Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Epic's Mark Rein Expounds On The Revolution 115

Posted by Zonk
from the throwing-stones-from-high-places dept.
nb caffeine writes "Epic's Mark Rein is shooting his mouth off again, this time bashing the Revolution controller and EA's management style. This seems to be a recurring theme with him." From the article: "I guarantee you there's going to be lots of people who say the whole reason for this game is this controller, we made the perfect game for the controller. And all it'll be is about the controller, and not necessarily a great game...I've heard EA and Activision make absolutely ridiculous statements about, 'Oh, it's going to take 30 million dollars to make a game and we need 300 people' - that's just a bunch of bullsh... They're just covering up for their own management and incompetence. Or mismanagement I should say."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic's Mark Rein Expounds On The Revolution

Comments Filter:
  • by LoverOfJoy (820058) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:07PM (#13891792) Homepage
    That said, Rein continued, "Nintendo, you know, is going to make amazing games. I mean that's a given." Rein then conducted a quick audience survey to find out how many people present owned a GameCube - and found that rather a large number of hands were raised.

    He then asked everyone who also owned a PS2 or Xbox to put their hands down - and concluded that under ten per cent of the audience were Cube owners only.

    "Hard to make a business on less than 10 per cent," Rein said.

    Why do you have to make your business be only about those who own ONLY your console? That's like asking PS2 owners how many of them don't also own a gaming pc and saying it's hard for Sony to make a business on that percentage.

    • Why do you have to make your business be only about those who own ONLY your console?

      That's what I thought too, but there is the issue of cross-platform games. Odds are that most of those won't properly utilize the Revolution controller. Soul Calibur 2 did great on the Gamecube, but the next big cross-platform game probably won't do so well on the Revolution.
      • Of course, the next big cross-platform game could always be a FPS or some sort of RTS-type game that would work better with the Revolution controller than an analog stick setup.

        For that matter, if more developers start making these types of games for next-gen consoles, it's possible that the Revolution version could be the version created first and then the PS3 and 360 versions are just ports with higher res textures/higher poly models. I'd imagine that'd make it a bit easier to go cross-platform instead
      • but the next big cross-platform game probably won't do so well on the Revolution.

        Except that traditional Gamecube controllers can be plugged into the Revolution, so cross-platform games can run exactly as well as they ever did.
    • his poiunt is that if you have a GC and a Xbox then you are likely to games for the x-box, not the GC. Only 10% of the people in the room ONLY had a GC and thus would buy all games for the GC.
      • Of course with Nintendo, if you just buy the console and ignore all the games, they've already made a profit and can just laugh all the way to the bank.

        I'm having so much fun with my DS I'm going to have to try out the Revolution. The Metroid demo is just amazing, it works so much better than I expected. I'm very curious to see if they can make that TV remote like controller work.

    • Multiple console ownership in an audience comprised of gaming geeks -- you don't say... What stunning revalation will he come up with next, only 10% of Harry Potters read only Potter, the rest read other fantasy as well, better watch out JK Rowling those billions aren't billions unless you can enjoy them alone?
  • by (A)*(B)!0_- (888552) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:09PM (#13891808)
    On the XBox 360 controller: "It works just fine for playing games, and it works fine for first-person shooter games"

    That's just what I want to think when I am going to drop half a grand on a new video game console. Just fine is another way of saying, "nothing new." And that begs the question - why not just stick with the current XBox?

    Another gem on the completely unscientific sampling method of who in attendance only owned Gamecubes: "Hard to make a business on less than 10 per cent,"

    Nintendo is in the black. Sony and MS have not made money with the PS2 or the XBox. I would say that making a business doesn't have to be measured by market share - instead focusing on profitability. Nintendo profits. That's a good business.

    • Indeed. I find it also pretty compelling that Nintendo has struck out on their own path while the Xbox and PS fanbois have a pissing contest about which one has better graphics. Nintendo is focusing on games, the other two are focusing on graphics. I'll likely own a Revolution before either of the others.
      • I have an xbox, and like 40 games for it. I've spent more time playing my DS in the past month than gaming on the xbox. Nintendo is on the right track with the DS. Its different. There some seriously cool games coming out for it. I look forward to the revolution!
        • Even more interesting is the connectivity between the two. In the current generation, all we saw was a GBA controlling the GameCube. That's just one extra screen. Now, we'll have three screens, one of them will be a touch screen, and one of them will have the normal Rev control. Now that's really innovative. (But how would one hold both a DS and a Controller?

          Idea! An attachment simply connecting the Rev's controller to the bottom of a DS, giving you the pointing and touching! There are so many awesome ide

    • > Sony and MS have not made money with the PS2 or the XBox.

      Wrong. MS have lost $4billion on XBox, but PS2 is Sony's biggest earner.
      • MS lost four billion? Oh well, I guess they'll have to wait a few more years before aquiring all of western Europe.
      • I apologize for making that error. Although, my main point was that Nintendo is making a nice business as evidenced by their profit.

        Do you disagree with that?

        If you do decide to reply, please save the insults. I made an error. It happens.

    • "I would say that making a business doesn't have to be measured by market share - instead focusing on profitability. Nintendo profits. That's a good business."

      That is very true. Unfortunately Nintendo's profits don't mean shit to a 3rd party. 3rd party developers for both PS2 and XBox make fine profits--perhaps at Sony and Microsoft's expense. As long as there are giant companies that do so much more than games willing to take a loss on games for some long term goal you can't blame third parties
  • by -kertrats- (718219) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:10PM (#13891817) Journal
    He says it's hard to make a business on 10 percent of people owning your console exclusively. Why? If all the people from the first call paid Nintendo their money for the Gamecube, what does Nintendo care if they own other consoles? To claim you need to be the exclusive console to be successful is asinine.
    • by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalker @ g mail.com> on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:16PM (#13891871) Journal
      Exactly, infact as this was a gamer expo, you'd be hard pressed to find much more than 15% of people exclusivly having a PS2 or Xbox.
    • Apple's doing it, in fact they are doing quite well. This guy is just another "Pay attention to me... I'm important..." monkey-boy!
    • by mconeone (765767) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:50PM (#13892188)
      It's pretty simple actually. If Epic makes a game only for the PS/XBox, they are only cutting themselves out of 10% of the market. The idea here is that while a number of people own a Gamecube, they can still buy the Epic non-Gamecube game for a system they own. Also, people are more likely to buy a game on the most powerful platform they own (GC would get overlooked for the XBox.)

      Don't get me wrong though, that 10% number is complete BS.

      For the next generation, what this really comes down to is whether the Revolution controller is better for FPSes than the XBox/PS one. If it isn't, then his thinking is on track, as most gamers would buy the game for their other system, instead of the Revolution. If it is, then his reasoning is bogus and the game would be profitable on the Revolution (assuming that the Revolution sells well).
  • Um, yeah, Mark... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sc0ttyb (833038) * on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:14PM (#13891853)
    So, the company that basically MADE the controller what it is today is getting flak about its new controller? Don't you think you should give Nintendo just a LITTLE credit?

    You know that D-pad on the 360 controller you're holding? Nintendo did that. Vibration? Nintendo. Shouder buttons? Nintendo.

    Just a thought.
    • Re:Um, yeah, Mark... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mconeone (765767)
      To be the devil's advocate, Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove. I just mean that even though Nintendo is the biggest innovator, it does not automatically translate to each of their innovations being successful and industry-transforming. While I am very interested in the Revolution controller, I can see it being an utter failure at the same time. Only time will tell.
      • Re:Um, yeah, Mark... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sc0ttyb (833038) *
        "To be the devil's advocate, Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove. I just mean that even though Nintendo is the biggest innovator, it does not automatically translate to each of their innovations being successful and industry-transforming."

        I will give you that. My eyes STILL hurt from the Virtual Boy.

        However, this is a complete reinvention of the way human beings interact with a gaming console. For Nintendo to fuck this up would be DEVASTATING. From the
        • I personally find the prospect of FPS with this controller rather exciting.

          I agree, the only thing bothering me is the strain of holding my arm out for an extended period of time. I can't say for sure until I try an FPS with it.
          • The reports that I've heard say that the best way to hold it is like a TV remote. You just rest it in your lap. You don't need to make huge motions for it to work.
          • You don't need to hold your arm out. Everyone that's tried it has said you can put your hand in your lap or on the arm of your sofa and just move your wrist around to do what you need. Similar to how much you move your mouse on your computer to move the cursor on screen. Shouldn't be tiring at all.
            • Ah, for some reason I was thinking in terms of a gun-shooter (House of the Dead, Duck Hunt) which you have to aim at where you want to shoot on the screen as opposed to a FPS, where aiming is relative to where the controller is.
      • Re:Um, yeah, Mark... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Admiral Ackbar 8 (848624) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @05:16PM (#13892432)
        Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove.

        For the love of everything good, Mattel made the friggin Power Glove. Not Nintendo.
      • Re:Um, yeah, Mark... (Score:5, Informative)

        by scot4875 (542869) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @05:35PM (#13892604) Homepage
        The point of Rob was *not* as an alternate input device. The point was to make the NES seem unlike any of the previous video game consoles. They added him, even though they *knew* it was crap, to distinguish themselves from the 'competition,' which at that point was mainly customers' distaste for video game consoles. Read Game Over or (IIRC) High Score. They both talk about this.

        Rob was an investment. He was smoke and mirrors. You'll notice that they didn't sell it in anything but the first NES packages.

        And, as someone else already pointed out, Mattel made the power glove, not Nintendo. The only alternate input devices that Nintendo provided for the NES were the Advantage and the NES Max, which were both good controllers.

        --Jeremy
        • Actually, I believe the reason R.O.B. was created was because after the Atari disaster caused by E.T., the videogame market entirely crashed. North American chain stores had no interest in carrying a videogame system. Nintendo created ROB (which is actually a bizarre piece of technology revolving around flashes of light generated by the game screen) to say "No, you've got it all wrong. This isn't a video game console. This is robots and etc, etc."

          ROB was smoke and mirrors, but did his job well enough to
      • The Virtual Boy was a goof up on Nintendo's part because, as it seemed, they thought Yokoi was invincible...I'll give you that one, but R.O.B. was never meant to sell well. Nintendo made two whole games for the thing...It was nothing more than an excuse for Nintendo to get its console in electronic stores.
      • It's not "Robby the Robot", it's R.O.B. (Robotic Operating Buddy). This is Robby the Robot [wikipedia.org] But yeah, your point stands. R.O.B. was a dumb idea. Then again, if Nintendo had supported it a little more, who knows what kind of interesting games might have been developed for it. AFAIK only two games were ever made that supported the device.
      • Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove.

        I'll give you ROB and the Virtual Boy, but the Power Glove was 3rd party. Nintendo had nothing to do with it.

        The Virtual Boy would have done better but for 2 things:
        A. They called it Virtual Boy, so people thought it was portable... it wasn't.
        B. Red on Black makes my eyes bleed. But doing the same thing with a pair of LCDs would've been awesome! Too bad the technology wasn't there.
      • Why does everyone trash the Virtual Boy? Have you ever actually played one? Most people talk shit about it and haven't even played it, or played it for a whole 2 minutes at a department store when they were 10. The Virtual Boy, though a failure money wise was not a piece of shit. There are a handful of very fun games that really show some innovation. It was a product where people expected virtual reality and were given something far less and as a result hated it. How many products come out on the market tha
        • Read my post again. I didn't trash talk any of the items listed. I simply said that they weren't successful and industry-transforming, which I feel they weren't. I only brought up the possibility of the revolution controller being a failure, which could happen in a number of situations. Imagine if the thing breaks if you drop it or swing it too fast. Not that this WILL happen, it is only a possibility that could mean the failure of the device.

          P.S. after like 5 posts of my ROB/robby and nintendo/mattel
  • hmm.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darune (716587) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:14PM (#13891854)
    Well he's probably right about a lot of games being made for the Revolution just for the controller. Some will definitely suck, but I think(hope) that overall they should be good games, and as he said, Nintendo will provide some A+ titles.

    His comment on the FPS's I'm not so sure about. All the consoles currently handle FPS's relatively the same, the XBox trigger buttons may give it a slight advantage. As for the Revolution though, companies could make their own attachments for FPS's. The shotgun mockup from IGN is an example of something companies could (in theory) do. Hopefully game companies will take advantage of controller add-ons, but somehow I doubt it will be as magical and widespread as I hope. I'm worried that without the right addon for the controller the user will get a "magic wand" feeling with Revolution FPS's.

    In the end I will side with the majority of the comments, and agree that he is just trolling anyways.

  • by skryche (26871) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:22PM (#13891931) Homepage
    This proof of Nintendo's failure seems about as suitable:

    Rein then conducted a quick audience survey to find out how many people present owned a GameCube - and found that rather a large number of hands were raised.

    He then asked everyone who also ate at McDonald's in the past week to put their hands down - and concluded that under ten per cent of the audience were Cube owners who hadn't eaten at McDonald's recently.

    "Hard to make a business on less than 10 per cent," Rein said.

    • Can someone share with me how this is insightful? The only thing I see wrong with Rein's original assumption is that GC/PS2 owners would buy a cross-platform game for PS2 instead of the GC. Maybe the games he's talking about have online play, I don't know. But it is a valid insight to say that XBox/GC owners would probably buy a cross-platform game for the XBox over the GC.
      • I'm saying he's comparing apples and oranges, in that just because somebody owns a Gamecube and an Xbox doesn't mean that owning a Gamecube should be discounted... but you make an excellent point. I wasn't thinking in terms of cross-platform games, which is, no doubt, what he is thinking of.

        Okay, so I'm not so insightful.

      • The only thing I see wrong with Rein's original assumption is that GC/PS2 owners would buy a cross-platform game for PS2 instead of the GC.

        Which is strange. I own all 3 consoles. If I want online play, I'll get the game for the xbox. If I don't care about online play, I'll get the GC version, because the graphics are indistinguisable from the xbox version and I love my wavebirds.

        I don't own *any* crossplatform games for the PS2, or at least they weren't crossplatform when I bought them. They look like c
  • by dr.fishopolis (604072) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:35PM (#13892026)
    Reading the article, I got the distinct impression that he was schilling for Microsoft... Bashing PS3, revolution, gamecube, and calling the xbox 360 controller all but perfect. Kneepads like that don't come cheap, so you do a search for "Epic Microsoft partnerships" and you get this... http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/ut2004/news_6120 091.html [gamespot.com]

    Epic Games today announced that its Unreal Engine 3 technology will be used in games from Microsoft's internal development team, Microsoft Game Studios ... While no specific titles were mentioned, Epic confirmed that the technology will be used for "the next-generation Xbox platform." ... "We are hugely excited that Microsoft Game Studios have selected Unreal Engine 3 for its next generation Xbox platform games," said Epic Games president Mark Rein.

    • I very much doubt that he is shilling for Microsoft. Remember that Unreal Engine is a major part of the PS3 dev system - Epic has a lot to gain if the PS3 does well.

      For example:

      In what must come as a relief to developers, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney was on hand to vouch for the PS3, saying it was "easy to program for" and that Epic had received its first PS3 hardware two months ago.
    • If I did a search for anything id come up with... what I searched for. Saying thats evidence of some underhanded MS deal is ridiculous.

      I put in 'Unreal 3' and 'PS3' SHOCK! Sony have licensed it as well! Its clearly a conspiracy against Nintendo...

      If people actually read this article without seeing red everytime the guy says anything against anything youll find its blunt but probably for the most part true.

      He slags of the prototype PS3 controller, why not when it was posted here there was a load of people sa
  • Gimick!?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:39PM (#13892068)
    QUOTE
    Rein then conducted a quick audience survey to find out how many people present owned a GameCube - and found that rather a large number of hands were raised.

    He then asked everyone who also owned a PS2 or Xbox to put their hands down - and concluded that under ten per cent of the audience were Cube owners only.

    "Hard to make a business on less than 10 per cent," Rein said. /QUOTE

    Who would listen to someone who has such poor logic skills? If he were to switch the systems around would he be saying "Hard to make a business on less than 15 per cent" (in reference to the PS2 or XBox) because that is the reality; if you throw in a gaming PC I bet the number would be under 10% for any system you choose. [And don't say that the PS2 has sold uber-billions of units more than the XBox or Gamecube, If you look at the number of PS2s that have had a new game (rented or purchased) played on them in the past 12 months it would likely only be 1.5-2 times as many as there are Gamecubes/XBoxes. This is because a lot of PS2s were sold as cheap DVD players, are only used by pirates, or have died from the famous disc-read error]

    Any developer who is worth listening to should be supporting Nintendo (at least in spirit); at one point in time every new game style was just a gimick.

    Grand Theft Auto was just a gimick ...
    The Sims were just a gimick ...
    Tomb Raider was just a gimick ...
    Mario 64 was just a gimick ...
    Starfox was just a gimick ...
    Wolfenstein 3D was just a gimick ...
    Super Mario Bros. was just a gimick ...
    Donkey Kong was just a gimick ...
    Pong was just a gimick ...

    It is through time and refinement that a gimicky game becomes a whole new genre all to itself
    • Tomb Raider was just a gimick ...

      Hate to break it to you... but Tomb Raider still is just a gimick, the style of gameplay was done before, its just the boobies and the marketing that made it a sucess.
      • Hate to break it to you... but Tomb Raider still is just a gimick, the style of gameplay was done before, its just the boobies and the marketing that made it a sucess.

        Hate to break it to you... but Tomb Raider still is just a gimick, the style of gameplay was done before, its just the marketing of the boobies that made it a sucess.

      • the style of gameplay was done before

        Go on, name an earlier title with the style of Tomb Raider.
        • Prince of Persia, duh. Do I win?
          • Prince of Persia, duh. Do I win?

            Not even close. If PoP counted, then you might as well just say Pitfall Harry- or say that Space Invaders was the model for Doom. But none of those has a similar playing feel playing feel to Tomb Raider. (Mario64 isn't close either, of course).
    • I'm reminded of a quote that according to a quick Google search is from Carl Sagan:

      But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

      Until I've actually gotten a chance to try the Revolution controller, I'm not willing to say it's going to work as a controller. Likewise, I'm not willing to say it isn't going to work. I'm d

      • "Until I've actually gotten a chance to try the Revolution controller, I'm not willing to say it's going to work as a controller."

        I've used it. Or, one like it. It controls my TV.

        kidding!

  • I'm sure if you took a poll of the audience, a similar percentage (if not less) would exclusively own either a PS2 or an Xbox as well... nowadays, hardcore gamers will have more than one system. The fact that 10% of the audience own ONLY a Gamecube means nothing. The fact that the majority of them DO own a Gamecube DOES mean something. Sounds to me like this guy just has a grudge against Nintendo. (and/or, is an Xbox fanboy... scary when the developers themselves become fanboys)
  • This reminds me of my old Everquest days where your guild was looked down upon because you used too many people to take down a MOB. Why is it that the more games come to be for "adults" the developers act more like children?

    I'm in no way a fan of EA, but but if they want to use 300 people to make a game that only requres 25, then let them do it. EA is one of the few companies who CAN do something of this magnitude.

    It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the slew of revolution games come
  • "I guarantee you there's going to be lots of people who say the whole reason for this game is this controller, we made the perfect game for the controller. And all it'll be is about the controller, and not necessarily a great game."

    Really Mark? That never happens in the world of game technology, eh? People using technology for technology's sake, and still build a crap game. How many of the games that utilize your company's Unreal technology are clunkers? See: Unreal Technology. [unrealtechnology.com] There are some great ga
  • by hambonewilkins (739531) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @05:56PM (#13892754)
    Before I get bashed as a Nintendo-hater or Xbox-lover, or whatever, let me say I have no dog in this fight. I don't plan on buying any of the systems and don't really care about the upcoming battle.

    But I think he's right, that in the beginning the controller will simply be a gimmick, much like Sony's Eye-Toy. Yes, it's fun and yes they are fun diversions, but these aren't "great games." They are party gimicks.

    That's not to say the controller won't eventually be used well, just that launch titles will likely be gimicky.

    Second of all, his comment about the 10% of Game Cube owners seems to be missed by everybody here. He has a valid point - if you own a Game Cube and a PS2 and an Xbox, yes you certainly have given Nintendo money, but you haven't increased their market share at all since you have negated that by buying their competing product as well. Since only 10% of the audience had ONLY a Game Cube, he's inferring that Game Cube has about a 10% marketshare. As a shorthand, it works. The same would be true if he did the poll for Xbox and found that only 10% of the audience owned ONLY an Xbox. These are competing products. They compete in the same market. If you own only a PS2 you are helping to boost Sony's marketshare. However, if you own all three, you aren't.

    Also, I personally have no qualms with the existing Xbox controller (or GameCube controller) when I've used them, but if his comments about FPS sales are false, then feel free to disprove them. He said: "It [Xbox controller] works just fine for playing games, and it works fine for first-person shooter games, as evidenced by the fact that they sold more first-person shooters on consoles than anybody's ever sold on PCs." Show how this is wrong if you believe it is false. Obviously people don't much mind playing Halo on the Xbox or they wouldn't be buying it.

    In the end, his comments aren't really controversial and the only "troll" as I see it is the OP he said he was "shooting his mouth off." He's a company exec. They prognosticate all the time. They compete with other firms. He may have better insight into the industry than any of us.

    • if his comments about FPS sales are false, then feel free to disprove them. He said: "It [Xbox controller] works just fine for playing games, and it works fine for first-person shooter games, as evidenced by the fact that they sold more first-person shooters on consoles than anybody's ever sold on PCs." Show how this is wrong if you believe it is false.

      It is not a matter of true/false, it is a matter of logical fallacy - it's a call for stagnation based on an appeal to popularity: The number of people usi

      • Oh, I don't disagree at all, but I think the point is that the Xbox controller is at least suitable for FPS' and that if the, say, PS2 controller were more suitable, FPS' would have done way better on PS2, considering it is a far better selling console.

        I don't disagree that the Revolution controller could be better or that (in this VP's opinion) it could be worse. And perhaps he is saying there's no reason to improve the controller (that's not the way I read it). However, the way the article is written,

        • Oh, I don't disagree at all, but I think the point is that the Xbox controller is at least suitable for FPS' and that if the, say, PS2 controller were more suitable, FPS' would have done way better on PS2, considering it is a far better selling console.

          100% incorrect. What FPSs outside of the Halo franchise has sold better on Xbox vs. PS2? People played Halo because is was amazing at the time, not because the cake pan sized controller was superior in any way, shape or form.
    • He may have better insight into the industry than any of us.

      The same thing could be said about Generals in WWI. Just because this is your profession, may not automatically mean you know what the front line conditions are like unless you participate in it.

      When he has actually played a Nintedo revolution FPS game using the controller then he may judge it.
    • Right?

      Steering controllers? Gimmick.

      Analog thumbsticks? Gimmick.

      Sure, it's DIFFERENT. And it might not work and then again it might and if you corner the market with it.. that makes you a GOOD businessman, which is not generally of the "me too" variety.
    • First of all, they are competing products in the same way a BMW and an SUV are. Can you drive them both to work? Sure, but many people own both. However, one appeals to higher quality and the other appeals to utility. BMW makes money. GM loses money. Guess which one sells more vehicles? Want an example in the software world? Apple computers. Apple's software/hardware product offerings (other than iTunes, whose main purpose is a marketing device for the iPod) compete on quality rather than purely vo
      • Nintendo makes a profit.

        Of course, they're the only ones who understand that if you want to make a profit, you have to sell something for more than you bought it. If I buy a banana for a dollar, and sell it to your for half a dollar, I lost money. It doesn't matter how many accesories and games I sell you for that banana, I still lost money on the banana itself. What's the point?

    • That's not to say the controller won't eventually be used well, just that launch titles will likely be gimicky.

      IIRC, the only announced launch title for the Revolution so far is the new Smash Bros, which will almost certainly be more than a gimmick, given the quality and depth of the Gamecube version. Also hinted at as a launch title is the new Mario. Again, practically guaranteed not to be just a gimmick.

      So I think that the gimmick argument won't hold up when we actaully see the games, given that we're

    • Or maybe not. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LKM (227954)

      Second of all, his comment about the 10% of Game Cube owners seems to be missed by everybody here.

      Or maybe you missed it. The point against this point is that the 10% quote holds true for all consoles, since most households own more than one console by now. If he had asked his audience who owned an Xbox, and then discounted those who also owned either a PS2 or a Cube, he'd have gotten the same 10% result.

      And yeah, you can play FPS with current gamepads. It's just that you can play them better with a key

  • by Zangief (461457) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @09:10PM (#13893911) Homepage Journal
    is the fact that Nintendo hasn't licensed the Unreal Engine for the Revolution.
  • When Nintendo said this industry was in a glut, I didn't really beleive it, until now. The only other thing I can think of is this guy is very insecure. To say gaming is diven completely with graphics is bologna. I think he is bashing Nintendo only because he sees them as a threat. My opinion is that 1) The revolution controller will work as described, 2) The system will not be underpowered (Without all the HDTV at those widescreen resolutions, Im sure it will be much easier to keep up the frame rates at t
  • In my personal opinion, this dude is talking out his ass.

    The Revolution controller is a massive improvement over the current controller designs when it comes to first person shooters.

    First person shooters are 3D games. That means that somehow, the player has to have access to a at least a 4D pointing device. They need to be able to move in two dimensions (at the minimum) to move along the ground, and they need a second 2D locator in order to pick an angle at which to fire. In total, you need tw
    • "In my personal opinion, this dude is talking out his ass.

      The Revolution controller is a massive improvement over the current controller designs when it comes to first person shooters."

      In my opinion, you're talking out of your ass. Have you ever considered that perhaps controller design has reached a point of mautrity? There's a reason that keyboards and mice are fundamentally the same as they were 20 years ago - the input device works, and it works well.

      The problems with the Revolution controller are numer
      • "In my opinion, you're talking out of your ass. Have you ever considered that perhaps controller design has reached a point of mautrity? There's a reason that keyboards and mice are fundamentally the same as they were 20 years ago - the input device works, and it works well."

        The keyboard and mouse do not fundamentally deter people from using a computer. Modern controllers do simply because they look too complicated to the layman. I think its pretty obvious what is more intuitive - rotating analog sticks to
      • From what I've read, the Revolution's wand controller can be stuck into a "shell" which is shaped like an ordinary controller, allowing you to control a game using a button layout you're used to. As an added bonus, the controller could transmit data about how the controller shell is oriented in space, allowing an appropriately-programmed game to react to the player tilting the shell around. The Revolution will have no problems playing ported games from the other two systems, since those games can simply i
    • Your description of the failings of any control system other than the Revolution controller is filled with such marvelously amusing hyperbole that I could not help but laugh. All these years I've been playing Descent, with it's 6D control scheme, I never thought to question the fact that what I was doing was impossible! To be fair I must admit that I needed to use a shift function or two to fit all of D3's miscellaneous functions onto a gamepad (although not with keyboard or KB/M).

      As for mice, I

      • Descent is 5D. 3D locator for your ship, and 2D locator for your ship's angle. Having more than one way of changing your ship's angle or position doesn't add any more D's, it just means there are more buttons to push, or the controls are more versatile. (Think of it this way: The space you move in is three dimensional, but choosing your angle is the same as locating a point on a hollow sphere with a fixed radius. Select any point on the sphere and it determines your angle. You would have 6D controls i
  • Mark Rein> But the big thing is graphics. It's all about graphics. Graphics give me a boner. I love boners. It's all about boners. Omg I've got a boner right now. Who wants to see it? It's all about my boner. It's all about looking at my boner. Look at my boner. I love it when people look at my boner. Who wants to touch it? Touch my boner. It's all about touching my boner.
  • Because lucas arts will be unable to resist making some crappy light saber dueling game, And every Star Wars geek will have to own it, No matter how bad it is. On another note I will buy an XBOX-360 PS3 and Revalution. But the only one im realy excited about is the nintendo.
  • Holding up an Xbox 360 pad, to whoops and cheers from the audience, he proclaimed: "This is the Xbox 360 controller, and there's nothing wrong with it.

    He then held up a first-gen XBOX and said: "This is an XBOX, and there's nothing wrong with it, it works the same as a 360. To hell with all this next gen crap, I'm sticking with this generation!"

    His point is fundamentally flawed. If he believes the gaming experience can be improved by better graphics, then the same is true with an improved interface.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.

Working...