Nintendo Revolution Controller Revealed

Some people dislike change. Or rather they don't like dramatic change. Incremental is OK, but a ... I'm using a buzzword, so I apologize... paradigm shift in how we game is too much. Some people are so inured to certain things, that they freak out about changing. Essentially, those running around screaming Nintendo screwed up are having a knee-jerk reaction to something completely new. That combined with the fact that this is something you really need to experience to really understand, since it's a bit abstract how it will transition.

Of course, there are those who really just don't like it and prefer we stick the norm. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like this new design automatically ends the usuefulness of a normal controller, and frankly while the potential is great I think no matter what I'll probably still prefer a normal controller for gighting games.

That said, I can imagine SEGA porting a LOT of it's arcade games (with fancy interfaces) to the gamecube. And arcade in your house, you know?
 
DEO3 said:
Does anyone understand where PowderKeg is coming from?

No, nor is it of any importance. I've followed the entire thread and regardless of Powderkeg's bias, interests or dislikes, he has engaged this debate maturely and respectfully - there's absolutely no reason for making any "poster analysis" based on any posting records.

I myself have stated that this remote certainly excites me in a special way, but as much as I like it, Powderkeg raised some good points about it that could make this a very concept of playing on Revolution a very different one (= less appealing in may ways) for gamers that are used to playing games the way they have been for the last 15 years.

It does pose many interesting aspects for those that love the EyeToy kind of experience - one that I myself enjoy for very short games - but it's certainly not a replacement for the normal controller nor do I think Nintendo is aiming for that. I think they're in fact trying to appeal to a whole new segment - which dare I say - is not going to be most of us in here. I might consider Revolution as a secondary console though - I'm sure it'll surpass / or at least be on par with the EyeToy party-game experience on many levels... but being the perfect controller for fps, racing, platformers etc? No way.
 
I myself feel kind of the same as Powerkeg. This will probably be a litte bit better than the EyeToy but not by much. The good thing is Nintendo due to their experience and the fact that the controller is mandatory will make great games for it.

My thing is this. Why aren't people here just as excited about the next-gen eyetoy after they seen the duckies demo and Eyedentify game? That's has been the one thing that has killed me about Nintendo, yet I can respect them for it at the sametime. They have marketed themselves as the innovators of everything and people fall right in for it.

I'll give two thumbs up for Nintendo for this though.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I myself feel kind of the same as Powerkeg. This will probably be a litte bit better than the EyeToy but not by much. The good thing is Nintendo due to their experience and the fact that the controller is mandatory will make great games for it.
"default" would be a better word than "mandatory" here. A more standard controller will also be offered as optional, and may be best for playing cross-platform games.

mckmas8808 said:
They have marketed themselves as the innovators of everything and people fall right in for it.
They are, though. Do you see Sony or Microsoft offering anything but small changes to their old default control systems? Nintendo is the company that's dramatically changed its default control system with every generation.
 
From somebody that claims to have tried the controller
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthrea...Board=othergames&Number=949214&page=0&fpart=2
So what did you play?

I played the Retro-fitted version of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes.

And ...?

It played far better than the original controls. Turning and aiming were instantaneous. Control was absolutely precise.

At a certain point during the demo, one of our designers did a double-jump over a gap and spun a full 180 degrees in midair before landing on the opposite side. When I saw this my arm literally started shaking and had to grab and squeeze the cup holder on my theater seat like Doctor Strangelove to hold my arm steady.

Then he circle-strafed around a Space Pirate.

Yes, circle-strafed.

In Metroid Prime 2.

And that's without target-locking.

How were the controls set up?

It was set up in the "nunchaku" configuration described in the article. On the left controller, the thumbstick controlled player movement, the upper trigger button was assigned to visor-switching, and the lower trigger was assigned to the "scan" function and locking onto a target. On the right controller, the controller itself moved the player's gun independently of the player's view (yes, you could fire at any point on the screen without changing the player view -- the gun tilted to face toward the aim point), the trigger button fired the gun, and three of the buttons controlled jumping, firing missiles, and switching to morphball mode.

How does it compare to a mouse?

>From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.

There is no lag.

There is no error.

It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.

At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it was true.

I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed at them.

But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that I don't need to use a mouse ever again.

Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.

Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll (rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to explore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't buy at all that it's that superior to a good gaming mouse (such as the Logitech MX518), but I can definitely see how it'd be good for a FPS.
 
How does it compare to a mouse?

>From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.

There is no lag.

There is no error.

At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it was true.

Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.

If playing FPS games will be like that description above it will be a whole new gaming experience - both in good and bad ways - with new challenges for the developers. Because with this, if the game is setup in the way I am assuming it is, you can instantly aim anywhere on the screen and fire. That will make multiplayer games a question of who spots who first.

There is something as a too good controller, it takes away a lot of the challenge. I am not saying this is it, I am just saying, "hey ever thought about that before?"

For single player games I think one way to fix this would be to add more enemies to each screen at the same time. For multi player games (and their single player portion) one way to solve the problem would be to let the "gyro" part of the controller improve movement and aiming at the same time. Or make the weapons fire shots that takes a while to reach its target, instead of hitting it instantly (ie Quake3s rocket launcher compared with the machine gun).
 
Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.

WOW! Didn't know a gamepad was that big. And it doesnt take me a couple of seconds to kill someone in Killzone so...
 
DEO3 said:
Seems a bit too sugary sweet to me, I doubt it's authentic.

Maybe so but all I know is Jackfrost aka Andrew Vestal from 1UP.com said he loves the controller and trust me Jackfrost is defenitely not a Nintendo ******.
 
dubyateeeff said:
There is something as a too good controller, it takes away a lot of the challenge.
No, there isn't. Artificial limitations imposed by the control scheme only serve to get in the way of the player.
 
DEO3 said:
Seems a bit too sugary sweet to me, I doubt it's authentic.
Oh, I'm sure it's authentic. I just don't think this person is correct that it'll be quite that good. For example, the moves that he described the player doing are just routine for a good player on a mouse and keyboard.
 
[Moved this comment to the new thread mckmas just created.]

.Sis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DEO3 said:
Seems a bit too sugary sweet to me, I doubt it's authentic.

Whether this device works well is hard to say at this moment, but I do think Nintendo is doing the right thing in terms of trying to evolve user input. Why would we complain that a device is making our experiences more immersive? Take for example fps games. You're aiming right at the screen. This potentially makes shooting more accurate and is a more direct representation of our input. Even a mouse has to translate its horizontal movements (the table) to vertical movements (the screen). It's like the drawing pads. Would you rather draw on a drawing pad or draw directly on the screen?

In an fps, don't you want to feel more and more like the person behind the gun as technology moves forward? A pad or even a mouse and keyboard can only go so far. Think of the next steps in immersion. Three or more monitors or a concave screen to simulate peripheral vision. Maybe a foot device to simulate our own walking and running rather than using a joypad for movement. The fastest runners in real life would be the best players. Or a light gun/sensor pad with powerful force feedback so you really feel like you're firing a BFG. Or how about a force feedback jacket to simulate a hit on us? A lot of this may not happen any time soon due to technology or materials constraints, but isn't this something we want in our game experiences?

I'm a as much a critic of Nintendo as anyone. Sometimes it seems they think they are better than their fans. They seem to have an attitude of "You'll buy it and like it just because we make it. We don't have to listen to you--you have to listen to us." But this time I applaud them for what they are trying to do here.
 
Chalnoth said:
No, there isn't. Artificial limitations imposed by the control scheme only serve to get in the way of the player.

Dont you think that when well have devices that can take "brain inputs" that they would be too good? (If they achieve no-lag) But if everything I wanted to do happened, the only thing stopping me would be the games limitations and the challenge of picking the right choices.
 
Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist, you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.

Complete nonsense. In counter-strike circles, we'd call this guy a total N00B. 80 hours? That's it. My sensitivity in CS is set that I only need to move the mouse about 1 inch in each direction to cover a full half-sphere. And I can almost instantaenously turn 90 and 180 degrees with the mouse. If this guy was a real BF2 player, he's know how utterly important absolutely stability of aim is in getting accurate shots in that game, especially with the sniper rifle.
 
DemoCoder said:
Complete nonsense. In counter-strike circles, we'd call this guy a total N00B. 80 hours? That's it. My sensitivity in CS is set that I only need to move the mouse about 1 inch in each direction to cover a full half-sphere. And I can almost instantaenously turn 90 and 180 degrees with the mouse. If this guy was a real BF2 player, he's know how utterly important absolutely stability of aim is in getting accurate shots in that game, especially with the sniper rifle.
His point about using the thumbstick on a controller is completely valid though.

.Sis
 
New Nintendo controller defeats purpose of console gaming?

A lot of people play games when they have some free time and want to relax - often they are tired, burnt out from work, etc, and just want to lay down, chill out, and play a game.

But think about it, this is not really possible when using the new Nintendo controller. When laying down on your side or on your stomach (common positions for playing games when not sitting), your arms and hands have a limited range of motion. In addition to that, keeping your arms outstretched and 6" apart link - the positioning required to use the new Nintendo controller - is uncomfortable and quickly fatiguing when laying on your side/stomach. On top of all this, the outcome of your success in the game depends on your physical positioning. So if you just want to kick back, lay down, and game, you will probably get sore arms and frustrated using the new Nintendo controller.

One of the major advantages of using a console over a PC is that you are able to relax on your couch and play a game. (on a PC you need to sit/stand to operate a keyboard/mouse). This advantage is lost with the new Nintendo controller, as you will be restricted to certain positions similar to a PC (probably sitting or standing) in order to succeed at the game without giving yourself muscle cramps.

In addition, there likely will be no option to use a standard controller for games that are made for the gyro-remote Nintendo controller - it would be similar to trying to play Nintendogs or Pac-Pix without a touchscreen - and developing two entirely different gameplay mechanics for both the gyro-remote and a controller would be too costly.

So for many, I think the new Nintendo controller may defeat one of the purposes of gaming - the "chill" factor - as now you will need to be seated in a position where both arms/hands have full range of motion and will not get tired from frequent motion or being outstretched. Impractical, to say the least.
 
The Revolution can play standard controller based games too. It's also backwards compatible with older games. I don't think it will be an issue at all, but you do bring up a good point. It would be nice if the games had a fallback option to standard control for these times when you're too tired to do physical motions.
 
Back
Top