-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are Developers Embracing Nintendo's Next-Gen Vision?
- Thread starter ThunderEmperor
- Start date
papercut said:
It's not a matter of being attached to name, it's a matter of this specific gameplay being literally the best there is. And it's no hyperbole to suggest it's a direct result of honing users response to the traditional controllers we have now. So if they changed it, what they would be doing is making another game with the title. And that'd piss me off, because that's not the game series I love.
Now I like Prime, but that's partly because I knew it wasn't a replacement for traditional 2D Metroid. We still got that awesomeness on GBA. Prime was essentially a phenomenal 'side' series, which happened to work well on its own merits.
If Demons Midnight Climb was a side series of DMC, I'd accept it with open arms. If, on the other hand, they said "this is the route we'll be going with the Devil May Cry series from here on out", I'd condemn it and move my traditional awesome action game hopes onto Ninja Gaiden 2.
papercut said:
Thankfully I don't have to, as DMC4 is already confirmed for PS3
Keru_Shiri said:
I'm different, I loved Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker. I didn't really feel they were tacked on or anything. Nintendo 64 was far more disappointing for me than Gamecube, but that's a subject for another time.
It's not that I want Nintendo to release a more traditional console - I like different choices. I just don't want them to change the games I've loved forever with new 'wand waving' controls or whatever, because it'd make them into something different. In essence, it'd be the end of what I once loved and the beginning of something "new." And while hypothetically I could love the things there that are new, it wouldn't be the same thing. So I'd "mourn" (not the right word, but I can't think of a better one) the loss of all the games that had to change because of the new control scheme.
My dream would be for Nintendo to create new franchises utilizing the new control scheme a specific way, and keep the old ones more in line. But with comments like "Twilight Princess is the end of Zelda as we know it", I don't think that's going to happen.
The Experiment said:
A tard is a tard, doesn't matter if you sugar-coat it or not. Anyway, it seems like you musterded up something that's worthwhile here so I'll comment on it.
Firstly, Nintendo royalty fees are lower than Sony's now and as are Microsoft's.
I agree with most of what you've said in this post but I also think Nintendo has some reasoning behind all this. I'm not sure why everyone thinks E3 is the magic spot for Nintendo. They never said they will show off the games at E3 for the first time, they only said that we'd play them at E3 for the first time. They also mentioned that we wouldn't see anything this year. That certainly doesn't mean we won't see any footage or screens of Revolution titles until E3.
Do you think it would be wise for Nintendo to show off an unpolished game now or wait a bit (till January) and show off more games that are further along in development alongside some 3rd party outings? I think they're preparing themselves to swamp us with another batch of games like they did at TGS. I would be really surprised if by CES we haven't seen anything new from Nintendo.
The concept of DMC on the Revolution is one of the best concepts I can think of when it comes to the Revmote. You have a fast and challenging game that will be even faster and more challenging since now you'd have to aim and do it fast on top of it. I would love for Capcom to do a port of DMC for the Revolution using the revmote. That would really show us what configuration works best.
It's a bit weird, sometime specific games or franchises can make big leaps while retaining their identity for the most part and sometimes they don't at all.
For Kirby DS it worked, for Castlevania 64 it didn't.
I agree with the "don't touch if in doubt" or "don't fix if it ain't broken" thoughts and hope for a lot of new titles as well. At least something completely new like Pikmin for GC.
For Kirby DS it worked, for Castlevania 64 it didn't.
I agree with the "don't touch if in doubt" or "don't fix if it ain't broken" thoughts and hope for a lot of new titles as well. At least something completely new like Pikmin for GC.
capslock said:Amirox sounds like the guy who goes into a chinese restaurant and orders the same two dishes every frikken time, and if you have them try something new they make a face. I only say this because I've had some friends like this.
It's not exactly outrageous to say this. I do usually go into a restaurant and eat something I love over and over, because I love it
And I'm very particular too. Someone can make the exact same dish and I'd hate it, if only for a few little variations.
So the analogy is certainly apt. But there's a reason for it, and it's because something that I love and that I feel is as good as it can possibly get (DMC3), I don't want these foreign concepts ruining such a good thing. Any changes can absolutely destroy the concept, and having this wand waving stuff would make it into a different game entirely. Much the same way a few different spices will change the taste of your favorite meal.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
koam said:
1) I'm sure Nintendo could have something polished by January 1st or at least something in January. The longer they wait, the sooner PS3 is coming. They can't afford to screw around. They could even just show off a few screens and announce some new titles that are coming within the first year. No delays. There's no reason why Nintendo doesn't start out of the gate with quality and has a lot of quality releases to keep it going. The first few months are the most important and Nintendo messed that up with the Game Cube. The days of them going at a snail's pace should be finished...if they are serious. Its not like they have an excuse. Third parties produced much bigger epics in much shorter times than Nintendo's releases. They need to get with the program.
2) E3 shouldn't be the magic spot. There is just too much competition. Everyone thought the Xbox would be DOA at E3 2001, allowing Nintendo some breathing room. With Sony and Microsoft going all out, they're going to have to realize they have competition and can definitely be the odd man out and do poorly. I'm talking less than half of the GC's worldwide numbers. Xbox 360 and PS3 both have the hits coming. Nintendo is coming out with a system that many considered to be a flop. They're not in a position like they're used to being in.
AndoCalrissian
Member
So what you're saying is that the action genre will never improve past this point in terms of control. That's awfully shortsighted. I heard recently that computers are a fad, what is your take on that?Amir0x said:
AndoCalrissian said:
No, I'm saying the action genre in this form is as perfect as it can get in Devil May Cry 3. Therefore, if you add wand wiggling action or whatever weird shit it'd be a different game entirely. So you can have the best game ever with wand wiggling, but it would not be the same as the best game ever with traditional controllers. They'd be two very different concepts. The one I love is with traditional controllers.
Keru_Shiri
Member
I loved Sunshine and Win Waker as well, but i'm excited about the possibilities the Rev could bring to these franchises. And as you mentioned earlier, even with Metroid Prime being released we still got 2d Metroid goodness on Nintendo's handhelds and we'll continue to see that in the future as well, with New Super Mario Bros. and Super Princess Peach, I don't think Nintendo has completely forgotten Mario's platforming roots. As a matter of fact, it would be difficult to think that Nintendo won't take more steps back towards 8/16-bitish gamming, what with all the "know your roots" t-shirts you see at the mall nowadays. I, personally, see Nintendo not focusing on just the "core" controller as many other believe them to be, but instead see Nintendo as making a multi-faceted attack. The controller can act as the Waggle Wand, Customizable Attatment, flip sideways for NES controller, controller shell, and plug-in GC controller (I know my list was grammatically atrocious, but I digress) so who's to say Nintendo won't pursue all these routes at once? They keep claiming that the Rev will have something for everyone, so who's to say that the wand will be the central point? Most talked about? You bet. Most shocking? Of course. But in the end, I believe we'll see a balance to all of the new controller types in Nintendo's games. [/rant]Amir0x said:
Keru_Shiri
Member
Agreed, next-gen will be all or nothing for Nintendo that's for sure. But between TP, the current DS lineup, and the DS titles comming down the pipeline, i'm cautiously optimistic.Amir0x said:
Besides, they announced Super Smash Bros., it's what sold me on the GC, and it'll sell me on the Rev, no doubt.
I some would disagree with what I'm about to say, but as a unbias casual obsever I personally believe the Revolution is a false future vision of gaming put on by Nintendo, and a false one that really showed how Sony have in reality dismantled Nintendo's entire system over a course of 10+ years.
The thing is Sony has beaten Nintendo so badly 3 times(the first being they walked out on the SNES-CD deal and the second and third beating Nintendo in the conole race), thier core business has really been threatend by a corporation with more capable than them financially and technologically; that being Sony. Thier way of cutting off the threat -- go in a direction that has the high chance of them going unchallenged; essentially becoming thier own market while trying to make the other obsolete.
In the end, the DS and now the Revolution is a result of Nintendo saying, if we can't be them, go in different direction and hopefully we'll beat them. The idea of the Revolution is good, but what I'm seeing is a false future vision from them. Had Nintendo remained dominant up to now, the DS and Revolution would never had came into furitation. Its how Nintendo works.
As for whether I personally think developers hold Nintendo's idea of the Revolution in a good light; they'll would from the start, but they eventually see through the curtians. This very much reminds me of John Carmack's comments on G4 that he could see only a small precentage of viable titles compared to the majority just being overly crap. Looking at the DS lineup current and future, I would say he definitely dead-on with his Revoltuion comments. Very few DS titles actually try for something entirely new e.g. Yoshi Touch and go for exsample; the majority just fail to show the premesis of the DS.
btw I personally think Sony had a more "real" future vision of gaming. The Eye Toy from what I read in Richard Marks stories, was actually in R&D before the PS2 launch only for internal trail software to start around 2001. I'm quite suprised to have even read how the higher ups in Japan(at Sony, not SCEI/SCEJ) nearly pulled the plug on the Eye Toy project after him and Phil Harrison intially showed it. This is the entire story about it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040730....jhtml?storyId=104798_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=SSL
http://web.archive.org/web/20041025...jhtml?storyId=104799_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=FSRS
http://web.archive.org/web/20041025...jhtml?storyId=104800_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=FSRS
Like I said, the Eye Toy seem to have been the only real vision of future gaming, and simpily because it wasn't a respond to a slap on the hand by a competitor and the fact they're continuing and improving the tech in many ways say so.
The thing is Sony has beaten Nintendo so badly 3 times(the first being they walked out on the SNES-CD deal and the second and third beating Nintendo in the conole race), thier core business has really been threatend by a corporation with more capable than them financially and technologically; that being Sony. Thier way of cutting off the threat -- go in a direction that has the high chance of them going unchallenged; essentially becoming thier own market while trying to make the other obsolete.
In the end, the DS and now the Revolution is a result of Nintendo saying, if we can't be them, go in different direction and hopefully we'll beat them. The idea of the Revolution is good, but what I'm seeing is a false future vision from them. Had Nintendo remained dominant up to now, the DS and Revolution would never had came into furitation. Its how Nintendo works.
As for whether I personally think developers hold Nintendo's idea of the Revolution in a good light; they'll would from the start, but they eventually see through the curtians. This very much reminds me of John Carmack's comments on G4 that he could see only a small precentage of viable titles compared to the majority just being overly crap. Looking at the DS lineup current and future, I would say he definitely dead-on with his Revoltuion comments. Very few DS titles actually try for something entirely new e.g. Yoshi Touch and go for exsample; the majority just fail to show the premesis of the DS.
btw I personally think Sony had a more "real" future vision of gaming. The Eye Toy from what I read in Richard Marks stories, was actually in R&D before the PS2 launch only for internal trail software to start around 2001. I'm quite suprised to have even read how the higher ups in Japan(at Sony, not SCEI/SCEJ) nearly pulled the plug on the Eye Toy project after him and Phil Harrison intially showed it. This is the entire story about it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040730....jhtml?storyId=104798_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=SSL
http://web.archive.org/web/20041025...jhtml?storyId=104799_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=FSRS
http://web.archive.org/web/20041025...jhtml?storyId=104800_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=FSRS
Like I said, the Eye Toy seem to have been the only real vision of future gaming, and simpily because it wasn't a respond to a slap on the hand by a competitor and the fact they're continuing and improving the tech in many ways say so.
Nintendo lost market share, yes? But is it not Nintendo that continues to make money? I think what Nintendo sees like a lot of gamers see is that do we really need 3 systems that do exactly the same thing? Nintendo does need to seperate itself because from a business stand point they can't survive because they already lost that market share.
I continuely ask myself why do I even need/want nintendo to gain there once famous glory as number one? Does it even matter any more? If they can bring me out software that has me hooked for hours, then by all means bring it! And I personally look forward to what Nintendo has in store for THEIR VISION of what they WANT THERE NEXT-GEN to be, not the industry's. I still want my ps3 as much as the next guy/girl hahaha
I continuely ask myself why do I even need/want nintendo to gain there once famous glory as number one? Does it even matter any more? If they can bring me out software that has me hooked for hours, then by all means bring it! And I personally look forward to what Nintendo has in store for THEIR VISION of what they WANT THERE NEXT-GEN to be, not the industry's. I still want my ps3 as much as the next guy/girl hahaha
I don't understand that automobile analogy at all. For starters, cars of today control nothing like cars in the past. Early cars didn't all have steering wheels or gas/brake pedals. Over the years, advancements have been add to cars to make driving easier and more user friendly; automatic transmission, power-steering, ABS, cruise-control, etc... None of these completely changed the way people drive, but they've all add some radical enhancements. The Rev's controller does not radically change gaming, the basic concepts and principles remain the same.
The other problem I have with the analogy is that not all forms of transportation controll the same. An airplane's controls are nothing like a car. A steering wheel, a gas pedal and a brake would be completely insufficient for a jet. In order for video games to evolve past their current state, the controls will have to change.
The rev's controller is just a first step. I don't think anyone here would say that there isn't room for improvement on. But it also provides the potentional that wouldn't be posible with the old format.
The other problem I have with the analogy is that not all forms of transportation controll the same. An airplane's controls are nothing like a car. A steering wheel, a gas pedal and a brake would be completely insufficient for a jet. In order for video games to evolve past their current state, the controls will have to change.
The rev's controller is just a first step. I don't think anyone here would say that there isn't room for improvement on. But it also provides the potentional that wouldn't be posible with the old format.
What the hell is a "false future vision." It makes no sense. You do know that the Virtual Boy was released when Nintendo was at the top. To say that Nintendo is only doing this now because they're lossing, only shows hat you haven't been paying attention.
imastalker co.
Banned
well, it looks like our first nominee for "Whiney Biznatch of the Thread" will win the award by a landslide.
this guy is gonna pull all his hair out if he doesn't "Welcome Chang3"
this guy is gonna pull all his hair out if he doesn't "Welcome Chang3"
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
you cant compare the two..Letter to Elise said:
AndoCalrissian
Member
I agree. I think Nintendo is simply positioning themselves to be a 2nd console for most people by providing something different and not focusing on the highest power, etc. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who primarily game on Playstations and Xboxes who own GameCubes just because of the Nintendo franchises. That is still going to be important next generation.acr0nym said:
acr0nym said:
First of all to Sony and Microsoft, gaming is an "investment" e.g. they can afford for thier platforms to fail, but for Nintendo, gaming is a core business, a business they cannot in the long-run allowed to have platforms which are failures. The only thing keeping Nintendo head above the water these days, is the software sales and the high publishing royalties they collect(a reason why most don't even want to publish for the Cube) compared ot the lax royalties both MS and Sony collect.
You also want to see how bad Nintendo have been suffering:
August 16, 2004
Nintendo Hardware Losses Revealed
The Japanese newspaper, Kabushiki Shimbun, ran an article that reveals that the new memory media which will be used in Nintendo DS software will cost 30 to 70 percent less than the current Game Boy Advance cartridges.
The newspaper also notes that Nintendo is currently losing ¥20 billion ($180.8m) each year on Nintendo hardware, but that this loss will be reduced by reusing the production plants for next generation hardware.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=4178
Loosing 180 million a year on core hardware is not a good thing
even up to present..
Nintendo Gaming Suffers Profit Losses
November 25, 2005 9:31 a.m. EST
Tokyo, Japan (AHN) - Japanese gaming firm Nintendo, creator of the original characters of gaming such as Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers, has seen profits drop amid weak sales of its latest console.
Net profit dropped 21% to 36.6bn yen (£179m; $308m) in the six months leading up to September 30, from 46.5bn yen a year ago.
Sales dropped 6.2% to 176.4bn yen, as demand for the firm's GameCube didn't fair as well as once hoped.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001182769
Lower profit margins? Definitely doesn't sound like the Nintendo of old. In both cases, Nintendo isn't in good shape. Yes theyr'e bringing money, but they're pretty much riding on software sales; whatever hardware sell second. In the end, its hurting thier business; thier only source of income compared to Microsoft and Sony who have other sources of income.
You might not want to believe it or not, but thats how it.
JJConrad said:
Its interesting that you bring up the Virtual Boy. That the time, Nintendo's console business wasn't risk cause Sony was having a bit trouble early in the PSX life. As for the VB, Nintendo's business with the GB was at risk. With SEGA having the Game Gear Nomad/Neptune and both SNK and Bandai getting on the protable gaming biz there was definitle a threat.
Like I said in the last post, is obviously in Nintendo's nature to take another direction when they're being threatend. The VB is and exsample and both the DS and Revolution is an exsample. Like I said, you might not believe it or want to, but IMO in reality its really so.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Who said that nintendo's main goal is to be #1? You forget that the main goal of any company is to turn a profit and out of all 3, Nintendo seems to be the greatest at that.The Experiment said:
And unless you took a census of all the 3rd parties' future plans and have a full understanding of licensing fees and royalties, you have absolutely no idea of what they plan to do.. stop talking out your ass.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Andrew2 said:
So i guess the addition of an analog stick to the N64 controller at the time SNES was king was also out of feeling threatened.
Nintendo makes profit after profit year after year..thats the bottom line...until they stop doing so they will not feel "threatened"
Andrew2 said:
Sigh. I always hate bringing this up. OH WAIT, I DON'T!
http://www.dfcint.com/news/prmar2205.html
Granted, the bulk of those profits game from N64 software and their handhelds, but still, more profits is more profits.
.The Experiment said:
Many posts from the Sonybots and Xbots in either their threads or Nintendo threads tell a different tale.
.JavyOO7 said:
*high five*
N64 4 lief!
The Experiment said:
Okay, you like the N64, so you can't be all evil.
.Just wondering, but MArio 64 was a completely different game to Mario World and the like, but it was a great evolution of the series. Couldn't the same happen to DMC with the Rev. controller?
Bluemercury
Member
Culex said:
we do?
Bluemercury
Member
Source????
DieNgamers
Member
It was announced a while ago. Perhabs Mikami himself?
Bluemercury said:
Check IGN.
Here's part of the confirmation:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/661/661552p1.html
Gaia Theory
Member
That has nothing to do with Mikami. As far as Mikami working on Revolution, at this point, it's just speculation.koam said:
SolidSnakex
Member
The real question is where Kamiya's next game is going.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The Experiment said:
That's a perfect analysis of the situation imo. With the Gamecube, Nintendo seemed to have a rather lax and somewhat arrogant attitude towards releasing games. They didn't seem to realize that gamers weren't going to constantly sit around and wait for Nintendo to release stuff when Sony and MS were releasing solid software on a very steady basis. Even now they have this problem: name me one great Gamecube game that's coming out between now and Zelda's release. You can't.
On many occasions Reggie and many other Nintendo people have said that the Revolution is going to need a very strong launch as well as solid software throughout the rest of the 8-12 months after the launch. Hopefully they'll make good on this promise. The Revolution could have a monster launch (easily the best ever in fact) if we do indeed get a new Super Mario, SSBM, and MP3 as Nintendo has suggested many times.
Nintendo is going to need to support their own console in order to further help developers understand the system. They did a terrible job at this with the DS, and the launch suffered in the end. Even 3-4 months after the DS' launch there still wasn't one amazing AAA title out for the DS. Nintendo made up for this later in the year starting with Nintendogs and ending (Dec. 5th) with Animal Crossing, but this will not work with the Revolution. They are going to need more than one killer game to combat the 360 and especially the PS3. If the Revolution launches around Nov. 06, it'll have to compete with MGS4 and possibly GTA or Halo 3. Luigi's Mansion just won't cut it this time around.
this is fatally flawed. the control scheme of cars hasn't changed because the way we use the cars hasn't changed. we are still driving cars on a single plane and still only controlling them to go left, right, forward or back.Letter to Elise said:
now let's look at this another way, vehicle control in general. can a car's controls be applied to an airplane? no.. if they were you would never be able to get off the ground. Could they be applied to a spacecraft? heck, not even an airplanes controls could be applied to a spacecraft verbatim. are the controls the same as a segway scooter? not at all.
my point is that a car isn't like video games. heck, racing games are merely one genre of racing game. I can control my racing games with a steering wheel but I would hardly want to control other games with steering wheels.
If the rev controller needed for new ways to play madden? probably not. but are their game concepts out there that would be less enjoyable with the revo controller? I would imagine yes.
let's give an example. everyone talks about slashing swords. they say that there is no reason a player should need to swing the controller when they can just hit the x button. for controlling DMC, this may be. but think outside of DMC. What if it were fight game? What if the physics and AI of the game allowed for a virtually indefinite amount of ways an opponent could come at you with a sword? he comes at you with a low thrust so you knock it away. a high chop so you raise your sword horizontally to block. or brush it away and go for a parry. how about moving out of the way at the same time and hitting him from behind? now this type of play has been around already. hardly anything new to gamers, but what has it taken to perform what I have described? surely not just pressing a button. most times in fact it requires a gamer to be able to perform a sequence of button presses, and in many cases requires them to not only pull off a potentially complicated series of button presses, but requires this to be timed perfectly with on screen action. not so with this. this only requires that they "move" the controller with what they want the sword to do on screen. no button combos. no timing to trigger a sequence. just do what you would do if you really had the sword and the game will respond.
if you say you can't at least understand the appeal of something like that then I have to question the sincerity of your response.
The easiest way to present it is that the control pad is far and away the best way to control games; with the control schemes they've had up to now. Arguing that Shadow of the Colossus needs a new controller is silly. But there are hundreds of control schemes out there that wouldn't work best on a control pad. we simply haven't seen them yet because we haven't had a controller to create them on.
Kirby Canvas Curse and WarioWare Twisted are perfect examples. Games whose "gimmick controls" are used to create compelling new forms of gameplay, and games which would be impossible to play the same way with a control pad. would I like to see every game from now on to be like those games? Of course not. but would it be cool to see some of those games on a home console? I would hope so.
The fact that videogame controllers are used to mimic the control of cars in racing games should tell you that the logic is flawed. Videogames are simulations and you'd want to be able to resemble as many control styles as closely as possible. Don't tell me you consider 2 analog sticks the pinnacle of that.
SolidSnakex
Member
borghe said:
That'd be awesome, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. But do you really expect that to be possible now? I think it'd be like the Activator where you're standing there frustrated because you can't get your character to do actions that are so simple on a controller but nearly impossible on that thing. The Rev controller sounds great for certain things, but for others its really not needed.
But if they could actually get a fighitng game to do what you said, I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with it.
borghe said:
Well said. The controller will also be a good interaction tool in games. A lot of times, there are games where you'll walk up to a console/terminal or a certain device in game and you don't know how to control it because the control scheme changes. Even then, it's either over simplified by having to press "A" or it's just poorly executed. With the revmote, you'll be able to do these little things without even second guessing the controls. It's a hand, plain and simple.
this is true for every controller out there, even the DS2.SolidSnakex said:
as for getting a game to do that, really AFAIK the main limiter on games since the PSX has almost always been graphics power. Stuff that I am talking about; AI, advanced collision detection, etc.. I have never heard a developer say "We wanted to incorporate more intelligent AI but we hit the system's max power." And graphics, well... you could do what I am talking about with like a 500 poly scene. hell, even stick figures actually.
the rev isn't going to change gaming in the sense that it will make all games better. ironically the best way to still control Super Mario Brothers is with the control pad. the rev is going to change gaming in the sense that the DS did. It gives more options to developers to create new types of games. You will still have your PS3 and X360 to play Ninja Gaiden 2 and MGS4. and then you will have the rev for games we have never seen anything like up to that point.
Sathsquatch
Member
The problem with the sword fighting example is that the revolution controller cannot move by itself, meaning that your sword cannot be deflected or batted away by an opponent. In a fighting game, you couldn't use realistic sword techniques to overpower or bypass your opponent's guard without actually being able to interact with their sword.
It would also be difficult to know exactly when your sword connected with your enemies sword, so more advanced techniques like twisting your grip to absorb impact would be more difficult. Locking swords would also be problematic. How would you know how to apply leverage in order to push your opponent away or to bypass their guard if you couldn't feel the weight of the two blades pushing against each other?
Additionally, moving the swords around realistically would require physics calculations that would probably be more complex than the physics we see in most current generation games. The Revolution seems like it is not as powerful as the other consoles, and I doubt that it could handle the physical calculations necessary to create a convincing and engaging melee.
Actually, there already is an arcade game that gives players a plastic sword and has players swing the sword to perform attacks. It's not a very good game, from what I've seen of it. A better developer could potentially do something better, but I don't know how they would overcome the problems I mentioned.
It would also be difficult to know exactly when your sword connected with your enemies sword, so more advanced techniques like twisting your grip to absorb impact would be more difficult. Locking swords would also be problematic. How would you know how to apply leverage in order to push your opponent away or to bypass their guard if you couldn't feel the weight of the two blades pushing against each other?
Additionally, moving the swords around realistically would require physics calculations that would probably be more complex than the physics we see in most current generation games. The Revolution seems like it is not as powerful as the other consoles, and I doubt that it could handle the physical calculations necessary to create a convincing and engaging melee.
Actually, there already is an arcade game that gives players a plastic sword and has players swing the sword to perform attacks. It's not a very good game, from what I've seen of it. A better developer could potentially do something better, but I don't know how they would overcome the problems I mentioned.
everything you mentioned we come across every day already in games. when we get stuck on ice in mario kart, does our controller become sloppier? when we hit a tight turn in a game with non-ff wheel, does the control get tighter? in response to your sword being deflected away, just your sword being deflected away would be apparent to the gamer. remember that we would become accustomed to how games respond, the same way we became accustomed to dealing with running driving in snow with a standard controller despite not having any of the real like cues we really use while driving in snow.
as for physics, as I said, I have never once seen mentioned nor head of today's CPUs not being powerful enough for more complex physics engines. on the contrary I have seen many developers say that they could go further with a given engine but they had to cut it off somewhere to make release. in specific regard to fight games...... look around. games like soul calibur have had physics engines like I am describing for almost 7 years now. we aren't talking abou a simulator, we are talking about a game. but soul calibur has had weight based weapon phsyics for quite some time now.
as for physics, as I said, I have never once seen mentioned nor head of today's CPUs not being powerful enough for more complex physics engines. on the contrary I have seen many developers say that they could go further with a given engine but they had to cut it off somewhere to make release. in specific regard to fight games...... look around. games like soul calibur have had physics engines like I am describing for almost 7 years now. we aren't talking abou a simulator, we are talking about a game. but soul calibur has had weight based weapon phsyics for quite some time now.
Sathsquatch
Member
If the gamer is just responding to visual cues rather than interacting with a physical object, the revolution is no better than a normal controller. We already respond to visual cues. That would not be a new experience.borghe said:
The real problem is what happens when someone or something else interacts with the object that the revolution controller represents. If something deflects my sword, I need to be able to recover in a way that seems natural to me, not just wait for the game to let me recover. Otherwise, I might just as well be using a normal controller. If the controller doesn't always move with the sword, I can't always control it like I would control a physical object. The revolution controller has no point if I can't treat the sword as a physical object.
Soul Caliber did not use advanced physics calculations to determine how the player's responded. Each sword swing had a predetermined amount of strength, and the angle of the attack did not matter. The characters would respond to sword blows in a predetermined way.
With the revolution controller, each sword swing could be different. The game would have to assign damage and manipulate objects based on real-time calculations. It would be entirely different from the predetermined reactions in Soul Caliber.
how would you be prevented from doing so? say the sword was knocked down? if there were leway in there where it were knocked down you would easily have enough time to adjust your position to match it, or just carry on from where you are if location hasn't changed that much.Sathsquatch said:
but really I am not going to continue this line of conversation. sure there would be difficulties and somethings that could not be done/duplicated, but give me any control scheme and I can point out similar issues with it. The point here is that in the right game designed to use the controller as such, something like I have described could be fun and not reproducable on a standard control pad. is it perfect as a sword fighting simulator? maybe, maybe not. but certainly it would provide and interesting and potentially exciting take on it.
to argue about "flaws" in a game that doesn't even exist is pointless. and reality in games is already seriously hampered on a daily basis. racing game realism anyone? while extremely realistic to be sure, most racing games have intentionally hampered physics so that most people won't wipeout on practically every corner they take.... like they would in real life.
ironichaos
Member
Dur...
*roll eyes*
Considering Square Enix is already developing a Final Fantasy title for it and Konami's Hideo Kojima is also producing a title for it...you've already got your response from the big publishers.
Sathsquatch said:
That's true however it could easily be done in a way that you'd know when they clash. The best way would be to have a strong force feedback on the controller and when the two swords clash, the rumble would let you know. Players would get penalized if they continue going past the rumble.
Example: If you're trying to block and you go too far past the rumble, you'd lose partial health. The further away you are from the point of contact, the more health you'd lose.
SolidSnakex
Member
borghe said:
Definetly, but that's why some get a bit mad when people go a bunch of next gen game threads and say "this would be great with the Rev" controller when its not always the case. As you said every controller has its advantages and disadvantages and not every type of game is going to fit it all that well.
I guess that's whats going to make the Mario Rev game that much more itneresting. Platformers aren't really a game that I think would benefit alot from the controller, although that could obviously change when they start showing it off. Can't wait to see what they do with it. Mario 64 was their flagship titl eto show why the N64 controller would work, I wonder if Mario Rev will be the same for it.