Support NeoGAF

[missAran]

As we all know the interface and the control mechanisms of the Nintendo DS, although innovative, a risky step. Nintendo has clearly tried to modify how regular gaming operates.

Now, Nintendo has confirmed that it plans on releasing a GBA2 and that the DS isn't the successor to GBA. This means that, hopefully, there will be a standard handheld system with nothing "new" or risky.

It appears that Nintendo is banking on the success of this handheld and the DS so that it can experiment with new and interesting ways of gaming. Enter Revolution. According to this news, Nintendo is planning on taking its next console in another direction.

My question is whether this is flawed or not? Nintendo, the industry vet, ending up third this generation may have perhaps given the company a realization: hitting rock bottom means you can go down any further, it might as well try and innovate. Thoughts?

EDIT: I'm in Riga, Latvia.

 

[GamerDiva]

EDIT: I'm in Riga, Latvia.

I thought this was yet another "Nintendo is Doomed" topic but thankfully it's not.

I'm in North Bay, Ontario.

 

[gofreak]

Nintendo needs to differentiate itself from the competition. N64 and GC were conservative attempts to do so. They may aswell go all out at this point.

Also, they're not just doing it for that reason. I think they genuinely believe that the interface and how games are played needs to change in order to expand the (or their) market. There is a lot of interesting tech out there that could be applied, and we simply do need to start getting the controller out of the equation. The modern controller is way too complicated (try get a non-gamer to play Halo2, for example) - that needs to change, and I'm glad Nintendo seem to be moving in a different direction in that regard.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

i think the mainstream dictates what direction the industry goes in whether nintendo can capture that remanins to be seen.

 

[mattiewheels]

I still don't see how having two screens is innovative. Can someone explain that?

 

[seismologist]

in·no·va·tion Audio pronunciation of "innovation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vshn)
n.

1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.

 

[gofreak]

I still don't see how having two screens is innovative. Can someone explain that?

No one said anything in this thread about two screens being innovative. It isn't if you consider the game & watch but in terms of the modern defintion of the handheld gaming machine, it is the first that I can think of to have 2 screens. But that wouldn't be the sole, or even main reason why the DS as a whole is "innovative". Also, people seem to say innovative now when they mean different..

 

[seismologist]

Also, they're not just doing it for that reason. I think they genuinely believe that the interface and how games are played needs to change in order to expand the (or their) market. There is a lot of interesting tech out there that could be applied, and we simply do need to start getting the controller out of the equation. The modern controller is way to complicated (try get a non-gamer to play Halo2, for example) - that needs to change, and I'm glad Nintendo seem to be moving in a different direction in that regard.

I think they gnuinely believe this. I agree with them. There's no point to keep introducing consoles with cleaner graphics, 3D graphics have matured enough that's it's a dead end st.

I'm glad someone out there is exploring other possibilities.

 

[dog$]

Nintendo should just change their name to Innovative so that any innovation their products have cannot be argued; it just is.

"Hey I guys I just got an Innovative DS and it's rockin'. Can't wait to play Zelda on my Innovative Gamecube this summer!"

3D graphics have matured enough that's it's a dead end st

Compeltely disagree.

Graphics have to take several long strides before they are 100% photorealistic, hi-res (1080i/1600x1200 or better), and locked at 60fps. The next generation of consoles will still be a long way off from Dead End Street.

 

[missAran]

Nintendo needs to differentiate itself from the competition. N64 and GC were conservative attempts to do so. They may aswell go all out at this point.

Also, they're not just doing it for that reason. I think they genuinely believe that the interface and how games are played needs to change in order to expand the (or their) market. There is a lot of interesting tech out there that could be applied, and we simply do need to start getting the controller out of the equation. The modern controller is way to complicated (try get a non-gamer to play Halo2, for example) - that needs to change, and I'm glad Nintendo seem to be moving in a different direction in that regard.

Considering its position, can it dictate where it feels the industry should be? Last I checked, the king, Sony, did that.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I still don't see how having two screens is innovative. Can someone explain that?

Its not innovative, its simply a convenient way to split interfaces that take place from an already small gameplay screen aswell as allowing touch screen, afterall, how could you use your thumb or stylus over the touch screen if you would obstruct half or more of the screen with your hand? So a screen dedicated to gameplay and a screen dedicated to inputs and interfaces was the logical solution.

 

[GamerDiva]

I think Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have all been innovative in one way or another this generation.

 

[ourumov]

I won't believe in any revolution till I see it. So far I only believe in Mario Milking techniques.

 

[seismologist]

Considering its position, can it dictate where it feels the industry should be? Last I checked, the king, Sony, did that.

Everyone knows how quickly the tables can turn in this business. You never know what's gonna be the next big thing. If you asked this question a year ago (pre-DS during the big connectivity push) people would swore that Nintendo would be a 3rd party by now.

 

[cybamerc]

I think it's much too early to say whether Nintendo is doing the right thing or not at leasrt in regards to Revolution simply because we don't know a damn thing about it.

As for DS, I commend them for trying something new. I'm not entirely convinced it'll pay off for them but one can only hope. The industry would be nothing without Nintendo's ingenuity.

 

[mattiewheels]

Also, people seem to say innovative now when they mean different..

Yep, exactly.

It's annoying when people throw around the word "innovative", and use it as some kind of synomym for "Nintendo".

 

[missAran]

Everyone knows how quickly the tables can turn in this business. You never know what's gonna be the next big thing. If you asked this question a year ago (pre-DS during the big connectivity push) people would swore that Nintendo would be a 3rd party by now.

I hope you're right. The industry will be stale and boring without Nintendo as a console manufacturer.

 

[bonesquad]

Nintendo, the industry vet, ending up third this generation may have perhaps given the company a realization: hitting rock bottom means you can(n't) go down any further, it might as well try and innovate.

I don't think that's true, you can fall further. See Atari... (or even Sega)


And wait, if DS is the "innovative" handheld yet Nintendo plans to still release a "normal" GBA2, if The Rev is the "innovative" console do they plan to release at some point a "normal" GC2?

 

[missAran]

I don't think that's true, you can fall further. See Atari... (or even Sega)


And wait, if DS is the "innovative" handheld yet Nintendo plans to still release a "normal" GBA2, if The Rev is the "innovative" console do they plan to release at some point a "normal" GC2?

With such innovation leading the company, some thing must keep the money flowing. Nintendo's banking on GBA2.

 

[gofreak]

Considering its position, can it dictate where it feels the industry should be? Last I checked, the king, Sony, did that.

It's not about dictating anything. Different companies in all markets have different ideas about what will be popular and successful. Nintendo has one vision of the future, Sony & MS have others. Those visions are derived from what they believe will be successful, and they move forward with products that they believe would cater to future demands. Nintendo believes that in order to make games something that everyone plays, we need to change how we play games. I would tend to agree. Do you see yourself still playing games with controllers in 50 years time?

And no, it's not the role of the market leader to dictate anything either. If any company ever wants to depose the current market leader, then they must do things differently to the leader.

 

[GamerDiva]

But if the Revolution ends up selling less than the Gamecube does, why should Nintendo even bother releasing another home console after that? I really don't see the logic in that. Sure they might have great money being made from the GBA/DS/GBA2 at that point but IMO staying in the home console market beyond that with a niche console will only be an ego thing for Nintendo.

 

[gofreak]

With such innovation leading the company, some thing must keep the money flowing. Nintendo's banking on GBA2.

Does innovation imply a lack of profit? Or cause a lack of profit? The answer is: no, not necessarily. When people think "experimental" they tend to think "experimental failures" but experimental successes happen too! You just don't think of them as experimental anymore, because they become part of the accepted state of things.

 

[missAran]

The point is, Nintendo can't afford to tamper with what is getting it the most money. While innovations can be profitable, if they aren't, Nintendo needs to make sure one of its projects works. GBA2 is the best bet.

 

[GamerDiva]

Nintendo believes that in order to make games something that everyone plays, we need to change how we play games. I would tend to agree. Do you see yourself still playing games with controllers in 50 years time?

I firmly believe that if Nintendo's Gamecube machine had sold what the PS2 has then Nintendo wouldn't be saying anything at all about the industry being so bad. If it's so bad then why did they release the GBA as a basic upgrade from the GB? Maybe because they owned that market and didn't have to do much differently with the GBA? However, since they are losing so badly versus the PS2 they have to make excuses about the industry as a whole being in trouble rather than admitting and dealing with the fact that it's them that is losing marketshare every generation in the home console market. I think they should let their ego go for a second, look in the mirror, and ask themselves why this is happening to them rather than slamming the whole industry. It's actually quite sad.

 

[seismologist]

With such innovation leading the company, some thing must keep the money flowing. Nintendo's banking on GBA2.

Im not to sure about that.
now with the DS it's been proven that they dont need to lose money on expensive hardware to be successful.
Plus if Nintendo were to release a GBA2 two years from now that's just like the PSP, I wonder if anyone other than die hard Nintendo fans would even buy it.
IMO, DS will hold up alot better against PSP than a GBA2 would.

Same idea can be applied to consoles.

 

[JJConrad]

As we all know the interface and the control mechanisms of the Nintendo DS, although innovative, a risky step. Nintendo has clearly tried to modify how regular gaming operates.

Now, Nintendo has confirmed that it plans on releasing a GBA2 and that the DS isn't the successor to GBA. This means that, hopefully, there will be a standard handheld system with nothing "new" or risky.

It appears that Nintendo is banking on the success of this handheld and the DS so that it can experiment with new and interesting ways of gaming. Enter Revolution. According to this news, Nintendo is planning on taking its next console in another direction.

My question is whether this is flawed or not? Nintendo, the industry vet, ending up third this generation may have perhaps given the company a realization: hitting rock bottom means you can go down any further, it might as well try and innovate. Thoughts?

EDIT: I'm in Riga, Latvia.

If the DS is as successful as it appears it will, then those new risky mechanisms on the DS will be the standard. Nintendo has been looking for an alternative to standard gaming, not only to distingish (sp?) themselves from the rest of the market, but also to find that next big thing. Ultimately, consumers define where the market goes, but some has to point out that direction first.

The controller is where the consumer meets the product. Its probably the most logical place to start changing things up. IMO, the generation has been the least "innovative" generation in twenty years. Everything has simply been refinements of previous ideas. In the past few years, the games that have made the biggest impact have been the ones that change how we control the games.

Considering its position, can it dictate where it feels the industry should be? Last I checked, the king, Sony, did that.

You need to keep a couple things in mind:

First, Nintendo didn't come in 3rd this genereation, but 1st and 4th. You can't simply sub-divide and ignore the handheld market. Nintendo still has an incredible amount of influence in the market.

Second, how did Sony become king? By taking the market in a new direction.


If early estimates are accurate, last holiday season, console sales will have been at their worst in several years. Hopefully this will not be a trend. If it is, you can no more claim that simply more powerful console can correct this, than what Nintendo wants to do.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Nintendo believes that in order to make games something that everyone plays, we need to change how we play games.

EyeToy anyone?

 

[Datawhore]

I was thinking last night about what kind of innovation they plan on using for the controls, and it dawned on me that the DS may be hinting at Revolutions eventual control system.

I know this is a little far out (and slightly off topic, MODS please move if necessary), but here's what I was thinking:

1) Laser Pen control
One of the primary inputs could very well be a laser pen which you point on the TV screen to draw shapes etc. The functionality could nearly be identical to what is offered with the Stylus on the DS. This would also make DS-Revolution connectivity more natural. If they do include a light pen of some sort I would expect it to be about the size of a glue stick with room for a button or two and the sides.

2) Gryoscopic, motion sensor controls (I know, nothing new here)
Similar to the motion sensor games, but much more reactive and natural. Imagine moving Zelda on screen without the use of an anlog stick by rocking the controler back and forth. Nintendo wants to make game controls more accessible to the masses; the DS stylus control is an example of input that everyone can understand - people have been writing with pen and paper their entire lives.

3) Maybe the controls will be divided into two separate joypads that you hold in each hand
Possible combinations:
i) Left Hand - Analog stick w/ a Z-trigger; Right Hand - Gryo Pad w/ built in laser pen
ii) Left Hand - Gyro Pad w/ Z-trigger, possible shoulder button; Right Hand - Laser Pen stick

4) Some sort of Eye Toy + Microphone Combo (also, nothing new here)

5) Some otherworlding combination of things that I haven't even touched on (Likely! )

I can't help but think about the console-less Dragon Quest game that was released in Japan that was played with that ugly plastic sword and how damn popular it was. I'm also thinking of the natural "mainstream" use of the Eye Toy and it's extreme popularity in some countries. Then we throw in voice operated games (DS, Mario Party 6), bongos, etc. and Nintendo's design decisions probably come down to making games easier to play for mainstream gamers.

The bottom line: Nintendo wants to be able to put the controls of Revolution everyone from a five year old kid to 75 year old Grandma's hands and have them controlling Mario or Zelda completely intuitively. They believe better more intuitive "revolutionary" controls will increase the size of the gaming market.

NOTE: I'm am not taking a stand one way other another as to how smart altering the standard game controls is as a business decision. I'm just speculating. I think the laser pen idea may be bang on though....

 

[GamerDiva]

The bottom line: Nintendo wants to be able to put the controls of Revolution everyone from a five year old kid to 75 year old Grandma's hands and have them controlling Mario or Zelda completely intuitively. They believe better more intuitive "revolutionary" controls will increase the size of the gaming market.

Their standard NES controller and everyone after that accomplished the exact same thing. Change just for the sake of change or to be different is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[bonesquad]

A lot also depends on just how much Nintendo plans to "innovate" with the "Revolution".

Look at the DS. It has dual-screens, a touch screen, and even a mic to add new methods of play. But at the same time it has traditional methods with a d-pad and face buttons (it does play GBA games afterall).

I'm all for Nintendo trying to do something radically different with The Rev, I just fear that in doing so they turn their backs on whats worked for the past 20+ years (like the rumors of no A&B buttons suggest). You might argue that doing so is nessasary to truly be innovative. Maybe. But I have a hard time believing that's the right direction to go.

Plus there's always the fear that it comes off too gimicky. Too limited in range so only a few games really put it to use (see the much hyped secret of the GC controllers: the L/R click, remember that?). It's still to be seen just how many DS games put its resources to good use.

 

[gofreak]

I firmly believe that if Nintendo's Gamecube machine had sold what the PS2 has then Nintendo wouldn't be saying anything at all about the industry being so bad. If it's so bad then why did they release the GBA as a basic upgrade from the GB? Maybe because they owned that market and didn't have to do much differently with the GBA? However, since they are losing so badly versus the PS2 they have to make excuses about the industry as a whole being in trouble rather than admitting and dealing with the fact that it's them that is losing marketshare every generation in the home console market. I think they should let their ego go for a second, look in the mirror, and ask themselves why this is happening to them rather than slamming the whole industry. It's actually quite sad.

Nintendo want to reach out to consumers who aren't playing games at all - people who don't have playstations. And the things they are saying about the industry have been echoed by many others..it's not just them.

 

[SolidSnakex]

If early estimates are accurate, last holiday season, console sales will have been at their worst in several years. Hopefully this will not be a trend. If it is, you can no more claim that simply more powerful console can correct this, than what Nintendo wants to do.

A big part of that has to do with the 2 most popular consoles (PS2 and Xbox) being in very limited quantities for the holiday.

 

[gofreak]

Their standard NES controller and everyone after that accomplished the exact same thing. Change just for the sake of change or to be different is not necessarily a good thing.

The standard NES controller was simple and straight forward, yes. But everything after that? Uh..no. Look at controllers today, and think how you would approach it if you weren't "trained" to use it by incremental updates over multiple generations of consoles. You might have grown up with it, but not everyone has.

The point is really hammered home when you see the problem yourself, for real. My brother and his wife bought a PS2 because it seemed "cool" etc. but they struggled with most games and give up on them fairly quickly, and I believe this is due to the controller. His wife VERY quickly stopped playing with it (until eyetoy arrived) and even my brother only buys the odd football game now. The controller was too much for them and they didn't have the patience to become accustomed to it.

And yeah, eyetoy was mentioned. But we need to adapt that kind of technology, and more, to general game playing and not just minigames.

We think of videogames as being massmarket, but is it really? If there are 100m consoles out there in active use (rough estimate based on current gen sales), and you want to double that to 200m or even triple it to 300m to estimate the number of people using them, and then consider how many people watch movies...it's just not the same. It should be as intuitive to play a game as it is to watch a movie, in a perfect world.

As gamers, we simply may not see this, or pay attention to it. Why should we care? But Nintendo does, because potentially it means a wider market for them and more money.

 

[GamerDiva]

Well the Super Nintendo I recently got has a controller with 6 buttons on it and I didn't have a problem with it nor did anyone else complain about it. Today's consoles have a similar amount of buttons so that tells me something else other than the controller is the problem here.

 

[Datawhore]

Their standard NES controller and everyone after that accomplished the exact same thing.

Hardly. Just try and get a non-gamer to sit down with any current gen console controller and have them inuitively control any game within 60 seconds. "There's two many buttons; I can't look at the screen and my controller at the same time; I keep getting killed; what are these shoulder things for."

Obviously, I think the current controls are just fine and plenty intuitive, but I'm not talking about seasoned gamers here. I'm talking about Nintendo trying open up gaming to a wider audience with simpler, more accessible controls. It doesn't get much simpler than voice input or Eye Toy.

Change just for the sake of change or to be different is not necessarily a good thing.

I agree.

[Controversial Hypothesis Warning] But maybe they feel they can't compete with Sony and MS in the traditional gamer segment (18 - 34 year old core gamers), so they want to expand the market with Revolutionary controls to more mainstream consumers where they can take more marketshare. They will alienate some of their core 18 - 34 year old fans, but many will continue to play Zelda and Mario forever. Like me.

 

[Datawhore]

The standard NES controller was simple and straight forward, yes. But everything after that? Uh..no. Look at controllers today, and think how you would approach it if you weren't "trained" to use it by incremental updates over multiple generations of consoles. You might have grown up with it, but not everyone has.

The point is really hammered home when you see the problem yourself, for real. My brother and his wife bought a PS2 because it seemed "cool" etc. but they struggled with most games and give up on them fairly quickly, and I believe this is due to the controller. His wife VERY quickly stopped playing with (until eyetoy arrived) and even my brother only buys the odd football game now. The controller was too much for them and they didn't have the patience to become accustomed to it.

And yeah, eyetoy was mentioned. But we need to adapt that kind of technology, and more, to general game playing and not just minigames.

We think of videogames as being massmarket, but is it really? If there are 100m consoles out there in active use (rough estimate based on current gen sales), and you want to double that to 200m or even triple it to 300m to estimate the number of people using them, and then consider how many people watch movies...it's just not the same. It should be as intuitive to play a game as it is to watch a movie, in a perfect world.

Excellent Post - It needed to be said. Gaming is still a pretty exclusive club, compared to other media consumption.

 

[gofreak]

Well the Super Nintendo I recently got has a controller with 6 buttons on it and I didn't have a problem with it nor did anyone else complain about it. Today's consoles have a similar amount of buttons so that tells me something else other than the controller is the problem here.

The Super nintendo controller wasn't a massive step up from the NES controller. My mother still used to play games with us during the SNES era.

The N64 on, things got complicated. Think about how dual analog controls feels for a first time gamer. Add in analog triggers, more buttons etc. Like I say, my mother used to play now and then when we had a NES and SNES as kids. She never ever plays my GC, PS2 or Xbox, even though I have tried to introduce her to them. But it is just too frustrating for her, and many others I'm willing to wager.

Consider also, this: is it coincidence that there are so many reports of the popularity of Super Monkeyball among girlfriends, wives etc? I don't think so. It's a simple mechanic, easy to get going - but a bitch to master.

 

[GamerDiva]

I think it has more to do with games shifting from 2D to 3D than it really has to do with the controllers. I highly doubt anyone, even a new gamer, would have a problem playing an NES or Super Nintendo game with a Gamecube, Xbox or PS2 controller.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

It'd be cool if Revolution was compatible with GC controllers. Wavebirds rock.

 

[gofreak]

I think it has more to do with games shifting from 2D to 3D than it really has to do with the controllers.

Absolutely, the move to 3D had a big impact in terms of control complexity - but of course it still relates to the controller, since controlling in 3D is different than controlling in 2D. But what should we do? Revert to 2D? Generally, also, I think the control requirements for games have become more complex, beyond the dimensional shift.

Games have become more complicated and sophisticated, which is fine. But the controllers are just more complicated, which isn't a good thing - they've lost their intuitiveness. Someone completely unfamiliar with games can't just pick up a game today and start playing pretty much immediately in the same way they could in the days of the NES and SNES, at least from my own experience. The learning curve is too steep now in terms of control, and that has to change if you want to expand the market beyond those already converted.

 

[Orange]

I remember reading about how Miamotos ambitions included the "one-button" game. I know we maybe saw this come to frution with Kirby, but that's not a miyamoto baby. I think this has been a long time comming, but I never thought it would effect the hardware so drastically. DS is cool, its a capable hardware with standard and new features. I hope the revolution can have this duality as well, but it doesnt sound so.

I guess we can rule out backwards-compat?

 

[Insertia]

graphics > hardware innovations.

It'll be another ~10 years before gamers actually stop caring about jaw-dropping graphics.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Yup, 3d camera work has a long way to go and its the main problem with mainstream gamers in general, I know 2 guys at work who are very mainstream gamer, they're quite old aswell, well into their 30's and they both own an xbox, i suggested them to buy halo 2 and a few days later they were complaining about the dual analog sticks being too confusing. What can i reply to that? I got used to it, but a lot of peoples cant, not even my brother who is much more of a PC gamer.

I think the next step for an evolution or revolution, whatever you call it, is in the controller, its what connects the gamer to the gaming experience and right now they really arent user friendly, the more complex 3d games becomes the more fucked up the control scheme becomes, just take a look at gunvalkyrie, i got used to it after many many hours but how many gamers passed on it because of that? The game's mechanics are very flexible and probably the 3d action game with the most freedom in terms of what your on foot character can do, but jeesus christ, mastering the controls for that game arent for everybody.

It needs to go back to simplicity, in the same vein as DS' stylus. I think that nintendo's tilt sensor technology they're using for yoshi's GBA game and their investment in gyro technologies will be the fundamentals of revolution's controller. What im thinking here is that there's just one analog stick, no dpad, no 2nd stick, it will have triggers and maybe a touch screen in place of the button layout, where devs could configure the button layout like they would want, eleminating hardware button limitations for some games. But back to what i think will be important for that controller is the tilt sensor that would control the camera, gyroscopes would give a small force feedback to the controller so that it always search to go back in a central position, meaning that if you tilt the controller forward, gyroscopes would tilt the opposite direction to give you some small pressure in your hands, allowing you to easily determine when you're centered and when you're tilting it way forward (the more you tilt the more the feedback). Thats the kind of thing that gyroscope technology allows, and imo, would be the next big step for controllers, its only a question on wether nintendo goes with that or not. Also since you wouldnt need to have your thumbs on a 2nd analog stick, button layouts would finally be back in full force, they've been kinda forgotten in 3d games with dual analog sticks, its more of an annoyance having to let go of the 2nd stick to go switch a weapon or do an action on the button layout, limiting your character's maneouverability for a few moments.

 

[gofreak]

I remember reading about how Miamotos ambitions included the "one-button" game. I know we maybe saw this come to frution with Kirby, but that's not a miyamoto baby. I think this has been a long time comming, but I never thought it would effect the hardware so drastically. DS is cool, its a capable hardware with standard and new features. I hope the revolution can have this duality as well, but it doesnt sound so.

I guess we can rule out backwards-compat?

No. They could standardise ports across GC and Revolution, or make Revolution ports backwards compatible. So you would just plug a GC controller into Rev to play GC games.

graphics > hardware innovations.

It'll be another ~10 years before gamers actually stop caring about jaw-dropping graphics.

It's a matter of opinion, but anyway, Nintendo isn't saying good graphics aren't important or don't have their place. They're saying that we need to do more than just that.

If someone comes up with an instantly intuitive means to play "modern" videogames in all their complexity, that'll be the single biggest leap forward for games in years. Many more people, if they haven't already been turned off by the current generation, will start tuning into games since now they could actually play them!

Intuitiveness aside, don't you want interfaces that bring you closer to the experience? More immersion? The controller completely abstracts you from the experience imo. Even if something as simple as introducing better mapping between body movement and game control was introduced, it'd be better than a controller e.g. move your arm to move your characters arm, or to aim or whatever. That's a more direct mapping than using your thumb to push an analog stick, and thus brings your own actions a little closer to the game. Eyetoy has introduced such concepts, but we need to generalise it.

 

[GamerDiva]

That was my next point gofreak. That there is a direct correlation between the move to 3D and needing a more complex controller to facilitate that move. It's kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg huh? Did games become more complex when going to 3D or did the controllers become more complex? Maybe both? But like you said there is no going back now.

Anyhow it was nice chatting and you made some good points. Bye for now.

 

[gofreak]

That was my next point gofreak. That there is a direct correlation between the move to 3D and needing a more complex controller to facilitate that move. It's kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg huh? Did games become more complex when going to 3D or did the controllers become more complex? Maybe both? But like you said there is no going back now.

Anyhow it was nice chatting and you made some good points. Bye for now.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that. It's like..how do you control Halo2 with a d-pad and 4 buttons? (I was going to say Mario 64, but then, they seemed to manage some sort of compromise on DS..).

Nice chatting with you too.

 

[oldskool]

How long can updated graphics sustain gamer's interests? In the next generation we'll be seeing GTA 5, 6, & 7, Halo 3 & 4, etc. On the cube this year there was a lot of complaints about Mario Sunshine, Zelda, and MP2: Echoes stemming from the fact that they played similarly to previous incarnations. Personally I know that I would feel a little empty playing games on my brand-spankin new console that played the same as games I played 2 generations ago on the N64 and Playstation. This will be the third generation of 3-D consoles. I'm glad someone is attempting to shake things up a bit.

 

[Link316]

My question is whether this is flawed or not? Nintendo, the industry vet, ending up third this generation may have perhaps given the company a realization: hitting rock bottom means you can go down any further, it might as well try and innovate. Thoughts?

I completely disagree, Nintendo is moving in the right direction with handhelds and consoles

 

[JavyOO7]

Nintendo's direction is a weird one, but one that I approve. It sounds wacky but yet I'm all over it.

If Revolution stems up from something like the DS, that'd be cool too. Nintendo could add all the features they want, but if there's one thing I ask from Nintendo is that the graphic capabilites and general horsepower are the same for Revolution than with PS3/XBOX2.

The DS is awesome, with Mario 64 DS/FTM/Mr Driller DS. Might one quipe? Wished the graphics more or less were on par with the PSP. The N64-like graphics are fine, but I did wished the horsepower was a bit stronger. I'm not complaining though, all that much anyway.

 

[Jr.]

Ignore my avitar, I think Nintendo is on the right track. I dont feel that their games always attract my current tastes, but I will forever love them and respect them as the company which made gaming what it is today.

As for the Mario milking, I dont care for tha much but eh, a company is there to make money, and at least they aren't EA, although they may be bed fellows!