Nintendo Revolutions Controller, Lets check it out.. Options

[EddieV]

The new Nintendo Revolution's Controller looks really interesting. Nintendo said they want to change the way we play video games. I think out of the three system, Nintendo to me looks the most promising. The X-Box 360 only has a few new features and slightly better graphics. But basically everything is the same. Here's a link to the Nintendo Revolution's new controller.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143782

[*mipadi*]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

[*mipadi*]

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.

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.

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.

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%.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See above.

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%.

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

lol wtf, okay your not listening. you totally disregarded about 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[*mipadi*]

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 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.