I find it a bit hypocritcal that a common response to people who criticize the controller is "Well, you can't comment, because you haven't used it yet," when the people who like it yet haven't used it yet either. It seems, by that logic, you can make no comment about the controller.

Frankly, I don't think it's such an amazing design either, and several gamers I've talked to agree. It's interesting, but I don't see it revolutionizing the game industry--especially since no one is going to buy a console due to its "revolutionary" controller, and it seems most people are watching the Xbox 360 and the PS3; the Revolution is the dark horse in the console race. It's not going to make an impact on gaming unless it becomes widespread, and that's not likely to happen, given Nintendo's dismal showings the past few years.

How so? Most of the people who like it say they like it because of all the applications it can be used for. Most of the people who say they don't like it state that it will be awkward to use. You don't need to actually hold the thing to dream about it's potential, but saying it won't even function properly with only the information that has been released to the public is a whole different thing.

It seems like you're missing the point of the controller. People buy consoles for good games. The controller is means of, well, controlling the game more naturally. Therefore, if the use of the controller makes gameplay better, people will buy the console. People won't say "Wow that controller looks different, I'll buy it!" No, the'll say "I'll feel like I'm actually in the game with this controller, I'll buy it!" The plan for the controller is to attract people who gave up on console gaming (ie me, as I skipped this generation of consoles) or people who have never tried it yet.

Microsoft and Sony are already looking into controllers similar to the Revolution controller; Microsoft is making a wand for media center pc's and Sony is making a wand for use with Eye Toy.

How is your imagining how much fun and easy to use it will be in certain applications any different from my imagining how akward and ungainly it would be to use in certain applications?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't comment on the controller; but stifling criticism by saying that "you haven't used it yet, so you can't no" is hypocritical and inaccurate. Sure, I don't know precisely what it will be like, but having played videogames for nearly sixteen years, I have a pretty good idea of how it might be to use one, and what I am looking for in a console.


No, I'm not missing the point at all--I know that's what the controller is for. And I still think it's a bad idea. Just because I disagree with Nintendo on this, doesn't mean I have no idea what their aim with this "revolutionary" controller is. I'm just saying that no, I don't think it will be interesting enough to make people buy a console; I don't think the gameplay with it will be so much better that people will abandon the Xbox 360 and the PS3 in droves to buy the Revolution. It's sad, because I love Nintendo, but I think the GameCube had its flaws (mainly the lack of DVD playback and the use of non-standard discs), and I think the Revolution's controller is a flawed approach to gaming.

Being at college, I'm around people that play games a lot. It's how we kill time. I haven't even gamed since I was in ninth grade or so, but I've started to get back into it because of the immersion. And very few people I know are seriously looking at the Revolution. No one is saying, "I bet the gameplay with the Revolution will be so much better than the PS3 and the Xbox 360 that I'm going to buy a Revolution instead." So if that's the goal of the new controller, it's not doing a good job of attracting people to the platform.

The Revolution may be critically acclaimed and innovative, but that won't necessarily attract people. Look at Apple: Apple's products are critically acclaimed, and they're one of the most innovative home PC makers--yet their market share still hovers around 3%.

lol wtf, okay your not listening. you totally disregarded what i said about "thats not all its about". do you honestly think im the only one that ever said this? the majority of people i know that is going to be "your average buyer" say quote "wtf thats so gay hahaha" frankly, it wouldnt matter if the controller was a fricken masterpiece. people will go "what the hell" just as i did and not buy after taking first glance. but guess what? i highly doubt it will be a "revolutional" masterpiece. and gamecube was already not the most liked system in the world and is the pun of every console joke on g4, so i dont understand why they would take the chance of being hated even more. im just saying, from what i see and from what i know what the controller will do, thats not what i, and many others will want. for one example, considering seeing that the buttons b and o are located at the bottom of the controller and the d-pad at the top that tells EVERYONE ive talked to and myself that the buttons are too far away from eachother, making it uncomfortable, and will mess up how you play. what.....the.....hell well if you plan on looking like a samurai warrior while playing you go ahead im just saying thats not all necessary, especially when there is going to be sacrifices in gameplay. like: how will you be able to perform combos? will you have to act out the combo yourself? or will it limit the game your playing to robotic movements to try to match yours. and how will it handle intensity in an fps like in call of Duty 2? id really like to see that. and once again doing all those things that you would have to do to play, you would be working harder than i am.( if i had a regular controller)
i could see it now, me and some other guy sitting on the couch playing a versus match in any game, i'd just be sitting on the couch with my regular controller, and he'd have a rev. like controller. i'd just be sitting there playing comfortably , while most likely wooping his ass, while he's got 2 controllers in each hand fwailing about, sweating, pointing his remote towards the tv, waving his arms around until he passed out. yeah ill just stick with the traditional thank you.



lol to be quite honest, and i know i speak for many others when i say this, i could give a rats ass what sony does, as long as they give me a good and reliable system their fine with me. they have been, are, and probably will still be the number one console, they pulled in the most money,and they never dissapointed, so they're doing something right. maybe nintendo should take some lessons and think about their real gamer consumers before they do something drastic.

Because there is no way to tell if indeed it will be a "Powerglove" type failure until after you use it. Meanwhile, liking the concept of a controller that tracks your movements does not require you to have held the controller. I can't see how the concept is bad if it works as intended.

Maybe you guys would rather mash buttons. I'd rather aim with the controller in a football game than deal with centering a passing cone. I'd rather slash low than press Down + X+Y. I'd rather actually aim a gun than wave around analog sticks. I dunno, it just seems a lot more fun.



I think you're still missing it. Nintendo's aim doesn't seem to be to reduce the other console's marketshare. They seem like they want to increase their own market share by adding more gamers. People who gave up on games and people who have never played video games before won't buy the 360 or PS3, but will buy the revolution, if Nintendo is right. The gamecube's flaws weren't exactly flaws from a business standpoint. The price could be lower and piracy would not be an issue.



See above.



The key difference is that the OS market is pretty much a monopoly, whereas the console market is an oligopoly.



I'm not disregarding anything. The only people I know that hold the "OMG GAY" opinion are (you guessed it) the fanboys. The key is to keep ean open mind (I'm planning on going to the mall as soon as the PS3 kiosks open to make my final decision on the PS3 controller) The majority of the responses on 1up's boards (which is owned by the people who do EGM and Official Playstation magazine, go figure) have been positive towards the revolution controller. G4 has lost all credibility as a gaming channel (but that's a different topic, gphoria=yuck). I can't see a good reason not to at least think the concept is novel.



That's not what I was arguing. I was stating that it is stupid to be concerned with what you look like when gaming.

And how would it have trouble in an FPS? The controller would be for the aiming axes, the analog attachment would be for player movement.

I still can't see how using the rev controller would be more difficult than a traditional controller. It's practically made for swordfighting! That's like saying that between two equally skilled drivers, a person with a dualshock would beat a person with a steering wheel in Gran Turismo.

If you still insist on saying it would be more fun using the original controller than the rev controller, answer this. Would you rather play DDR on a dance pad, or on a controller? I can get perfect scores with the controller, yet I can barely break a score of B on the dance pad. Guess which controller is more fun to use.

If you're more concerned in winning than having fun playing the game, design a controller that has just one big "WIN" button. As for me, I'm going to find the most fun way of playing a game.



If Sony is compromising your system with backdoor applications, you wouldn't care?

And you are mistaken: Nintendo is the most profitable gaming company and Nintendo's hardware lasts the longest.

My issue with the Xbox 360 and PS3 is that they have other agendas than being videogame consoles. They're trying to compete for dominance of your entertainment center. Nintendo is all about the games. Now if only Sega would come back and replace Microsoft and Sony, we'd have much better quality games, but alas, it's not going to happen.

Wow, this turned into a novel.

I think the whole point is, if you never take chances, if you never make changes, you can't ever grow. Someone once said, "WTF is a joystick?" "Wheres my turny knobby thing?" Someone once said, "Why do we have these buttons on top of the controller?" Someone once said "HOLY CRAP MY CONTROLLER JUST MOVED!" Why? Because things change, especially controllers. In the history of console gaming nothing has changed more than controllers. Shapes, sizes, comforts, buttons, layouts, etc. Through these changes our gaming experience becomes better, more immersive, deeper, and different.

Nintendo is being different. Theyre taking a chance. Some people are gonna love it, some people wont, and such is an inevitability of change. But without change gaming cannot grow, and without the Revolution, gaming cannot grow. We've seen PS3 and X360 stick to their tired old guns, and they probably will until PS9 is finally released and we're all breathing in Playspores. Meanwhile Nintendo is throwing the old blue print out and drawing out something new. Maybe it will be a huge success, maybe itll be mediocre, and maybe it will bomb like Hiroshima, but either of ways, it will be a milestone, and a turning point in gaming. Hence the code name.

At any rate, if this bombs, the Gameboy will sell more than the PS3 anyway. Haha.

EDIT: Kryo, whatever happened to the name that game contest???

personally i rather not play either. but anyway, i always thought "whats the fun in playing DDR with a controller?" ONLY because it started off as a arcade game and is more geared towards the actual dance pad. same with time crisis, i would definately rather play time crisis with a light gun than a controller, only because its geared towards the light gun. house of the dead, time crisis,vampire nights, police 911, etc. are all 1hr long arcade games, not fps's, that are traditionaly made for light guns and are therefore more fun and easier to play with light guns. games like Call of Duty and Brothers in arms is a different story. these are made for a controller and definately not a light gun. and for good reason. first of all the controls on the rev controller just seem that they wont be up to par certainly enough to play brothers in arms. first off, it clearly doesnt have enough buttons to play an fps, especially brothers in arms, which uses every button option on a controller. the remote only has 4 options A,B,O and the trigger. definately not enough to play a real fps.(or many other real games) secondly, you actually move in real fps's, we've never experienced a light gun game that allows you to move yourself. because it will give you a head ache. and when i move with my controller in an fps you feel like you have more control over your player, and honestly, you kinda do. i move with my controller in Call of Duty almost like i move in CS. the light gun and analog as i can imagine, not so much. another thing i thought of is, when your holding the analog and the remote, you'll feel restrained. for example, you cant scratch your nose for second without the analog falling on the floor. unlike a controller.
im aware of this, but i think we care more and know more about the games that we play then back then. the issues back then were just looking at it. my complaints are about my gameplay and comfort but actually more gameplay wise. if they came up with a better idea its not like i wouldnt go for it. this just isnt THAT next great thing. like mipadi said, i dont think it will be that big of deal to make people dump their ps3 and 360's. c'mon. its honestly not that revolutional. because it honestly feels as though it has been done before. thats why we can imagine what its like so easily.

Yep, FPS's were made for controllers. The millions of people who use keyboard and mice do so because they are not enlightened. Also, the US military will now make their weapons and vehicles in the shape of console controllers in order to operate more efficiently.

I am hoping that someone releases a cross platform FPS where Rev users can play PS3 and Xbox 360 controllers. That would be the only definitive way of testing how well the Revolution controller works.

im actually talking console wise, i never said "all FPS's are made for controllers" im talking consoles here and you know it.

I still don't see how you can claim to imagine it as being fun without using it, but I am incapable of imagining it being not fun without having used it. It's essentially the same use of imagination.

i think fps's will play great on the controller but a lot of genre's will have trouble making the adjustment to the controller (rpg's, fighting games, sportsgames, etc.). this is why nintendo will be implementing use of a gamecube controller peripheral so that there is an alternative for people who believe the controller is not fit foer smmoe games:



i see this as nintendo's back-up plan for those afraid of change.

It ISNT fit for all games!^ it only has 4 damn buttons! that's a step backward not a "revolutional" step forward. its not about being afraid of change dammit. its not like we havent used anything like that before . its all just arcade. we all gave you valid reason as to why it just wont work well, it is flawed. if we were afraid of change, we wouldnt even want a ps3 or 360. stop looking at it and just thinking it looks cool because of its concept. and actually really think about it. nintendo knew it wouldnt work for everything so thats why they have the peripheral controller (which i think is pretty nice looking). its more of a eye toy thing. and shall work well with only eye toy like games, which usually suck. and thats that. They're going to have an entirely new controller, that takes some real familiarization / calibration, and they're going to be selling at least initially to a lot of fanboys...

...will we be seeing Duck Hunt Revolution on release?





i want this question answered..... and if im playing a car game, how can i turn my car in a quick 180 turn? will i have to turn my wrist in an awkward position? imagine it for a sec. and will all the sword games you play have to be in first person? because it seems like it will be stupid 3rd person. and first person sword games=ehhhh. also, Is there a review of the Revolution controller being used in an actual game? I read the reviews at IGN from X05 where the press could use the controller on the little demo apps. As they all said, it gave them an idea of how it COULD be used, but without actual gameplay, so im still not convinced. ...and what about 3rd party support? did they completely dismiss that? because i was looking into this more and many people are asking the same question.





its official, your an arcade gamer. this isnt something new its basically arcade like. i played Halo 2 in an arcade in California, and they made u use a light gun and a joy stick. it was AWFUL. absolutely frustrating. so you making this sound like somethng nobody experienced before is stupid. this isnt new, nor revolutional. sure arcade games are fun, but i and like 99% percent of the population still have more fun with a controller in REAL games. its not even a comparison. by the way your not aiming with a gun your aimng with a remote. how should that make you feel more "immersed". and why are you now dissing the controller you've been playing with since you were born? like you never had fun with it hey, they also have a tekken 5 booth in gameworks where when you kick the person kicks and when you puch, the person punches! thats more advanced than the rev controller, and that was done along time ago. but guess what? ITS NOT THAT FUN,and definately not more fun than a controller. sure in theory you'd think "awsome, how could this go wrong?" well it went wrong, because when you kick and the person kicks: its slow, it doesnt respond quick enough or at least as quick as a controller would, it reduces the game to be robotic and did i mention its an incredibly slow fight? you are thinking to naively about this, of course its supposed to seem more fun because "OMG i'll feel like im actually doing it"
thats the same pull in they did when they first introduced the damn light gun, and here you are falling for it again and acting like its something new. but seriously,This really isn't all that amazing, as the Revolution controller uses Gyration technology. A few years ago (either 2002 or 2003), Nintendo signed a deal with Gyration Technologies, and everyone pretty much brushed it off as no big deal.

So all in all they better have godlike 1st party titles or they're f**ked.

your fallacy is you assume that everyone else thinks like you.

(they don't, by the way).

Well, if you actually play tennis/shoot guns/conduct symphonies/fight swords, you already know what if feels like to do your activity of choice. Now, if you heard that you could use the same motions in those activities in a video game, you would call it a good thing, no? I can't see how you can predict that it won't be fun if you haven't even used it yet.



It's up to the developer. I'd imagine you'd do the combo though.

See for yourself.






My an arcade gamer? What does that mean?

Newsflash: people want controllers that are more intuitive. That's why we have light guns, steering wheels, dance pads and fishing controllers.

Picture of the controller layout? I'm sure you had to stand in one spot. And why do you think 99% of the population agress with you? As for aiming with the remote, peep this mockup (I stress the word MOCKUP):





When you were a year old, you probably thought walking was awesome. Then when you became 5 years old, you got a bike, and thought, "it isn't going to get any better than this." Then when you drive a car, you think "screw my bike, this is the best."

Things get better. It's called progress. Just because something was good enough then, doesn't mean you can't move on to better things.



I think I know what you're talking about, is there a little ring that you get inside?

The problem is that the ring is detecting your movements. With the rev controller, the gyroscopes detect their own orientation and movement.

And you are sadly mistaken if you think the technology behind light guns is the same as the technology behind gyroscopes.

When people "brushed" the Nintendo-Gyration deal aside, did you think Nintendo was trying to, you know, play it down? Just because no one cared initially doesn't mean it's crap. No one really paid attention to Halo during the E3 it came out, now it's Microsoft Games' killer app.

You have to learn to not make bad comparisons.

I already noted several reasons why I think it is a bad idea. Again, I point out that both you and I are using our imaginations here; you haven't shown why your use of imagination is more valid than mine, so it's hypocritical to tell me to wait until the controller comes out to make a judgement, while you make judgements based on a product you haven't used, either. I might disagree with your assessment, but at least I haven't gone so far as to say that your opinion is not valid.

I have played videogames before, so I can imagine the problems that might go into such a controller. One problem I already pointed out: what if you are playing from a confined space in which it is hard to make a range of motions with your arm? That's one key problem right there. Most of the time when I play console games, there are about eight people in the room: four guys smooshed together on a futon playing the game, along with four observers waiting their turn to play. We barely have space to use a normal controller effective; how are we to mimic throwing a football, or shooting a blaster rifle, or swinging a lightsaber?

Secondly, this controller doesn't map well to all games. What about a boxing game--am I really expected to stand in my living room and throw imaginary punches? How will that even work? How will I simultaneously duck and weave with my boxer, while trying to use the controller to throw a punch? And why do I even want to stand in my living room and box with thin air? And what about Mario? Is using a controller that I have to wave around that more effective than using a control stick to maneuver Mario? I'd say no, not really.

I like realism in games, but not necessarily with the gameplay itself. Sure, even a fantasy world like Zelda is a lot better if the bad guys obey laws of physics, and objects function in a way I expect; but I don't care if I'm not actually swinging a sword, or shooting a bow and arrow, or throwing deku seeds. That aspect of gameplay is not important to me, primarily because I play games to relax--meaning that I'd rather curl up on my futon and run my player around with a control stick, rather than stand and wave a piece of plastic around in the air.

Furthermore, it's hard to say how well this controller will work. Sure, it works well in demos, but demos are designed to make products look good. How precise will it be?

As I've noted, the reason I--and a lot of gamers I know--don't like this new controller is for the simple reason that there's nothing wrong with a "normal" controller. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This discussion almost seems to offend people. Far be it from me to say that Nintendo doesn't have a right to pursue this idea. Maybe it will pan out. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a great idea, and it's one of the major reasons I won't be buying a Nintedo Revolution.

1) This could be cool to shoot with in an FPS.

2) This is gonna suck and its gonna fail like the Powerglove and Nintendo will go the way of Sega.

Can we see the differences?

I can.

Am I hallucinating?

I dont think so.

My glasses are on.

Ok I just went and cleaned them, still a difference.

But I digress.

Why are less buttons a step backward? The PS3 controller has less buttons than Xbox or 360 or even the current Gamecube. Is it a step backward?

Controller HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME PEOPLE. The PS1 controller hasnt been around since the dawn of time. Things get different, its the way of life.


1) "my gameplay and comfort" constitutes YOU and only YOU. So why are you bundling your opinion with "99%" of the population? The majority of people out there actually like it and are excited. Its not a hundred percent, but its over fifty, probably less than 75, around 65-70 Id say. Dont talk for everyone, talk for yourself.

2) What IS "THAT next great thing"? It cant be anything the PS3 or 360 is putting out because its all the same thing. Changes breed what people call the next big thing. And you cant say its not that, because its not out, its not getting the chance to take the world by storm or anything like that.

3) The point is not to take over, its not to put Sony and M$ out of business. The point of the thing is to change the way people think about gaming, to create a more intuitive and immersive gaming experience, and to allow not only the supposed hardcore gamers to play, but casual and nongamers as well. You yourself have stated that anyone under 70 years old shouldnt fear the controller, and its true, because its simple and easy to use, and its a recognizable way of controlling. Even our grandparents can work their TV, so why not a Revo? OH! And hey! Its got cool games on it, PLUS you can get classic games. If the rents want to play some old school NES stuff that they havent played since they were sixteen in their parents basement playing round robin Mario Bros, and they want to pop in an affordable means of reaching back to the old days without blowing through a cartridge, theyll want it. If the grandparents want to conduct an orchestra without having to be a pro, then they may want it. Or go fishing, racing, sword slashing and bug catching. Pop on the shell peripheral and play your favorite fighting games, or even something like an arcade pad. Pop in a mic and play Karaoke with the family, use the pointer to create a presentation for the boss, use the 3d sensors and the gyroscope tilt sensors to create REALISTIC sword slashing, not just one button combos, but real swiping, as if you were holding a real sword. Hear the buzz of a lightsaber in your hands with a speaker peripheral. The possibilities are ENDLESS. Its up to the developers to create the games.

THIS SHOULD DEF. BE IN DEBATE!!!

btw it should be coming with the nunchaku analog stick attachment which would increase the button count to six. and if you think about it, they'd probably utilize the d-pad as 4 more buttons bringing the total to 10. that's right up there with the 360 controller.

Except the A & B buttons cant be utilized at the same time as the a & b buttons.

Ok ok, I hear you guys. But ok. Still, nobody has answered my question. How are we going to play fps's!! You can' use it as a light gun, cause then it won't be a fps. It will be a light gun game!!



Ok, sure it seems a little much on paper. But you have to agree, almost 60-70% is from the DC controller.

Whoops.

didn't know that

ane ways to play a fps you'd use the nunchaku peripheral as ur left analog stick, the B button as your trigger, and the laser as ur right analog/mouse. pretty simple. btw like i said ubisoft is in the works on a game already for revolution so ther's ur 3rd party support. want more? got to ign.com where many head developer's have given very positive feedback on the rev's controller.

Yeah, the "nunchaku" or joystick peripheral acts as your forwards/backwards, and strafe. Meanwhile you use the pointer to move side to side and up and down, much in the way of a keyboard/mouse combo.

The trigger button underneath the remote will fire, and you can use the A button and the two shoulder buttons on the nunchaku for various things.

Only 16 people? We had 20-30 when we played Goldeneye

I know there are some games you probably can't play all games with the controller (unless developers get creative and surprise us), and I have acknowledged this in previous posts. This is where the controller shell comes in handy. If you're absolutely against using the new controller, you can use the traditional shell. There is no game that this controller can't handle.

As for the boxing, I've heard many people say that they'd be excited for another Punchout! game, maybe using two controllers as boxing gloves.



I guess we're different. I view games as a way to do things you couldn't do at that exact moment in a way that is fun and exciting. The more I feel that I'm in the game, the more authentic the experience is.



It's good enough for the developers to actually make games around the controller.



The old controllers weren't broken, but Nintendo fixed it with the D-Pad. The D-Pad wasn't broken, but Nintendo fixed it with the analog stick.

You never know that you're missing out until you actually experience what you're missing out on in the first place. When broadband first came to our area, I thought that we'd never need to upgrade, but now that I have it, I'll never go back to 56k.

I've lived with VHS and thought it was good enough, then when I saw DVD for the first time, I all of a sudden realized how poor VHS was.

Don't fear change.

This is part of my problem with this "discussion"--no matter what reasons I give, my argument keeps getting reduced to "I fear change." That's not at all what my argument is about, and it would be nice if people would actually listen to what I said. The people who like the controller seem only to be saying, "It's going to be really cool," (there's not much more to say, since none have tried it yet), but at least I don't reduce their arguments by saying they are fanboys who are just gobbling up anything their favorite company releases. I know some have a better argument than that, so I've actually responded to what they wrote. I'd appreciate if it people didn't put words in my mouth, either.

^i have to say that i totally isagree with ur opinion on the controller but ur right in this case. sorry about accusing you of being scared of change but that's what i thought ur comments where implying. in anycase im actually not a nintendo fanboy(i was a sega fanboy before the dreamcast's prematture death)so im glad ur argument didn't succumb to that.