Support NeoGAF

[JJConrad]

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.

The problem with that excuse, is that there is no way of knowing how much sales would have been better if supply met demand. For the months of November and December, the console market looks like it could be 1.5 million units short of 2003, that's beyond simple shortages. To top it off, there is no legitimate reason for the extent of the shortages.

I'm not saying that shortage didn't effect the market, just that it doesn't appear to be the only factor.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

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?

Why is there this belief that Nintendo is going to make a goofy control scheme that is going to kill standerd controls for traditional gaming, ports & backwords compatibility? I know there's been talk of no A & B buttons or D-Pad bla bla bla...but we don't know exactly what that means at this point. My thoughts are that Nintendo will have all sorts of controls/controllers available keeping traditional gaming as well as new types of gaming.

Here's my thoughts...
http://www.geocities.com/drgakmanx/NintendoSpeculationPage.html

 

[Any1]

I completely agree with the people who believe that gaming and especially controls have become too complicated. Just look at the facts: remember the atari gen.? There was only 1 button and graphics were so basic it was laughable. And gaming was the biggest it's ever been. Then Nintendo came out with the nes which had more buttons and more complicated gameplay. Guess what happened? Gaming started to decline at an alarming rate.

Finally Nintendo and Sega decided to make new systems, so what do they do? They make the dumb mistake of adding even more buttons and more complicated gameplay. And the result was that even more people got turned off by gaming.

You would think that the game industry would have learned its lesson by now. But no, a new company to the gaming industry, Sony, decides to make a console and they make maybe the biggest blunder in video game industry and come out with a console that has so much power that now 3d gameplay is truly possible. This made gaming so complicated that almost no one could grasp and as a result gaming declined at an alarming rate. And to add insult to injury they actually added even more buttons. This made control of these new 3d games so unmanageble that no one could play them accept the very few people that had been gaming since they were born. That's when the crash hit. Instead of bringing in new gamers it pushed them away in droves.

Then just when you thought Sony couldn't kill gaming anymore than it did with the PS1, they make the stupid decision to introduce the PS2, which offered even more complicated gameplay and the result is what you see today. A COMPLETELY DEAD INDUSTRY! Thanks Sony for ruining everything.

This why we must go back to the 8-bit days with controls that only have a small number of buttons and extremely low graphical complexity. Games have just become too complicated, and that is the reason why the # of people that have bought a console this gen is smaller now than it has ever been in the histroy of gaming.

Wait.... um..... oh nevermind.

 

[soundwave05]

Nintendo will do what they want, and it isn't always going to be what hardcore players or even Nintendo fans want, so there's really no point in debating it. Even those with the most in-depth knowledge of the company and its history really have no clue as to what strategy they'll hop onto (it seems to change every few years really).

You didn't really hear Nintendo complaining about game complexity or the need for simple graphics when the N64 came out. Back then it was all about "64-bit SGI graphics!!!" and "incredible control!" with a controller that had more buttons than any other controller on the market.

Nintendo will just hop on whatever train they think can serve them best at any given time. If the GameCube was the one selling 80 million units, instead of the PS2, believe me Nintendo would be the last one talking about the industry needing a change.

I think the Revolution will take on a direction that Nintendo feels can best serve them at this point in time. If they feel that PS3/Xenon have the "traditional" game market cornered, maybe they will push their R&D designers to emphasize development of a machine which is different from the norm.

It doesn't mean one philosophy is "right" or "wrong", its just a matter of circumstances. Right now Nintendo is in a situation where a non-traditional machine may perform better for them than a traditional (GameCube) type of console. That doesn't mean Sony or Microsoft are "evil" or "unoriginal", it just means that Nintendo is the one that's being forced to think outside the box due to neccessity.

 

[gofreak]

I completely agree with the people who believe that gaming and especially controls have become too complicated. Just look at the facts: remember the atari gen.? There was only 1 button and graphics were so basic it was laughable. And gaming was the biggest it's ever been. Then Nintendo came out with the nes which had more buttons and more complicated gameplay. Guess what happened? Gaming started to decline at an alarming rate.

Finally Nintendo and Sega decided to make new systems, so what do they do? They make the dumb mistake of adding even more buttons and more complicated gameplay. And the result was that even more people got turned off by gaming.

You would think that the game industry would have learned its lesson by now. But no, a new company to the gaming industry, Sony, decides to make a console and they make maybe the biggest blunder in video game industry and come out with a console that has so much power that now 3d gameplay is truly possible. This made gaming so complicated that almost no one could grasp and as a result gaming declined at an alarming rate. And to add insult to injury they actually added even more buttons. This made control of these new 3d games so unmanageble that no one could play them accept the very few people that had been gaming since they were born. That's when the crash hit. Instead of bringing in new gamers it pushed them away in droves.

Then just when you thought Sony couldn't kill gaming anymore than it did with the PS1, they make the stupid decision to introduce the PS2, which offered even more complicated gameplay and the result is what you see today. A COMPLETELY DEAD INDUSTRY! Thanks Sony for ruining everything.

This why we must go back to the 8-bit days with controls that only have a small number of buttons and extremely low graphical complexity. Games have just become too complicated, and that is the reason why the # of people that have bought a console this gen is smaller now than it has ever been in the histroy of gaming.

Wait.... um..... oh nevermind.

You obviously completely missed the point about the relative size of the videogame industry versus other entertainment. And don't start talking about revenues - I'm talking popularity here.

Also, I know people (casuals) who have bought consoles this gen but who use them little, if at all, mostly due controller-related frustration. So they're adding to the userbase figures, but that would suggest that those figures inflate the popularity of games still further from reality.

The point is, far more people, current non-gamers, could be playing games, but the investment required to do so is more than most seem to be willing to make due to the interface.

On another note, about we know Nintendo are going to do something "wacky" with the controller: I've read in a few interviews now with Reggie, Jim Merrick etc. where they have explicitly said that Nintendo will be emphasising the interface with Revolution. Jim Merrick spelled it out very clearly indeed. He said, to paraphrase him, that traditionally consoles go from revolution to evolution to revolution and so on. NES to SNES to N64 to GC - since GC was evolution, and we don't have another dimension handy, where will the revolution come from? Interface. He expects that "Nintendo will show its leadership" in that area.

 

[GG-Duo]

Nintendo is investing in anime,
which means that Nintendo is bailing out.

And I think it is the correct direction.



EDIT: Yes, diversifying too.

 

[soundwave05]

Nintendo is investing in anime,
which means that Nintendo is bailing out.

And I think it is the correct direction.

Or diversifying, which is smart. Anime could become quite a lucrative market for them and in turn if they have successful anime series', they can then use those as game franchises.

 

[StRaNgE]

one thing i notice many people over looking is that even if Nintindo makes a niche console where only they produce games for it, it will still sell and they will still make profit.

as long as they make enough $$$ that the owners are driving jags and sporting high dollar trophy wives then they will keep on smiling.

 

[Foobar]

EyeToy anyone?

Eyetoy is an innovative idea, but its practicality in pushing gameplay as we currently know it remains to be seen. So far, all I'm doing is swatting at images on a screen and looking like a retard doing it. I could see things going much deeper, especially if use of USB microphones were added.

So far I see a dual screen handheld being much more innovative. The touchscreen allows for a varied user interface and opens a door to varieties of gameplay previously not accessable to handhelds, such as FPS or RTS. Then there's stuff like Pac-Pics or Kirby's Touch 'n' Go, the likes of which are unique to the DS and nothing else.

 

[COCKLES]

Dear lord.

Will these Nintendo mis-direction threads ever stop.

 

[soundwave05]

Dear lord.

Will these Nintendo mis-direction threads ever stop.

I agree actually. Nintendo does what they want, there's no point in even trying to predict what they're going to do aside from what they actually comment on directly.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

one thing i notice many people over looking is that even if Nintindo makes a niche console where only they produce games for it, it will still sell and they will still make profit.

as long as they make enough $$$ that the owners are driving jags and sporting high dollar trophy wives then they will keep on smiling.

ARRRRG!!! I feel like Charlie Brown...

I agree that Nintendo *could* make a platform that's so alienating only they make games for it...but Reggie even said the aim is to get more third parties...not scare them away even more.

And again...I ask...why is it that alot of people believe that the Revolution will be limited ONLY to these new types of interfaces and suddenly NOT have a way to play traditional types of games??? I've been suggesting that Nintendo could easily do both (having a "regular" controller for "regular" games *as well as* a new type of controller for new games) and it's like the idea is completly ignored.

 

[soundwave05]

I'm actually kind of looking forward to seeing if Revolution just really dumbfounds people.

If they really can pull something out of their hats that no one even thought of, that'd be interesting.

I mean DS is cool, but really its just the next step up from the GBA (N64 graphics, WiFi replacing wires/Motorola wireless, 4 face buttons, backwards comp.) with the added functionality of a second touchscreen.

My hope is, even if it limits certain types of traditional gaming, that Revolution is more different than that.

 

[gofreak]

I've been suggesting that Nintendo could easily do both (having a "regular" controller for "regular" games *as well as* a new type of controller for new games) and it's like the idea is completly ignored.

It's a possibility, of course, but I think it's more likely they'll approach things using one interface only to keep things simple. One might hope for an interface that is new, intuitive and general enough to apply to all the types of games that current controllers cater for (although it'll probably work better for some games than others, in the same way as with all controllers). That should be the goal.

 

[GaimeGuy]

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.

This is the post of the thread

 

[Pimpwerx]

Since when did video games cater to non-gamers? This controller argument is retarded. The GC dumbed down the controls. And for what? The thing is a failure, admit it. And if you own one, you know that the dumbed-down controller is a hindrance is most normal, non-Nintendo games. The button layout is just plain retarded, no way of getting around it.

If a gamer can't sit down with a PS2 and get accustomed to it in a day, then fuck 'em, they are worthless. Dualshock is the best controller to date. The ergonomics need help, but you have 8 buttons at your disposal, which makes itself abundantly clear the minute you pop in a game like Madden and realize how much better it controls over the GC version. I love the ergonomics of the GC controller so much, but the buttons are stupid, and the Z-button is probably the most worthless piece of plastic ever slapped onto a controller.

Really, why should Nintedo dumb down gaming to cater to non-gamers? So they can make a desperate grab for an audience that's fast being taken by Sony and MS? Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The N64 made the controls more complicated and it was more successful than the GC. The Xbox has more complicated controls than the GC and is more successful. The controller argument is a cheap copout. Non-gamers don't spend like gamers. Who gives a shit about them?

In the future, controller interfaces will change, but in the way of neural controls, or some sort of VR device that uses a gyro to track head movement. But the basic button layout won't change and has no reason to change. Much like we should expect all future systems to have 4-8 controller inputs, I don't expect the number of buttons to reduce at all.

Where the industry must change is where is always must change, in software. The first gaming crash was a result of of software. If Nintendo wants to reach for a new demographic, how about reaching out to female gamers. The current industry is perfect for young males, and a huge chunk of them play them. But girls as a whole are largely ignored. The market can at least double if there was a way to get girls as interested in games as boys. So that's an area I think they could focus on. I think the PR they're spitting now is just that, PR. I don't think they take it that seriously. I don't expect Revolution to be that great of a deviation from the norm. It doesn't have to be. Maybe a touchscreen on the controller, maybe wireless controllers standard...whatever. But no fundamental change in the way games are played. They'd be stupid to ignore a 100+ million user market to try and carve out a new one in unknown territory. PEACE.

EDIT: On a side note, there are always more people outside a market than in one. More non-gamers than gamers. More non-drivers than drivers and so on. Does that mean all such industries should start catering to those outside their borders, or that they should instead try and nurture the market they do have. The problem with Nintendo is that they are no longer a factor in the console market, so there's nothing to nurture. If the industry is in trouble, why has it grown more under Sony than under either Nintendo or Sega? It's grown more with supposedly more complex 3D games and 3D controls than the simple 2D interfaces. Matter of fact, you could claim that the step to 3D is in fact what allowed gaming to take off the way it has. Video games weren't mainstream prior to the PS1. They were popular, but not mainstream. The Wizard is as close as we came in those days, but gaming was still a thing for geeks. Now, video gaming is the norm. Some of it is US the OGs (original gamers) growing up and influencing our peers over time. But some of it is that the industry and technology has matured.

 

[Artanisix]

On another note, about we know Nintendo are going to do something "wacky" with the controller: I've read in a few interviews now with Reggie, Jim Merrick etc. where they have explicitly said that Nintendo will be emphasising the interface with Revolution. Jim Merrick spelled it out very clearly indeed. He said, to paraphrase him, that traditionally consoles go from revolution to evolution to revolution and so on. NES to SNES to N64 to GC - since GC was evolution, and we don't have another dimension handy, where will the revolution come from? Interface. He expects that "Nintendo will show its leadership" in that area.

Would you by chance have any links to those or what I should search up for those interviews?

 

[speedpop]

Since when did video games cater to non-gamers? This controller argument is retarded. The GC dumbed down the controls. And for what? The thing is a failure, admit it. .... If a gamer can't sit down with a PS2 and get accustomed to it in a day, then fuck 'em, they are worthless.

My girlfriend and her friends will happily sit down and play Mario Kart or Smash Bros. Melee for hours, they don't know any moves in Smash Bros and don't even know how to do a Smash hit - but it's a button mashers delight and they find great fun in playing it because the control system is simple and easy to understand. Move around with the joystick and hit people. + 4 fans for Nintendo

She will also play a bit of Pro Evolution Soccer with me on the PS2, but the many buttons assigned for each kick or tackle means that she will never ever get stuck into it.

The controller argument is valid and can easily be adapted to each 3 consoles, both have their own games that simplify everything and create more fans because they are able to enjoy something that they've never experienced in their life while also alienating a whole brand of "casual gamers" are the same time for those that aren't bothered to adjust to a controller with over 6 buttons. And last time I checked, the entire generic ideas for games that follow a certain genre that has become popular on a console, those are the games that are trying to cater to non-gamers. Also don't see many serious gamer play those Barbie games...

Oh and another thing, is it just me or are non-gamers constantly asking where to go or what to do in a game? They don't read a manual nor do they really heed the advice given in adventure, action, RPG, etc etc games. It is as if they don't have the time or patience to bother playing it properly. Could somehow that be related?

 

[Datawhore]

Here's my thoughts...
http://www.geocities.com/drgakmanx/NintendoSpeculationPage.html

From your website:

"I believe that Nintendo won't have just ONE type of controller or alienate the Revolution with features that won't allow for:

1-Traditional gaming
2- Ports from other systems
3- Backwords compatibility with GCN"

1-Traditional gaming - Nintendo believes there is something wrong with "Traditional Gaming" and that they need to do something Revolutionize the market. (rightfully or wrongfully)

2- Ports from other systems (Nintendo doesn't really care much for ports from other systems. In fact, they prefer platform-exclusive content which was likely one of the reasons they opted for unique controls for the DS.)

3- Backwords compatibility with GCN (Since when did Nintendo care for backwards compatible consoles? Portables [gb,gbc,gba, DS] is one thing, but they've never made a BC console before. They have eluded to it for Revolution and using the IBM/ATI combo again could make it a reality much easier, but I wouldn't count it as a sure thing for Revolution.)

 

[Amir0x]

I completely agree with the people who believe that gaming and especially controls have become too complicated. Just look at the facts: remember the atari gen.? There was only 1 button and graphics were so basic it was laughable. And gaming was the biggest it's ever been. Then Nintendo came out with the nes which had more buttons and more complicated gameplay. Guess what happened? Gaming started to decline at an alarming rate.

Finally Nintendo and Sega decided to make new systems, so what do they do? They make the dumb mistake of adding even more buttons and more complicated gameplay. And the result was that even more people got turned off by gaming.

You would think that the game industry would have learned its lesson by now. But no, a new company to the gaming industry, Sony, decides to make a console and they make maybe the biggest blunder in video game industry and come out with a console that has so much power that now 3d gameplay is truly possible. This made gaming so complicated that almost no one could grasp and as a result gaming declined at an alarming rate. And to add insult to injury they actually added even more buttons. This made control of these new 3d games so unmanageble that no one could play them accept the very few people that had been gaming since they were born. That's when the crash hit. Instead of bringing in new gamers it pushed them away in droves.

Then just when you thought Sony couldn't kill gaming anymore than it did with the PS1, they make the stupid decision to introduce the PS2, which offered even more complicated gameplay and the result is what you see today. A COMPLETELY DEAD INDUSTRY! Thanks Sony for ruining everything.

This why we must go back to the 8-bit days with controls that only have a small number of buttons and extremely low graphical complexity. Games have just become too complicated, and that is the reason why the # of people that have bought a console this gen is smaller now than it has ever been in the histroy of gaming.

Wait.... um..... oh nevermind.

That was a super long post for sarcasm.

You obviously completely missed the point about the relative size of the videogame industry versus other entertainment. And don't start talking about revenues - I'm talking popularity here.

And that's why gaming is as popular as it has ever been, and arguably much MUCH more so.

On subject:

In a business sense they may not be doing the right thing (in terms of gaining market share), but it's hard to make a decent argument about their practices because they do so often bring in a profit.

On a personal level I don't really want them to change. I don't care if they have the most market share, I just want to play games. And I actually would not mind a videogame company which offers an alternative to the "norm" because it presents me different opportunities which could potentially appeal to me just as much as everything else. Options are always good and that's why I love DS.

 

[Uno Ill Nino]

I have to say that I have not been a huge Nintendo fan since the N64 had a disappointing (to me) library and the GC (to me) continued that tradition, but I am absolutely SOLD on the Nintendo DS. I think its the coolest thing to come out in years and could really make some huge changes to how games are played and the direction they may go in.

Case in point, my girlfriend. For years she has watched me play Halo (more recently, Halo 2) and wanted to so badly to be a part of this thing that my friends and I are so into. She has tried to play on many occassions but cannot get the hang of the controller. Its just not something she is used to. She can type almost 90 wpm, but she can't use a game controller for shit. She tried playing Halo, Halo 2, Parappa, and Fable all to no avail.

Enter the DS. She saw me playing Metroid Prime: Hunters and wanted to try it. She figured she would suck at it, but really thought the little device was neat and wanted to play with it. Turns out that the stylus was exactly what she needed. She was popping off crackshots left and right with that thing. Granted it was an easy demo, but she was doing just as good as I had done. It was amazing. She now wants a DS really bad and will probably get one soon.

Now look at her for a second. She can't really get into console games because they all have the same controller. Throw in a touch-pad/screen and its just what she needed to understand it and become a real player. I'm thrilled.

If the DS can do that for my girlfriend, there's gotta be a lot more people out there like her. It may not seem like a huge difference in game control to US, but to them, its kinda like using a laptop or something. Just think about what might happen if more companies try thinking outside the box like this.

That said, I really don't want to see a GBA2. I think that's a huge mistake. This is also the exact reason I was hesitant to buy a DS. Nintendo has not supported their handhelds for shit these last years. I'd like to see them really put some effort into keeping that DS alive. There are limitless possibilities to this thing and they should really back it up completely.

 

[teh_pwn]

gamepads don't work well with FPS. Any decent control scheme with a gamepad can be done better with a keyboard and mouse.

 

[mashoutposse]

That was a super long post for sarcasm.

It probably was, but I think it really drove home the point that increasing complexity does not and will not stifle the growth of the industry.

Going backwards for the sake of non-gamers is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially on a business level.

 

[Amir0x]

It probably was, but I think it really drove home the point that increasing complexity does not and will not stifle the growth of the industry.

Going backwards for the sake of non-gamers is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially on a business level.

Not to mention that "non-gamers" still seem to be purchasing new consoles in droves, as illustrated by the fact that the videogame industry grows larger and larger almost every year and has now far surpassed the movie/hollywood industry.

 

[monkeyrun]

It probably was, but I think it really drove home the point that increasing complexity does not and will not stifle the growth of the industry.

Going backwards for the sake of non-gamers is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially on a business level.

FYI no one's going backwards.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

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.

Excellent point regarding the NES controller, (and rumble feature, and shoulder buttons, etc); I've heard little regarding what's new about the Revolution's controller, only what is old that it won't have.

Someone on another forum mentioned how the Revolution would have a harder time nabbing multiconsole titles if its controller was even more "distinctive" than the GC one. I know that's been a factor in the past for me, (I bought BG&E and PoP:SoT for the Cube, they looked better than their PS2 counterparts, and the Space Octopus controller wasn't a hinderance for action/adventure titles that it is for other genres).

I hope against hope it will bare a striking resemblance to the 6 button Genny pad, (numbered 1-6 so there's no "A" or "B"), two shoulder buttons, a stick in lieu of a D-pad, and a start button. Voila, handheld sex.

 

[FightyF]

I can't say their direction is flawed...I like risky innovative ideas, which is why I like SEGA.

But as we've all learned (from SEGA ), you can have a great idea, but if it's not executed well...it will lead to doom.

Flaws in execution is what will hurt Nintendo.

 

[mashoutposse]

Not to mention that "non-gamers" still seem to be purchasing new consoles in droves, as illustrated by the fact that the videogame industry grows larger and larger almost every year and has now far surpassed the movie/hollywood industry.

Exactly.

Honestly (and this shouldn't even need to be said), gaming doesn't HAVE to be for everyone. Not everyone's a sports fan, not everyone's into cars, not everyone's a movie buff, etc... The most popular hobbies can attract new fans without the dilution or alteration of their fundamentals.

American football is a confusing game with obscure rules, a million players to keep track of, and lots of other bullshit, but it still attracts new fans to itself by the million. Your girl, you grandma, your college professor, etc. might not get it, but really... who the eff cares??? They probably have their own hobbies that you wouldn't even spend five minutes getting into. Should the NFL change the game to suit these people who apparently need to be forced into liking the sport, or should they stay true to the game, continue to cater to their loyal fans, and pick up more along the way?

There is nothing wrong with Nintendo's direction per se. Variety and more options is never "bad." However, if their goal is to eventually become the premier videogame company once again, they are definitely going about it in the wrong way.

 

[drohne]

controllers are more complex because games are more complex. of course, you can make a simple game that isn't a wafer-thin novelty. the better arcade developers are eminently capable of this. nintendo hasn't figured it out yet.

 

[Vortac]

The saddest thing is that Nintendo fans seem to be about 5% as organized and active compared to Sega fans when Dreamcast was out. And we know how well that went.

Too many people are already on the PS2 and Xbox bandwagons and not looking back. I think I'm going to have a nightmare about the DDR Mario screenshot...the image of the turtle character in a dance pose...ugh...I think I'm going to vomit

After all the thousands of hours I've played Nintendo games over the years it's sad to see the company come to this, just as it was to see Sega fall from grace. But arrogance is something that is about to get smacked upside the head by two very large corporations.

 

[JJConrad]

That was a super long post for sarcasm.

Unfortunaly, it starts with a misconception. Before the market crashed in the '80's controllers had become very complicated. Some controllers literally had dozens of buttons on them. The NES controller was rather simple, but also radically different from any controller at the time.


This belief that Nintendo would make a new controller that makes ports and traditional game impossible is just silly.

-At no time in the past have they done this, every new console has been capible of reproducing the previous' functions. Even the DS features the standard d-pad, face buttons and shoulder buttons.

-They're not going to make a controller that will prevent them from making another Mario Bros., Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart, Star Fox, Smash Bros., or Kirby. They hav their own franchises to keep in mind, and won't force themselves to change every game.

-They've been working to gain more third party support and build relationships. They haven't been doing these colaborations just to piss it away over a controller. All three hardware makers preffer an exclusive game to a port, but they all recognise the need for them.

- A controller doesn't have to have the exact same features to create the same functions. Obviously, they're going to have some way to move the character, much like a cross pad or analog stick. They're also going to have some way to create an action to happen, almost like face buttons. The new controller could strap to your crotch and monitor your flagilance and you'll still be able to play the new Madden.

 

[Insertia]

Nintendo will just hop on whatever train they think can serve them best at any given time. If the GameCube was the one selling 80 million units, instead of the PS2, believe me Nintendo would be the last one talking about the industry needing a change.

Exactly. And people are feeding into Nintendo's bullshit about the industry needing new direction.

IT DOESN'T. Not now, or next gen, at least.

Nintendo is only saying this because they're no longer a viable threat in the console industry.

 

[Insertia]

Eyetoy is an innovative idea, but its practicality in pushing gameplay as we currently know it remains to be seen. So far, all I'm doing is swatting at images on a screen and looking like a retard doing it. I could see things going much deeper, especially if use of USB microphones were added.

So far I see a dual screen handheld being much more innovative. The touchscreen allows for a varied user interface and opens a door to varieties of gameplay previously not accessable to handhelds, such as FPS or RTS. Then there's stuff like Pac-Pics or Kirby's Touch 'n' Go, the likes of which are unique to the DS and nothing else.

Your Eyetoy comment is how I feel about DS.

If Pic Pacs and Kirby Touch n Go is the innovation DS is bringing to gaming, then count me out on that revolution because its looking quite lame.

 

[Datawhore]

Not to mention that "non-gamers" still seem to be purchasing new consoles in droves, as illustrated by the fact that the videogame industry grows larger and larger almost every year and has now far surpassed the movie/hollywood industry.

The games industry is bigger than the movie industry nonsense shit has got to stop. DVD sales in the US alone last year was something like 22 billion + Box Office Receipts + TV contracts etc... is way much more than what the games industry is pulling in. Comparisons between the two to legitimize gaming as "mainstream" is pretty weak.

Gaming is mainstream already and that has nothing to do with how it stacks up against film, music or the book publishing industries.

 

[Datawhore]

Going backwards for the sake of non-gamers is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially on a business level.

Why do new control mechanism automatically insist a backwards step? I love the current controls for games, but they are far from the ideal interface. Nintendo (and any other company for that matter) should be recognized for trying new input mechanisms.

 

[nubbe]

Whether or not the industry needs to change is not the issue.

It has and will change thanks to competition. It already has several times and will continue to do so.

Sony is trying to centralise everything around their property formats. BlueRay, UMD, Memory Stick, Cell ect, ect..
Microsoft is trying to centralise everything around their Windows platform.
Nintendo's direction isn't flawed in comparison to Sony or Microsoft. They are trying to create a different kind of appeal. Just like everyone else.

You might say it doesn't need to change, but everything is changing right before your blind eyes.

Now, NDS isn't a nextgen machine in the common view. It is a different kind of entertainment machine.
People might think that the touch screen has no use but it defiantly has an appeal to people who doesn't like games to begin with. The sense that you have direct interaction with what's going on is quite revolutionizing for some and puts games in an entirely different perspective.

 

[gofreak]

Would you by chance have any links to those or what I should search up for those interviews?

I don't have links to it, the Merrick interview was in Edge magazine a few months ago. Here's the exact relevant quote:

With the N64, Nintendo was criticised for having too few games which took too long to develop. You've addressed that with the GameCube. But the N64 had two Edge 10s, the GC has had none. Have you lost something with your new policy?

Merrick: I don't think so. Look at Mario64. A phenomenol game, 10/10 as you say - thank you very much! - but it was a revolutionary game. It was the first game where 3D gaming really worked. GameCube isn't offering that kind of revolution. It's an evolution of 3D gameplay in the same way that the PS2 is an evolution of the PS1. Historically we've gone from revolution to evolution. NES was a revolution, SNES was an evolution. N64 revolution, GC evolution, hence "Revolution is coming". So where does that revolution come from? We don't have a fourth dimension handy, waiting in the wings, so what you're going to see is Nintendo experimenting with human interface technology...I think Nintendo can show its leadership there.

He makes it pretty clear there. Reggie has echoed similar sentiment in other interviews, and even as far back as last E3.

I'll come back and respond to some of the subsequent posts in this thread later, when I've a bit more time..

 

[SolidSnakex]

The problem with that excuse, is that there is no way of knowing how much sales would have been better if supply met demand. For the months of November and December, the console market looks like it could be 1.5 million units short of 2003, that's beyond simple shortages. To top it off, there is no legitimate reason for the extent of the shortages.

I'm not saying that shortage didn't effect the market, just that it doesn't appear to be the only factor.

Look at this:

For the Saturday and Sunday before Christmas they only sold 82 PS2s and 104 Xboxes in their 1700+ stores.

http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30704&highlight=gamestop

"In all of my years in the video game business, I have never seen shortages of this duration or magnitude," Fontaine said in a statement. "There is no question that there was demand for the product, but not hardware product to satisfy demand." He said the company's December month-end inventory was $33 million lower than the previous year, despite having added more than 300 stores.

http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30590&highlight=gamestop

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

This shortage is definitely hurting Sony. I've noticed that more and more "Average Joe"-types are getting into the Xbox lately. I'm not sure if this is due to the shortage or not, but it is an observation.

 

[Artanisix]

I don't have links to it, the Merrick interview was in Edge magazine a few months ago. Here's the exact relevant quote:

With the N64, Nintendo was criticised for having too few games which took too long to develop. You've addressed that with the GameCube. But the N64 had two Edge 10s, the GC has had none. Have you lost something with your new policy?

Merrick: I don't think so. Look at Mario64. A phenomenol game, 10/10 as you say - thank you very much! - but it was a revolutionary game. It was the first game where 3D gaming really worked. GameCube isn't offering that kind of revolution. It's an evolution of 3D gameplay in the same way that the PS2 is an evolution of the PS1. Historically we've gone from revolution to evolution. NES was a revolution, SNES was an evolution. N64 revolution, GC evolution, hence "Revolution is coming". So where does that revolution come from? We don't have a fourth dimension handy, waiting in the wings, so what you're going to see is Nintendo experimenting with human interface technology...I think Nintendo can show its leadership there.

He makes it pretty clear there. Reggie has echoed similar sentiment in other interviews, and even as far back as last E3.

I'll come back and respond to some of the subsequent posts in this thread later, when I've a bit more time..

Hey, thanks

 

[fse]

This shortage is definitely hurting Sony. I've noticed that more and more "Average Joe"-types are getting into the Xbox lately. I'm not sure if this is due to the shortage or not, but it is an observation.

I see that too.

 

[StRaNgE]

why does everyone get so bent if nintendo changes thier controller?

i mean there will still be 2 other consoles that do not that you can play so why bitch about one you probably would not buy anyway.

let them do it and if you want it buy it if not don't. seems pretty easy enough.

 

[OneFiftyOne]

why does everyone get so bent if nintendo changes thier controller?

i mean there will still be 2 other consoles that do not that you can play so why bitch about one you probably would not buy anyway.

let them do it and if you want it buy it if not don't. seems pretty easy enough.

You need to realize one thing: that people like to bitch about anything. And I mean fucking ANYTHING.

 

[fse]

Especially on the gaming forum.

 

[fse]

Anyone played Feel the Magic? Its addictive.

 

[Tulkas]

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.

IAWTP!

 

[gofreak]

Since when did video games cater to non-gamers?

That's a limiting mentality that would stifle growth. Nintendo wants EVERYONE playing games, understandably enough. When they said that before, a lot of people took that in the context of universal themes in Nintendo games, but I think it applies to more than that..

This controller argument is retarded. The GC dumbed down the controls. And for what? The thing is a failure, admit it. And if you own one, you know that the dumbed-down controller is a hindrance is most normal, non-Nintendo games. The button layout is just plain retarded, no way of getting around it.

I don't think Nintendo were dumbing down the controller with GC. It may be less complicated than the Xbox or PS2 controllers, but it's still too complicated imo.

If a gamer can't sit down with a PS2 and get accustomed to it in a day, then fuck 'em, they are worthless.

No they're not, because they have a wallet like you and me that could be used to buy games.

Really, why should Nintedo dumb down gaming to cater to non-gamers?

This mistake is always made when this debate comes up. No one is talking about dumbing down gaming. We're talking about making games as intuitive as possible to play so that it takes little or no more effort to pick up a game as it does to pick up a book or a movie. We should be taking our inuitive knowledge of interaction in the real world and making it useful for interaction in games - it should be natural. Making a game easier to play doesn't have to take away from its sophistication or complexity. But the controls shouldn't be complex at all.

So they can make a desperate grab for an audience that's fast being taken by Sony and MS?

Is it?

Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The N64 made the controls more complicated and it was more successful than the GC.

The N64 appealed more to the audience that is already there, and thus was more popular. Nintendo is looking to create new audiences.

The Xbox has more complicated controls than the GC and is more successful. The controller argument is a cheap copout. Non-gamers don't spend like gamers. Who gives a shit about them?

Ever ask yourself why they don't spend as much as gamers?

In the future, controller interfaces will change, but in the way of neural controls, or some sort of VR device that uses a gyro to track head movement. But the basic button layout won't change and has no reason to change. Much like we should expect all future systems to have 4-8 controller inputs, I don't expect the number of buttons to reduce at all.

It will, and it needs to.

Where the industry must change is where is always must change, in software. The first gaming crash was a result of of software. If Nintendo wants to reach for a new demographic, how about reaching out to female gamers.

Anecdotally, females prefer games with less cumbersome controls. Also apparently more girls than usual are buying DS. Females are an untapped market, pretty much, and this is exactly what Nintendo is targetting by trying to make games easier to play. The only game any of my female friends ever play on a consistent basis is Eyetoy. I wonder why.

EDIT: On a side note, there are always more people outside a market than in one. More non-gamers than gamers. More non-drivers than drivers and so on.

It's fitting that you compare gaming to something that requires significant time/learning investment in order to be able to do it (driving). Entertainment shouldn't be like that. Games should be as ubiquitous and as widely enjoyed as music or movies etc, and as easy to pick up.

If the industry is in trouble, why has it grown more under Sony than under either Nintendo or Sega?

Gaming arguably grew most under Nintendo during the NES days. We were at 70m+ consoles with the NES, I've no idea what the combined total was if you include all gaming machines of the time. At the moment we're at about 100+m in this generation. It's not that big a leap over 20 years. I threw out some numbers before, but I'll do it again. If you take an active userbase of 100m consoles, multiply it say by 3 to give you an active number of gamers (and I think even that is generous), then that's 300m. Yeah, I'm ignoring PC games, but if you want to look at that, an increasing proportion of PC gaming is of the kind that requires just a mouse and one or two buttons (i.e. online card games etc.) How many people watch movies? This industry is still small relative to other cultural entertainment - and it could be much bigger! To say that gaming is mainstream now and that we should be happy as we are, and fuck everyone else - that's really shortsighted.

It's grown more with supposedly more complex 3D games and 3D controls than the simple 2D interfaces. Matter of fact, you could claim that the step to 3D is in fact what allowed gaming to take off the way it has.

The leap to 3D in itself had little to do with the "popularisation" of gaming or the move into older markets. It was Sony's push of the PS1 as a "lifestyle" machine and the types of games, thematically, that emerged on it. Sure, better graphics do help, I'm not discounting that entirely. But if developments in interface doesn't keep pace gaming will remain relatively exclusive and it'll be lost potential.

I said before that us "hardcore" gamers may not understand, and I guess this is a perfect example of that..

It probably was, but I think it really drove home the point that increasing complexity does not and will not stifle the growth of the industry.

Going backwards for the sake of non-gamers is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially on a business level.

Gaming is growing, but not in the way it could. You seem not to be seeing the massive potential here. How many people in your circles play games on a regular basis? Include EVERYONE here. Looking at mine, it's a minority, and a small one at that. And no one is talking about going backwards. Again, this is not about the sophistication of games or their difficulty. But there is an unnecessary additional layer of difficulty present in the controller. Breaking down the barriers to playing games is a most necessary leap forward.

Not to mention that "non-gamers" still seem to be purchasing new consoles in droves, as illustrated by the fact that the videogame industry grows larger and larger almost every year and has now far surpassed the movie/hollywood industry.

I covered this point before, but it's not valid to the argument. In terms of revenue, the videogame industry h as outpaced movies, but far fewer people play games than watch movies.

controllers are more complex because games are more complex. of course, you can make a simple game that isn't a wafer-thin novelty. the better arcade developers are eminently capable of this. nintendo hasn't figured it out yet.

It does not have to be this way. Again, the point isn't the sophistication or complexity of the games themselves. You could have complex, sophisticated game that is easy to pick up. If a game is difficult because the designer wishes it to be so, then that's fine. But when a game is difficult because the controls are unintuitive and hard to pick up, that's a problem. And unfortunately the modern controller is a major factor in that. The most complicated and sophisticated game you'll ever play is called: life, the real world. We should be taking what we learn as kids in terms of interaction with the real world and apply it to human-game interface. Making something natural doesn't have to mean making something simple or gimmicky or wafer-thin in terms of depth.

Exactly.

Honestly (and this shouldn't even need to be said), gaming doesn't HAVE to be for everyone. Not everyone's a sports fan, not everyone's into cars, not everyone's a movie buff, etc... The most popular hobbies can attract new fans without the dilution or alteration of their fundamentals.

This is a matter of opinion, but I for one think that gaming has far more potential as a truly truly mass market mainstream entertainment medium than is currently being shown. And I think most in the games industry believes that. But it won't be if your interaction with games is regulated by unintuitive abstractions. Think about when or if we have truly photorealistic games - do you still see yourself using a controller then? I think it'd be a monstrous tease to have a "real" world to play in, but only through the limitations of a some buttons and a stick.

You might say - why don't we just wait then, to start changing the interface? IMO, the sooner it happens, the better - it's overdue as is, I think. We shouldn't wait for perfectly realistic virtual worlds if we can improve things now.

If you think that games don't need to appeal to any more people, or that games are as accessible as they get and their current popularity encompasses all those who might ever wish to play games, ask yourself this: if games were more intuitive and more natural to play, do you think no more people, or few more people, would play them than they do now? Really? If you think more people would, then the question is how more. IMO, the answer is: potentially a lot more. The next time a "non-gamer" tries it out, they're more likely to enjoy themselves, and take that experience away with them as a positive one - and eventually start investing in games themselves. I'm not saying it'll happen overnight or in one generation, but all the more reason for efforts to be made ASAP.

If you're asking what's in it for you, the hardcore gamer, the answer: potentially a more immersive experience. If we start mapping more natural interaction to games and remove the abstraction of controllers, then to use a cliche, that will bring you "closer to the experience". For all the "mini-game" nature of it, Eyetoy is probably the closest to being "in a game", from an interface standpoint, and there's much more that can be done, and much more that can be done to make that more generally applicable to all type of games.

 

[gofreak]

sorry, double post, juggling posts is hard

 

[Artanisix]

Anecdotally, female gamers prefer games with less cumbersome controls. Also apparently more girls than usual are buying DS. Females are an untapped market, pretty much, and this is exactly what Nintendo is targetting by trying to make games easier to play. The only game any of my female friends ever play on a consistent basis is Eyetoy. I wonder why.

Heh, that may be true, quite frankly. Simple controls may be the reason I like to play LoZ and SSBM... Relatively simple control interface (no complex hcf+p motions, simple button layout, etc.) and relatively enjoyable.

But you also make it seem like all female gamers prefer games with simple controls (though it may just be my crappy comprehension skills).. I know that there are some games out there that are all complex and big and whatnot control-wise that I like, such as Halo 2 or Marvel vs. Capcom 2 or Resident Evil. Heh.

Admittedly, you make many VERY good points, gofreak. Definetly one of the more intelligent members of GAF from what I've observed.

 

[psycho_snake]

This is what Nintendo need to do to become a serious competitor.

To Mr. Iwata

-Design the console so that its looks nice, make it look like a DVD player or something that people can be proud of putting on their TV trolley. Also remember, Purple does not make you look cool.

-Use a format that third party developers are happy with, No, not back to cartridges and not disks as small as your dicks. How about trying to use Blu-ray next gen, if not that, how about HD-DVD

-Your a big japanese company, right, so how about making good relations with other big japanese companies, yes, thats right, youre not the only comapny in the world, there are others. Try and get major titles on your consoles and convince the companies that you have learned from your mistakes (I would love to see that actually happen) and that putting their major title games on your consoles will result in big sales.