[Guden Oden]

Ok, this may be considered speculation/ranting, I don't care. Sue me.

For a long time now I was actually quite angry at nintendo for continuing to be, well, nintendo. Not speaking to their fans/"community", not disclosing any future plans, not wanting to raise the bar in the specs war et cetera. The tiny rev prototype case they showed clearly states - IMO - that Rev is not going to be about high specs hardware. Nintendo's suggestion they might not support HD resolutions could be a further indication of the same. This discouraged me further and made me convinced Nintendo was out of touch with the market, and pretty much reality as a whole.

Since they showed off their - quite frankly WEIRD - controller though, I've more or less turned around 180 degrees.

Many console games today are immensely frustrating to get far into. Even on easy mode. Prince of persia for example is legendary in this regard, but even many other games suffer from the same basic problem. It was an effort for me to clock zone of the enders 2, I didn't even get past the first miniboss in devil may cry 3 on my first casual attempt at the game, nor did a friend of mine either moments before. I put god of war on hold because I felt I might be about to hit a rock wall, as did I with metroid prime 2, demon stone and Jak 2 also.

Games are becoming too frustrating to play to be fun. I don't know where I'm supposed to have time to hold L2, triangle, press X and pull back on the stick to do a beeblebrox strike on an enemy when I'm being swamped by four-five guys at a time. These button combinations - although perhaps impressive when they do trigger - is taking the fun out of gaming.

I used to be good at twitch gaming. I could clock the original SMB with more than 20 lives to spare and not having died more than 3 times, maybe less. It was so long ago now I can't recall my best result. Now however it seems I suck. Maybe I'm just getting old, I don't know... The old instincts sure aren't kicking in the way they used to, that much is certain.

However, I'm dreaming, hoping, that Revolution will bring new ways of gaming into the console era. Ways not relying on hopeless combos of X and Ys and sticks and triangles (because the Rev controller hardly has any buttons at all... ). Frankly, it's getting tiresome with games that introduce ever more ways to do special moves by ever-increasingly contrived ways of mashing buttons and spinning the sticks around.

So, I've decided I DON'T CARE if Rev isn't outputting a bajillion pixels and polys a second, if it doesn't do HD res, if it doesn't calculate a gazillion dot products in a heartbeat. So what? Rock 'n' Roll Racing ran at 30Hz on a system that had a completely anemic CPU, yet it was probably the most fun I've had in ages when console gaming. No game, I repeat, NO GAME EVER on either the N64, GC or PS2 has made me laugh as much as when I totally devastated the competition in yet again on the humble SNES.

It isn't about the specs, it's about gameplay! (And having a really cool announcer voice during play, heh.)

The one thing that still makes me a little uncertain (or perhaps more than a little) is Nintendo's spotty track record when it comes to dealing with 3rd parties. Back in the day they could piss on 3rd parties (and they DID), and still have them come crawling back for more, because Nintendo was the market. Sure, there was sega etc, but if companies wanted to make money they did business with nintendo.

Then SNES was a little late and further on, playstation happened. And the rest is history. Still, Nintendo hasn't shown it has learned. Quite the opposite, they've continued to not really be all that interested in 3rd parties even on the GC, because they sell millions of copies of their own games and that keeps them happy. This makes people - including myself - wary, because people tend to want the games available on other platforms too.

The Rev however with its novel interface might be both a blessing and a curse in that regard. It's going to be damn tough to port the devil may cries and gods of war and other button-mashers to a controller like Nintendo's bizarre remote thingy. Perhaps even impossible. So we perhaps won't see the stapleware from EA, such as The Marginally Changed Version Of Last Year's Football Game, and The Marginally Changed Version Of Last Year's Baseball Game, and The Marginally Changed Version Of Previous Splinter Cell Game, and so on. Yet, do we really need that? Is the gameplay of Madden 2006 fundamentally any different from, say, Madden 2003?

So there lives the dream of different gameplay on Revolution. Something we haven't seen before, perhaps it is some pie in the sky pipe-dream, but still, it's there. That finally, after nearly 25 years of The Same Old Stuff since NES released but with more buttons and some sticks tacked on (and shaking motors), someone finally dared to try something new, something DIFFERENT. Not many buttons at all, and NO stick (or one, at most). How will we play old games with a crazy human interface like that?

Only with difficulty I'm sure most will say, and that will likely be true as well! Perhaps we won't at all? Perhaps these games will be released on Rev, like token products because they'll sell regardless, and if Nintendo continues their policy of easily developed-for hardware they can be ported effortlessly and run well with little effort in the way of optimization, but the true side of Revolution would be the games that take the new interface seriously.

My dream is that I could play a game casually laid back and wave my hand around like a conductor of a classical orchestra, instead of frantically bashing buttons like a madman trying to execute a Proteus Bodyslam at the right moment to finish off the cheating boss that will otherwise regenerate all its health unless it's slammed, but of course not quite getting it to work because I press square instead of circle every damn time or don't press forward quick enough or whatever.

Hopefully, Rev will be noticeably cheaper than the competition, assuming it is less powerful that is (and hopefully it'll be cheaper anyway), this enables it to be that alternative side console for the hardcore gamers, it'll also hopefully attract those that feel the "big guns" of x360 and PS3 are too damn expensive, and Nintendo's usual crowd of parents of pokemon kiddies.

It's going to be real interesting to see what Revolution brings, and how many of my hopes and dreams actually get fulfilled.

[Shifty Geezer]

Though I agree in the main with your sentiments, in this area I've a different hope...

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

The Rev however with its novel interface might be both a blessing and a curse in that regard. It's going to be damn tough to port the devil may cries and gods of war and other button-mashers to a controller like Nintendo's bizarre remote thingy. Perhaps even impossible. So we perhaps won't see the stapleware from EA, such as The Marginally Changed Version Of Last Year's Football Game, and The Marginally Changed Version Of Last Year's Baseball Game, and The Marginally Changed Version Of Previous Splinter Cell Game, and so on. Yet, do we really need that? Is the gameplay of Madden 2006 fundamentally any different from, say, Madden 2003?

For me, all this power next-gen will hopefully create new and better gameplays. In the same way the 16 bit computers created new games not possible on older computers (Populous, Lemmings, Syndicate, Dungeon Master, console-like games), I'm hoping we see a lot more than just the same old games with better visuals. Looking out how sports games have progressed, on a generation of hardware they haven't changed a great deal, but between generations they have. 3D Soccer has come a long way from the old 2D games (though some might still argue nothing's improved on Sensible Soccer).

More of the same, just bigger and prettier? Boo to that, and if so Nintendo deserve to walk away with the crown. But new and exciting, AND bigger and prettier? That'll be very cool. At the present though it's not looking too good. I'm seeing platformers, shooters, sports sims, all looking like they have the gameplay of this gen. That's to be expected early on; hopefully things will improve. And hopefully these first gen titles will be the first and last an army-mashing where a solo character invincibly takes on trillions of baddies with eye-watering visual effects and nothing more then repeted button whacking.

[Rodéric]

You're not the only one to be interested in the console because of the changes it may offer.
I was at no consoles until the Revolution came around with its brand new controller.
I still want high quality graphics on the Revolution even if it's not on par with an XBox360/PS3/High-end PC.

All other "gaming devices" are offering "much more of the same" to me, and I'm tired of playing the same things since years already, I'm only at a couple games a year when I used to play 10+...

So I too welcome the Revolution, even if I also am not too sure about 3rd party support, although Iwata chat about the low cost of producing Revolution games sounds promising.

[Druga Runda]

just to say that I am in the camp too... the new interface really is something new, and as it stands if I buy a console next gen it will be rev. PS3 used to be the 'most interesting' part, but seeing the controllers really makes me think gaming could be a lot more interesting with a set of those.

[Phil]

Excellent post Guden. I guess I'm still quite sceptical about Nintendo's Revolution, but at the same time, I feel the same about many games - me too, am having trouble getting into games as easily as I used to. Maybe I'm getting old too - maybe games are getting too complicated. As much as I loved MGS3 for instance, it took me a few attempts to really get into it. When I did, the result was very rewarding (IMO one of the best games ever), but on the contrary, it just took quite a long time to get into - and that's from someone that loved part 2 and bought Snake Eater the first day it hit shelves.

I think Nintendo is doing perhaps the best thing they can: Appealing to a new segment and trying to get bought regardless if people buy an Xbox or PlayStation. I think I'll be one of them too - one of those that'll get the next PlayStation but will be looking at Revolution for the casual moments and party gems.

To me, easily a Win-Win situation, enjoying the best of both worlds - which will have more than enough for quality gaming time.

[3roxor]

Originally Posted by Druga Runda

just to say that I am in the camp too... the new interface really is something new, and as it stands if I buy a console next gen it will be rev. PS3 used to be the 'most interesting' part, but seeing the controllers really makes me think gaming could be a lot more interesting with a set of those.

It seems to me those rev controllers are "forcing" gamers to be active i.e turning sweeping, dancing(?) That's fun and all..(for 15minutes) but not when I'm comming of work and play games to relax.

[overclocked]

A pingpong game would be cool and fit the "controller" i think.

[Refreshment]

^^^^ Acording to the impressions you dont need to do ample gestures if you dont want to. You can just move yor hand in small increments.

Theres a recent interview (dont know if its legit) with Shigeru, he sugest that there will be a traditional control method very similar to the Wave Bird also.

Anyway, im getting the feeling Revolution could turn out to be mini game central, this is an exageration of my part; but at least i think well see more mini game oriented software than in the other consoles.

[london-boy]

I think Nintendo are really trying to do "something different". They know they need to make something that people will buy alongside either a X360 or a PS3. And they will only buy it if it's kinda cheap, but more importantly if it can offer something radically different and FUN.

At this point, i see no real reason to own both a X360 and a PS3. They're just too similar, the games are similar (mostly ports), it's all down to personal preferences which one to get, but i really don't see myself buying both. It's almost like having a duplicate.

Nintendo know that millions and millions of people will buy a X360 and PS3. Not many will "wait" for Revolution. They know that the people who will buy Revolution will be mostly people who already own another console, therefore they are trying (and i think they're succeeding) to get into those X360/PS3-occupied houses.

Revolution is more of a complement to the other two (Especially if it comes out long after the other two will be released), whereas PS3 and X360 are not made to complement each other, they are made to compete and have "exclusivity" of the living room.

I'm talking about "majorities" here, obviously there will be people who will buy PS3 and X360, and even Rev. But they won't be too many.

[V3]

Originally Posted by Refreshment

Theres a recent interview (dont know if its legit) with Shigeru, he sugest that there will be a traditional control method very similar to the Wave Bird also.

Did he say if it will be included as standard with every Rev ?

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by london-boy

I'm talking about "majorities" here, obviously there will be people who will buy PS3 and X360, and even Rev. But they won't be too many.

Many had all three this gen, so why would it change?. And I think PS3 and X360 are going to have so many good exlusives that it's not even an option not to buy them both.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

Many had all three this gen, so why would it change?. And I think PS3 and X360 are going to have so many good exlusives that it's not even an option not to buy them both.

Many?! Please define many.

I'm talking vast majorities, and the vast majority of people did not have all 3 consoles, that's just silly.

[BlueTsunami]

I think Revolution may have the ability to "Re Invent" gaming as we know it. The interface is our link to the game and the game to us. If this is changed dramaticaly (for the better) then our perception and our actual way of interacting with the game is drasticly changed. Also, different genres (with the interface change) will also evolve with the new interface.

I wasn't to impressed with the Gamecube. It felt like a normal console, nothing special there (IMO). I felt that Nintendos charm or innovation wasn't imbued into the console. I feel that Revolution is going to be Nintendos attempt at altering gaming and pulling the direction of gaming in a way they see fit. I'm happy with this, simply because I'm happy with their vision and I believe that on a certain level...you have to agree with Nintendo on alot of there views on the state of current games.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by london-boy

Many?! Please define many.

I'm talking vast majorities, and the vast majority of people did not have all 3 consoles, that's just silly.

Obviously I didn't mean that majority had all three, but still at the end of this gen, I think more people had all three or atleast two consoles if you compare the situation to PS1 and N64 era. It remains to be seen whether people rather buy Rev instead of X360 or PS3 as a second console.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

Obviously I didn't mean that majority had all three, but still at the end of this gen, I think more people had all three or atleast two consoles if you compare the situation to PS1 and N64 era. It remains to be seen whether people rather buy Rev instead of X360 or PS3 as a second console.

Well, statistically speaking, with around 90M PS2 around and 20M Xbox and 20M GC, there are *potentially* max 20M people with all 3 consoles, 40-110M with 2 consoles and max 130M with only one console.

Obviously those are "max" figures.

So i think the number of people with 2 consoles could be almost as high as the number of people with 1, but people with all 3 is not what Nintendo are targetting, afterall they just get them all anyway, there's not "targetting" to do for those people!
They need to target to those people who buy 1 or 2 consoles, they need to make sure that the first or second console in houses will be Rev, that was my point.

[Blade]

It's cheaper, it has Nintendo games, and it will have more/better control options. It's directly backward-compatible with GCN, and it plays NES/SNES/N64 titles.

Possibly GB/GBC/GBA titles too.

If there's an average/above-average launch lineup, it will succeed.

[dubyateeeff]

Originally Posted by Refreshment

Theres a recent interview (dont know if its legit) with Shigeru, he sugest that there will be a traditional control method very similar to the Wave Bird also.

It is as legit as any interview on B3D... So yeah, it is.

He didnt say anything about it being standard or not though.

Shigeru

From our perspective the Revolution controller is the new controller, everything else is now the classic controller. And with this expansion, you’ll be able to have a classic controller that expands the functionality of the core unit. And to be honest, we’ve already—

It’ll have that more traditional form factor?

Exactly. We’ve got something that would be very similar in style and form to the Wave Bird already complete. What that allows us to do is that we have all of these new features. We have the new functionality of the Wave Bird controller and we have new ways that players will be able to interact with games. But at the same time, we’ve retained all the functionality of the classic-style controller, so that people who are familiar with games and familiar with that style of game play are going to be able to have the types of experiences that they’re expecting, on top of all of these new experiences that they’ve never imagined before. And so in that sense, to be honest, I think it’s a spectacular plan and we’re very confident. Obviously we’ve doing a lot of experiments with interfaces over the years and we think that that experience has really taken us in a direction that’s going to be very successful for us.

All that’s left for us is to take a look at the software to support the controller. Personally, I feel that first-person shooters are really well-suited for this controller. I’ve worked on them in the past in the Metroid Prime Series. And to be honest, I felt that first-person shooter controls on a classic controller were kind of clunky. They didn’t feel very—they didn’t feel very right. Whereas with this controller, with the nunchuck-style of controller it’s extremely natural and extremely intuitive. First-person shooters are a genre that are very popular in the United States, and I think that when gamers get their hands on this controller and start playing first-person shooters with it they’re going to find it’s probably the best way to play that kind of game.

Do you think that most of the games that will be available on launch will actually take full advantage of the new controller? Or do you think it’s something that will have to evolve over time?

Well, as we’ve seen with the Nintendo DS it’s taken us about six months for games like Nintendogs and the Brain Training games we’ve introduced in Japan to came out, and these are software that can only be achieved on a Nintendo DS. So in that sense, it took us a little while to get full functionality out of the DS. But for the Revolution launch we’re trying to have software that takes as much advantage of the Revolution controller as possible. The one advantage we have in this area is that the Revolution development can actually be done on the Game Cube development environment. So the development kits are going to have a very similar structure to the Game Cube development kits, which makes it very easy for people who have started projects on the Game Cube development kits to just switch over the interface and continue working and have those games ready for the Revolution. We’re thinking that we’re going to be able to have a pretty strong launch.

[Almasy]

The difficulty issue is being exagerated beyond belief, me thinks. The market has been expanding quite nicely with those devilish and incredibly difficult to use controllers, so I don´t have any fears whatsoever for PS3 or X360.

Nintendo went the way they did for a simple reason: they can´t compete in the same market, so trying to find a new niche where they can produce nice, small and cheap games can turn into huge benefits, where they are the only fish in the pond.

Their PR campaign seems to have been quite effective on some hardcore games, if boards have any resemblance to reality. The issue has never, ever been about difficulty, nor stagnation nor anything of the sort. Nintendo has engrained on the minds of some gamers that videogames are not advancing, that a revolution is needed. Many people on their behalf point to genre games and blame them as signs of stagnation. Thankfully, nothing could be further from the truth.

Games have found genres, just as games, movies, music, any form of entertainment, it´s a natural progression for any source of entertainment. They develop due to being consumer friendly, they help to identify the product. In any case, evolution within genres is indeed quite possible, and happens every single day. GTA for example, made so big of an impact on the game industry that almost any genre now offers free roaming worlds.

Evolution within action games is more than possible, evidenced in DMC3´s incorporation of VF-like elements, where the player is given the freedom of making is own combos with several kinds of weapons. Sports games such as Winning Eleven continue to refine themselves more and more with each passing iteration, and as a soccer fan, I appreciatte the effort.

Examples of these are countless, yet, they go unrecognizised as it takes an incredibly odd and wierd game for enthusiasts to even consider the title to contain innovation and evolution. Frankly, I find the notion sad, especially when these same gamers salivate at the idea of a new Zelda, Metroid or Mario installment. Funny, isn´t it? Games completely unsuitable for this new kind of control are the ones most Revolution supportes champion every single day in message boards.

Now don´t get me wrong, I like the idea, the console will be fantastic for mini games and quirky odd games, but neither innovation, nor anything remotely similar spawned its existance, but rather Nintendo´s unwillingness to compete. I have to admit their PR campaign has been tremendous, though.

[Druga Runda]

I soooo totally disagree

I am certainly not a Nintendo fan, nor do I follow what they do apart on this board, however the games in general are "more of the same" most of the time, and as an "old" (well 28yo whatever) gamer the idea about the new interface is simply great. I hope it works. It is as simple as that, and I believe it will be for many people.

PS3/Xbox2 this gen looks like more of the same again, and I was thinking if anything it will be PS3, for my daughter more than for me, odds on I'll stay on PC as there is very little a console can offer to me that I already do not have on PC.

Rev as it stands is different though I am a looking forward to see what it brings on the table sofware wise. Odds on this will be the only console for me next gen (never say never though ).

[Mordecaii]

To be honest, while I like the idea of having new methods to control things, controls have been the absolute least of my gripes for games. Since I'm mostly an RPG gamer who also enjoys sports games, the controllers are absolute fine for me. I'm more interested in content in the game which obviously a controller doesn't really affect too much.

P.S. What are the chances of people getting carpal tunnel syndrome from this? hehe

[pc999]

I think that games are also getting too complicated, but I dont mind about if a game is complicated, but if all games are complicated that is a very bad thing.

Anyway as I stated many times before I think that specs alone will not give much more inovation anymore but new interfaces will do, and inovation is a best(only?) way too keep gaming alive, that means I am very excited with REV and I even think that they could/should put a few more things (voice control/micro in every console, two controlers for even more kind of games, and a few more buttons/joystick, and whatever they want), that said I really welcome Nintendo on this.

[Teasy]

Nintendo went the way they did for a simple reason: they can´t compete in the same market, so trying to find a new niche where they can produce nice, small and cheap games can turn into huge benefits, where they are the only fish in the pond.

Nintendo obviously have the financial muscle and franchises to battle it out with Sony and MS if they wanted to. If they shared the same goals as those companies then no doubt they would do so. But Nintendo aren't interested in fighting a "war for the control of the living room" or whatever hackneyed line Sony and MS throw out as they're ultimate goal in this market. They're interested in making games and making money from gaming. Having said that the idea that Revolution will be so different is will be in a different market to 360 and PS3 is nonesense. Revolution will no doubt have plenty of standard games, a lot of them the same games available on 360 and PS3.

[Teasy]

Since I'm mostly an RPG gamer who also enjoys sports games

If your a big sports game fan then your mind should be boggling right now at the possibilities of Revolutions controller Boxing, Baseball, Cricket, Golf, Snooker, Racing, there's some amazing potential for the new controller in sports games.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Teasy

If your a big sports game fan then your mind should be boggling right now at the possibilities of Revolutions controller Boxing, Baseball, Cricket, Golf, Snooker, Racing, there's some amazing potential for the new controller in sports games.

I'm not sure I agree with this idea. As many possibilities as Rev's controller has, an ideal sports game interface it might very well not be. For football, soccer, hockey, rugby, and basketball, the usual staples of sports fans, it's natural capacities are probably poorly suited. For games like baseball and tennis, it's limiting the player to the player's abilities. I can't hit a baseball for toffee, so a baseball controller would leave me incapable of playing. That said, I guess computer aids could be put in place where perhaps only swing speed matters, rather then accuracy. But then there's no challenge, and so I don't know where the entertainment factor would come in. The challenge is hitting at the right time to send the ball where you want. If that's all automatic all you're really doing is swinging your arms back and forth.

For snooker and pool...no, just no! You can't simulate a cue accurately with a small handheld device. I doubt any computer game will be a fair approximation of a real table. I guess you could mark where you want to hit the ball, and then use arm motion for power. Perhaps I'm thinking too much of literal game simulations rather then games based on sports using the apparatus of play to best advantage? For golf it could be very good.

Still, I think most big-name sporting games won't benefit, or worse will be at a disadvantage, on the Rev's controller versus a DualShock-esque controller, unless it's expanded with optional extras maybe. But another concern is multiplayer. How much are these controllers going to cost if you want to play with friends?

[Teasy]

The new controller isn't suited to all sports games no, but it has great potential for the ones I mentioned.

For games like baseball and tennis, it's limiting the player to the player's abilities. I can't hit a baseball for toffee, so a baseball controller would leave me incapable of playing.

But then if your not limited by your abilities in baseball games on a standard controller then how is that any fun? Because its not just a case of everything having to either be a total simulation or totally automatic. No more in games using Revs controller then it is with current controllers. The game would have difficulty settings with differing levels of assistance, just like they do this gen. In simulation mode the game would act almost as if your really playing Tennis (something that's impossible with current controllers), so in that mode you'd really need to be good at Tennis. However in novice mode the rules would be a lot more like current games, just with a more natural control method. The game would limit your swing to standard paterns and your swing would just control power and direction (like a button and stick do now). The game would assist in making the ball go over the net and help to keep it in the court unless far too much power was used. Medium settings would be somewhere in between. For different kinds of shots (lob, slice ect) in novice mode you would hold different buttons to change the way you hit the ball. Obviously in simulation mode your hand movement would decide what kind of shot your taking.

That said, I guess computer aids could be put in place where perhaps only swing speed matters, rather then accuracy. But then there's no challenge, and so I don't know where the entertainment factor would come in. The challenge is hitting at the right time to send the ball where you want. If that's all automatic all you're really doing is swinging your arms back and forth.

Same as above, but just to be a bit more specific on this particular sport this is how I see it. The bat would stay within the normal path on anything other then simulation mode (you know the deal, over the shoulder and swinging round accross the leg). On novice you only need to come close-ish to the ball to hit it, in medium you need to get very close, in hard you need to actually make perfect contact just like real Baseball (in hard you also have absolute control of where to move the bat). They do this already in current Baseball games on standard controllers. Its just a case of changing the control of how to swing from an unatural stick and button to a natural swing of the arms.

For snooker and pool...no, just no! You can't simulate a cue accurately with a small handheld device. I doubt any computer game will be a fair approximation of a real table.

Of course it won't be an perfect real life recreation of Pool/Snooker, but its hardly fair to hold a game up to those standards is it? No current Snooker or Pool game is anywhere near reality afterall, nor can it be using such limited controller, but it can still be fun to play. The important thing is that a controller like Revolutions will improve Snooker/Pool video games, making them much closer to the real thing (at the same time making them more fun to play). They could even include a cue attachment for the controller This is how I see the game working. Novice/Medium mode - The virtual cue, on the screen, moves between balls by clicking a button. Once your aimed at the ball you want to hit you use the movement of the controller to move the cue within the boundries of the ball (it only moves the stick around within those boundries and uses a red dot to show you where your going to hit). If you want you could even rest the controller on your fingers. You then pull the controller back and push forward for differing degree's of power. There could also be physics assistance in Novice mode to make it easier to pot (just like with current Snooker games) and in this mode the vertical/horizontal sensetivity of the controller would also be dropped when taking a shot (to minimize the possibility of mis-cue's). In Simulation you would get very little assistance and could maybe even have full control of the cue (allowing possible misses of the ball).