Post by: nemo_83 on March 07, 2006, 06:03:04 PM
Luckily, that time is almost here and it’s exciting. I find myself very optimistic about the big show and this is partly true because already I’m seeing active support from various third party publishers. Unexpectedly varied support. Sure, there are the kid games. THQ and Midway have them and, frankly, I expected more. But to my surprise, some third parties have really stepped up. Ubisoft’s mysterious first-person shooter. Activision with a rumored version of Call of Duty that takes full advantage of the Revmote. Midway with a few “grown up” efforts of its own. And smaller studios like Atlus with Trauma Center. This is to say nothing of SEGA’s sweet stuff or Capcom’s sweet stuff. There’s potential here. Lots.
By this time next month, I will have seen and/or played a handful of very promising Revolution games and will in turn have a much better understanding of the software on the horizon. Perhaps I’ll have a vastly different opinion or more likely my current enthusiasm will be validated. Regardless, I always love these periods. You don’t entirely know what to expect, but you’re jazzed about the possibilities.
E3 brings about the end of an era for IGNcube and IGN Revolution. For a couple years now we’ve been writing about a console that doesn’t really exist. We don’t have a previews section on IGN Revolution because there are no detailed/shown games. Oh, we know of a couple dozen titles in development, but we don’t know anything about them. Not really, anyway — except the obvious. I mean, I can tell you that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles is on the way and that it’ll look good and support the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, but beyond that we enter into the realm of speculation.
E3 changes that. There will be games. They will be playable. And hence, the transition from GameCube to Revolution will be complete. I love my GameCube and I’m looking forward to Zelda. But even so, I’m anticipating the jump.
I’ve been disappointed by Nintendo in the past. I believe it was E3 2004 that Shigeru Miyamoto touted a GCN demo of Pac-Man as the highlight of the Big N’s media briefing. Few in attendance would disagree that Nintendo’s show that year was under-whelming, to put it mildly. But I don’t expect to be disappointed this year.
I think the only people who might find themselves let down are those who still haven’t grasped what Nintendo is going for with Revolution. I read the boards and even now there are posters who still believe Revolution might be able to compete with Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 from a graphic horsepower standpoint. They tell themselves that it has to because Nintendo, IBM and ATI have spent the last five years developing tech.
Revolution will be adequately powerful, but people still holding out for the miracle are setting themselves up for a smack in the face. Power is not the focus here. Revolution as a console is merely a vehicle for the new controller. Think of it this way and you’re going to be happy. I’m going to be writing an editorial very soon that talks about this point.
At the same time, I don’t want to undersell the system’s graphical ability. Games like Resident Evil 4 and Black came about on consoles five years old. Revolution is certainly more capable and therefore the potential for some gorgeous software is there. I’m quite certain that Retro’s Metroid Prime 3 will be a stunner — and it’s going to play like no console game before it.
Can’t wait."
I'll start this show.
If the "console" is just a vehicle for the controller, well, why do we even need the console; why isn't Nintendo just making the controller for 360 or PS3 or simply partnering with MS or Sony? Or why aren't Nintendo partnering with someone to help them finance their own console like Apple or EA?
It is not a good thing for the Revolution to be a delivery machine for the controller, it will simply be a gim mick in the eyes of too many consumers; it is dangerous, more dangerous than investing the money into the hardware and software to match polygon and lighting effects standards found on 360 (which will be out a year when the Rev launches and will likely be priced similarly).
Why are Nintendo investing their money into the console being small and portable when the GameCube showed that angle doesn't work (and GCN had a graphical advantage and still failed). Why aren't Nintendo investing their money in power. Why do they not match the power of the competition and use the remote as their advantage rather than using it to justify the rehashing of hardware? Why didn't they just release the remote for GCN? Even if the tech was at an early stage, lacking the z axis, why didn't they just put gyros in the GCN controllers?
Once again I beg the question, why do we even need the Revolution? Because Nintendo is holding Zelda hostage?
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 07, 2006, 06:11:01 PM
Because console games are getting boring...
Post by: UncleBob on March 07, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 07, 2006, 06:23:41 PM
I agree with you on that whole heartedly, and I believe this new interface can breath life into old games too, but to be more specific, why do we need this console as it stands now as a delivery system for the interface rather than having this interface and Nintendo's software support on 360?
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 07, 2006, 06:35:54 PM
Post by: Mario on March 07, 2006, 06:36:32 PM
With the Revolution console Nintendo gets a fresh start, and a better image.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 07, 2006, 06:56:43 PM
Post by: Invincible Donkey Kong on March 07, 2006, 06:57:19 PM
Post by: wandering on March 07, 2006, 06:58:32 PM
The revolution is going to be a very, very nice package. Incredible controllers that are infinintley expandle and integrate seamlessly and wirelessly with the console. The ability to download 3 generations worth of great Nintendo games. Great graphics that will allow advanced textures and lighting effects, many more things happening on screen at once, etc....even though they won't be quite as impressive as the competition. Signifigantly reduced load times from the competition. Signifigantly reduced price from the competition. Free and easy online service.
And, most importanlty of all, lots of great games.
Oh, one more thing:
Quote
(and GCN had a graphical advantage and still failed). Why aren't Nintendo investing their money in power.
I think the first sentence answers the second....
edit, and one last thing:
Quote
why do we need this console as it stands now as a delivery system for the interface rather than having this interface and Nintendo's software support on 360?
If the rev controller was a third-party add-on peripheral for the 360, how many games do you think would utilize it? More to the point, why would Nintendo want to throw away all the money they receive from 3rd party licensing?
Post by: Dasmos on March 07, 2006, 07:16:13 PM
QuoteWho would be in control then? Nintendo, the company who made the controller or the company who owns the rest? Also this means that developers are less inclined to make games that use the controller.
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I'll start this show.
If the "console" is just a vehicle for the controller, well, why do we even need the console; why isn't Nintendo just making the controller for 360 or PS3 or simply partnering with MS or Sony? Or why aren't Nintendo partnering with someone to help them finance their own console like Apple or EA?
Microsoft and Sony could have made controller like Nintendo at any stage, they chose not to. They chose not to go in the direction Nintendo is going, so why if Nintendo offered to share it with them would they go along? It hasn't proved successful, so why should Microsoft or Sony gamble what they have already got on something like this? Nintendo takes chances, Nintendo tries to innovate, the truth is the other companies do not. They will what has proven successful, but I wouldn't count on them trying to create something innovative just yet.
QuoteCould this be the most contradictive comment of all time?
Why are Nintendo investing their money into the console being small and portable when the GameCube showed that angle doesn't work (and GCN had a graphical advantage and still failed). Why aren't Nintendo investing their money in power.
QuoteIt is an advantage. Can you honestly say you're impressed with Xbox 360 graphics? Impressed to the point that you would over look Nintendo's system because of it? I certainly hope not.
Why do they not match the power of the competition and use the remote as their advantage rather than using it to justify the rehashing of hardware?
Post by: jasonditz on March 07, 2006, 07:23:15 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 07, 2006, 07:36:38 PM
The GameCube was powerful but lacked a true difference between it and the other consoles outside of power, the controller interface, many still complain to me that the GC controller is horrible (mostly because of the lack of buttons and the sticks, especially the cstick). Revolution in my opinion must be powerful, it must match the competition in polygon and lighting effects; that is the entry fee, and the controller is what will define them positively from the competition this coming generation. Plus the download service of course. I have little problem with Nintendo waiting another five years before adopting 720p standards, but in five years, stereoscopics may be the hot new tech...
I still look forward to the day, not when the line between PC and console is blurred, but when the line between console and development kit is blurred.
i am kinda impressed by this, it gives me hope for what is possible in four years
and more so by this
Post by: Berto2K on March 07, 2006, 10:13:11 PM
Quote
If the "console" is just a vehicle for the controller, well, why do we even need the console; why isn't Nintendo just making the controller for 360 or PS3 or simply partnering with MS or Sony? Or why aren't Nintendo partnering with someone to help them finance their own console like Apple or EA?
Because we all know that 3rd party add-ons and even first party ones aren't supported. Why would they want to help their competition with something unique? Apple doesn't do games, EA has a poor level of standards for games. They are usually really buggy.
Quote
It is not a good thing for the Revolution to be a delivery machine for the controller, it will simply be a sparkling innovation in the eyes of too many consumers; it is dangerous, more dangerous than investing the money into the hardware and software to match polygon and lighting effects standards found on 360 (which will be out a year when the Rev launches and will likely be priced similarly).
Consumers are plain stupid. Why do you think 50 cents game sold over 1 million units across xbox, ps2, and pc yet scored an average in the low 50s at gamerankings? Consumers don't believe in gim micks. They buy on hype, name and sometimes fun. If the press is making a lot of noise about Rev they will take notice. It only takes one game to turn heads usually too. With some exclusive titles from third parties already in the works and being ready for launch it will turn some heads. And then you go start talking about hardware again as if you know anthing about how it is built....just shutup about it already.
Quote
Why are Nintendo investing their money into the console being small and portable when the GameCube showed that angle doesn't work (and GCN had a graphical advantage and still failed). Why aren't Nintendo investing their money in power. Why do they not match the power of the competition and use the remote as their advantage rather than using it to justify the rehashing of hardware? Why didn't they just release the remote for GCN? Even if the tech was at an early stage, lacking the z axis, why didn't they just put gyros in the GCN controllers?
Why would Nintendo who has never had a year of financial losses want to break that streak just to please a few million people worldwide? As Mark Rein of Epic Games said at the IGN Live even a few months ago, even the 360 on SDTV looks great. By making the revolution compete on a pixel and hardware level of the other two would cause Nintenedo to lose hundreds of dollars on each unit they sold. Why would they want to do that when the VAST majority of game console owners around the globe will not have hdtv sets in the next few years? There is still room for improvement in SDTV which Nintendo is looking to take advantage of through highly specialized hardware. I think I answered bout the controler above already.
Quote
Once again I beg the question, why do we even need the Revolution? Because Nintendo is holding Zelda hostage?
Because as some have already said...gaming is becoming stagnant. The DS is making a huge stir because of its unique hardware and the exlcusive games that can only be made on it because of the hardware. It is different and is making people turn heads across the globe. Nintendo is looking to do the same thing with Revolution in the console sector. Make people turn their heads from new unique things that can only be done on their system because it is so different and unique.
You need to stop readin way too much into things seriously. Especially the crap that Matt spews out as like it is his own PR speil. Why is Matt beating a dead horse when there is no new info out? He is trying to make people like you worry about nothing.
Post by: Strell on March 07, 2006, 11:54:52 PM
That said, everyone else has pretty much disproven nemo's concerns, and quite well I might add. There's enough functionality built into the Rev that it wouldn't work to just add it to the GC and attempt to compete. That sort of thing would bite Nintendo in the ass.
Besides, 2K development kit? I honestly think we're going to have much more support this time around. That alone demands that the Rev be released.
Post by: Fro on March 08, 2006, 03:31:27 AM
Post by: UncleBob on March 08, 2006, 04:08:20 AM
Post by: MaryJane on March 08, 2006, 05:05:53 AM
you asked a lot of why's. the answer to all of them can be found in three words: Because they're Nintendo. whether you take that as a good thing or a bad thing depends on how you view nintendo's current strategy. last gen ps2 was the weakest in graphics yet sold the best. last gen the only good things xbox had going for it were halo and live. this gen the rev will be the weakest, have what is shaping up to be an amazing online system (i really really really hope they put an ethernet port on the rev) it will launch with an fps (fpa if you wanna be technical) that will far outshine halo and while it will be the weakest graphically i doubt it will be significant. now add in a controller that has gotten more buzz than anything else in video gaming for quite sometime. e3 is going to blow everyone away, just with how much information nintendo is going to throw out there. Sony's part in e3 will blow everyone away with how much hot air they blow in everyones face(lol i couldn't help myself).
i wish i could go on vacation until e3 so i could stop thinking about the rev and how much i want it.
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 05:28:52 AM
2005 was much the same - a lot of Zelda and DS.
I want to say it was 2003 where they showed Pacman Vs. was shown, and yea, that year sucked. The previous years were passable at best.
Nintendo knows what to do at E3 most of the time. THe fact that they've reserved the Kodak theatre this year means something big is going down.
Anyway, point being is that the last 2 years
Post by: mantidor on March 08, 2006, 06:47:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 07:27:07 AM
Do we need the Revolution? No. The remote is in response to a "crisis" about gaming that Nintendo made up. Nintendo thinks they have to reinvent the wheel to innovate. I think that's stupid but we really don't need the X360 or PS3 either. Not yet anyway. The real reason we're even getting any new consoles is because of money and console makers want to release new product. Each company is using some paper thin reason to go next gen. Sony and MS are using HD, Nintendo is using their controller. All three companies are wrong. I don't think we're set for life with the current consoles but we've reached a point in technology where a console can last longer than five years before a new model is needed. We will need new consoles eventually but not yet.
Gaming is only stale if the content being made is stale. Considering that Nintendo has made virtually nothing for the Cube for the past few years but cliche Mario spinoff junk they can kindly shut-up because they've contributed to the problem as much as anyone. And the Rev won't fix this if they just use it to make new Mario spinoffs. If Nintendo wants to make gaming interesting again they need to ditch this recent "our franchises are everything" attitude they've had for the last couple of years, not break a perfectly acceptable controller design for no reason.
If the remote is the only real addition to the Rev I'm concerned about how that will improve traditional games that use the "normal" controller. Without a big hardware boost they're basically just going to be Cube games. Nintendo is kind of setting up a system where only remote controlled games will benefit from their new hardware (and online games). That's kind of lame. It also suggest to me that Nintendo won't bother to even make many traditional games, if any at all. Did they make ANY 2D games for the N64?
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 07:40:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Matt said that because he is a graphic's whore, but I have no reason to think that Rev games will be graphically "inferior" to games like Gears of War in the same scale than for instance N64 graphics compared to GC, which is what everyone thinks its going to end up happening. It will be in the worst case like comparing xbox and GC. At this point with the current technology, the limit is in the developers and how much time and money they want to invest on graphics (because they arent cheap and fast to produce) more than a technology limit like in previous eras.
Geez, RE4 for the Cube wasn't that far off most of the 360 launch titles. I know there's a lot more horsepower in these new systems, but I'm largely unimpressed so far with what they've brought to the table in terms of graphics, it just doesn't seem like a whole generation leap.
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 07:42:57 AM
I agree that I think consoles can last longer than 5 years, but outside of that, your post is pretty much devoid of anything worthwhile - just a bunch of rantings taken WAY out of proportion.
There's other things that could be argued against, but I have a feeling that others will take care of that, even though answers to them have been in countless posts.
I've said this before - you need a new hobby, man.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 08, 2006, 08:00:30 AM
When I think of revolution, all I think about is the controller. Nintendo has put my opinions and focus into the right place.
A new system is required to: complement the controller, deliver a virtual console, allow wifi connections built-in, accept a new media, and allow for storage other than GCN memory cards.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 08:01:13 AM
Nintendo thinks people are bored of gaming as is and thus gaming has to be completely reinvented. That's bullsh!t. If people are bored it is entirely because of the rehash games out there not the "format" of gaming. They think gaming is being too exclusive. That's crap. If anything the amount of "safe" titles and dumbed down games has made gaming more inviting to the mainstream. If anything I consider the mainstream and the non-gamers the problem. Gaming has been hurt by catering to non-fans. Yet Nintendo thinks the problem is that we're not catering to the non-fans enough.
Nintendo thinks no one is buying games anymore except hardcore gamers. That's wrong. If anyone is getting bored of games it's the hardcore fans who find it harder and harder to weed through the crap. The casuals are gleefully purchasing more copies of Madden each year.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 08, 2006, 08:18:52 AM
I don't buy games anymore because I'm bored of the same bullshit being fed to me every single time. However, I'm not a softy when it comes to gaming (Which is why I buy like 3 games a year... only AAAA titles, and play them like mad).
I openly welcome the change to gaming.
P.S. Ian, Nintendo doesn't say EVERY SINGLE PERSON is bored with gaming. Do you just read their comments the way you want them to sound, just so you can make ridiculous, extremist statements and conclusions?
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 08:21:35 AM
You are the kind of guy that thought the mouse wasn't needed. "Mouse! When am I ever going to need that? I like my command prompts!" Had we stayed on command prompts, the computer industry would be nowhere near as big as it is today. I guess all those non-computer computer people like using the mouse. And guess what - even the hardcore computer people like GUIs and mice.
THat is EXACTLY the mode of thinking Nintendo is in right now - throwing out the archaicness of gaming and introducing a way to do things never before seen or previously possible.
You talk all this nonsense about non-gamers and such. Newsflash: There are more non-gamers than gamers. Nintendo is NOT FOCUSING PURELY ON THEM, STOP PRETENDING THEY ARE. Thats the same bullsh*t people said when NIntendo said games need to be shorter. Nintendo doesn't want short games, they want quality-packed ones, and that is a HUGE difference.
Keep thinking to yourself that they are only going to make non-game games, ok? Seriously. THat's the most flawed thinking I've ever heard in my life. Nintendo REBUILT this industry. They set the majority of the rules.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO THROW THEM ALL OUT THE WINDOW IN FAVOR OF SOME UNPROVEN IDEA?
Of course not.
You say
"Nintendo thinks the problem is that weren't not catering to the non-fans enough."
HOLD IT
"NIntendo thinks no one is buying games anymore except hardcore gamers."
What the hell. Not only does that not make sense, but it is comically ONE AFTER THE OTHER.
Make up your mind.
You act like Nintendo is going to make cooking games and no more Zelda anymore.
How about we stop all this crap about how how woebegone Nintendo is and how they are completely aloof from what gamers want. It's a tired argument and YOU KNOW IT.
Post by: vudu on March 08, 2006, 08:50:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
Didn't I ban you, I thought I banned you. Do you ever make sense.
Post by: mantidor on March 08, 2006, 09:00:29 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 08, 2006, 09:21:02 AM
They didn't make it up, the market in Japan is declining and I've read first claims of the same process starting in the US. There are many Atari-age gamers that don't play games because there are too many buttons.
Either way, whether there is a problem that must be fixed or not, we shouldn't stop moving ahead just because our current place is kinda comfortable. The rod is possible, it can be done well and it has the potential to make games better. So why should Nintendo make a console that has no advantages over the others and therefore no reason to exist when they could make a console with a unique advantage? If it fails you can still buy an Xbox.
If your product can't compete on even footing you have to change the footing. Lower the price or change your product to get a competitive advantage. Being cheaper didn't help the Gamecube. Now Nintendo has to try something else if they don't want to make another also-ran that has not one advantage over the competition. Since their competitors are abusing their huge money reserves to price their consoles anticompetitively Nintendo doesn't have a chance of competing with them if they tried the same direction (usually there are antitrust laws for that but somehow noone tries to apply them to the console market). They can keep rushing at the gates of Troy or they can build a horse instead.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 09:39:40 AM
Nintendo's idea is more in line with "we don't need the keyboard anymore because now we have a mouse". The mouse expanded on what was there. The remote removes key functionality and tries to replace it with something else. That is the key difference.
"What the hell. Not only does that not make sense, but it is comically ONE AFTER THE OTHER."
The statements aren't contradicting. Nintendo thinks that right now only hardcore gamers are buying games and the problem with gaming is that non-fans aren't being targetted enough. How do these statements not make sense?
"the got Nintendogs andBrain Training, but also Mario Kart and Metroid Hunters. So I dont see why you should be so pessimistic about the outcome of the Revolution."
That's why I'm concerned. Non-gamers get all the new stuff while we the hardcore are expected to make due with sequels and spin-offs. With the DS too often it seems like the "traditional" games are just Nintendo going through the motions. They're making good stuff but it's very familiar and I want more than sequels. But all the new ideas are for games like Brain Training, Electroplankton and Nintendogs. When I look at the DS lineup it's clear to me that the non-gamers are Nintendo's focus and the hardcore are just expected to just make do with the franchises.
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 10:05:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo's idea is more in line with "we don't need the keyboard anymore because now we have a mouse". The mouse expanded on what was there. The remote removes key functionality and tries to replace it with something else. That is the key difference.
It does? How? It gives you MORE functionality. It is MORE natural to move your hand around than to move your thumb around. It doesn't replace it with something else, it takes something that is amazingly archaic and makes it flow. The only thing we lose with the Revmote....wait, we don't lose anything. We gain. This is an extension of the interface model, Ian. It is not a replacement.
I'm not even going to argue about the fact that we STILL HAVE THE CONVENTIONAL SHELL. Just like you still have a keyboard next to your mouse, when you could conceivably do everything with just one or the other.
You'd have a point if EVERY LAST GAME REPLACED EVERYTHING with the Revmote's capabilities. Like if we played pong and you moved your entire arm up and down. There's NOTHING to say that a developer couldn't relegate control to the stick, to the dpad, or to the Revmote. It's all possible and I gaurantee you will see people using different styles of play.
Nintendo, and more importantly, developers are not stupid enough to pretend that everyone needs a paradigm shift, and that OMFG EVERYTHING NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT. Now if we get a Mario where you tilt left/right to run, jerk up to dump, tilt down to duck, so on so on so on, THEN you'd have a point. But we can't say that because we've seen a grand total of zero games for the Rev, only some possibilities. You're being an alarmist for something that hasn't even been hinted at yet.
As for the hardcore gamer thing, do you really think someone like Nintendo - the most profitable game company to exist currently and in the past - would all of a sudden drop their entire market in leui of another one? We're going to get catered to from both ends. Your comments don't make sense because Nintendo wouldn't back down from an area they KNOW they can make money in for one that is entirely unproven. They aren't stupid, and their bank account proves it. You can't say "only X is buying games, so let's focus on Y," which is what you implied. Nintendo is saying they'll focus on X AND Y. ANd guess what - so will developers.
I fail to see how Atlus prepping Trauma Center (Y) and Ubisoft prepping an FPS (X) isn't somehow attractive to everyone.
You need to stop this silly argument about how all of a sudden Nintendo is going to abandon you for your grandma. Anything "new" is going to be aimed at gamers, period. We're about to get a ton of DS games in traditional genres with new concepts in them. The Rev will do the same.
Finally, you say that all the cool stuff on the DS that is new (in terms of gameplay) is aimed at nongamers. So what? We gamers can appreciate the non-gamer stuff. In fact, they make up my favorite games on the DS right now BECAUSE they are so different and new. You act like we can't enjoy them. Why can't we? I mean, am I so hardcore that I can't like Electroplankton and Nintendogs? What makes me hardcore? The fact that I own Rez? That I play Metal Slug? That I enjoy Contra, despite it being hard as hell? Or that I want to get 100% on all the levels in Yoshi's Island? I don't get why I can't sit back after some soul-crushing minutes with Geometry Wars and just relax with a non-game game, like Animal Crossing. I fail to see why I can't coexist in both spheres.
I'm really going to need you to enlighten me on what is wrong with the situation here.
Post by: MaryJane on March 08, 2006, 10:18:52 AM
Nintendo isn't stupid, they're offering this totally new controller. They realize it can't work with everything hmmm what to do. OH i know lets throw in a peripheral free, that'll make it work with just about everything. And for the games that still won't work with that (which will be few, i'll explain why in a bit) we'll offer a traditional style shell (maybe free?).
As for the ds. how is nintendo forgetting about hardcore gamers? last time i checked people love multiplayer. and we're getting what looks to be one of the best multiplayer experiences ever with mp:h, if that game isn't original please tell me what is. Also we're getting a new super mario, in 2D weren't you the one complaining that there's no 2d anymore? Also we got super princess peach, not my bag of chips, but a solid platformer nonetheless. and many many many more one the way in the form of rpgs and other such traditional games.
Quote
Do we need the Revolution? No. The remote is in response to a "crisis" about gaming that Nintendo made up.
I personally believe the remote is in direct response to the success of the ds. Hell for all we know the ds was an inexpensive way to test if the revmote would be successful.
Oh i almost forgot, the reason i don't think there'll be a lot of games that need the conv. control. with motion sensing moving in a 3d world could be done without using the directional pad, thus turning them into action buttons. with the nunchuck attachment, added on to that which has an analog stick if you forgot, again the directional pad turns into action buttons. there are so many options with this controller, which is why everyone loves it, without having ever touched it. The possiblities are... i don't want to say endless, but greater than any system has ever offered. oh and the rev is much more than a whateverthehell word he used for the controller. wi-fi, wireless lan, virtual console, and some other things we don't know about yet. that seems like more than a controller and a damn good reason to release a new console.
Post by: mantidor on March 08, 2006, 10:27:49 AM
their sequels are very innovative and always try to do new things, whats the response? " OH NO THEY ARE RUINING THE SERIES" I perfectly remember you complaining about Mario Kart and your fear thatt the might try to push that "gimm!cky" touch screen, and how relieved you were that there was no touchscreen input, to the point that it push you to buy a DS if Im not mistaken, or at the very least Im sure it was one of the reasons for your purchase. So sadly you are guilty of your own critisism, have yo tried to put yourself in Nintendo's shoes? why give new things to a group of people who simply seem to dont want it at all?
besides, whos to say that one of those "no games" cant be as great as Pikmin? thats the thing about new innovative things, you might like them or not, and calling them "no game" because they arent easily typecasted into the so called "genres" of gaming is stupid, the term "no game" and "no gamer" at the end dont mean a damn thing, people play games, they are going to like some types of games and dont like some other types and thats it.
Post by: Berto2K on March 08, 2006, 10:31:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
even if in reality the Rev is just a Cube with a remote and the online gaming the Cube should have had.
dillusions +1
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Do we need the Revolution? No. The remote is in response to a "crisis" about gaming that Nintendo made up.
Wrong. You are the most dilusional person I think I have ever seen. It is a fact that the videogame industry had been on the decline for 5 years in JPN. Then the DS came out and it is selling more hardware AND software at a faster rate than any system EVER which includes the GBA. The ONLY way you can explain this is that new people are playing that haven't before and people are going back to their gaming that haven't for many years.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo thinks they have to reinvent the wheel to innovate.
Seemed to work well with the DS..... Give developers a sandbox of different tools and let their imaginations go to work.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think that's stupid but we really don't need the X360 or PS3 either. Not yet anyway. The real reason we're even getting any new consoles is because of money and console makers want to release new product. Each company is using some paper thin reason to go next gen. Sony and MS are using HD, Nintendo is using their controller. All three companies are wrong. I don't think we're set for life with the current consoles but we've reached a point in technology where a console can last longer than five years before a new model is needed. We will need new consoles eventually but not yet.
Surprisingly I partially agree with you on this bit. I feel that there is still plenty of life left in the xbox, ps2, and cube. I know my wallet would appreciate it. Except Nintendo's controller isn't the reason they are doing it. They didn't sit in a meeting and say: We have this new controller its time to make the next system. Rather they were making the new system anyways and thought: Is there anything else we can do besides stronger hardware.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Gaming is only stale if the content being made is stale. Considering that Nintendo has made virtually nothing for the Cube for the past few years but cliche Mario spinoff junk they can kindly shut-up because they've contributed to the problem as much as anyone. And the Rev won't fix this if they just use it to make new Mario spinoffs. If Nintendo wants to make gaming interesting again they need to ditch this recent "our franchises are everything" attitude they've had for the last couple of years, not break a perfectly acceptable controller design for no reason.
Funny how Nintendo has already announced that Miyamoto would be unveiling a brand new IP for rev at E3 this year. Also, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, Donkey Konga, Pikmin, and a few others disagree. And why would Nintendo stop making Mario games when they have sold more this generation (Cube, GBA, DS) than anyother game series franchise? Its gauranteed money for them. A new IP is a risk that they don't normally take. Also you have to remember that Yamauchi-san was in charge for most of the Cube's life and it takes a couple years to make a game. So most of the stuff that you are seeing now were in planning with him at the helm. With the DS starting out under Iwata you are seeing new things coming out because he knows the business better than the heads of Playstation and Xbox because he started from th bottom and has climbed to the top and has put some excitement back into Nintendo according to Nintendo employees.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If the remote is the only real addition to the Rev I'm concerned about how that will improve traditional games that use the "normal" controller. Without a big hardware boost they're basically just going to be Cube games. Nintendo is kind of setting up a system where only remote controlled games will benefit from their new hardware (and online games). That's kind of lame. It also suggest to me that Nintendo won't bother to even make many traditional games, if any at all. Did they make ANY 2D games for the N64?
Ignorance and dillusions +1000000000000. Shell controller says hi. They have said many times that the hardware is much better than Cube's. And from 3rd parties they are now realizing that yes it is about 2x as strong on paper. But Nintendo knows how to design hardware and it will be highly specialized to be able to do things that won't need the raw horsepower. Why are you complaining that they might not make traditional games anymore? You have said maaany times that you are tired of them. Go home.
Quote
Originally posted by: RiskyChris
P.S. Ian, Nintendo doesn't say EVERY SINGLE PERSON is bored with gaming. Do you just read their comments the way you want them to sound, just so you can make ridiculous, extremist statements and conclusions?
Its a daily habit of his around here.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"You are the kind of guy that thought the mouse wasn't needed. 'Mouse! When am I ever going to need that? I like my command prompts!' Had we stayed on command prompts, the computer industry would be nowhere near as big as it is today. I guess all those non-computer computer people like using the mouse. And guess what - even the hardcore computer people like GUIs and mice."
Nintendo's idea is more in line with "we don't need the keyboard anymore because now we have a mouse". The mouse expanded on what was there. The remote removes key functionality and tries to replace it with something else. That is the key difference.
And just how is the remote removing functionality? Last I checked it had it all and more which would be *GASP* expanding what is there. It has the analoge attachment (1 stick), the x/y motion sensing in the main controller (1 stick), trigger buttons (3), a, b, start, another a, and a d-pad. THEN there is the z axis sensing on top of it all. So that is 2 sticks, 3 triggers, d-pad, and 3 buttons with their latest models whis is only one button less than Cube's. Heck they are more than likely going to reveal another design at E3 still since at TGS they said they were still tweaking the controller.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
That's why I'm concerned. Non-gamers get all the new stuff while we the hardcore are expected to make due with sequels and spin-offs. With the DS too often it seems like the "traditional" games are just Nintendo going through the motions. They're making good stuff but it's very familiar and I want more than sequels. But all the new ideas are for games like Brain Training, Electroplankton and Nintendogs. When I look at the DS lineup it's clear to me that the non-gamers are Nintendo's focus and the hardcore are just expected to just make do with the franchises.
Wait, since when were you never allowed to buy anything except "sequals and spinoffs"? Noone is stopping you from buyng the "new stuff" besides your own stupid self. You pretty much just dscribed why the market has been on the decline. All the ideas for a "traditional" game have been done which is why you see the same elements over and over and over in games. New ideas are going to make new games than what you are used to. Its your own fault for not being interested in them. I don't think it was just the "non-gamers" who bought Nintendogs and Animal Crossing. There are plenty of gamers who did. Open your eyes to the bigger picture and not your narrow viewed imagination of what is happening.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 08, 2006, 10:34:42 AM
It will be the most cynical human being on the planet.
EDIT: If you could even call it human at that point.
Post by: BlkPaladin on March 08, 2006, 10:46:50 AM
Nintendo is taking their usual route not the strongest console with a controller centered around gameplay they want to make for it. Sony is trying to buy their way to continue to stay first. (They are still operating on the concept of being a virtual Monopoly where the market leader out spends a massive amount of money reducing their profits to stay in first place.) Unfortunatly with Microsoft's strong presence this last generation the market model may be an olagopoly right now and all that does it put Sony in a bad position.
Oops got off of the point I'm making. Basically since gaming has become mainstream and with the cycle in place of a new piece of hardware coming out with new techonology the cusomers expects a new console every five years. To prove my point look at the handheld market for 15+ years the Gamboy didn't go through a major techonological advance until Sega and NeoGeo came out with a system that had the potential to cut into the market, so Nintendo came out with the Advanced. Now Sony came out with the PSP and Nintendo comes out with the DS. So basically the Hardware cycle is brought into exhistance by the industry going mainstream.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 10:48:05 AM
We lose tons. We lose two analog sticks and at least four buttons. An extension would be a controller with the same stuff as before PLUS motion control. You say it's more natural to move your hand than to move your thumb. In other words you're saying motion control is replacing what's there. That's my whole point. It's the same thing as saying that a mouse replaces a keyboard. A mouse can replace a keyboard sort of. You can have a program on the screen with all the keyboard buttons and you click them with the mouse. It's workable but it sucks. The remote is far too theoretical right now to make claims that it is better than the "archaic" standard we use today, a standard no one thought was archaic until Nintendo suggested it was.
There is the shell but there's issues with it. We don't know what it looks like or if it's included with every console or with every controller. We don't know if Nintendo themselves will ever even use it. Nintendo didn't originally come up with the shell or the nunchuk. They went to third parties with the remote and everyone was all "whoa, where are the buttons" and then Nintendo made those extras in response to that. It's no different than the Cube d-pad. Nintendo never used the Cube d-pad seriously. It was a half-assed afterthought they never wanted in the first place and they never used it as anything but an extra button. If Nintendo had no intention in making the nunchuk or the remote prior to someone telling them to how likely are they to ever make much use of those accessories? Their original plan was to get by on the remote.
Nintendo says they'll target both groups but I've found in the past Nintendo is pretty crappy at being an "and" company. Typically in those situations they have what they're really interested in and they dedicate a lot of attention to it and what they're not interested in they half-ass. We heard they were going to make both "everyone" games and mature games. In the end they predominantly focused on "everyone" games and made a few mature titles, handed off to second and third parties and given virtually no marketing push. When Nintendo isn't interested in something they do a sh!tty job at it. It's clear to me that Nintendo no longer cares about the Cube and it shows. Since the DS was released the Cube release lineup has been barren with mostly only rehash Mario spinoffs to keep us occupied. The one amazing killer first party Cube game has been delayed, most likely to help the launch for the Rev.
Nintendo right now is incredibly excited about this non-gamer stuff. The whole design of the Rev is based on attracting non-gamers. The remote was designed to resemble a TV remote because it was seen as unintimidating to non-gamers. That's their focus and that means that's what's going to get their "real" attention. I can't think of any situation where Nintendo showed incredibly enthusiasm to one thing and promised to continue to pay attention to something else and delivered in a meaningful way.
History shows that Nintendo neglects what isn't their primary interest. Thus I'm very concerned.
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 10:54:07 AM
TRY BROWSING THE WEB WITH THE ARROW KEYS.
THEN USE A MOUSE.
THEN COME BACK AND WE'LL TALK.
AND FOR NOT BEING AN "AND" COMPANY, I SURE LIKE NINTENDO SUPPORTING THREE DAMN DIFFERENT CONSOLES RIGHT NOW. UNLIKE SONY, WHO CAN'T EVEN AVERAGE A GAME PER WEEK ON THE PSP.
I apologize for the caps, but damn, why am I even still writing responses?
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 11:03:56 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 08, 2006, 11:08:11 AM
All I will say is I am glad I am not alone in feeling gaming has become boring, just two years ago when I would say that to gamers, I can't really say that many agreed but I think they knew. Maybe the shine just wore thin on me sooner, but I think that eventually (and maybe it will take Nintendo's interface for some people to realize it) most every person who calls theirselves gamers will grow bored with that dated addiction which nolonger delivers the thrill. Gaming as it is today just doesn't have the excitement it had when I first jerked around with a rectangular brick in my hands at the age of six playing Super Mario Bros for the first time.
But if that is what must be discussed, do we need a new thread specifically for the question: Has gaming gotten dull to you?
I do agree with this though, "If Nintendo wants to make gaming interesting again they need to ditch this recent "our franchises are everything" attitude they've had for the last couple of years."
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
"I perfectly remember you complaining about Mario Kart and your fear thatt the might try to push that 'gimm!cky' touch screen, and how relieved you were that there was no touchscreen input, to the point that it push you to buy a DS if Im not mistaken, or at the very least Im sure it was one of the reasons for your purchase."
There's such a thing as forced innovation. This is typically innovation that sucks. My concern was that Nintendo was going to get so wrapped up in the idea of using the touchscreen that they would shoehorn it into a game that didn't need it. Frankly I felt that the inclusion of online play was enough to justify making a new Mario Kart game. New ideas ruin a series if the ideas are forced. Pikmin 2 has many new ideas but they don't feel forced. The waterpack in Super Mario Sunshine felt forced like they all sat in a room and thought "we have to be innovative, what can we do?" That's a lousy approach and that's what I'm worried they're doing with the remote. Blatant rehashes are bad but innovation isn't always good either if it's forced and unnatural. You shouldn't make a glorified expansion pack but you shouldn't make a game so different that it makes no sense to even include the franchise name anymore or make a sequel so different that it loses what made the original fun in the first place.
"And why would Nintendo stop making Mario games when they have sold more this generation (Cube, GBA, DS) than anyother game series franchise?"
I've never suggested they stop making Mario games, just that they cut back on them. And the reason to cut back is because all the spin-offs damage the brand name. Mario used to mean something. Now he doesn't mean sh!t. He's just a face they put in generic games to try to boost sales. Mario games still sell well now but how well will they in the future? What kind of affect on Nintendo's overall image is releasing eight Mario games a year having? People think Nintendo is a rehasher and in the past I would have protested that claim. Now I somewhat support it which is a shame. Nintendo franchises will sell more consoles and more games longer if every game feels like it means something. With constant spin-offs they will temporarily sell well but will lose their selling power in the future. Case in point Mario didn't sell Cubes like Nintendo wanted because Mario isn't special anymore.
"All the ideas for a 'traditional' game have been done which is why you see the same elements over and over and over in games."
That's crap, plain and simple. Why? Because I can think of new ideas for the existing controller and my friends can and my brother can and several other people I know can. And none of us are game developers. It's an incredibly limited way of thinking to assume we've done everything and have to complete rehaul gaming.
Post by: Kairon on March 08, 2006, 11:43:09 AM
I think only game developers or industry people can level that sort of inplied contempt at the industry with any real credibility. Everything else is just hot air.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 11:49:37 AM
Post by: mantidor on March 08, 2006, 11:59:55 AM
Post by: Berto2K on March 08, 2006, 12:21:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
That's a lousy approach and that's what I'm worried they're doing with the remote. Blatant rehashes are bad but innovation isn't always good either if it's forced and unnatural.
Thats one place where your seemingly ignorance is coming from. Nintendo is taking the same theories that they used with the DS to the Rev. There is a bunch of different tools allowing developers to experiment with the different options. With DS it is a unheralded success with this key feature.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've never suggested they stop making Mario games, just that they cut back on them. And the reason to cut back is because all the spin-offs damage the brand name. Mario used to mean something. Now he doesn't mean sh!t. He's just a face they put in generic games to try to boost sales. Mario games still sell well now but how well will they in the future? What kind of affect on Nintendo's overall image is releasing eight Mario games a year having? People think Nintendo is a rehasher and in the past I would have protested that claim. Now I somewhat support it which is a shame. Nintendo franchises will sell more consoles and more games longer if every game feels like it means something. With constant spin-offs they will temporarily sell well but will lose their selling power in the future. Case in point Mario didn't sell Cubes like Nintendo wanted because Mario isn't special anymore.
Ummm if Mario doesn't mean ****, then why has it sold so much?! Your double talking and not listening to yourself. WAKE THE HELL UP. Last I remember Cube sales went UP when SMS was released. You seem to become more illogical and random each day.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
That's crap, plain and simple. Why? Because I can think of new ideas for the existing controller and my friends can and my brother can and several other people I know can. And none of us are game developers. It's an incredibly limited way of thinking to assume we've done everything and have to complete rehaul gaming.
List em then....lets how how many have to deal with the controller without making it more full of buttons.
Post by: MaryJane on March 08, 2006, 12:34:59 PM
2. How can you say the actions of the remote are unnatural when you haven't used it. Guess what when you do you'll adapt. Unless of course you suffer from some sort of mental retardation. (not trying to be funny with that)
3. you can't please everybody all the time. nintendo is doing what they believe will make them the most money.
4. the revolution is a bigger better ds, at least imo. Their strategies are the same (attracting non-gamers), and their input devices are similar.
5. anyone else feel like we keep making the same posts in different threads? damn i can't wait for e3 so we can argue about facts, and games.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 08, 2006, 12:50:23 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 01:04:34 PM
I don't expect Nintendo to cater to my every wish. But I want them to release a fair amount of games I'm interested in. The problem is they haven't been doing that. I'm not very interested in most of their DS lineup. They haven't made many Cube games I'm interested in either. That's a problem for me. I thus have a fear that the Rev lineup will have little to interest me. Nintendo's changed in the last few years. They milk franchises and release simplified non-games. Nintendo shouldn't do everything I want but I would hope after years of being a fan they would release more games I'm interested in. I feel almost like an outsider now. It feels like everything new is for non-gamers and doesn't interest me and everything for existing gamers is the same stuff I've played a million times before. And it isn't because there aren't any more ideas. Nintendo just doesn't seem to try anymore when it comes to what I'm interested in. I want something new but from the assumption that perhaps I've played a videogame before and can have something with some depth to it.
"Ummm if Mario doesn't mean ****, then why has it sold so much?!"
Mario used to sell systems. The mere presence of Mario sold consoles like hotcakes. Mario didn't sell Cubes. No Nintendo franchise sold Cubes. The Cube lost to a newcomber who had never even released a console game before. That's the ultimate problem with Nintendo's emphasis on their frachises. The Cube sold below expectations despite a healthy amount of franchise games. That suggests to me that few buy a console just to play Nintendo franchises. They need something more than that.
"List em then....lets how how many have to deal with the controller without making it more full of buttons."
We were discussing that sort of thing a while ago in a different thread. My favourite idea, which was a wrestling game, was too complicated to work on the remote. Now you can suggest that having a complicated game is no good and I should simplify. Normally I agree but in this case the whole idea is was to make it like a sim. My complaint was that most wrestling games don't feel accurate to me so I wanted to make something that did.
Other ideas I have include:
- 3D space shooter game kinda like Rogue Leader but lots of units and such. The emphasis is on big epic battle with lots of AI characters around you so that you feel like part of a bigger picture instead of the invincible badass who has to bail everyone out on his own. Part of the idea is that when you die you transfer to the next highest ranked unit. This is supposed to be pretty arcadey so it might work with the Rev though the AI would probably require a fair jump in hardware.
-Weapons fighting game using a battle system similar to Zelda. You can freely move around and lock-on to your opponent. The option is even there for two on one stuff. You can customize armor, fighting styles, weapons, shields, and magic spells. You can also interact with your environment. The idea is that the game is based more on timing and dodging then button mashing or special moves. This might work since I want it to be very easy to pull of moves. I think it would need the nunchuk. I don't like the idea of swinging the remote to swing the sword because the game isn't about how you swing but when.
-Police chase game. Chase criminals around a city or be a crook trying to lose the cops. Might be doable with the remote.
There are other ideas and I don't want to list everything. Many are based on existing concepts but wouldn't be all out clones of existing games. I think they would feel different enough to be worth playing without feeling you had seen it before. Not all ideas have to be 100% original as a new take on something familiar is worthwhile too. Metroid Prime is a unique game but it borrows elements from the 2D Metroids and Zelda and first person shooters. But the overall package doesn't feel like a blatant copycat of something else.
Post by: Kairon on March 08, 2006, 01:27:12 PM
And if you really wanted that wrestling game to be a Sim, then you would've realized that the revmote is the perfect tool to simulate choke-holds.
The 3D space shooter one could easily work with the revmote and would benefit from it. Space flight is essentially 3D and the controller could succeed in either replicating a joystiq for a sim-like feel or be used to create an intuitive fluid piloting system much like the mouseflight option from Freelancer. I too have pondered with how to viscerally catch the thrill of skimming a space ship close to the surface of an asteroid just to execute a beautifully tight turn.
A weapon fighting game would excel with the revmote. With normal game modes any attempts to replicate a weapons fighting system boils down to already-done "timing" of moves. The rev-mote takes this to the next step by bringing the activation of those moves to a visceral level so that it can benefit from entire-arm muscle memory. If you want this game to be more than today's counter-breaker-rock-paper-scissors-fighters (which, essentially, it is as you've described it), then you'll need the rev mote.
The Police Chase game I have yet to see truly differentiated from True Crime. Still, with elements both of a brawler, you could use the revmote to physically beat a rival drug dealer to death or to wildly aim your gun behind you during a car chase: drive with the nunchuck's analog, aim out the window with your freehand.
I see nothing impossible about your game concepts, except for the fact that all they are right now is text, and not code.
On a happier note, I want to post my own Revolution game concepts now! I'm just as full of "hot air" as anyone else, I dare say!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 01:31:06 PM
Post by: trip1eX on March 08, 2006, 01:35:36 PM
Nintendo isn't investing 'extra' money to make its console small and portable. The small and portable aspect is a byproduct of it's lesser power because it doesn't need to do hi-def.
Don't make the assumption that more power leads to NIntendo making more money either. MS lost $4 bil bringing the Xbox to the market and continue to lose alot of dough on the 360.
Nah Nintendo is going a route where the games are going to look pretty good. From what I hear they are doing 480p in their games. That should make big hdtv owners happy. Those games will look great. WE still have a long ways to go at 480p. Pop in a DVD sometime to see what I'm talking about. And the playing experience is going to feel alot better with the Revolution than with the competition.
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 01:38:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
The 3D space shooter one could easily work with the revmote and would benefit from it. Space flight is essentially 3D and the controller could succeed in either replicating a joystiq for a sim-like feel or be used to create an intuitive fluid piloting system much like the mouseflight option from Freelancer. I too have pondered with how to viscerally catch the thrill of skimming a space ship close to the surface of an asteroid just to execute a beautifully tight turn.
The revmote would be great for the smaller fighters and other single man crafts, but I'd hope they would have radically different control schemes based on what kind of ship you pilot... I bet you could do a pretty good job piloting some of the bigger capitol ships with just the D-pad and buttons, and maybe use the movement feature as an optional way to enter course corrections.
That way it could be a fluid, action-based fighter game, or it could be a slow, stately game of space combat if you're controlling one of the big ships.
Post by: trip1eX on March 08, 2006, 01:41:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
haha Ian, your complains are basically that Nintendo's business plans dont revolve around your tastes, ...
Actually that's not true.
He's a negative person. So no matter what he will complain. He's just being negative. Nintendo does A and not B means B is great and A sucks. lol.Anyway I agree with Ian. The REvolution will be a total failure and NIntendo will implode. Everything they are doing is wrong.
Of course I forgot. Ian loves Nintendo so. And he always goes out of his way to show it.
Post by: trip1eX on March 08, 2006, 01:59:27 PM
Now I'm not expecting miracles, but you know 3x the power of the Cube will look great. It's more about presentation anyway. The artwork. A cohesive style. The frame rate. And putting in enough details to convey a certain feeling. It's not about dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't.'
Post by: Requiem on March 08, 2006, 02:55:28 PM
It almost turned into a Jerry Springer type brawl of repitition, but now it seems to have cooled down.
Ian. I see you thinking over there. Your games ideas are cool. I like the fighting one, but there's something you should realize.
Everyone of those games would be better with the NRC and nunchuck attachment. Every single one.
Let me demonstrate since I am the self elected game control specialist.
3-D shooter
---------------------
With the NRC you can posess any vehicle and command it through reflex.
I am guessing you are talking about a game more in tune with Rouge Squadron and not Starfox is terms of display. This would mean that the ship is fixed into the middle of the screen at all times.
The nunchuck attachment's analogue stick would control how fast your fighter flys. Holding forward is very vast, while back is a smooth slow glide.
For the next part, let's imagine the ship is flying around on earth.
Imagine holding the NRC like a remote, with the front pointed towards the tv. The NRC will control nose of the ship as well as the body. For example, if you point down then you will fall towards the ground. Now twisting the NRC will make the ship twist. So to get through a tight spot, you may twist the controller to orientate yourself vertically. No need for shoulder buttons, this solution is far more intuitive.
The "b" button would fire. To make tight turns you simply slow down, point and twist left.
That's all. Simple yet perfectly intuitive. Also, it would be fun just to throw the damn thing in the air to see what happens. As fun as that game sounds on the cube, the REV has it beat in everyway.
Weapon's fighting game
------------------------------
I would enjoy playing a Zelda-esque fighter. Ever since playing OOT, I've had this "want" to play a more tactical, more strategic fighting game. This game could be incredibly engrossing with the NRC; much more realistic than anything before it.
The controls would be simple. The nunchuck attachment is for movement, shield, and crouching. The NRC is for your sword, other items, evasion, and magic.
You attack with the NRC. The sword will mimmick whatever you do in real life. If you want to block a high blow with your sword instead of your sheild you can (and you may have to). However, your sword can be given either complicated arm movements, or pre-configured wrist flicks. The difference is this: you can either make your own move, such as a stab or wide horizontal stroke; re-oreintate your sword; or, flick your wrist in the angle you would like the sword to slash. This is the defining mechanic of the game.
When you put up your sheild, by holding one of the trigger buttons on the nunchuck, the NRC will allow you complete control. This would be helpful in blocking certian sword strokes or batting a sword stroke away so you can counter. Also, crouching and shielding will allow you to withstand more powerful blows. This could turn out to be a very rewarding aspect of the game.
The d-pad will handle items and magic which is fully-customizable. I don't know what the B-trigger could be used for, maybe firing your item or magic attacks.
The "A" button would handle evasion very similar to Zelda. However, rolling would be done by crouching and moving the analogue stick left or right.
That's all.
Police Chase Game
------------------------------
Basically what Kairon described. The view would go into over-the shoulder when holding one of the nun-chuck's triggers down. The camera would swivel from left to right as you aim your NRC. Pressing "B" fires.
When just plain driving (handled by the joystick, with "A" as gas, "B" as the handbrake), the NRC would allow you to look left and right by simply pointing left and right. This will give you a chance not only to see who is left and right of you, but to setup the camera before you enter "shooting mode".
The only problem I see is that you can't hit the handbrake and shoot at the sametime. That's not such a big problem since you can't do that in real life anyways.
And there it is........proof that each game would work alot better than it's traditional counterpart. That last sentence is the reason why we want the REV to suceed and why we have so much faith in the "reinventing of the wheel."
Post by: Mario on March 08, 2006, 03:24:24 PM
Quote
Nintendo thinks people are bored of gaming as is and thus gaming has to be completely reinvented.
They don't think that at all. They think people WILL become bored of gaming, and are preventing it from happening. Foresight!
Quote
Mario used to sell systems. The mere presence of Mario sold consoles like hotcakes. Mario didn't sell Cubes. No Nintendo franchise sold Cubes.
Breaking news! None of us actually own GameCubes!
Post by: Magik on March 08, 2006, 04:44:56 PM
Quote
"Ummm if Mario doesn't mean ****, then why has it sold so much?!"
Not as much when you compare it to the past Mario games. Ian does bring up a good point in that Mario doesn't sell systems like it use to.
As to why it continues to sell 'well', it's mainly because its the same people buying the Mario titles.
Post by: IceCold on March 08, 2006, 04:50:32 PM
QuotePlease don't say that as if it's the absolute fact.. That is simply your opinion. I thought the waterpack was brilliant, and to me, it most certainly was NOT one of the flaws in Sunshine..
. New ideas ruin a series if the ideas are forced. Pikmin 2 has many new ideas but they don't feel forced. The waterpack in Super Mario Sunshine felt forced like they all sat in a room and thought "we have to be innovative, what can we do?"
And, as someone else mentioned, would it kill you to try to at least recognise the potential of the controller? Saying that it is imprecise and it doesn't add functionality and it can't replace buttons is just being ignorant, especially since all reports indicate otherwise. We haven't yet completely seen what the NRC can do, so until then, it's all speculation. We can only discuss the potential of it and ideas for it..
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 08, 2006, 04:56:47 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 08, 2006, 05:26:38 PM
Post by: eljefe on March 08, 2006, 06:35:34 PM
but to answer nemo83's initial question:
yes, a new console is needed
because it is not simply a vehicle fer the 'remote'.
Wait until E3.. if the last secret(s) revealed about the Rev are not more groundbreaking than the remote (or at least worthwhile w/o it)
we will all be entitled to call the console a sparkling innovationy-cheap-trick by Nintendo.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
Post by: wandering on March 08, 2006, 07:49:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Don't know if ya'll noticed but Matt has put up an editorial titled Planet Revolution.
Yeah. It annoyed me.
Quote
Just because Revolution is less powerful doesn't automatically mean that software houses working on it will make cheaper games....studios can just as easily make an inexpensive game for 360 or PlayStation 3 as they can on Revolution. And therefore, Nintendo cannot hold to that.
Like the DS, Nintendo is giving developers permission to use less-expensive graphics, which is, honestly, something they don't have on the competition. Sure, I game that looked like Feel the Magic could've been made on the PSP. but, on that platform, a game that mixed low-poly 3d models and 2d graphics wouldn't have sold.
Oh, and:
Quote
Based on developer reports, the Big N's next platform is set to be about twice as powerful as a GameCube, which is a leap, but not a quantum one.
Quantum leaps are small, not large!
But I suppose his heart is in the right place.
Post by: Strell on March 08, 2006, 11:18:49 PM
Matt, you guys have any positions open for a writer/reviewer/low-level errand boy? I'm your man. Feel free to drop me a line. Willing to move!
College grad in creative writing, woo!
Post by: Rhoq on March 09, 2006, 05:29:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Matt Casamassina @ IGN Revolution
I believe that Revolution is Nintendo's most ambitious console to date and I really think the company is on to something big. Certainly the DS proves that consumers are looking for something fresh. Revolution is that and more. The hardware is slick. The games will be there. The price point is right. And, unlike GameCube, Revolution is unlike any other platform in the market. I wouldn't make the mistake of categorizing the hardware as a niche endeavor. I think it's more mainstream - true mainstream - than any other videogame system ever. If Nintendo can capitalize on that, and I'm beginning to think it just might, the little console without high-definition graphics may be the system that everybody wants.
It looks to me like he's already played some games which will most likely be shown at E3 (he probably can't say anything until sometime in April, as mentioned in his blog). It also looks like he might know the Revolution's MSRP (probably to be announced at E3 along with the street date).
Post by: mantidor on March 09, 2006, 05:38:03 AM
Post by: Rhoq on March 09, 2006, 06:14:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Im sure he knows more, the editorial's opening paragraph confirms my point he's a graphic's whore and a big one, yet he seems really excited about the console, and given past editorials and mailbags, the change of attitude towards Nintendo is huge, The rev did the imposible, it changed Matt!
He's never hidden the fact that he's a graphics whore. In just about every mailbail where graphics were mentioned he would usually make that quite clear. But I know what you're saying - his excitement is indeed good news. I think that because he works for IGN, he gets a bad rap (guilty by association). I've always found most of his work to be fairly honest.
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
could it change Ian!? stay tuned
Poor Ian. I know he means well.
Post by: trip1eX on March 09, 2006, 08:40:02 AM
I honestly think the experience is going to feel way better in many games than then old analog sticks.
The only problem is that MS and Sony will copy the thing if it's good. Hell they are probably working on it now.
...because I wouldn't doubt that they've played with the controller too.
Post by: jasonditz on March 09, 2006, 08:51:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
Oh, and:Quote
Based on developer reports, the Big N's next platform is set to be about twice as powerful as a GameCube, which is a leap, but not a quantum one.
Quantum leaps are small, not large!
But I suppose his heart is in the right place.
Actually, couldn't it refer to a leap in a specific whole number quantity? In which case he's wrong anyhow.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 09, 2006, 08:58:40 AM
# Informally, a “quantum leap” may be any great, sudden, or discontinuous change.
Wow the English language has multiple definitions based on context?!
Post by: jasonditz on March 09, 2006, 09:35:13 AM
Post by: RiskyChris on March 09, 2006, 09:36:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
It's still a discontinuous change (which is to say, from one discrete quanta to another)... it's not like the Revolution is going to start out at the same speed as the Cube and gradually work its way up to twice as fast or something...
Which means Matt was right =)
Post by: Requiem on March 09, 2006, 11:29:41 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 09, 2006, 06:34:58 PM
"The Police Chase game I have yet to see truly differentiated from True Crime. Still, with elements both of a brawler, you could use the revmote to physically beat a rival drug dealer to death or to wildly aim your gun behind you during a car chase: drive with the nunchuck's analog, aim out the window with your freehand."
The police chase game is actually a driving game. I should have specified it as car chases. There's no getting out in beating up crooks. It's just chasing someone until you catch them or you can't continue to pursuit because your car is too wrecked.
I thought of an idea for the space battle game. I wonder if the motion sensor of the remote works when the shell is attached. If so imagine a wavebird with motion control. Hold it in front of you and it's kind of a like a wheel for a plane or in this case space ship. All the extra buttons are there for different weapons and such. The only problem with this is that after a couple minutes your arms would get tired and think that's a big problem with the remote. I see the potential arm fatigue from swinging this thing all over the place as a big issue.
I see a lot of potential in the remote but not as a standard controller. I see it like a lightgun in that it's appropriate for some titles but, due to the lack of buttons and the sheer annoyance it would be to wave something around for multiple hours at a time, not for all. In some cases having something respond exactly as your movement will be really cool. But in any situation where a button press would do a button press would be better due to the precision of digital buttons and the less physical effort required. You have to admit that merely assigning gestures to replace buttons would be pretty lame. In order for the remote to be a new standard as is that's going to happen. Hell Nintendo even had that in their demo video in a shot where a girl was playing Mario and bouncing the controller up to jump.
I also don't like how the look of the remote is because it is unintimidating to non-gamers. Controllers should be functional and comfortable. I don't like it when marketing dictates the shape of a controller. How is Nintendo making it look like a TV remote any different than MS putting that big X logo on their controller?
Looking at Matt's editorial that remote is really small. I remember it looking much bigger. That's actually probably good as it would make it feel more like you're moving your hand than something bigger would.
Post by: Zach on March 09, 2006, 07:39:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I thought of an idea for the space battle game. I wonder if the motion sensor of the remote works when the shell is attached. If so imagine a wavebird with motion control. Hold it in front of you and it's kind of a like a wheel for a plane or in this case space ship. All the extra buttons are there for different weapons and such. The only problem with this is that after a couple minutes your arms would get tired and think that's a big problem with the remote. I see the potential arm fatigue from swinging this thing all over the place as a big issue.
I dont really see that as a major problem like some people seem to. The thing is, for some reason, when people see the controller, they seem to think that you are going to be waving it around constantly as fast as you can (The conductor of a symphony comes to mind). Next time you play a game, pay attention to what your left thumb does, most games, it doesnt very much at all. If games took as much movement as people seem to think from the rev controller, all of our thumbs would have fallen off years ago.
Post by: wandering on March 09, 2006, 11:39:33 PM
Quote
I see a lot of potential in the remote but not as a standard controller. I see it like a lightgun in that it's appropriate for some titles but, due to the lack of buttons and the sheer annoyance it would be to wave something around for multiple hours at a time, not for all. In some cases having something respond exactly as your movement will be really cool. But in any situation where a button press would do a button press would be better due to the precision of digital buttons and the less physical effort required. You have to admit that merely assigning gestures to replace buttons would be pretty lame. In order for the remote to be a new standard as is that's going to happen. Hell Nintendo even had that in their demo video in a shot where a girl was playing Mario and bouncing the controller up to jump.
Ugg, think outside the box for once. The revmote detects motion on a true 3-d plane with incredible sensitivity...the first time anything like that has been offered on any games console. And that's 'not as precise'? I'll tell you what's not precise: when you push a button, your sword swings in a pre-determined way... except when it doesn't and the game decides you want to speak to a character instead. Want to hit an enemy that's beside you instead of in front? Well, maybe there's a button combo for that. Want to block an enemy's jab? Sorry, tough luck. When the revolution comes out, saying the revmote isn't as good as button presses for performing actions in a 3-d world will be like saying the analogue stick isn't as good as the d-pad for controlling movement in a 3-d world.
Anyway. What your other concerns? Not enough buttons? The revmote has 3 buttons. 7 counting the d-pad, 9 counting the nunchaku. So no real worries there. Plus, the shell. But you know about that. Too physically exausting? People who have used the controller say it only requires subtle movements and is not in any way physically exausting.
Developers and reporters alike are in love with the controller. But, most importanly, Nintendo is in love with it, and feels it offers the best means for bringing their game concepts to life. As far as I can tell, your worries are unfounded.
Post by: odifiend on March 10, 2006, 01:14:29 AM
Cough, Need for speed? I didn't own the game and don't remember ever being the police but Hot Pursuit 2 definitely did what you proposed with out running cops. If you're aware of the progression on NFS, that gameplay got more stale than Tony Hawk and they followed the trend of building your own character/car. I do hear they expanded on cops chases in the new need for speed, though. I know you only buy 1 game a year, but you might want to check that out...
Not to be a hater, Ian, but most of your game ideas would possibly make for a good bonus mode or unlockable in whatever game is similar to it in the industry right now. I do admit that I have plenty of fighting games where the execution makes the difference, but calling your ideas new is a little out there.
The Revolution could bring about truly new forms of gameplay just due to the change in interface. Some games may emulate old style games just with the revmote, but we've long past the point of diminishing returns for new ideas relying on boost in hardware as the means to innovate - in fact hardware boosts and the expense of experimenting are rayifying the games to be the same old stuff with minor tweaks. The industry is guilty of this, EA, especially and in recent times Nintendo has been guilty of this. I loathe Mario Party since the second one and it has been my painful for me to watch Nintendo rehash that series, however even Metroid Prime one of my favorite 'new' series had a sequel incredible similar to itself. This jadedness could very well have to do with the fact that I am getting older, but the Rev offers all developers with IPs the ability that Metroid Prime had without the talent of Retro and Nintendo - a way to take an established series in a fresh direction.
Additionally Nintendo seems to have made the price of admission low enough that new blood can get in to the industry - an industry that has many people dying to break in but is incredibly cost prohibitive. Nintendo is taking steps to revolutionalize for everyone, so please stop spouting BS about this system only occuring because Nintendo feels they can't compete.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 10, 2006, 05:12:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The police chase game is actually a driving game. I should have specified it as car chases. There's no getting out in beating up crooks. It's just chasing someone until you catch them or you can't continue to pursuit because your car is too wrecked.
That sounds like A.P.B. I really liked that game, way back in the mists of time when arcades wandered the earth. You'd start each level with a quota for ticketing people for a certain offense. You'd cruise along in traffic, and when you saw someone you'd line up behind them and turn on your siren. They'd pull over and you'd move on. When you met the quota you'd receive an A.P.B. about a criminal on the run, then he'd zoom past you and you'd begin a high speed pursuit. These guys had to be run off the road before they'd stop. They had a tendency to just barely beat trains at crossings, so you'd get smashed if you were right behind them. Some of them liked to throw dynamite, too. After you caught them, you'd have to rapidly hit the siren button to choke a confession out of them before the chief caught you. That last part would be pretty interesting on the Rev. You lost when you got too many demerits, for things such as running into other cars without the siren on, wrecking your cruiser, or getting caught choking an arrestee. Ah, good times.
Quote
I thought of an idea for the space battle game. I wonder if the motion sensor of the remote works when the shell is attached. If so imagine a wavebird with motion control. Hold it in front of you and it's kind of a like a wheel for a plane or in this case space ship. All the extra buttons are there for different weapons and such. The only problem with this is that after a couple minutes your arms would get tired and think that's a big problem with the remote. I see the potential arm fatigue from swinging this thing all over the place as a big issue.
First of all, your space battle game strongly reminds me of X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, right down to switching to one of the AI controlled fighters when yours was destroyed. Also, I don't think arm fatigue would be a lasting problem. It's a hurdle to overcome, but you'll build up your arm strength pretty quickly if the game's fun enough to keep you playing. I know that from my time in my school marching band, not to mention various light gun games.
Quote
I also don't like how the look of the remote is because it is unintimidating to non-gamers. Controllers should be functional and comfortable. I don't like it when marketing dictates the shape of a controller. How is Nintendo making it look like a TV remote any different than MS putting that big X logo on their controller?
That question seemed like a non sequitur of epic proportions at first, but if I go with the meaning I think you intended, the difference is that the X is simple branding, while the TV remote shape is designed to appeal. No one would look at the Xbox controller and say, "Wow! It has an X on it! I want to play with it!" No one at Microsoft expects that of it, either. Nintendo designed their controller to attract interest, which suggests that ease of use and comfort were top priorities as well. We'll have to wait a while to find out whether they succeeded.
Post by: animecyberrat on March 10, 2006, 05:55:40 AM
I am only going to reply to this and thats it everything else gets addressed nicely. That my friend is matter of opion. Gamerankins is also a matter of OPINION in thier OPINION teh game wasnt good, yet in some peopels OPINIONS it was the SH!7
I for one have yet to play the game but as a 50 cent fan I am planning on giving it a try becaus eit does look interesting TO ME. You shoudlnt call someone stupid cuz they like soemthing you dont thast phukking ignorant and childish.
Post by: Strell on March 10, 2006, 06:05:07 AM
The fact is that Fiddy was used to sell it to kids. And this is bolstered by the fact that he went on record to tell parents "it is perfectly okay for young children to play this, just explain it to them." I saw kids - probably 8-14 - at no less than 3 Gamestops asking for this game. Not only that, but their parents were with them and agreed to get it. The game was advertised left and right in the store. I doubt the employees cared whether or not the kid was "mature" enough to play it, and I can gaurantee the parents didn't. That is absolutely infuriating to me as a gamer because it means I'll have to put up with bullshit from the general public about the general impression of gamers.
Yea, ok. The game is trash, period. It's selling out and appealing to people based on weak reasons.
Finally, the denizens of the interweb need to learn this phrase: OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG. Somehow a few years ago, I guess everyone took a philosophy 101 class collectively and learned that opinions are merely one's own projection regarding information, and decided "well damn, that means they can't be wrong if they are all relative!"
That's stupid, ok? And me calling it stupid is a fact. Opinions can be wrong. One guy might have an opinion that it's ok to stalk 12 year olds in middle school. Another guy might like to drag people into his car and murder them. These are extreme examples but it illustrates the point well enough. This "omfg it is relative so it is okay" nonsense needs to be purged from the intertron. It's pathetic, and people hide behind it like its an ironclad defense to say whatever the hell you want.
I gather that I'll receive word that this post is misguided, and that's fine, but I've had my say and I don't need to defend it any longer.
Post by: animecyberrat on March 10, 2006, 06:29:46 AM
I thought Stat Fox Adventures was a fantastic game, and I HAVE FACTS to back it up, but others say itw as crap and they rpesent their FACTS to back it up, NO Opinions is right or wrong they are all OPINIONS, purelsy subjective.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2006, 06:39:32 AM
An analog stick has more sensitivity than a d-pad. But in situations where you just want left, right, up & down without paying attention to that sensitivity a d-pad is better because it's just simple on and off. There's no room of error for the game to interpret things incorrectly because you thought you were doing one thing and actually were a little off. I think that sort of thing would be worse with the remote. In a situation where how you move the remote is exactly how the character responds then the sensitivity will be welcome. But if you don't want that level of sensitivity then it's going to be more imprecise because there's a higher chance of things being misinterpretted.
"That question seemed like a non sequitur of epic proportions at first, but if I go with the meaning I think you intended, the difference is that the X is simple branding, while the TV remote shape is designed to appeal."
I'll admit they're not exactly the same. But I would still consider designing a controller in a certain shape to appeal goes against the basic rules of controller design. A controller is a tool and it should be designed as such. I don't think how a controller looks should ever be part of the controller design process. It should all be about button placement and ergonomics and stuff like that.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 10, 2006, 06:41:07 AM
-Wifi out of the box with a focus on free online gaming
-LAN multiplayer with 1 disc
-Full DVD support
-Roughly twice the power of the GC
-Online downloadable games from all previous generations, possibly including Sega games as well
-Backwards compatibility with GC games
-The lowest price by far
That is reason enough to buy one for me. The new controller doesn't even factor into the equation so I fail to see how it's a "vehicle" for the new controller when it has so many of its own merits without the controller.
Post by: Strell on March 10, 2006, 06:43:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't think how a controller looks should ever be part of the controller design process. It should all be about button placement and ergonomics and stuff like that.
Right, because those things aren't related in any way.
Post by: BlkPaladin on March 10, 2006, 06:56:08 AM
And as for the shell add on, there is no reason why the motion sensor shouldn't work.
Post by: MaryJane on March 10, 2006, 07:33:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The Rev offers:
-Wifi out of the box with a focus on free online gaming
-LAN multiplayer with 1 disc
-Full DVD support
-Roughly twice the power of the GC
-Online downloadable games from all previous generations, possibly including Sega games as well
-Backwards compatibility with GC games
-The lowest price by far
That is reason enough to buy one for me. The new controller doesn't even factor into the equation so I fail to see how it's a "vehicle" for the new controller when it has so many of its own merits without the controller.
same here except i thought the dvd support was an add-on? something change and i didn't notice?
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 10, 2006, 07:58:26 AM
It means more capacity for games so I'm happy with that as well.
Post by: IceCold on March 10, 2006, 08:43:07 AM
QuoteSorry, but that just sounds like the Police Chase mode in Burnout 2 to me.. I'd hardly call it a new idea, or innovating with the traditional controller. And think of how boring that game would get after a while. You can have all the upgrades and tracks you want, but a police chase as an entire game?
The police chase game is actually a driving game. I should have specified it as car chases. There's no getting out in beating up crooks. It's just chasing someone until you catch them or you can't continue to pursuit because your car is too wrecked.
QuoteFirst, how the hell do you know if it is or is not comfortable? None of us have tried it yet, so for all we know it could be the most comfortable controller ever. About functionality, as others have mentioned, the motion sensing gives unlimited functionality.. And for the developers who are too lazy to try to innovate, there's the shell.. And I really don't care what my controller looks like.
I also don't like how the look of the remote is because it is unintimidating to non-gamers. Controllers should be functional and comfortable.
QuoteWell, I agree with you that the reviews ARE opinions of the games. However, there are measurable things in games. Fluid control scheme. Good graphics. Varied and innovative gameplay. Those are a must for games to receive high scores, and they can be measured. After that, it is opinion. But not every game gets past that stage. In the 50 cent case, all the reviews said it had terrible controls. They couldn't even shoot where they wanted to sometimes, since the aiming was so bad. And wasn't this the game where there was a glitch that made it unbeatable? The fact is that this game was rushed and it was trying to capitalise on a famous mainstream icon. If you get it and enjoy it, congratulations to you. If you find it fun, then that's perfectly fine. But reviews do have some credence.
I am only going to reply to this and thats it everything else gets addressed nicely. That my friend is matter of opion. Gamerankins is also a matter of OPINION in thier OPINION teh game wasnt good, yet in some peopels OPINIONS it was the SH!7
I guess what I am trying to say is: Never boost right before a jump in Fire Field: Undulation..
Post by: Plugabugz on March 10, 2006, 09:53:11 AM
Revolution may be a solution to an initially Japanese problem, but it still, still doesn't fix europe. The controller and console may as well be made of the moon and it'll still be made into coconut flavoured cheese and sold for £200 by NOE.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2006, 10:36:34 AM
Fine the police idea isn't that new. I thought of it like ten years ago and I haven't played every game in existence so I can't help it if coincedently a game I've never played features a similar idea. At the very least I didn't see some other game and said "me too" and made a virtual clone of it like many devs do. That's probably the biggest problem with gaming and it has existed from the beginning when literally ever game was a carbon copy of Pong. I still think new ideas are possible with the old controllers and a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the developer when he makes the game. He should have an idea and then think of how to implement it not go "hey this genre is popular" or "this formula works, let's copy that". That problem isn't going to be fixed with a new controller. The attitude and the actual game content is what drives new ideas. If Nintendo makes brand new stuff for the new controller then it'll make a difference. If they just make Mario Party with the Remote!! then it won't do anything. Right now they're in "milk every franchise for all it's worth" mode so the problem's not going to go away.
Post by: jasonditz on March 10, 2006, 10:48:17 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 10, 2006, 10:50:20 AM
Quote
That problem isn't going to be fixed with a new controller. The attitude and the actual game content is what drives new ideas. If Nintendo makes brand new stuff for the new controller then it'll make a difference. If they just make Mario Party with the Remote!! then it won't do anything. Right now they're in "milk every franchise for all it's worth" mode so the problem's not going to go away.
Two indie devs have surfaced with plans for the Rev and have made it into gaming news.
Their plans mean nothing on their own, but the fact that they're here and that they're drawn to the Rev is huge. It means that the Rev is inspiring new ideas and encouraging new developers to come forward and try their hand at developing. If you hate what Nintendo does with their franchises, you'll love what these new devs can offer because they're fresh, new and as of yet uninfluenced by archaic entities like EA and Ubisoft.
I'm not worried about what Nintendo does with their franchises. First, I think they understand that they need to be serious with them this time around. The cube was like a lost cause from the start, but Nintendo is doing great things with the DS and it sounds like they're doing the same with the Rev.
Second, the 3rd party games on the DS have been good enough that they can actually carry the system when Nintendo doesn't have new games out. That's an advantage that most consoles haven't been able to boast for a while now.
I think Nintendo chose the right path. The DS is a shining example of how something new and innovative can bring the gaming industry back to life and I would not be surprised if they did the same thing with the home console market.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 10, 2006, 01:42:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Sorry, but that just sounds like the Police Chase mode in Burnout 2 to me.. I'd hardly call it a new idea, or innovating with the traditional controller."
Fine the police idea isn't that new. I thought of it like ten years ago and I haven't played every game in existence so I can't help it if coincedently a game I've never played features a similar idea.
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit AND Hot Pursuit 2 were both pretty much completely about that. How do you miss two incredibly popular games like that?
Post by: IceCold on March 10, 2006, 01:53:23 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 11, 2006, 11:29:40 PM
Post by: wandering on March 12, 2006, 11:52:53 PM
Quote
An analog stick has more sensitivity than a d-pad. But in situations where you just want left, right, up & down without paying attention to that sensitivity a d-pad is better because it's just simple on and off. There's no room of error for the game to interpret things incorrectly because you thought you were doing one thing and actually were a little off. I think that sort of thing would be worse with the remote. In a situation where how you move the remote is exactly how the character responds then the sensitivity will be welcome. But if you don't want that level of sensitivity then it's going to be more imprecise because there's a higher chance of things being misinterpretted.
Well, yeah. How many 3d games have you played where you wanted the movement to be controlled with a d-pad instead of an analogue stick?
Quote
I'll admit they're not exactly the same. But I would still consider designing a controller in a certain shape to appeal goes against the basic rules of controller design. A controller is a tool and it should be designed as such. I don't think how a controller looks should ever be part of the controller design process. It should all be about button placement and ergonomics and stuff like that.
Yeah, but if they designed the controller with only comfort in mind, you'd be complaining about how Nintendo is still stuck in their own little world and still refuses to try to appeal to the average consumer. For my part, while I want the controller to be comfortable, I recognize that it is extremely important that Nintendo sell this controller to as many people as possible. An iconic shape can do that.
I like your game ideas, BTW.
Post by: Ceric on March 13, 2006, 05:50:10 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 13, 2006, 06:47:44 AM
They needed a new edge to REALLY push the concept. Trying to "reinvent" the GC wouldn't have gone over well. The amount of effort it would have taken to get people to accept these new ideas - controller, downloadable games, SD reader, etc. - on the GC would have been greater than releasing a new console.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 13, 2006, 06:59:31 AM
They're EA games. I pretty much intentionally try to avoid them.
"And I thought you played Burnout 2?"
I have but it's only been at a friend's house so I'm not really familiar with all the modes available.
