Quote
Originally posted by: Fro
Back to gyros. This is the company Nintendo invested in about four years ago.
http://www.gyration.com/us/tech/technology.htm. Both X and Y axis control. Tiny size, low power consumption, cheap pricepoint.
I've watched the videos on the site, and simple wrist movements will move the mouse cursor all the way across the screen. I'm sure there will be an option for the sensitivity to be changed, but you're not going to have to wave your arms around wildly.
I still think the dual gyros/splittable controller is the most likely concept. Analog Stick/D-Pad on the L controller with two triggers on top. Four button layout on the R Controller with two triggers on top. The functionality of both a controller and a mouse in the same unit (and much, much more). The ability for developers to create their own control layouts (i.e. dual welding in FPS, hold the sticks like a steering wheel for racing games, use the gyros as boxing gloves for Punch-Out, etc).
This is the only concept I've seen that 1) won't suck power like crazy, 2)will be truly revolutionary, 3) will be able to come in at a $30-$40 price point once Nintendo starts massproducing these suckers overseas somewhere. Keep in mind, they've had this tech for a few years.... I'm sure they've cocreated a custom gyro for Revolution and tested the crap out of it. This is not the same tech that is used in the GBA tilt sensors.
Welcome to the club....
The fact that Nintendo signed an agreement with gyration for an undisclosed amount, almost absolutely means that the technology is used in the controller itself. Ever since then, I thought about how Nintendo would incorporate it. I didn't think that merely putting it into a GC type of controller was enough to make it revolutionary, because that only made playing Super Monkey Ball and Kirby Tilt and Tumble more fun and intuitive. If gyros are truely the main function of the controller, they wouldn't assemble it in such a way to provide the least amount of functionality. They would, instead, try to achieve the maximum amount of funtionality.
A two-piece controller is obviously the most reasonable way in achieving maximum functionality. Take this picture for example
HERE. It shows what a two-piece controller would look like. It has two analog sticks, a D-pad, 4 face buttons, 4 triggers (2 on each side), and maybe a squeezable grip (since it seems like a viable new feature to a controller). Also, imagine the two pieces joining together at the middle somehow, for games that don't require gyros, and what your left with is a very functional controller. A joystick on the R controller was placed there in case any game would of needed more options, or more likely, if a game were to be controlled one-handed. If this type of controller could be ambedextrous in nature, with maybe giving the D-pad and the secondary analog stick the ability to swivel around to the opposite side of each controller, then Nintendo would have something mighty on their hands. Something truly "Revolutionary."
As you mentioned in your post above Fro, a gyroscopic controller would be by far the most accurate directional device to date. It is far more accurate than an analog stick or even a mouse because it does something they both can't: move in the third dimension. The Z-plane has never been used so far in console gaming, strictly due to the past controllers' restrictiveness. This added third dimension would be almost as incredibly revolutionary as gaming graphics going from 2-D to 3-D. I'm not sure if it's possible, but sopposedly a gyroscopic controller can also apply force in any given direction. For example, if you get shot from the left, your controller would sort of jerk you to your right. Again, I'm not positive this is true, but it would be an incredible immersion element. This fact i'm almost positive is true, that is the gyroscopic controllers ability to resist change. As in, if you pull back the bow string on a bow and arrow, you can feel the resistance tighten the farther you pull back. This would indeed be a great way to immerse gamers as well, but it would have many other functionalities. Imagine today's analog sticks, the softer you push the stick in any given direction, usually the slower the charachter moves on screen. If the analog stick had more resistance, you would have more accuracy in just how fast you'd like your charachter to move. Not to say it would only improve something so trivial as charachter movement, but it would improve controlling everything in every game. Super Monkey Ball would be alot easier if the controllers had more resistance. Now imagine that fact with a gyroscopic controller. Feeling the controller resist you as you tilt it would allow for superb accuracy in lets say a flying game for example.
Again, think of all the possibilities. Remember playing your favorite Starcraft-Warcraft type of game and when you tried to click your air units while ground units resided close by, how you would accidently mix up which type of unit you wanted in your selection? I'm sure you got better at it, to the point where you had no trouble....but still, wasn't it at first annoying. Well with this controller, you can easily differentiate which troops you'd like to choose. Imagine the ground in that type of game being the plane X/Y (and any plane parrallel to it), with the plane perpindicular becoming Z (the height from the ground). To pick your air troops without selecting any of your ground troops, you'd move your controller upwards (to the appropriate height) and select the troops with a sort of "churning the butter" movement. The farther you move your hand away from your body, the farther the mouse/selection tool would travel into the horizon on screen. To select your ground troops, simple move your hand to a lower height and perform the same motion. To travel down the map, simply tilt the contoller in the direction you'd like the mouse to travel. You could even select troops that way, by making a circle by tilting the controller in a circle. The game may even allow you to make a square selection by holding down a button and moving your hand in a diagonal (thus making two points; enough information needed to make a square).
With all this talk about "bringing in non-gamers" Nintendo has kind of spooked the already present fan-base. This type of controller would provide the functionality for super-complex games that hardcore gamers would like to see, while allowing at the same time a simpler way to control games for those who've yet to play videogames. For example, we'd enjoy our more intuitive yet very complex FPS, while the non-gamers would enjoy playing a game like Super Monkey Ball. (PS. if you'd like to know just how complex a FPS can get with this controller other than dual-wielding and shooting behind you, just ask me) Many games that would take barely any amount of time to develop compared to say Zelda could become big hits with those non-core gamers. An Archery game that would literally use one button, would be an awesome game that while very fun would be very easy to get the hang of. There could be a REV version of Nintendogs that actually lets you feel the dog tug on the rope, and again, would only use one button for the entire game.
bAnyway, my point is: If gyration technology is to be used, even though there is a chance, it will most likely be used in a manner that doesn't involve a controller as we know it today. Games really wouldn't benefit from that type of gyration technology. If you've read kingdea's blog, you'll notice that in the "conference" that he supposedly went to, all gyration was used for was making a game charachter quickly roll in one direction. That isn't really revolutionary, niether is making Kirby roll by tiliting your controller. Emulating arm movements, among other things is revolutionary.
And if gyration isn't incorporated at all, what else could provide the same level of gaming benefits while having a cheap price point and at the same time, low power consumption?
Topic: Pearing down the Revolution controller (Read 64159 times)
