Nintendo's New Controller

#1 So that was what all the fuss was about!? Intellivision did something very similar to that 20+ years ago.

http://www.ntrautanen.fi/computers/other/images/mattel_intellivision.jpg

I wonder how DEMO: PILOT WANGS played!
;)

#2 Yea that looks almost as bad as the ps3 controller...

looks like we will have a generation of ugly controllers

#3 I haven't even read the article yet but from looking at the pics all I can say is AW HELL NAH!! Oh, no, no, no....

Uh uh...I'll be back in a minute after reading the article...WTF...
-Ajari-

#4 Well that just looks hot.

edit: as for Pilot Wangs, it seems pretty obvious where the motion/orientation sensors would come into play. :p

#5 Power Glove minus the glove.

#6 www.1up.com/do/imageDisplay?id=2308865

Sorry ... that's cool! Can't believe there are skeptics to a device that gives you full 3D input. It's like a 3D mouse. Then you can add attachments like this so you can play a FPS ... only now the consoles have the advantage over the PC's! Analog movement and real time 3D aiming! Brilliant!

#7 After reading the article, I have to agree with BigPapa. It's a Power Glove without the glove. Lets just hope it works a lot better than the Power Glove did.

But you know what this controller reminds me of really after reading the articles? A controler for old people, and new gamers. You ever watch your little sister or baby cousin play Super Mario Bros. on the NES or SNES? You notice how they physically swing the controller to the right in a rainbow arc to get Mario to jump in the same direction? I think Nintendo is trying to cater to those people. The old, the super young, and the wack gamers of the world.
-Ajari-

Edit: But I'll reserve my judgment until I actually try it out for myself because some ideas like actually doing a sword motion to swing a sword sounds kinda cool for a first person game.

#8 Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in a box... too much wrist movement is going to be required for gaming with that... and just how are you supposed to play something like Zelda on that? With just 2 trigger buttons and only 3 other buttons total (which you wouldn't be able to use while also trying to aim) you'd lose half the functionality of the game.

#9 Brilliant, just brilliant. This will be huge with non-gamers and gamers alike.

#10 I thought you got Carpal Tunnel from keeping your wrist rigid?

Quote:
just how are you supposed to play something like Zelda on that

Zelda doesn't need that many buttons ...

First of all your lack of imagination is disturbing ... second I'm sure that the controller will be used with the analog attachment for movement. Then of course Zelda has an auto jump. Buttons will be used in conjuction with pointing on the screen to check things out or shoot things. Then the sword will be controlled by actually swinging the controller. The shield can also be controlled by moving the contoller.

Have you played a Nintendo DS game yet? You don't have to use many buttons because of the touch screen. This controller turns the TV into a touchscreen but also lets you have your analog pad and buttons. Basically, this gives you the best of both worlds ... you can touch things on the screen and use an analog pad and buttons.

#11 Regardless of whether the concept is a good idea or not, why couldn't they have put all the motion sensing stuff in a regular controller? I for one, am disappointed. It seems gimmicky to me, like the DS. Of course, the DS seems to be selling well, so maybe this is what people want. It's certainly not what I want.

I'm still skeptical about the fps stuff. Maybe I'm not understanding it right. You use the analog stick to actually move around the world and use the remote thing to aim? So what happens when you want to turn right or look up. Well, you probably move the remote thing up/down or side to side. But then you aren't pointing at the screen anymore. I must be missing something.

I'm not really looking forward to holding my hand up and rotating it around for much more than a few minutes either. If I want to do something that involves moving, I'm not going to be playing video games.

In the end it's going to be all about what the publishers think anyway - and since Nintendo is one of those, it will probably do fine. I don't see it winning back any market share from Sony though.

Quote:Brilliant, just brilliant. This will be huge with non-gamers and gamers alike.

Non-gamers don't play games. That's why they are non gamers. Maybe a few will decide to become gamers, but if what's already out hasn't drawn them in, I don't see how this is any different. Hardcore gamers will still want all of the pretty next-gen, high budget, epic games. Casual gamers is really all this is going to draw - and that's pretty much all Nintendo gets now anyway.

#12 You'd use the analog to move around and the controller to aim ... if you aim off the screen then you turn, look up, or look down. It's by far the best controller for a FPS as far as I can see. With a PC you don't have analog movement and the mouse is still not as intuitive as actually pointing where you want to shoot.

This controller is a consolidation of the Nintendo DS input and a standard game controller.

#13

Quote:Non-gamers don't play games. That's why they are non gamers. Maybe a few will decide to become gamers, but if what's already out hasn't drawn them in, I don't see how this is any different. Hardcore gamers will still want all of the pretty next-gen, high budget, epic games. Casual gamers is really all this is going to draw - and that's pretty much all Nintendo gets now anyway.

Thank you.

#14 This is awesome.

but one notion persists...one handed game controller.

let's see...what sort of applipr0ncation would that be good for?

#15

Quote:if you aim off the screen then you turn, look up, or look down.

OK Jeremy, that makes a lot more sense than what I was picturing. I was thinking of it as a mouse. So the aiming will be very precise and intuitive, but it seems like it may be a little slow. Better than dual analog, though.

#16

Quote:one handed game controller.

let's see...what sort of applipr0ncation would that be good for?

Paul, look through the article again. They already demo'd Pilot Wangs. Unless that's a typo, they've already got the pr0n aspect covered. ;)

edit: Added a wink, just incase anybody thought I was serious. :p

#17 Wow, in a community of independant game devs where our biggest strength is innovation, there sure are a lot of people here who don't seem to like it too much ;)

Firstly, the fact that this isn't a glove will distance it enough from the powerglove. If they implemented it into a standard controller, you'd have a standard controller with a gimmick. Instead, they went out and did something totally unexpected, and you can't say you weren't warned. Carpal tunnel et al? Won't be any more of an issue than in any other game.

This from IGN:

"Demo 8: First Person Shooting
So, we lied -- not all of the demonstrations were completely crude graphics. For the final demo, the one that most represented how a game might feel with the Revolution controller, Nintendo displayed what was apparently a test by the team at Retro Studios for what they could do with Metroid Prime 3. They stressed it was just a test, quickly thrown together in just a few weeks. For this, the analog control stick peripheral was used. We held it in our left hand to control the forwards, backwards, and side-strafing motions, as well as having access to triggers in back for scanning; meanwhile, the right hand used the main Revolution remote control to behave just like a mouse on a personal computer. It was a very natural application and felt pretty smooth, but since it wasn't a polished game it did feel a bit awkward at times, making us wonder what kind of things a developer could do to calibrate these kinds of controls for users. Nonetheless, the potential is huge for the FPS genre."

So, all those whiners about how they hate FPSes on the consoles have nothing to whine about now. RTS games are fully playable, as is basically any other game you can think of. Of course, if you're intent on not liking anything that Nintendo do, then nothing I can say will convince you. I'd imagine that demographic were also the ones who though the DS would tank.

#18 I've been watching the discussions today (both here and elsewhere) and most people seem to think this is horrible.

Personally I'm actually not quite so sure. It's different for sure, but it does have some potential. It's going to be extremely important for the developers to get the controls "just right" in their games though and it's not going to be easy. But still, I find the idea intriguing.

I've seen a lot of people saying "nope, sorry, now I won't buy a nintendo". I'm the opposite, now I might actually buy one, if for nothing else so at least out of curiosity (then again, I'm a bit of an "input device nerd", I love playing with weird input devices =)

edit: Guess Matt beat me to it. I totally agree with his post.

#19 Whoa! That controller is awesome!

#20 I think there's TOO much difference between consoles in the coming generation. This is bad. Bad for developers, which means fewer games (or more games exclusive to one system), which is bad for gamers. Trying to be unique only means you'll get fewer games made to work with your "unique" system, which means less customers, which means less money. Innovating is good, but not on the hardware level. Innovate with software, with game design and gameplay, don't force developers and gamers to change to fit your hardware, you make your hardware fit the user.

Can you imagine if Dell decided to stop selling mice and keyboards with their computers and only include a touch pad with a pen (and made it so that no third party mice and keyboards would work)? Sure, it'd be great for artists, but how would you do all the things you are used to doing? How would you type? You'd have to physically write everything. Some people might like this, some won't. The point is that removing choice is always bad, no matter how "unique" or "innovative" your new technology is, having only that is never a good thing.

I know it will never happen, but having only one console would be beneficial. If there was only 1 console, then there would be more games, games would be better, and games would be cheaper. The console itself would also be cheaper since it would have complete market share and make a lot more money from the games.

Personally, I hope the PS3 and Revolution tank so hard that Sony and Nintendo get out of the hardware business and just make games for the Xbox 360. Let's face it, consoles are moving online and becoming more and more media-center style devices, and Microsoft has a distinct advantage in that department, and they have the money to burn to make the best hardware. Nintendo and Sony have some great games, but they don't get half the exposure they should, since they are exclusive to one system. I would buy every Mario, Zelda and Metroid game Nintendo makes, if I didn't have to buy their console just to play them.