Meh, seems rather interesting. I'm not buying any of the consoles so I don't care.
No one knows what playing the Revolution will be like. People will be talking about it, rumors will be flying, and a buzz will build. Even if this thing sucks, Nintendo has gotten themselves in a great position form a marketing standpoint. They are the only players in this field that have a sense of mystery about them, and that is invaluable.
That would happen if anyone other than Nintendo fanboys and hardcore gamers are paying attention. The gamecube was hardly very popular among most people I've known and Nintendo has likely dropped off the radar for many people. Last year their were several gamers on my floor, but everyone of them played the X-box or maybe the PS2. When Halo 2 was released they lined up to get it. It's likely that people like this aren't going to pay attention at all to Nintendo and they make up a sizeable portion of the gaming population.
When I first saw the picture of the controller, I thought "... Ooh boy, that's not gonna work" but after I watched the video and read the articles, it seems a bit more possible to use. Playing a Resident Evil that uses 4's game engine on that would work very well, I think. Hold down a Z button and aim with the 'remote.'
However, a few genres of games I'm worried about. Zelda would seem awkward trying to swing the controller around, since it's more of an adventure game than the Star Wars arcade machine (it has a fight with Vader in it, and you move the joystick around to defend and strike). EDIT: Looks like my question is answered.
I just hope that Nintendo doesn't lose a lot of 3rd party support due to the major difference in control setups. I think it's great that Nintendo did something different than Sony and Microsoft, though.
Although, there's one thing. Controller interferance. If someone's on the phone downstairs while I'm playing my GCN with a Wavebird controller, sometimes the controller will stop responding. I hope that it can be worked out.:shrug:
Axel wrote:There was this arcade boxing game that had two "glove" controlers. You moved the gloves and your boxer's fists would repeat your movements. This controler would be perfect for a port of that.
There was also a shooter game where you could take cover by ducking or stepping to the sides. There was a yellow pad beneath the system that followed your movements. However, there could only be one person on it at once, or else the game would pause and tell you to take off hats or check if someone in too close.
<_<
*goes to see what Xbox and PS fanboys say*
I'm all for new experiences, it just so drastic. I like Gamespot's article more than IGN. Gamespot said what it looked like, and a little about the functions. Although it didn't go in to great detail, it didn't go drooling all over the article. IGN seems too hyper in that article. 😉
What if this, what if that...ooh ooh ooh. Slow down a bit. :laughing:
About the PS3 controller, its not final apparently.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/16/news_6133405.html
I'm sure other sites have it too, but you can download Iwata's entire keynote from IGN http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/651/651383/vids_1.html (it's big though, like 150 MB) It's a good watch.
Yoshiman wrote:I just hope that Nintendo doesn't lose a lot of 3rd party support due to the major difference in control setups. I think it's great that Nintendo did something different than Sony and Microsoft, though.
The thing is, from what I got anyway, is it's possible to have the controller in a normal set-up, allowing third-party developers to use as few or as many of the unique aspects of the controller as possible, not to mention the Revolution also has the option to use the Gamecube controller instead. Nintendo did a very good job of not alienating third party developers this go around.
Does anyone have pictures of the PS3 or Xbox360 Controllers? (for comparison sake)
Rainman wrote:That would happen if anyone other than Nintendo fanboys and hardcore gamers are paying attention. The gamecube was hardly very popular among most people I've known and Nintendo has likely dropped off the radar for many people. Last year their were several gamers on my floor, but everyone of them played the X-box or maybe the PS2. When Halo 2 was released they lined up to get it. It's likely that people like this aren't going to pay attention at all to Nintendo and they make up a sizeable portion of the gaming population.
You'd think that Zelda would be more than enough to compensate for that. Twilight Princess should have brought Nintendo back into range.
Lol omg nice pic with the remote. This controller though in my opinion is going to be so damn fun. Watch the teaser video for a small sample of what can be done with it! 😃
PS3 one looks pretty uncomfortable. But I've got tiny little hands, people like my friend with the gorilla hands should feel fine with it.
EDIT: just noticed potential avatar joke.
This is a shell they are going to release (with the system I hope) that will work for more traditional games (and ports). Plus, it can still take advantage of the Rev. controller's movement features.
Edit: I guess that's just a mockup. But that's probably pretty close.
On the Nintendo Revolution General board on Gamefaqs.com, there 2111 (not kidding!!!) about the revolution's controller. Because I do not have an account there, I am going to answer all of my replies in this post.
It has no buttons!
It has 2 analog sticks (the stick and the movement) 10 buttons (Whatever the triggers on the analog stick are, A,B,a,b,<,>,^,v)
Name one way we could play all of the game genres.
Fighting: See platformers
Sports: See platformers
Platformers: Point to move in a direction and use buttons
Arcade: See all others
Side shooter: See FPS
FPS: Point to shoot
Racing: Tilt it to the left and right to steer.
What about zelda!
When you press the button to use the sword, you can quickly "draw" using the pointer. Say, when you are using arrows, you point and link shoots it in that direction, ect.
XBox 360 is teh R0X0R5!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go away.
Yes. You could use the standard controller addon, much like the picture two posts above me to fight with link, and then the pointer to aim stuff, like boomerangs and hookshots and bombs. People forget that there are two buttons on it, thus allowing you some semblance of action. If we could play Mario and Zelda on NES, why could we not on here?
what would be cool witgh this.. would be a new Bushido Blade game, imagind playing PoV mode online using that thing, the controller having absolute control over the sword.
There is an arcade game similar to this actually, called Mazan: Flash Of The Blade, you can see it here, http://www.bmigaming.com/games-videositdown-hm.htm Its like one of the on rail shooter games, but instead of using a gun you actual hold a motion sensitive sword hilt that controls your on screen sword to smack enemy ninjas :P
Actually, there are alot more than 2 buttons, if you paid attention to my previous post. Because you can use the pointer or the analog stick to move, the D-pad gives you 4 more buttons to use.
It wouldn't be very practical to move in a Zelda game, using the pointer, now would it? Also, the analog stick isn't neccesarily packaged with the controller. I was referring to action buttons, as you would have been able to infer had you read my post carefully enough. While there are a lot more than two buttons, there are, in fact, only two action buttons, as well as what I suppose could be considered a third action button (the article implied this to be the main button, due to it's proximity to the D-pad). Theoretically one could use the Dpad as action buttons, but as you are probably aware, I was referring to the use of the controller as one would use a NES controller, for moving Mario around and jumping, assuming that they released a platformer again.
In short, don't be so self-righteous. We're having a friendly discussion.
At the bottom of this page, IGN has a mock up of the "standard controller" shell that Nintendo may make so developers won't feel obligated to use the "remote" controller for everything: http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651559p1.html
btw, read the article too.
I don't understand why everyone is worked up about "OMG MY FAVORITE GAME WILL BE HARD TO CONTROL WITH THIS" because the following facts are true:[list=1][*]Gamecube controllers can plug directly into the Revolution if I understand correctly; I'm sure if the game requires a more traditional controller this could be leveraged.[*]Included in the interview AND the pictures we can see that the controller sports an expansion jack that can allow a game designer to present additional functionality to the controller. While I had not imagined anything as elegant as the shell vegeta1215 showcased, I had envisioned a controller (such as a fighting game arcade-style controller) that used the Revolution controller as nothing more than a wireless transmitter.[/list]However useful this will be, I kind of worry about the consequences. Nintendo is basically requiring a developer to use the GCN controller, the Revolution controller, or make their own. The GCN controller is not appropriate for some types of games (fighting games come to mind) so many games have skipped the GCN. The Revolution controller is most likely inappropriate for several types of games. In the case of a game where neither the GCN or Revolution controller (again, fighting games are the easiest example since you need 6 buttons and a stick), the developer is forced to either make do, create a new controller, or encourage customers to buy a third-party controller.
If the custom-controller route becomes the norm, I think we'll see game prices spike as each game will include its special controller. However due to the costs and effort needed to develop a controller I doubt this will happen. More likely fighting games will continue to skip over the Nintendo system. I don't think this bothers Nintendo as I will point out in an upcoming epic megapost.
I was expecting something crazy with the controller for the revoltuion, and still I was suprised. I remember way back when the original X-box controller was hated so much I said controllers don't really matter, that I could play games on a DVD remote if I had to... I just never thought I would. Actually though I think this is a good move for Nintendo. With PS3 going to be the most powerful of the new systems, and with 360 close behind... low price and a unique style was what Nintendo was planning to do to seperate itself anyway, and the articles I read definately make the controller seem pretty cool.
Good point about the Xbox controller. Everyone who hated the xbox because its controller wasn't standard, but who loves the revolution, should put on their hypocrisy hat.
I hated the Xbox controller because it was too big and when I did own an Xbox I never really got to where I liked the controller.
This controller will take some getting used to, but at least I don't have concerns about whether I need to strengthen my grip to hold it. I'm more concerned about what happens when I swing too hard and hit someone 😉
Beldaran wrote:Good point about the Xbox controller. Everyone who hated the xbox because its controller wasn't standard, but who loves the revolution, should put on their hypocrisy hat.
Not necessarily. I hated the original XBox controller because It was nearly impossible to hold due to poor button layout and a pointless giant XBox logo in the middle. The controller-S took things to scale, and is much better to use.
The Revolution controller, on the other hand, looks very functional and easy to use. However, I do plan on giving it a test run at Best Buy before I go out and pre-order one.
Tygore wrote:Not necessarily. I hated the original XBox controller because It was nearly impossible to hold due to poor button layout and a pointless giant XBox logo in the middle. The controller-S took things to scale, and is much better to use.
This is just a thinly veiled excuse for people who don't like the xbox to complain about something. Anyone who dislikes the original Xbox controller because it is "nearly impossible to hold" is not using their brain correctly. The original xbox controller is not only extremely comfortable, it was designed to be so by a cadre of experienced ergonomics experts.
What happened was, it was different than what people were use to, and since they were irrationally searching for something to bitch about, they latched onto the controller issue.
I question not only the intelligence, but the basic sanity of anyone who disliked the original xbox controller. I know most people here hated the design, and if you are one of those people, know that my opinion of you is lower than it might be simply because of that.
Warlock wrote:This is a shell they are going to release (with the system I hope) that will work for more traditional games (and ports). Plus, it can still take advantage of the Rev. controller's movement features.Edit: I guess that's just a mockup. But that's probably pretty close.
This would rest my mind a bit on my worries for the system. While I think that the knew controller could be pretty cool in many games, I don't think it would work with alot of the games we have come to enjoy. One of the problems I saw with the remote like controller was that the user had to think about it while playing the game. I feel that in most games you want to not have to think about the interfacing device and be (for the lack of a better term) "one" with the game. If they would come out with this controller than it would make the system much more interesting. Now if they only could get some more games.....
Before I opened this topic, I had absolutely no interest in buying a Nintendo Revolution.
Then I read the article.
I still had no interest in buying the Nintendo Revolution.
Then I saw the video.
Now I'm interested. I'm still not sold(actually, far from it) until I see some of the games actually in action(all it showed was a bunch of Japanese people moving around and laughing hysterically). It also depends on how much support it has and how much support it has for the regular gamecube controller that it is compatable with. It could be an outstanding innovation.
It could suck. We don't know until its released and one of us tries it. *ahem*Cloral*ahem*
Beldaran wrote:This is just a thinly veiled excuse for people who don't like the xbox to complain about something. Anyone who dislikes the original Xbox controller because it is "nearly impossible to hold" is not using their brain correctly. The original xbox controller is not only extremely comfortable, it was designed to be so by a cadre of experienced ergonomics experts.
Maybe to you, but doesn't mean it is to someone else. And just because someone doesn't like the controller doesn't mean they dislike the Xbox. I believe AlexMax is one of those people. He loves his Xbox, but I'm pretty sure he prefers the small one to the large one. (Correct me if I'm wrong AlexMax)
I'm fine with the Xbox. I can hold the original controller just fine. But I do think its a bit too thick for my preference. I don't hate the Xbox though.
Beldaran wrote:This is just a thinly veiled excuse for people who don't like the xbox to complain about something. Anyone who dislikes the original Xbox controller because it is "nearly impossible to hold" is not using their brain correctly. The original xbox controller is not only extremely comfortable, it was designed to be so by a cadre of experienced ergonomics experts.
I have extremely small hands and thin fingers. It is literally impossible for me to hold the original Xbox controller and reach all the buttons without pain. I have the same problem with some of the larger GC controllers (though not to the same extent). The newer small controllers are better.
Same problem with guitars, I can't fit my hand around the neck and hold on long enough to learn anything, I always end up nearly dropping the instrument and blowing on my poor palm. No trouble with woodwind instruments, though, since I don't have fat fingers getting in the way.
Since I've seen little girls play acoustic guitars without a problem, I think the problem is with your deformed hands, not the xbox controller. I guess it was designed for humans in mind, not man-girls with toddler hands.
Beldaran wrote:Since I've seen little girls play acoustic guitars without a problem, I think the problem is with your deformed hands, not the xbox controller. I guess it was designed for humans in mind, not man-girls with toddler hands.
I think you can dispense with the attitude when its over something as stupid as a game controller design. Nearly everyone who has bitched about the size of the old Xbox controller has voiced approval of the S-type, which was intended only for the Japanese market until consumer response made it the supported model in the US market as well.
Daarkseid wrote: Nearly everyone who has bitched about the size of the old Xbox controller has voiced approval of the S-type, which was intended only for the Japanese market until consumer response made it the supported model in the US market as well.
Because apparently whether or not you are correct is based on how many people agree with you?
Hey guess what, everyone just voted that gravity doesn't exist. So let's go jump off a cliff.
I happen to think gamers who hated the large controller design have a total inability to see through their quasi-political company preference. People who don't have that bias, and still dislike the big controller, are just wrong. That is my opinion. If having an opinion is "an attitude" then I have an attitude.
Japanese people are some of the most racist and narrow minded people on earth. They disliked the big controller because the weren't used to it. There is no physiological reason to dislike it. It is very well designed. All of the reasons for disliking are purely psychological or political.
