sword swinging in a game, it is completely safe and valid to assume that that game is not an adventure. At no point in any adventure has sword swinging been involved, hence, making sword swinging more fun and intuitive completely shifts the focus from adventure to sword swinging. Zelda isn't Zelda anymore. Miyamoto no longer knows what he's doing and is content to let Nintendo butcher the Zelda experience into this horrible sword swinging travesty instead. Nintendo is doomed and the REAL Zelda fans are tossed aside in favor of degenerate scum of the earth who actually enjoy crap like swinging a sword. Damn you Nintendo, damn you to hell.
Oh, wait, I'm a Zelda fan and the talk of sword swinging intrigues me. How do I fit into your worldview, Ian? Am I an exception? Because I can think of a number of people who are positively giddy at the thought of sword swinging in Zelda. In fact, I would wager that you're the only exception I've seen or heard of.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 04, 2005, 11:04:25 AM
Yeah Reggie says "we're not either/or" but I don't believe him. The next sentence he's talking about the FREAKING CUBE like that's some valid alternative for traditional gamers. Yeah, um, the Cube is practically finished and by this time next year it will be dead. That's how consoles work. The new ones replace the old. This disrupt the market stuff is a solid strategy but we're not part of it.
If I was an investor this stuff would really excite me but as a gamer I see myself getting tossed aside. Thanks for the years of loyality now excuse me while I dump you for a new market.
"So imagine what a Zelda game might look like with sword and shield that you can use all at the same time."
Ugh. That's exactly what I don't want. Zelda isn't about swinging a sword. It's about an adventure.
Post by: Artimus on November 04, 2005, 11:07:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I'm reading through this and he's doing a really good job of explaining Nintendo's strategy. I'm definitely more confident in how well it could do reading this. BUT that doesn't mean I like it because it doesn't target me. This whole strategy revolves around Nintendo abandoning me and going after a different market. Okay so the iPod beat the Discman. Great. What about those of us who PREFER the Discman? I don't like MP3s. I like owning and collecting CDs and having albums instead of a few downloaded songs here and there. At the same time I like games as they are. So maybe this remote stuff is going to take off but the hell I'll care when Nintendo isn't making games primarily for me anymore. I don't care if Nintendo is the most successful company in the world or on the brink of bankruptcy. All I care about is them making games I love and I only care about their success if it means more games I love.
So you think you matter more than everyone else? Ian, if 99% of people are happy, does it really matter if you are? NO.
Plus, the advtange of MP3s are that you can rip CDs onto your MP3 player. That way you have the joy of all those wonderful albums, but the advantage of portability and size with your portable player. I'm not sure how your argument works...
Quote
Yeah Reggie says "we're not either/or" but I don't believe him. The next sentence he's talking about the FREAKING CUBE like that's some valid alternative for traditional gamers. Yeah, um, the Cube is practically finished and by this time next year it will be dead. That's how consoles work. The new ones replace the old. This disrupt the market stuff is a solid strategy but we're not part of it.
If I was an investor this stuff would really excite me but as a gamer I see myself getting tossed aside. Thanks for the years of loyality now excuse me while I dump you for a new market.
"So imagine what a Zelda game might look like with sword and shield that you can use all at the same time."
Ugh. That's exactly what I don't want. Zelda isn't about swinging a sword. It's about an adventure.
I think you should buy an XBOX360. I think it's more what you like. If the Revolution ends up ok, then you could trade in your 360. But I'd say Nintendo no longer offers what you want.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 04, 2005, 11:14:37 AM
What is this Star Trek? This is entertainment. It's not like I'm hoarding food from starving people. Nintendo has entertained me for over ten years so I want them to continue to. Thus I'm going to get upset if they decide to ditch me particularly when I've been a loyal customer providing them with MONEY all this time.
"I think you should buy an XBOX360. I think it's more what you like. If the Revolution ends up ok, then you could trade in your 360. But I'd say Nintendo no longer offers what you want."
MS doesn't really offer what I want either. If they did I would just go to them. Ever since Sega went third party Nintendo is the only console maker that offers what I want. That's why I don't want them making such an abrupt change because then I'm in limbo, squeezed out of a hobby I love.
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 04, 2005, 11:26:25 AM
Yeah, we've been providing them with MONEY too Ian, and we like the thought of the changes they're making. Money gives you voting power, not veto power.
Post by: Mario on November 04, 2005, 11:40:21 AM
Quote
words words words
words words words
Post by: vudu on November 04, 2005, 11:59:39 AM
QuoteIt's more effecient because let's say there are 20,000 people who want to buy the game. How are they going to reach those people? Unless they know where exactly they're located they won't know where to ship the games to. So they're either going to (A) print 20,000 copies and people in South Carolina who don't like good games won't buy their alloted copies, but people in Chicago won't have enough copies or (B) have to print a Hell of a lot more than 20,000 copies. Neither is very effecient.
Originally posted by: IceCold
But, but, Reggie contradicted himself. First he said that the notion that they didn't put it in stores because then they wouldn't have to sell it into retail and not give into retail margins was nonsense. But later he said that they did it because it was the most efficient way to go, which obviously means that it was cost-effective.
However, the target audience for this game is most likely those who are fairly technical and computer/Internet savvy. Most of them shouldn't have a hard time purchasing the game online.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 04, 2005, 12:02:52 PM
Not that I completely agree with all of this, I do actually think that it should be sold in stores, but I can definitely see why they did this.
Post by: King of Twitch on November 04, 2005, 12:20:14 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 04, 2005, 12:38:47 PM
Zelda sword-swinging: I have to say, I kind of agree with Ian on this one. Now to be fair, I have no idea what Miyamoto and co. have planned and it's very possible they could make sword-swinging in Zelda totally awesome. On the other hand, I agree with Ian that having sword-swinging as one of the main mechanics of the game seems to go against what really matters in the series. Of course adventure games don't preclude sword-swinging, but can sword-swinging be made an important part of the game without seeming disjointed? I'm skeptical.
Reggie: He's just a PR guy. He's an awesome one, one that does a great job of getting people pumped about Nintendo, but his opinions aren't 100% perfect, and what he says isn't 100% honest, because nobody is 100% perfect, and it doesn't pay for PR people to be 100% honest.
Post by: mantidor on November 04, 2005, 12:42:14 PM
Its funny him mentioning that the dongle is going to be the way to introduce wifi here in latin america because of the lack of hotspots ( and in truth, theres barely none) but, with that price point, youve got to be kidding me Reggie, just say you wont support online in latinamerica and it would look better.
Post by: Artimus on November 04, 2005, 01:21:51 PM
Post by: stevey on November 04, 2005, 02:47:05 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 04, 2005, 03:03:49 PM
Who said sword-swinging is being made an important part of the game? Where are you getting this from? Just because they're making it more fun doesn't mean they're making it more important... it's like Nintendo bought better cheese for their pepperoni pizza and now you're complaining that it's not a pepperoni pizza anymore.
Post by: mantidor on November 04, 2005, 03:09:15 PM
Post by: ThePerm on November 04, 2005, 03:40:27 PM
For most people that killed Nintendo's credibility to alot of people. Alot of my Nintendo freidns are now xbox friends ...its really weird.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 04, 2005, 03:47:40 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 04, 2005, 04:00:26 PM
[Ian] I don't believe you.
~~~~~
[Ian] WORDS WORDS WORDS
[Pro] I don't believe you.
~~~~~
Seriously, why think that swinging the sword is the ONLY new Rev-influence Zelda will have? Link fires arrows, uses hookshots, conducts music, throws grappling hooks, etc, etc, AND SOLVES PUZZLES. Zelda is filled with block/switch puzzles that have traditionally involved push forward/pull back mechanics for nearly 20 years. Think of how this can be expanded given the fact Rev follows how you move your hand.
Swinging Bowser around for the first time in Mario 64 w/ an analog stick was pretty insane/cool (lol compared to 360-deg Zangief pile drivers in Street Fighter w/ a d-pad). Rev goes several STAIRCASES beyond that.
Post by: ThePerm on November 04, 2005, 04:20:17 PM
i loved wind waker personally...but i know alot of people arent as open minded as me
Post by: trip1eX on November 04, 2005, 05:36:46 PM
Post by: animecyberrat on November 05, 2005, 05:17:04 AM
The people I associate with who make music, myself includied, curently use a program called Acid, made by Sony, well Sonic Foundry but they are a part of sony. Anyways what makes this music making program great is its not just easy to use, but its artistic value also. You see they way it works is you have a canvas and a paint brushand you paint teh sounds onto teh canvas and make songs, you use loops of coruse and that makes it easier also. Then You just paint pretty pictures and select teh loops you like and you can create a nice song in a few minutes. It has a lot of other features that make it a formidable tool and its the acaxt same tool teh Neptunes use. NOw when i tell othe rmusic producers like myself about Electroplankot I compare it to Acid, and they love it, mixing art and music is so perfectly natural. Anyways these guys all order thie programs online anyways so its no big deal to them, I just hope that Nintendo can get some online music stores to carry the "game" and have that club Dj they used at E3 to do a commercial for the game. Electroplankot isnt meant to appeal to gamers, from whative looked up on it, ist mean t to appeal to people with musical interest and artistic aspirations. Of course theres a big chance that if the games a huge success nintendo might offer it to stores that are interested. I would at least hope they sell it at Hastings and Sam Good though, cuz thats where teh target audience will be shopping anyways.
Post by: The Omen on November 05, 2005, 11:49:26 AM
Quote
So you think you matter more than everyone else? Ian, if 99% of people are happy, does it really matter if you are? NO.
If 99% of people were happy, Nintendo wouldn't be languishing in 3rd place. A product that satisfying shouldn't have a hard time selling, should it? So just because you are satisfied, lets not throw out ridiculous numbers. Ians point is as valid as yours.
As for Zelda, and swinging the sword, I'm quite certain it will be available to those who wish to use it. Those that don't can stick with the shell.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 05, 2005, 12:28:12 PM
Nintendo can not make every game a game that every person can play; and they sure as hell can't make every game a game that appeals to everyone. Sure Electroplankton is accessable to any player advanced or novice, but it is not likely going to motivate someone who is anxiously awaiting the next Halo or Metroid to go out and buy a DS. Electroplankton, Warioware, and Nintendogs are accessable games, but they are not palatable to "gamers." I say this knowing there is a niche market of gamers who really are hardcore about arcady games because they are as I just said, a niche. Nintendo, I thought was not going for that niche of hardcore gamers into stuff like Donky Konga or Papa the Rappa or DDR; I thought Nintendo was trying to reach a new noncore market who these kinds of games may also appeal to simply because they are simple to play.
Nintendo can't make every game a game for everyone. Nintendo needs to make their library of software appeal to everyone so that no matter what type of gamer you are you won't have trouble finding your tastes. Basically there is only one market Nintendo is not making games for right now and that is for lack of better termanology "mature gamers." I am talking about your nutty friend who hasn't played Metroid and doesn't want to cause he is hung up on Halo or Unreal or Doom 3. I am talking about those gamers who own one of the other consoles and only owns that console right now. Nintendo needs to attract those gamers. I would suggest they get some major exclusive shooters for this new controller. The only way to convince these fanboys is to kill the hell out of them using the Revolution controller and show them the analog stick and the mouse/keyboard setup are ancient history now. These type of gamers will show respect for performance enhancement in their shooters.
Post by: Kairon on November 05, 2005, 01:34:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Nintendo can not make every game a game that every person can play; and they sure as hell can't make every game a game that appeals to everyone. Sure Electroplankton is accessable to any player advanced or novice, but it is not likely going to motivate someone who is anxiously awaiting the next Halo or Metroid to go out and buy a DS. Electroplankton, Warioware, and Nintendogs are accessable games, but they are not palatable to "gamers." I say this knowing there is a niche market of gamers who really are hardcore about arcady games because they are as I just said, a niche. Nintendo, I thought was not going for that niche of hardcore gamers into stuff like Donky Konga or Papa the Rappa or DDR; I thought Nintendo was trying to reach a new noncore market who these kinds of games may also appeal to simply because they are simple to play.
Nintendo can't make every game a game for everyone. Nintendo needs to make their library of software appeal to everyone so that no matter what type of gamer you are you won't have trouble finding your tastes. Basically there is only one market Nintendo is not making games for right now and that is for lack of better termanology "mature gamers." I am talking about your nutty friend who hasn't played Metroid and doesn't want to cause he is hung up on Halo or Unreal or Doom 3. I am talking about those gamers who own one of the other consoles and only owns that console right now. Nintendo needs to attract those gamers. I would suggest they get some major exclusive shooters for this new controller. The only way to convince these fanboys is to kill the hell out of them using the Revolution controller and show them the analog stick and the mouse/keyboard setup are ancient history now. These type of gamers will show respect for performance enhancement in their shooters.
You realize that what you're saying, nemo, is that Nintendo needs third parties.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on November 05, 2005, 04:00:12 PM
Post by: Mario on November 05, 2005, 08:06:25 PM
Quote
If 99% of people were happy, Nintendo wouldn't be languishing in 3rd place. A product that satisfying shouldn't have a hard time selling, should it? So just because you are satisfied, lets not throw out ridiculous numbers. Ians point is as valid as yours.
I believe he was talking about Revolution. 0/0 people are satisfied with their Revolution, so that's 100%.
Quote
As for Zelda, and swinging the sword, I'm quite certain it will be available to those who wish to use it. Those that don't can stick with the shell.
No way, it's going to use the new control methods as part of the game. What's the point of using these new controls if they can possibly be emulated with old ones?
Post by: Ian Sane on November 05, 2005, 08:40:23 PM
You just pointed out exactly what's wrong with sword swinging controls. The current system with the lock on is incredibly easy to use. With two buttons and the analog stick I can dodge, parry, horizontal strike and vertical strike with ease. It works incredibly well and that's why sword swinging would be a problem. Swinging a sword is much more complex. Suddenly to beat that Iron Knuckle I need some real fencing skills. Skills I don't have nor should be expected to have for a Zelda game. Sure it could be simplified to basic movements (up does a vertical strike, etc) but if you're going to do that you might as well use the existing system which has the advantage in that it doesn't cause fatigue from moving a remote the whole time. The whole point of using the remote with motion control to control a sword is for it to control accurately and pay attention to subtle movements so it feels like you're really fighting. Without that level of control using the remote would be a g!mmick (I love how we censor any word that might cause *gasp* actual discussion). That level of control and complexity goes against Zelda's design which traditionally has allowed for complex actions to be executed with simple commands. Sword swinging is for something like Bushido Blade where the potential flexibility of the remote can be used to full effect without comprimising the game's design or using the remote as a g!mmick replacement for a d-pad.
Post by: Mario on November 05, 2005, 09:14:33 PM
Post by: IceCold on November 05, 2005, 09:17:48 PM
It's come up twice in this thread alone.
Post by: trip1eX on November 05, 2005, 09:31:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The sword stuff is going to be sweet. IT's like Zelda now. YOu know, target lock on the enemy and move around with the analog stick, but this time you'll swing the remote part instead of pressing buttons to swing the sword."
You just pointed out exactly what's wrong with sword swinging controls. The current system with the lock on is incredibly easy to use. With two buttons and the analog stick I can dodge, parry, horizontal strike and vertical strike with ease. It works incredibly well and that's why sword swinging would be a problem. Swinging a sword is much more complex. Suddenly to beat that Iron Knuckle I need some real fencing skills. Skills I don't have nor should be expected to have for a Zelda game. Sure it could be simplified to basic movements (up does a vertical strike, etc) but if you're going to do that you might as well use the existing system which has the advantage in that it doesn't cause fatigue from moving a remote the whole time. The whole point of using the remote with motion control to control a sword is for it to control accurately and pay attention to subtle movements so it feels like you're really fighting. Without that level of control using the remote would be a g!mmick (I love how we censor any word that might cause *gasp* actual discussion). That level of control and complexity goes against Zelda's design which traditionally has allowed for complex actions to be executed with simple commands. Sword swinging is for something like Bushido Blade where the potential flexibility of the remote can be used to full effect without comprimising the game's design or using the remote as a g!mmick replacement for a d-pad.
Are you like Mr. Burns in the Simpsons and think you'll have trouble lifting a little remote and doing a few slashes? Is your nickname Mr. Glass? When the sun is out without a cloud in the sky and it's 78 degrees do you find a way to not enjoy it?
HOnestly, .....
Do you really believe what you post? lol. Cause that is some 100% genuine b.s.
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 05, 2005, 10:03:40 PM
Post by: Artimus on November 05, 2005, 11:34:02 PM
The difference in the revolution isn't the new genres, it's how much more tactile the old ones will be. This attempt has been around since 2D, we simply don't realize it. In making the SNES version of Zelda, a new game, several things were added. Things like switches which you pull on. In making the N64 things were added, like a rumble pack. One of the main changes in controls from the NES to the current generation, besides 3D space, is tactile. The reason there's a lock-on in the 3D Zelda games is that it makes it easier to fight. If you didn't even need to bother and just had to flick your wrist, it's twice as easy. We already pull back to pull the lever, push forward to move the box, so why not actually move our arms? For any intent and purpose we should just have to press A to move a box. Pulling on the control stick is rather pointless, it doesn't make the game much different. Yet if those things are removed we'd miss them, as we'd feel less involved. We'd just be pressing A over and over again. We've gone from button press to directional movement, and now we're going to real motion. It's the next step, it makes sense. It will make the games far more immersive.
Immersive in so many way. When people move they feel stronger emotions and reactions. The less of you that is moving, the less you respond. You can see this anywhere. The less interaction a game has, the less immersive. People can pickup Tetris and spend an hour without realizing it. Why? They're always doing something, always interacting. If you're walking down a hallway with your flashlight out, it can be tense. If you use your thumbs you'll be immersed. But if your arms are being used, that's more of you invested. When something jumps out in a movie, people shake or shudder or flich. When it happens in a game their hands fly up, their hands holding the control. he game isn't any scarier, yet they move more than with the movie. Why? They are physically involved. Even if it's just their hands, their hands reaction. Now image it's your whole arm, suddenly even more of you is invested, even more of you will react. Scares are just an obvious form.
Pressing buttons is not tactile or intuitive. We learn it. I've been playing PS2 and XBOX this weekend and I have trouble remembering which button is which (the four face buttons). I always get O and square mixed up. I've been gaming my whole life, I've played PSX and PS2 many times. Yet I am still learning where everything is. There was a brief learning curve on the GCN controller, which face button is which (X/Y). It isn't intuitive to push a button when you want to swing a sword. We learn it, and we understand it, but it isn't intuitive. Moving your arm to point a flashlight is intuitive, that's how flashlights work. The huge step this gives games is to have controls match reality. Currently games control nothing like reality. They can look real, sound real, their stories can be real, but they don't control real.
Maybe the Revolution will be a big disaster. But in 100 years I'd bet anything that games are controlled through tactile. More advanced than the remote I'm sure, but after 20 years of emulating the tactile, it's simply a matter of time before that innovation hits. We should just be glad it's our team who's doing it.
Post by: Kairon on November 06, 2005, 06:48:19 AM
I think it's ridiculous for you to assume anything about the next Zelda game other than Aounuma and Miyamoto will make it as good a game as they possibly can. I mean seriously, you're already complaining about gameplay that is really 100% speculation on your part. You're basically making up something to complain about or discuss when you talk about "swinging swords in Zelda."
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on November 06, 2005, 07:06:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Y'all realize that you're argueing over a game that hasn't even been announced right?
I think it's ridiculous for you to assume anything about the next Zelda game other than Aounuma and Miyamoto will make it as good a game as they possibly can. I mean seriously, you're already complaining about gameplay that is really 100% speculation on your part. You're basically making up something to complain about or discuss when you talk about "swinging swords in Zelda."
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
It's a confirmed game. And Reggie said the swinging sword stuff. What's wrong with speculation? We're Nintendo fans, that's what we have to do 99% of the time.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 06, 2005, 08:49:16 AM
Akihiro Hino (producer at Level 5, ´True Fantasy Live Online´, ´Dragon Quest VIII´) believes that the Revolution will give birth to new types of games. He is personally interested in making an RPG where you hold a shield in one hand, a sword in the other and mount a head set on our head -- although he laughs that this would be impossible. More seriously, he seems concerned about players getting tired due to all the hand movement, regardless of how much fun their having. The hardware has a lot of potential, but he hopes that games are designed so that even if they're played for lengthy periods people won't get tired.
Its not an issue to me whether on not Nintendo will use this controller for aiming with the bow, hookshot, boomarang, and use it for motion capture sword slashes (if they don't, like I said earlier; I'm going to be like WTbloodyF did they have in mind for this thing). The issue for me is whether we will be dual wielding remotes for sword and shield control; this could bring up camera issues which Akihiro Hino has already addressed bringing up a head set out of nowhere. If we dual wield the remotes we would be required to use a dpad for character control and camera if there is no head gear or redesigns of the remote's surface mechanics. The most likely form of control will be the nunchuck which won't allow the type of left hand right hand control Hino is suggesting, but it will allow us to use the analog stick for character strafing and running forward and backward.
I feel with the nunchuck piece there would be two ways to control the game. In one way the camera could be locked in the 3/4 view making it so we don't have to use the lock on anymore (complete camera control would be optional through the remote, but the bow and other aiming weapons would allow for aiming using the remote in first person). All turning would be controlled by the remote; with the sword you could also use this to do spin attacks without actually standing up in your living room and spinning around like the fabled Star Wars kid.
The other way to control Zelda with the nunchuck would be to use the analog stick for moving and turning as the analog stick has been used traditionally; the camera would be controlled by the remote. Using the lockon button would take care of camera freeing up the remote for weapon control. I think I would prefer the first option using the nunchuck in which the camera is secondary to weapon control getting rid of the requirement of lockon for straffing.
Using the shell to control the sword would feel clunky; just pick up your GameCube controller and try swinging it around with both hands chained together. It could work for aiming or camera control in a game, but not for weapon control.
Personally I would like the a button on the remote to be removed and replaced by something like an analog stick or trackball allowing for developers to approach dual wielding games on the Revolution without sacrificing analog character control or independent camera control (having independent camera control would allow for each gun to be aimed in a different direction from the direction the player wants to look).
Also I would like to say; what is up with the censorship. It helps to use key terms to communicate an idea to the reader. I feel a lot of the language we use around the planet here find its way out onto other boards and into people's editorials. I'll be on 1up for example and someone will say something I first heard here a year ago about nongamers. I guess its just a small internet.
Going back to what Akihiro Hino said about gamers getting tired and what Ian said; I think that people who complain about getting tired or being unable to perform athletic actions like swinging a sword are dooming themselves to be labled the stereotypical fat gamer living in their mother's basement. These new ways of controlling games will ensure that gaming is nolonger associated with the negative zombie image it has had in the past.
Post by: Mario on November 06, 2005, 01:14:15 PM
Quote
More seriously, he seems concerned about players getting tired due to all the hand movement, regardless of how much fun their having.
Hahaha, he WOULD be concerned about that, considering he makes RPGs that are 10391 hours long, but to avoid that you can simply make the controls more relaxing. They don't NEED to make it so you have to backflip around doing walljumps in your living room, even though that would be awesome.
Post by: mantidor on November 06, 2005, 01:50:51 PM
Post by: IceCold on November 06, 2005, 01:56:59 PM
Post by: zakkiel on November 06, 2005, 04:51:01 PM
QuoteIan wants Nintendo to cater exclusively to him; "both" is not good enough. Which is fine, but it's hard to have much sympathy with that attitude. Especially at a time when there are THREE consoles coming out, and not a one of them is a good enough match for him, it appears.
Ian, Reggie said explicitly they are a BOTH company and they want to cater both audiences, I dont see how you ommited that part.
Personally, I have no fears whatsoever that I will get $250 (or whatever the price point is) worth of fun out of the Rev. The rest of the argument is just silly. Zelda will feature sword-swinging, or point-and-click swinging, or just plain old-school button pressing of the phenomonally simplistic type it currently has, depending on which version the developers think is most fun. So why, oh why, are we angsting about this?
Post by: ThePerm on November 06, 2005, 05:32:57 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 06, 2005, 06:17:24 PM
Look below...
Post by: wandering on November 06, 2005, 06:39:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Ugh. That's exactly what I don't want. Zelda isn't about swinging a sword. It's about an adventure.
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll go ahead and repeat myself: zelda has always been about putting you in Link's shoes and making you feel like you're experiencing, as much as possible, what's going on the game. When you play your ocarina, you don't select the saong you want to play from a menu, you tap out the notes yourself with the c-buttons. When firing a bow, the game goes into first-person mode and allows you to aim the bow with the analog stick. That's what Zelda is about. Letting you feel like you are actually holding Link's sword by allowing you to control it directly would be keeping very in much tune with what the series.
Quote
You just pointed out exactly what's wrong with sword swinging controls. The current system with the lock on is incredibly easy to use. With two buttons and the analog stick I can dodge, parry, horizontal strike and vertical strike with ease.
Except that it's not that simple. Different kinds of sword swings require different anaolog stick + button combinations, and hitting another enemy who's attacking you requires you to shift your focus by pressing the lock-on button. Now, imgine instead a system where the sword on the screen corresponds exactly to your hand movements. Swinging horizantally/vertically, or hitting an enemy off to your side, would become more intuitve and more fun. And no, you wouldn't need advaqnced sword fighting skills anymore than you do now: the enemies in zelda have never engaged Link in complex fencing matches before, and I don't think they will now.
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo
Personally I would like the a button on the remote to be removed and replaced by something like an analog stick or trackball allowing for developers to approach dual wielding games on the Revolution without sacrificing analog character control or independent camera control (having independent camera control would allow for each gun to be aimed in a different direction from the direction the player wants to look).
Personally, I'd prefer it if the rev's controls weren't sacraficed just for the sake of dual-wielding. For most games, having 2 gyros will be completley unnecessary, in the same way that giving the DS 2 touch screens would have been completley unnecessary. No need to clutter the remote with an anaolog stick or trackball.
edit: un-itallisized
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 06, 2005, 06:42:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
swinging the controller to emulate the sword? WTF? where did Reggie confirmed that? the only confirmation that we have is the trailer, and those are very misleading (although they shouldnt be, its not like Nintendo said "this will be the new Zelda period!!!" at all)
Think about it this way. Nintendo has to assume leadership and show that their invention is what's best for gaming in general. Every single important Nintendo IP will use the remote. That's just plain old common sense.
To deny that Zelda will use the remote in some form is madness. We don't know exactly how it will be implemented, but the sole fact that it will be implemented is enough to start speculation. Furthermore, many people have already mentioned how Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie have all alluded to in some way that Zelda could have motion control that might emulate Link's arms.
Miyamto said he wanted people to actually "pull the lever." Both Reggie and Iwata used Zelda as an example of a GOOD way the controller could be used.
Now that we know the controller will be used, how could it be used in a fun, intiutive, and immersive way? Well, its quite obvious especially if the game creator mention its possibility....and of course, I'm talking about emulating Link's arm. It just makes sense to. Not only should the remote be used to aim a slingshot or something like it, but take it a step further, and let Link manipulate objects within the world (fishing anyone?).
So given those two things, Link can now interact with the world on a greater degree, and aim precisely. That's mostly what Zelda is, but Zelda wouldn't be Zelda without battling evil. Since the other parts of Zelda incorperate the NRC, why leave the fighting the same and essentially archaic? It would feel out of place if the NRC wasn't placed in somehow. So again, what is the most fun, intuitive, and immersive way to incorperate it? I say emulate arm movements, and keep the trend throughout the game.
This is what I'd like to see, but of course, I have no say in what we'll actually see. Anyway...
1: Z-targeting should still be intact. It's easy, and it takes care of the camera. Strafing should only occur while Z-targeting as well as jumps and side-jumps. Everything should essentially be the same. The main difference is Link's sword and shield.
2: To strike, you emulate the sword swing. This handles all of Link's attacks except for the jump attack and maybe the roll around attack (if it's still present. Also, I'm not exactly sure what way is the best to activate the spin-attack). This would essentially make your Link unique from my Link, and better yet, it immerses yourself into the game.
3: "A" would be left for the jumps/rolls/jump attack like the Zelda's seen today. The "B" trigger would bring up your shield. When holding your shield, you can control it with the NRC. This opens up a wide variety of gameplay not seen in any Zelda's to date. This would help alot when Link is on horse-back, and needs to block arrows. Better yet, Link can now redirect projectiles and sunlight with ease. He could also bat away bombs that are being thrown at him, and maybe redirect it into an oncoming foe or an object essential to completing a puzzle. As the game goes on, the fighting strategy could deepen. Link's attacks against a special kind of foe are useless. They either get blocked or canceled out. Trying to counter after the enemy attacks doesn't work either. To defeat it, Link has to wait for the enemy to attack, and when he does, whip out his shield and bat away the foe's sword. The better the timing, the farther the enemy's sword ricochets backwards, leaving him open and sometimes even swordless.
I don't want to get into detail about the game in its entirety, so i'll just leave it there.
Post by: King of Twitch on November 06, 2005, 08:44:28 PM
left - sideswipe
right - sideswipe again combo
(or left and right could be side jumps)
leftright - spin
forward - slash
back - parry
forwardback - backflip over an enemy, stab him in midair
up - general sky thrust, good for hitting incoming bats.
updown - jump thrust
that'll free up the B button for selecting another item, or the I LOVE HALO 2z can go to the options menu and change it back to the old way.
Post by: OptimusPrime on November 06, 2005, 10:19:02 PM
I even had the crazy idea where you have this gladiotor game and you push on both controllers D-pad up makes you drop our weapons (the other guy dong the same thing) and it becomes a boxing match, with the controllers in hand. Using A or B grabs the other character and bam, instant antic wrestling, flicking the controller fast in the right direction makes you do slammoves and others.
Bring it!
Post by: Artimus on November 07, 2005, 05:41:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
Firefox has a nice extension that'll let you go forward/backward through the internet, close or open a tab, double the size of a pic, etcetera, just by holding right click and jabbing it in a direction. I don't see why the Rev controller has to be about flailing your arm around the living room. Just hold A, and juke the controller
Mouse gestures! I've been using them for about a year and a half now, ever since I got Firefox. I surf the internet a LOT faster now, and I find it frustrating when I'm on a machine without them. The rare time I use IE for a site that requires it, I always forget it doesn't have them and try to use them. They're great!
Post by: ThePerm on November 08, 2005, 01:51:56 PM
i feel im in the future n ow
Post by: couchmonkey on November 10, 2005, 12:10:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Going back to what Akihiro Hino said about gamers getting tired and what Ian said; I think that people who complain about getting tired or being unable to perform athletic actions like swinging a sword are dooming themselves to be labled the stereotypical fat gamer living in their mother's basement. These new ways of controlling games will ensure that gaming is nolonger associated with the negative zombie image it has had in the past.
I am the stereotypical fat gamer (though I don't live in my mother's basement). I'll be the first to play a fun game that involves exercise, but I don't know if I want every game to be that way, and the fact that games don't come down to an athletic competition is one of the things that makes them fun for me. I'm not coordinated enough to win a "real" sword fight with Ganon!
Having said that, I'm starting to see the possibilities of a Zelda game where the controller is used as a sword. I challenged myself to come up with a control scheme that would let me fight with the controller while leaving the basic Legend of Zelda game design intact, and there are some good options. Making it work might involve turning the game into a first-person title, which would freak me out, but if it plays well, I can deal with that.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 10, 2005, 12:22:56 PM
here boy
on zelda:
The challenge of having a real sword fight lies in the thirty pounds of steel and its ability to cut you toes off if you don't watch out. I expect the Revolution remote to be based more on accuracy than athletic ability.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 10, 2005, 12:33:34 PM
Quote
I'll close today with one more thought from Jack Welch. He said: "Change -- before you have to." For our industry, we believe it's time to change. The entire bet on this upcoming generation of home systems for manufacturers and publishers boils down to change. Do we only give them more of what they've always wanted no matter what the cost? Or dare to give them something new? Do we change? Do we make games that play just like the old ones? Or expand the very definition of a game? Do we change? Are we satisfied just serving current players? Or do we offer a turn to the millions still standing on the sidelines? Do we have to courage to change?
For Nintendo, we're not leaving the old market behind. We're just out to expand it. To show the world what a bigger, more robust more profitable market looks like. Blue ocean, her we come."
This is just an awe-inspiring end quote, in my opinion...
Post by: odifiend on November 10, 2005, 12:45:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 10, 2005, 01:05:34 PM
Most of it is the same type of stuff from the first speech though there is a few things I want to touch.
"This chart is familiar to most industry observers. It's the trend of the Japanese game industry revenues over the past several years. What use to work, well, isn't as working as well anymore."
Fair enough. But it brings to the front a common point against Nintendo's strategy. This is for Japan and like I've mentioned a million times, that doesn't necessarily reflect on the entire industry.
I also think his movie analogy is flawed. In that case the special effects spectulars are getting stale and the solution seems to be going back to acting and writing which has always worked. The problem is Nintendo isn't going back to the basics or at least to me they aren't. The truth is Nintendo has stayed away from the "flash" that the competition has relied on. Nintendo games still are about tremendous gameplay. Graphic updates for Nintendo games are like using colour film for movies. They make use of new technology but it's like using special effects to remove Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump. Technology is used to enhance but not used as a crutch or as the focus. Just like how great films are great films regardless of what special effects are present, great games are great games and Nintendo typically makes great games. The whole "spending billions doesn't always work" only applies to crap that relies on flash to attract attention. Lord of the Rings wasn't successful because it had nifty effects. It was successful because it was a great movie with a great story, great writing, great acting and great directing.
Nintendo makes the game equivalent of Lord of the Rings. Sony and MS make the game equivalent of Star Wars Episode I. So Nintendo's model isn't broken because they know how to make great games and don't rely on technology as a crutch.
But Nintendo is acting like they're the ones making Star Wars Episode I. Like they're the ones making the shallow games that rely on flash over substance. So why are they going in this new direction? They're the only console maker that could survive a shrinking market as is. Plus it's not like they're going back to the basics. They're going in a brand new direction outright. So the film analogy doesn't work because films aren't going in a totally different direction to fix the problem. Reggie talks about how films like the Godfather were able to be successful by relying on the old method of acting and writing. So wouldn't that work for gaming too? To me it's like Nintendo is right about the problem but not the solution. Sony's model, introduced with the Playstation in 1995, is broken. But Nintendo's model, introduced with the NES in 1985, is not the exact same model and isn't as flawed as Sony's.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 10, 2005, 01:13:09 PM
The opposite is true of the game industry. The game industry still has a lot of room to develop its ability to communicate while at the same time it seems reluctant to spend the time to develop its technique further so to be more accessable. The game industry has turned into a singular testical lonely old grubber who won't let go of his message long enough to realize he needs to develop a more painterly stroke so to attract an audience to actually hear his tale.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 10, 2005, 07:14:04 PM
Post by: IceCold on November 10, 2005, 07:51:24 PM
Whoa...first Perm spelled "Vertical" as Verticle, then Nemo spelled "testicle" testical
Amazing
Uhh, yeah... great post Nemo.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 11, 2005, 06:12:28 PM
I just wanted to test out the photo option
and since it was reggie related....
