Last edited by a moderator:
Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
Because it sounds that a big load of bs, or a real poor gimmick aka the vitality sensor.
What if a "poor gimick" was tacked on to something that didn't compromise performance? Beside, we never really knew what they were hoping to do with Vitality Sensor.
We're talking about an additional feature that would allow you to feel buttons/textures ect on the screen. On a controller that will also have standard buttons/sticks ect. Seriously, I'm not seeing how this is going to stop Nintendo from making games. Not to mention is quite obvious what this feature can add to a controller for plenty of standard games (very unlike the Vitality Sensor). The idea that its "bs" or a poor gimmick is asinine IMO.
Well, it'll cost something. Maybe not computing performance, but I would be thinking more along the lines of money.
I mean, seriously, how much is this controller supposed to cost?Well, it'll cost something. Maybe not computing performance, but I would be thinking more along the lines of money.
That's a valid concern, I don't think a screen will add that much cost, but what does a haptic screen go for?
Not that I'm saying I believe the rumour by the way.
Out of curiosity what would it add? Especially on top of a touchscreen and standard butons?
Clearly N better save money it's gimmick it adds next to nothing, this ain't the wii-mote in regard to what it offers. On the other hand I like the concept of remotely playing the console on the pad.
I also like the touchscreen whic hcould act as a touch pad while playing on tv and its use could be pushed further if N pushed out "pad only games".
I was wondering where the rest of this article was? http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/91/
Are there any archives? I was interested to see what lessons might be learnt in relation to the NES 6 in the context of what the NES 5 was?
Are there any archives? I was interested to see what lessons might be learnt in relation to the NES 6 in the context of what the NES 5 was?
What could a haptic touch screen add? Would have thought that was obvious really, totally configurable controls with buttons you can actually feel. That might not excite you but it would be very useful for many games. Its nothing like adding motion no, it doesn't add as much but it doesn't remove anything either (dual sticks, buttons ect are all still there unlike the Wiimote). Its just an added feature not a total change of direction but to say it would add nothing is just totally wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure that's true. The current controls have a default layout which means, with a little experience, you know exactly which buttons as where. configurable controllers means having to learn a layout for every game, and taking your eyes off the TV to look at the controller to see what button you want to press.
I can see a touchscreen being used for something like inventory management in an RPG, or squad selection in a tactical shooter, but a haptic feedback touchscreen doesn't strike me as full of potential. I don't see what it can really offer that a wand and buttons can't, especially considering the cost.
Also, I don't think haptic screens have got as far as being able to simulate button presses. They are, AFAIK, limited to tactile sensations when you run your finger over them. You could feel a carpet or piece of paper on such a screen as you run your finger over, but it'd still have no more tactile feedback as pressing a solid surface like a table top when it comes to pressing a button. That'd be good for finding a button when you are looking elsewhere, running your finger over the screen until you feel the change in resistance, but that's a costly complication versus having fixed, real buttons on a controller.
Touchscreen no matter if they were to provide feedback won't make up for real button. Something as simple as letting a finger rest on a button while exercising a little pressure and press harder repeatedly without the skin losing contact at any time with the buton is impossible. Touchscreen will not provide resistance and not react differently to various level of pressure.
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be pretty interesting if the screen is a transparent OLED.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I'll wait and see, and try before making judgements.
As I did with the 3DS and the Wii before that.
Many people also said the motion controls wouldn't be practical and yet Nintendo hit records in hardware revenues.
A "true" tactile feedback would give the option of creating in the controller a set of onscreen controls that you could use without looking at the controller screen.
I can imagine for example a thruster for an airplane simulator, being a handle that you can push "up" and pull "down" and you'd know how far the handle is without looking at the controller's screen.
That's definitely something Nintendo would take the risk to implement.
As I did with the 3DS and the Wii before that.
Many people also said the motion controls wouldn't be practical and yet Nintendo hit records in hardware revenues.
A "true" tactile feedback would give the option of creating in the controller a set of onscreen controls that you could use without looking at the controller screen.
I can imagine for example a thruster for an airplane simulator, being a handle that you can push "up" and pull "down" and you'd know how far the handle is without looking at the controller's screen.
That's definitely something Nintendo would take the risk to implement.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Personally I still fail to see what the real benefit of a controller with a screen on it would be.
I don't think it would be very practical for controlls. There is the ergonomics issue but also the problem of totally different button layouts for different games. Now this might actually have some benefit for a select few games, it doesn't really make sense with Nintendo's view of making gaming accesible for everyone. It would only complicate things. Even for hardcore gamers it would be frustrating to have buttons in different places every time.
I also don't see any real use for a controller screen while gaming. Focussing from the tv to the controller takes quite a bit of time and I think could get frustrating quite fast when you constantly need to switch from looking at your tv to your controller. I also don't see a lot of things you could do with the screen that couldn't be accesed/displayed on the tv. I could see some use for touch screen input but than again you have the issue of ergonomics. Holding a controller with one hand while taking out a stylus and drawing with your other hand just isnt comfortable. Not to mention a hassle.
Than there is the remote play thing. Sounds great without a doubt but how usefull is such a option? You don't buy a home console so you can look at a small screen right? You could buy a handheld for that. Also most families don't even have their console hooked up to the main tv so its not even a case of being able to play while others watch tv.
If Nintendo really wants something like remote play I see a much better use in the 3ds being used as a remote play device. Not only would Nintendo be able to sell two devices like that but assuming the wii2 will also support 3d they could use that on 3ds.
I just can't think of anything that a screen could do to have a impact like the wiiremote did.
I don't think it would be very practical for controlls. There is the ergonomics issue but also the problem of totally different button layouts for different games. Now this might actually have some benefit for a select few games, it doesn't really make sense with Nintendo's view of making gaming accesible for everyone. It would only complicate things. Even for hardcore gamers it would be frustrating to have buttons in different places every time.
I also don't see any real use for a controller screen while gaming. Focussing from the tv to the controller takes quite a bit of time and I think could get frustrating quite fast when you constantly need to switch from looking at your tv to your controller. I also don't see a lot of things you could do with the screen that couldn't be accesed/displayed on the tv. I could see some use for touch screen input but than again you have the issue of ergonomics. Holding a controller with one hand while taking out a stylus and drawing with your other hand just isnt comfortable. Not to mention a hassle.
Than there is the remote play thing. Sounds great without a doubt but how usefull is such a option? You don't buy a home console so you can look at a small screen right? You could buy a handheld for that. Also most families don't even have their console hooked up to the main tv so its not even a case of being able to play while others watch tv.
If Nintendo really wants something like remote play I see a much better use in the 3ds being used as a remote play device. Not only would Nintendo be able to sell two devices like that but assuming the wii2 will also support 3d they could use that on 3ds.
I just can't think of anything that a screen could do to have a impact like the wiiremote did.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
How ergonomical is a tablet? It's the same thing.
In fact, it's not the same thing, it's a lot smaller than most tablets.
It'll be something like a Dell Streak with analog controls, buttons and a D-pad on the side.
The final size will be close to a 7" Galaxy Tab, probably a lot lighter. It's not like you'll be holding a 10" tablet in your hands. It's still small.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I'd say from equal (~8h) to a lot longer, as the battery doesn't have to supply any power-demanding SoC and RAM memory.
IIRC the people complaining about Wii's practicalities were talking about replacing conventional games, saying Wii wouldn't be much good for much more than simple waggle games, and I dare say history proves them right. Examples cited back in the day, like FIFA's reliance on lots of buttons, followed through as expected. Core gamers certainly haven't flocked to Wii for its exciting new implementations of their favourite genres.
This is the polar opposite of the thinking behind Wii though. Wii was about making everything intuitive so there was next to no learning curve. An ever-changing button layout is going to add a layer of learning and greatly slow down the rate at which a player can get through the learning phase and into actually enjoying the game. The direct pointing advantages of a touch screen are also covered with a pointer.
I can almost imagine Nintendo going with a tactile screen for a handheld - Nintendogs would be more compelling if you could feel the animal you were stroking. I can't reconcile this costly design choice with a home console though, unless it's not designed to be plugged into a TV and the main game experience is on screen.
I made the exact same comment when I first heard about this. I think its a huge waste of money and resources when they had the potential up front to incorporate the functionality of the 3ds to work with it instead.
And once again Nintendo is going to release a console so underpowered it will be laughable in 2 years compared to PS and MS offerings. They better hope these gimmicks are a success like the waggle was for the Wii because that is the only thing that sold that console (besides Mario games).
I'm just about to give up on Nintendo ever being relevant for my gaming in the near or distant future. They are out of touch with what I want and what millions of other gamers want and its about time that it bites them in the ass!
10 years ago, many gamers said the same thing. And look where we are now.
Nintendo will always remain relevant. Love it or hate it, their "out of touchness" is what makes them distinct from other companies. It's what makes them Nintendo for crying out loud.
Similar threads
