Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Nintendo Businesses Entertainment Games

Responses To Nintendo's Revolution Controller 151

Posted by Zonk from the hit-me-with-your-best-shot dept.
Gamasutra has reactions to last week's Question of the Week, discussing the Nintendo Revolution Controller. While there were a lot of mixed feelings, overall the response seemed to be positive. From the article: " I certainly hope [the controller will be beneficial]. More of the same thinking in terms of developing the future of games can only take us so far. As a lifelong gamer and game developer, I urge everybody in our industry to support the innovation and risks taken by Nintendo on sheer principle. We always lament that there is no creativity and innovation in the games industry anymore. Guys, we have to rally around these initiatives. It brings a tear to my eye that somebody out there in this big brutal word of ROI and risk management still dares to go out on a limb like that to push gaming further. And my mouth waters when I think of designing for such hardware. -Marque Sondergaard, Powerhouse"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Responses To Nintendo's Revolution Controller More

Responses To Nintendo's Revolution Controller

Comments Filter:

  • Gamecube controllers work on Revolution too. (Score:5, Informative)

    by spikestabber ( 644578 ) <spike AT spykes DOT net> on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @05:57PM (#13671391) Homepage
    I don't see what people have to hate about this controller design. If you don't like it, plug in a gamecube controller. Nintendo has this thought out well for everyone, including people that dislike their new controller.

    • Re:Gamecube controllers work on Revolution too. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joe Random ( 777564 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:10PM (#13671511)
      If you don't like it, plug in a gamecube controller.
      Excpet I'm sure that there are going to be some games that you have to use the 3D controller to play. Not that that's a bad thing, though, as they'll be designed to take advantage of the controller.

      The main question here is 3rd party support. Of course, Nintendo makes awesome 1st party games. They always have. But how many 3rd parties will commit themselves to a console where the primary method of controlling the game just doesn't translate to other consoles? They'll either have to

      A) make the game primarily for the Revolution, but with a control scheme that can easily be ported (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller)
      B) Make the game primarily for other consoles, and hack together a Rev-controller interface (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller) or
      C) Make the game a Revolution exclusive, severely limiting their potential audience, and thus potential sales.

      The only way out is for this style of controller to become so wildly popular that other consoles create their own versions of the same control style (possible), or license the tech from Nintendo (not likely).

      So while I'll be getting a Revolution next year, I don't really suspect that there will be too many games that take full advantage of its revolutionary controller.

      • Re:Gamecube controllers work on Revolution too. (Score:5, Informative)

        by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:21PM (#13671607)
        You do realize that if you put the control inside the wavebird-like sleeve, it still tilts when you tilt the addon sleve? Rigid body physics astounds! I read somewhere EA plans to use the "normal" controller + tilt for their football games.

        I'm pretty sure the intention is to have the sleeve addon thing work with all games, i.e. they don't have to specifically support the addon. However I could be mistaken.
        • You do realize that if you put the control inside the wavebird-like sleeve, it still tilts when you tilt the addon sleve?

          That's great, except that picture of a wavebird sleeve was just a mock-up. Supposedly, Nintendo has said they're going to make something along those lines, but I've never actually seen this mentioned anywhere official, just as rumors.

          Also, someone said that Gamecube controllers would work, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. I was under the impression that the Gamecube ports on the top
          • Nintendo hasn't said anything about them working on actual Revolution games

            It seems to me that in order for them to not work for Revolution games, Nintendo would have had to design the system and expend extra effort with that particular goal in mind. (Such as actively disabling the ports when a non-Gamecube disc is detected in the drive.) This seems to me so completely self-defeating that it's inconceivable as a possibility.

            If the ports are there, any software made for the system should be able to acc

      • Re:Gamecube controllers work on Revolution too. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Castar ( 67188 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:22PM (#13671625)
        This is definitely Nintendo's biggest problem (both currently, and with the new controller): third party support.

        However, look at the DS. Very few developers are saying "Oh, I can't make my touchscreen/dual screen game for the PSP also! Woe is me!" The DS gets a lot of great games.

        Now, partially this is due to the fact that the DS has a large marketshare, and to the fact that handhelds are a lot cheaper to develop for, but still the fact remains: platform-exclusivity is not an automatic killer. In fact, for most of the console world's history, titles have been exclusives (was there anything that was on both SNES and Genesis? Or PS1 and Dreamcast?)

        So if Nintendo can make enough hardware sales, and can make the platform cheap enough to develop for (signs point to yes on the second one, at least), then they have a shot even without cross-platform games.

        Anyway, 3rd parties might be more willing to step up to the plate than you think - EA has already said they're looking forward to using the new controller features in their sports games, and a number of other large publishers have stated support as well. That's not to say they won't back out if things start going downhill, but of course that will be a lot harder once you've started to develop a game around the controller.
        • was there anything that was on both SNES and Genesis?

          mortal kombat.

          and I believe, NBA Jam.

          *thinks...*

          you gotta remember... until recently, game system programming consisted of mostly (if not entirely) ASM code and the controllers for each system diverged quite a bit.

          I mean, you've got the original NES with the A and B buttons, and I think the sega master system had 2 buttons, too... and TG16 had 2 buttons. but the genesis had 3 (and there was the 6 button controller) and the SNES had 6 buttons to start. pro
        • was there anything that was on both SNES and Genesis? Yes! lots of games! From Fifa to Street Fighter. Or PS1 and Dreamcast? They were a different generation, you should've asked PS1 or Saturn. And the answer to that is yes, lots of games (again) were made for both.
      • For first person shooters, it's really a non-brainer. For PS3/XBox360, use the standard (and uberly sucky) dual analog interface, while with the Rev, use the pointer like they did in the Metroid demo.

        For other games? What's really the problem?
        Porting Rev -> others
        Tilting the remote up/down/left/right can be simulated by an analog stick.
        Pointing can be using a visual pointer on the screen.
        Tilting counter/clockwise can be done with shoulder buttons.
        Moving inside/out can be simulated somehow aswell....

        For g
      • Oddly enough, there is a local minimum. If developers are afraid of the Revolution, and they don't make games for it, then making games for the Revolution starts to almost guarantee a sale. Nintendo's in-house titles are of high-enough quality to guarantee some console sales, and the uniqueness of the controller will get more. Some degree of support will be optimal for the 3rd parties.

        But mainly I think Nintendo is embracing and extending. They've made a controller system that looks like it can support

      • Re:Gamecube controllers work on Revolution too. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @08:51PM (#13672555) Homepage Journal
        "The main question here is 3rd party support. Of course, Nintendo makes awesome 1st party games. They always have. But how many 3rd parties will commit themselves to a console where the primary method of controlling the game just doesn't translate to other consoles?"

        I think this question actually needs one more little detail: How much will the Rev cost? The GameCube was/is a/an interesting little machine. It has an impressive list of decent games. The GC also started at $200. Now it's only $100. If Nintendo maintains the low cost scenario, then do the 3rd party titles matter as much?

        The point I'm getting at is that Microsoft and Sony are trying to be the market leaders. As a result, they're creating really expensive do-all machines. At least with the current generation, it's a lot easier to own a PS2 and a GameCube than it is to own a PS2 and XBOX. Nintendo isn't the market leader by a wide margin, but they're profitable and accessible. One could buy a GameCube and only end up buying 5 games for it, yet they're stil satisfied.

        I cannot ignore that 3rd party support is very important to a lot of people. But if Nintendo holds to their strategy, then they stand a good chance of having a really good system on their hands.
      • "C) Make the game a Revolution exclusive, severely limiting their potential audience, and thus potential sales."

        so...then maybe more people should buy the revolution, then the audience wouldn't be limited.

        with a cheaper price than the competition, an innovative controller, and of course the download catalog, and free wireless online, i don't see how the revolution won't gain sales over the gamecube.

        xbox 360 and ps3 are just the same games with prettier graphics for a high price filled with marketing garbage
      • B) Make the game primarily for other consoles, and hack together a Rev-controller interface (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller)

        IMO, I really don't think it will be too hard to "hack together" a Rev-controller interface. Think of it this way. Say you have a FPS where on the PS3, you use the right analog stick to "aim"... Would it really be so hard to adapt this control to what's essentially a 2d grid on the screen?

        Example, pointed at the middle of the screen is as if you
        • Seeing how FPS games are a decent portion of the gaming market, it is pretty logical that nintendo would have an API specifically geared for FPSes. They have to write one anyway for Metroid, so chances are that they will flesh it out and distribute it to take some of the strain off 3rd party developers.
      • A) make the game primarily for the Revolution, but with a control scheme that can easily be ported (i.e. doesn't take full advantage of the revolution controller)

        Look at how many FPS games are ported between console and PC. Yet the GUI interface of aiming a gun with a thumbstick versus a mouse is very different (much harder one way than the other). But developers manage to work through it. Indeed, one notable advantage of the Revolution controller is it can emulate a mouse well, something the thumbsticks
    • Nintendo even said that Revolution games wouldn't work with the gamecube controller, only the older games would.

  • too early (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uberjoe ( 726765 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:00PM (#13671425)
    I'll have an opinion once I use one. But my general feeling is that if the games are designed with this controller in mind and can take advantage of its features then it will be a good thing. Playing older game cube games that were made for the old style controller probably would not be so good. So I guess it all depends on the developer.

  • Maybe? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Now.Imperfect ( 917684 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:07PM (#13671486) Homepage
    I don't really see how it's good or bad, the only direction I'm vaguely excited in is the world of FPS games. I hate console FPSes and this could be just the thing to improve FPS gaming IMHO. I Suppose I agree with the article in the idea that we should encourage attempts at innovations such as this. (though I for one found the plethora of "touching is good" ads for DS somewhat creepy)

    • Re:Maybe? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Soul-Burn666 ( 574119 )
      In the various demos shown to the reporting sites, most of the games on show weren't at all FPS and more than one even not in 3d.
      First think about the controller as a mouse pointer. Think about all the games that really sucked to play with a gamepad like strategy games or even RPGs. It's much easier to select an enemy to attack using a mouse/rev-pointer(probably) than scrolling between the targets with the d-pad.
      Then think about games where your virtual should be used. For example in a puzzle or quest game,

  • Innovation is a Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0rionx ( 915503 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:09PM (#13671509)

    And as the original article states, you at least have to give Nintendo props for being willing to take risk and try something radical. The game market has been sorely lacking in innovation for a long time, so even though I'm not particularly impressed by Nintendo's newest offering, I still applaud them for being unique.

    If you don't like it, don't buy it. However, don't hate on Nintendo because they're doing something new and different. It's that kind of thinking that has kept the gaming industry in the vicious cycle of endless clones and knock-offs that don't offer anything new but a rehashed graphics engine. If this venture becomes successful, it will in turn inspire other companies and publishers to go out on a limb with ground-breaking ideas. As it is, everyone is too afraid to take a big risk on an unproven concept, so we just keep getting fed the same old crap over and over.

    Now, all that said, there have always been great games coming out, but in recent years they seem to have been continually dwindling in numbers. Bottom line: innovation is always a good thing. It's what's driven our economy and fueled growth and technological development more than almost anything else.

    • However, don't hate on Nintendo because they're doing something new and different.

      Personally I'm "hating on" Nintendo because they're doing something that's been tried for decades and has failed every single time.
    • but in recent years they seem to have been continually dwindling in numbers.

      Not really. If you look back all the way to the NES days (yes I'm aware gaming was big before NES, but I wasn't alive and don't know much about it), there was just about the same ratio of innovative to terribly generic games as there is now.

      • Well, that's something of a subjective measurement. Personally, I haven't found more than a half dozen or so games in the last 3 years that I really enjoyed as much as older games. Or maybe it's just that I've become more jaded and cynical. Yeah, that's probably it

        One major difference, though, is that "back in the day" (at least with PC games), anybody with some decent programming and graphic design skills (read: sprite drawing) who had an interesting idea could make a fun game. These days, it's much

    • Get this: noone's attacking Nintendo because they're innovating, so I wish that straw-man and persecution complex was put to rest already.

      1. They can innovate as much as they like, and kudos to them for innovating. So there. Maybe now we can stop it with the "waah, bad people try to stop inovation" emo act aready. But

      2. totally unrelated to that -- in fact _orthogonal_ to that -- an interface can still be good or bad, regardless of whether it's innovative or not.

      E.g., the dot-com for example was full of suc
      • Why don't you like the controller? You didn't say.
        • Well, we can discuss why I don't like the controller too, but all I wanted to say there was that it's a completely different issue from disliking innovation as a whole. So figured for a change I'd focus on one single idea instead of a hard-to-read mix of disparate issues.

          But ok, here's why I don't like it:

          1. It looks like it would be uncomfortable after a while.

          Think lightguns, for example. They're great as a gimmick, but it's not the kind of thing you'd want to play with for hours. It's the kind of stuff y

  • As long as... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by FLAGGR ( 800770 )
    Give me 1 well done FPS, 1 well done star wars game with lightsaber control and make Twilight Princess a nrv title and I'll buy 10 systems and sign off everything I own to Nintendo. The last request is optional, though.
    • I think a proper lightsaber game would be the killer app for the revolution.
      • You know, they have one of those types of games at Disney's Disney quest (the Disney arcade thing) and it doesn't really work.

        If you take the movement of the remote directly into the game for the movement of the sword you can just flail the remote around wildly and kill and block everything coming at you before it gets a chance.

        If you put a delay on the sword in game to only allow you to move it so many times per second then you have a big feeling of disconnection from the sword in game and you get frustrat
        • So the problem is that you can win via modernized button mashing? Sounds like the game just needs some better enemy AI.

          Think of sparring with a wiffle ball bat. It basically has no mass, so you can flail it just as fast as a bladeless controller. Are you guaranteed to win if you just flail it at a skilled opponent, or are they just going to knock your bat aside and smack you in the head?

          Sure, you're not going to have the realistic feeling of mass in a swordfighting game, but if the game is properly desig

        • well you could give the PC a limited grip strength, if you gife the sword too much inertia it will go flying, likewise if an enemy hits you and you try to use an awkward angle to blok they can knock your weapon out your hand
        • As someone who has some experience in this field, I can say that even a half-decent AI, able to react in real time, would slaughter the guy who is mindlessly flailing.

          I fence. Not the fencing that is on the Olympics, or the USFA or FIE or any of it, but Classical and Historical fencing, fencing as a martial art. And with over six years of dedication to the Art, more than four of which have been spent studying the two-handed sword, I can assure you that flailing about is useless. You might get lucky, onc

          • You know I have played quite a few fighting games and even the most advanced of them do not use real fencing maneuvers like you were just describing. The closest would probably be soul caliber 2 where you could use a generic high and low parry. But those were just momentary presses where once it is established there is ¼ of a second to catch the opponent's blade. After that your left open to attack for a moment.

            The games ability to learn is a gradual process, in most game the AI doesn't learn your styl
          • Not the fencing that is on the Olympics, or the USFA or FIE or any of it

            That kind of fencing would be more applicable to video-game analysis, since the constricted movement and limited legal strike points are closer to the experience of looking at an enemy on a TV screen that occupies a small percentage of the viewer's FOV.

            Plus, a foil only weighs about as much as a nintendo controller, while a bastard sword is what- 30 times as heavy? If the controller is light, it will be best to start with games that in
        • Well, in real life what I'd do is parry your sword to the side of your body (whichever side you're holding the sword with), then quickly step inside your guard and punch you in the face (stab you with a dagger, perform a shield bash, whatever). A decent AI should be able to replicate that. And if all you're doing is flailing, its hard to prevent.
    • They'll be plenty of revo zeldas, but I'm glad they're making on last cube zelda.

  • A Silly Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:56PM (#13671909) Homepage Journal
    Okay okay, it looks like a remote control, but can you actually control the TV with it? Seriously, I think that is a feature that would complete the set. The more I think about it, the better I like this new controller and really want to see the games. So if a person can just pick this up, turn the TV on with it, adjust the volume and channel, turn on the Revolution, and play, that would be perfect! Wow, imagine that people start using this as their primary remote, then they'd always be a click away from playing a game. You know, that's where Nintendo might be going with this. Gaming becomes as casual as using a TV remote.
    • They're trying to simplify interaction with games to bring in more people. It would require at least another 20 buttons just to make the basic functions available to control your typical modern TV.

      That said, if the technology isn't prohibitively expensive for 3rd party controller makers, I wouldn't be surprised to see a universal one from someone.

      It would be nice if they'd put a clock on the front of the thing. My DVD player doesn't have one and my VCR is in the closet. Of course it would just flash 1
      • Of course it would just flash 12:00 for most people

        My Philips VCR (that just died coincidentally) would automatically set the time based on the local PBS station. I haven't had a VCR that flashed 12:00 for about 8 years. Is this really a problem anymore? Or is it one of those things like the record scratch sound that people use to indicate a screw up?
      • What I had in mind was using the existing buttons like the remotes you often find in hotel rooms. For this you just need buttons for next and previous channel and more volume and less volume. The D-pad alone is good enough for this. If you want to get fancy without making it too complicated, the remote could have a channel jump feature where if you hold the button down in one direction or the other it would skip through the channels quickly. The key thing is to keep it simple.
    • Although that would be really cool, I doubt it will happen. Making the controller into a TV remote would mead adding a bunch of extra buttons, and Nintendo has said repeatedly that they don't want very many buttons so that the interface can be easier to learn and more appealing for non-gamers.

      Apparently, the average non-gamer is afraid of today's game controllers with 8 to 10 buttons because they are too complicated, but that same person is fine with using a TV remote with well over 30 buttons.
      • These people rarely know how their remote really works. They know the number changes the channel but many already fail if they have to navigate a simple menu with a set of arrow keys.
    • Push the A button! The A button! NO! Not that button! That's the ... power. Damned. Well. Maybe we should do something else. :S
      • NO! Not that button! That's the ... power.

        Seriously, I do hope that Nintendo puts in some global configurable setting so that the function of the power button can be changed to not instantly turn off with a little tap. Put up a "Sure you want to quit?" dialog or something. This would particularly be a problem on vigorous party-games like Smash Bros Revolution, where one kid could cancel the game for the other three. (Like a much worse version to what happens today when one player accidently pauses the ot
    • That's actually a pretty cool idea. If the DS had a signal input as well as output you could put it between your arial and television like a vcr. Having the tv screen power off or suspend might be a bit difficult, but things like volume and channels shouldn't be too hard. However it's probably not terribly likely as it moves the Rev away from it's goals of gaming platform and closer to being a media center, which I think Nintendo is specifically trying to avoid
  • I don't really like the revolution's controller. although this controller will make some games more intuitive and easier to play (Mario party, fishing games, baseball, tennis, and some platformer games) it is going to make other games much harder to play. Can you imagine trying to play a tekken style fighting game with that controller? It would be just about impossible to play well without buying the controller cradle. The user should not have to buy extra controller peripherals to play an entire genera of
    • Tekken style? With two controllers, it's pretty easy to do left/right punches/kicks. Instead of a million button combinations, combine different hand movements. IMO, it could be more confortable than a normal PS2 controller, where the button combinations are so complicated than the 'right way' of using the controller is making it sit on your lap, and use at least two fingers to hit the 4 face buttons. Madden? there are a million things you an do with the motion sensor other than jump and juke. From selecti

    • Re:Loosing buttons for more complicated games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @08:11PM (#13672362) Journal
      Certain genres of games might be difficult with this controller, yes. Tekken style games are a good example. But try and look past established genres and imagine that this different controller system just might allow whole new genres to form. But even if you can't do without Tekken 6 or whatever, MS and Sony will be more than happy to sell you a system with controllers chock-full of buttons.

      You're too caught up in the current controller mindset. The revolution controller is giving up some of the detailed control that buttons provide, and replacing it with the detailed control of a mouse, plus a third dimension. I think this is a pretty decent trade off, and hopefully a lot of developers will agree.

      If you took away video games and my computer, I'd pretty quickly find that very few of the things I interact with day to day involve that many buttons. If the revolution lives up to its potential, i don't think I'll be missing X, Y, L, or R very much.
    • Oh, you mean the one that has it's OWN CONTROLLER? ... WITH A BAZILLION BUTTONS? ... THAT COSTS 200 BUCKS?

      Right, I use that to play Tekken ALL the time!
    • When I think of playing a fighting game on a standard controller I cringe. Even though it sounds stupid, but those in-the-know know that the console controller is the worst input device for fighting games (due to 4 buttons under the control of ONE thumb). The keyboard is superior (due to multiple buttons and after training, QCs and HCs are natural) and the arcade stick is perfect (multiple buttons, and an intuitive movement input).
      Fighting games and shmups are meant to be played on an arcade stick. Not on a
    • I'd like to see a boxing game where you hold a controller in both hands, thus letting you punch the opponent where you would like to.
  • I like the idea of using the controller to control sword fights. However with only the inertia of a few ounces of plastic weighted entirely in your hand instead of a few pounds of steel weighted out a few feet, it can only be -so- realistic. Maybe lightsabers, they appear to have very low inertia or mass other than the handle, but I think it is easy to imagine being able to move the controller faster than can be recognized by the receiver, particularly in a LAN environment.
    • However with only the inertia of a few ounces of plastic weighted entirely in your hand instead of a few pounds of steel weighted out a few feet, it can only be -so- realistic.

      1. Buy yourself a nice Scottish Claymore [museumreplicas.com]
      2. Tape Revolution controller to the hilt.
      3. Realism!
      4. Strenuous upper-body workout.
      5. Impale your TV fighting Gannon.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close