What is Nintendo's "Revolutionary" weapon?
by Ajari Wilson · in General Discussion · 07/08/2005 (8:33 am) · 166 replies
I know I'm a big geek for starting this thread. Sorry if it has already been talked about. Like most of us here, I've been following the next generation systems and being an owner of all 3 consoles I have to admit that even though not much information has been told about the Nintendo Revolution, I'm not very excited about the system. (not that I'm too excited about anything "real" I've seen for the 360 or PS3 either) I hear it will be under powered compared to the 360 and the PS3. I've seen the little Metroid Prime 3 demo that looked almost exactly like the game cube version. And the Nintendo spokeperson (Regie Fills-Amie?) for that event was boasting about how "powerful" the system is."As you can see, the Revolution can more than hold it's own when it comes to graphical power". I would have been embarased to show that demo. I'm suprised he got that sentence out with a straight face. Nintendo is a stubborn company that always shoots themselves in the foot with their consoles (violence, cartridge, online, DVD, kiddie image and design, and now HDTV) but still manage to survive through Pokemon or the GBA.
"Revolution" so far means I get to play old games I've long forgotten about from an online service (I'm glad the big N is breaking new ground and changing the industry with online play. Now Microsoft and Sony need to get on the boat), I won't be playing the best looking games compared to the 360 and the PS3, and my system will most likeley look like a teched out Poptart. We have a lot to look forward to from Nintendo.
Anyway, despite my dissapointment with Nintendo and my lack of enthusiasm twards their new system, I am very eager to see this "mystery controller" they have up their sleeves. And I would like to ask you what you think or hope it will be.
This is what I hope Nintendo does to "revolutionize" the industry. The controller is obviously going to have some kind of touch screen (whoopee...) device but what I'm hoping for is some kind of VR headset. (Not like Vurtual Boy but a real VR headset) You ever wonder what happened to VR from the early 90's? Hasn't technology evolved far enough so that VR is very much a possability now? Screw HDTV and the limited pariphrial vision TV gives you in games like Halo, Burnout, and Metroid Prime. I'm tired of being hit from the sides by an enemy that I would have seen had I had the wrap around vision I do in real life. What better way to emerse yourself into the game world than to see nothing but the game and hear nothing but the game with 5.1 headphones. The screen can wrap around the inside of the headset slightly past your parephrials up, down, left, and right so you can never quite see the edge of the screen. The VR headset could also flip up when the game is paused or be flipped up manually. Having the headset wireless would probably be the best thing to do as well if it doesn't hurt costs too bad.
If the system came out for around $200 and the VR headset was $150 or less and came bundled with the system, I would pick it up over the 360 and the PS3 even if it had Nintendo 64 graphics. That alone is something I have NEVER experienced before. That would be a true revolution in games as we know them. And also may be why Nintendo is not supporting HD. But again, Nintendo is a very stubborn company that hates to evolve anything until it comes back to bite them in the ass (cartridge, online, kiddie image and design).
(Least paragraph I swear) To keep the cost down I would probably leave the 5.1 headphones optional. And leave the gameplay completley up to the controller, meaning no head movement will effect the game at all. I feel like a stupid 15 year old (not that all 15 year olds are stupid) with a "great" idea but it is fun to speculate and hope (I'm at work bored anyway). And plus I can say to the world "I KNEW IT!!!" if it is true. Well anyway, what do you guys think is this "revolutionary" device Nintendo has up their sleeves?
-Ajari-
"Revolution" so far means I get to play old games I've long forgotten about from an online service (I'm glad the big N is breaking new ground and changing the industry with online play. Now Microsoft and Sony need to get on the boat), I won't be playing the best looking games compared to the 360 and the PS3, and my system will most likeley look like a teched out Poptart. We have a lot to look forward to from Nintendo.
Anyway, despite my dissapointment with Nintendo and my lack of enthusiasm twards their new system, I am very eager to see this "mystery controller" they have up their sleeves. And I would like to ask you what you think or hope it will be.
This is what I hope Nintendo does to "revolutionize" the industry. The controller is obviously going to have some kind of touch screen (whoopee...) device but what I'm hoping for is some kind of VR headset. (Not like Vurtual Boy but a real VR headset) You ever wonder what happened to VR from the early 90's? Hasn't technology evolved far enough so that VR is very much a possability now? Screw HDTV and the limited pariphrial vision TV gives you in games like Halo, Burnout, and Metroid Prime. I'm tired of being hit from the sides by an enemy that I would have seen had I had the wrap around vision I do in real life. What better way to emerse yourself into the game world than to see nothing but the game and hear nothing but the game with 5.1 headphones. The screen can wrap around the inside of the headset slightly past your parephrials up, down, left, and right so you can never quite see the edge of the screen. The VR headset could also flip up when the game is paused or be flipped up manually. Having the headset wireless would probably be the best thing to do as well if it doesn't hurt costs too bad.
If the system came out for around $200 and the VR headset was $150 or less and came bundled with the system, I would pick it up over the 360 and the PS3 even if it had Nintendo 64 graphics. That alone is something I have NEVER experienced before. That would be a true revolution in games as we know them. And also may be why Nintendo is not supporting HD. But again, Nintendo is a very stubborn company that hates to evolve anything until it comes back to bite them in the ass (cartridge, online, kiddie image and design).
(Least paragraph I swear) To keep the cost down I would probably leave the 5.1 headphones optional. And leave the gameplay completley up to the controller, meaning no head movement will effect the game at all. I feel like a stupid 15 year old (not that all 15 year olds are stupid) with a "great" idea but it is fun to speculate and hope (I'm at work bored anyway). And plus I can say to the world "I KNEW IT!!!" if it is true. Well anyway, what do you guys think is this "revolutionary" device Nintendo has up their sleeves?
-Ajari-
#162
09/20/2005 (4:36 pm)
I should really try it before laying down too much judgement...I'm just very skeptical. I feel like it will be kind of like the DS where not many people use it right, and it's just another wall between developers and a platform.
#163
09/20/2005 (5:10 pm)
I guess it's just the way you look at your games. The DS ... to me is simply a joy to behold. I love the fact that I don't have to use buttons to play games. Playing games on the DS is like drawing pictures ... it's much more intimate and creative. Pressing buttons is very structured ... even an analog stick is structured. Being able to point, grab, and draw things on the screen is to me the way games should have always been. This Revolution controller allows DS style touching and poking with the pointing feature but it also allows you to use buttons at the same time like a normal controller which the DS missed out on. It may not be exactly like a normal controller but you don't see anyone yearning for their 2600 joystick anymore do you? Well sure there's probably some hardcore guy stuck in the 70's who is but still.
#164
09/20/2005 (7:43 pm)
Well, I cannot speak for everyone, but when I really get into a game I don't even think about the controller in my hands (be it console controller or the olde mouse & keyboard). I guess I never thought of it as something that needed fixing. Now, the current crop of games out there, that is something that needs to be fixed. ;P
#165
I agree. I'm not very interested on the input device I use. (in terms of it being a major part of the game. I want to be comfortable with it and just focus on the game) Vibration is nice, and adds nicely to games like Silent Hill, but I think there is an awful lot of focus on input when I have to wave a wand around.
@Jeremy
Possibly. I'm neither fascinated nor displeased with the DS. It's just there. Like a mouse or something. I WILL say, that FPS SUCK with an average game pad. to me, it's made for a keyboard & mouse. I certainly don't think that any one input method is "the way" to go with games.
09/21/2005 (7:56 am)
@ScottI agree. I'm not very interested on the input device I use. (in terms of it being a major part of the game. I want to be comfortable with it and just focus on the game) Vibration is nice, and adds nicely to games like Silent Hill, but I think there is an awful lot of focus on input when I have to wave a wand around.
@Jeremy
Possibly. I'm neither fascinated nor displeased with the DS. It's just there. Like a mouse or something. I WILL say, that FPS SUCK with an average game pad. to me, it's made for a keyboard & mouse. I certainly don't think that any one input method is "the way" to go with games.
#166
09/21/2005 (1:11 pm)
After a good amount of yelling by Jeff and Alex I am sold on the new controler. Now the only bad thing I can see about it is who will do the input device code for it should we get TSE onto it...cuz I have a good idea on who that would be. :( 
Torque Owner Theo Brinkman
Seriously? The guy who did the hands-on article said it worked just fine when held like a normal controller (elbows resting on legs) and using small motions, so I don't understand why the revolution controller would (necessarily) be tiring. Sure there's likely to be games that want you to do big sweeping motions, but I don't see why the majority (or any even) would actually require it.
Irritating control schemes are a problem with any genre as it develops, so it will come down to the implementation, and what developers discover works. Watch a complete console newbie pick up a PS2 or XBox controller, and you'll quickly discover how irritating they think 2 joysticks, a d-pad, 4 thumb buttons, 2 stick buttons, and 4 triggers can be when you're trying to learn how to play a new game. The worst part about having 10 buttons, 2 joysticks, and a d-pad is that too many games seem to insist that they *HAVE* to use each and every last one (with the common exception of setting the d-pad and left stick to the same thing).