Support NeoGAF

[AssMan]

Guess the only that matters to Nintendo is making a profit. They could care less about becoming #1.

 

[gofreak]

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.

I should have said "Anecdotally, females.." not "Anecdotally, female gamers". Of course, there are gals out there who are gamers and are used to the nuances and quirks of todays controllers as guy gamers. So it's not a problem for them. But from what I can see, gaming is still a predominantly male pastime, and when I look at girls who don't usually play games try to play them, you can see it is frustrating for them. My "non-gamer" gal friends like my GBA, eyetoy, sometimes monkey ball, and that's about it. I've tried introducing them to other games, but it never flies.

I should say, it's not a female thing: I simply mentioned females because they're such a large and important demographic that this phenomenon seems to apply to. My own older brother is pretty much the exact same. He bought a PS2, got Nightfire, GTA and some football games. Watching him play GTA and Nightfire was painful, and it frustrated him too. He'd ask me to come over a finish a level for him so he could move on, and it was embarrrassing how relatively easy it was for me, versus him. It definitely was a control issue. You could tell it was frustrating for him, and he only really buys football games now because he's a massive football fan. I think it applies to most non-gamers who give gaming a go, not just females. It's just that females make up a disproportionate number of non-gamers.

 

[deadhorse32]

I agree with gofreak. My sister (non-gamer) used to play with me at Super Mario world or Tetris (she is 7 year older than me, so she was probably 17/18 when playing those games). Nowaday she doesn't play game anymore and find them way too complicated. ( major reasons are controller + lack of girl friendly games )

Just a example

edit : yeah and we used to play C64 games too (Giana Sister, World Game and other )

 

[ge-man]

Guess the only that matters to Nintendo is making a profit. They could care less about becoming #1.

Well, business is about profit. If being number one means having to eat losses all time, it isn't worth it. Sony's fighting for their position because their long term goals demand that they are there at the top when convergence finally takes over the industry. Nintendo are mainly interested selling their own software and cultivating their IPs--they don't have to be the top dog to do that.

Furthermore, in spite of vast savings I doubt that they would have the financial firepower to take MS and Sony head on at their own game. They would have to partner with some one in that scenario (like Matsushita for example.) But again, their interests don't lie with determing the path in which technology must take. They wouldn't really benefit from taking up a battle that has nothing to do with their prime interests and tha could easily leave them devasted when the smoke clears.

 

[Kiriku]

I think it's hard to say what kind of games girls like...and I usually hate generalizations really...but I wouldn't say "they" prefer simple games. One of the most popular games among girls, The Sims, isn't that simple in its structure.
I'd rather not have developers dumbing down games to make them appeal to girls...instead, they should try to understand what girls really like in games...maybe let more girls develop games? Instead of handing over one-button games to girls, they should develop more games that make girls think "I need to play this, even if it means learning how to use that damn controller!".

 

[gofreak]

I think it's hard to say what kind of games girls like...and I usually hate generalizations really...but I wouldn't say "they" prefer simple games. One of the most popular games among girls, The Sims, isn't that simple in its structure.
I'd rather not have developers dumbing down games to make them appeal to girls

*sigh* No one is saying this.

...instead, they should try to understand what girls really like in games...maybe let more girls develop games? Instead of handing over one-button games to girls, they should develop more games that make girls think "I need to play this, even if it means learning how to use that damn controller!".

I would agree with this, that thematically games also seem geared toward men, and that more probably needs to be done in to appeal to the non-traditional audience in terms of game content etc. But the controller is still a major stumbling block. I know men who don't play games much at all despite owning a PS2 because they've never become accustomed to using the controller in a way that allows them to play games without frustration/embarassment. Probably if they did keep at for longer it'd click with them, but they don't have the kind of time required to do that, and it's not exactly entertaining (as entertainment should be!) - and when you're running around in circles like that with a game due to controls, there's no guarantee apparent to you that you will get the hang of it - why invest that time? To answer the question based on anecdotal evidence, they don't.

I'm not talking specifically about girls here. I highlighted them because they're disproportionately represented among "non-gamers".

If we keep making controllers more and more complicated to match the games, there will come a point where most people being introduced to games, starting from scratch, will likely never become used to the controller. If we haven't already reached that point (and I think we possibly have if you factor in impatience and the ease with which most are discouraged). Games should and will become more sophisticated. But as they begin to mirror the real world in terms of complexity and scale, our interaction with them should become more "real world" also. Not only would that be compelling for gamers from an immersion viewpoint, it'd be far more intuitive for new gamers.

 

[Kiriku]

*sigh* No one is saying this.

Maybe I interpreted you incorrectly then.
Anyway, instead of having to throw anecdotal evidence back and forth though, it would be interesting to see some real numbers (well, based on surveys at least) for how many girls vs guys are casual gamers. But on second thought, it would be more interesting to see a representative number for how many casual players overall who think the controls are too complicated.

 

[Deg]

We need more Mario.

How about a plumbing game? He's suppossed to be a plumber first? Or is he just rubbush at it?

 

[Amir0x]

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..

The hilarious thing is that Nintendo fans so constantly hate on competitors for bringing in casual non-gamers to the market because "the mainstream doesn't know shit." And yet now when Nintendo wiggles its dick around a bit and says "Hey guys, we want EVERYONE to play - come on mainstream casual gamers!" it doesn't matter that they're essentially just trying to enlarge the industry with the exact same people Nbots cry about, as long as they're doing it in a "different way." There is an underlining hypocrasy here that is hard to swallow. Even if it isn't coming from you, the undercurrent is clear.

You either want the industry a certain way or you don't. If the industry grows any larger it's just going to continue to be largely those casual non-gamers, and that's the situation we'll end up with.

Which is fine by me because I never complained about it in the first place, but some people better learn to stick with a position.

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.

The Gamecube controller is much less complicated than the PS2 and Xbox, and yet it isn't close to as popular at those two. If "less complicated" is one of the determining factors in how "popular" something is or how appealing it is to casual non-gamers, then what is the reason it failed? Yes, the Gamecube controller is still 'too complicated' by your standards, but that doesn't explain why the least complicated controller this gen didn't cause people to flock to that system. I mean, the buttons were freakin' color coded and size coded.

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.

Thanks, this entire post is anecdotal. Until you can provide a scientific poll that says girls don't want "cubersome" controls (quoting it because controllers are not cumbersome) don't even bother going here.

My sister adores her PS2 and Gamecube. And my ex-girlfriend used to play Devil May Cry, and she was as casual as it comes. In fact, I know a lot of girls who play regular games all the time and just fucking love em'.

I guess our anecdotal cases cancel each other out, huh?

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..

If this is all about gaming, and playing good games, then we are not missing any potential here. We play amazing games all the time, and a changing interface is not going to offer comparatively better experiences simply because the interface is different. It'll just end up different with - at best - games which are equally as great as any other "normal" platform.

What you're talking about with potential is potential growth in the industry, which is fine if you're a business suit trying to make money off the videogame boom, but you're not. You're a gamer. Why do you care where the industry grows?

Now I'm almost playing devils advocate here because I want the different interface Revolution is going to bring because I love options and I love different experiences. But what you're talking about - industry growth and gaming potential - are two things that are almost entirely exclusive.

This was like the idiots who were claiming before the DS came out that because it has a different control scheme it'll offer experiences that are fundamentally better than its competitors, such as PSP. And the hilarious thing is that this is probably the furthest thing from the truth possible. Gaming experiences certainly could be called "different" on DS, but they are no more better than any other system with more "complimicated" controls.

And the great thing is? They never will be. They'll always just be equal but different. The same will apply for whatever Revolution will bring.

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.

See, this was a nice attempt to avoid the point... but you failed. The point is it doesn't matter how many people play games in comparrison to watching movies. The point is that the industry has grown exponentially over the years, and so has the amount of people playing games. If complicated controllers were preventing growth this would NOT have been happening. And the industry does not yet show any signs of slowing down. You're trying to insert something into this videogame industry that isn't happening as if it's a matter of life or death - saving it before it collapses.

It's not.

The industry WILL continue to grow regardless of any control scheme changes. Kids will be born. They will want videogames. Their mommy will buy them one. They will grow up. Their tastes will mature. They'll buy their own videogame systems and the cycle will continue.

It's that simple.

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.

The problem here is you're equating "more direct input" to "potentially more immersiveness." And the fact is immersiveness has ALWAYS lied in the game itself - the gameplay, the story, the music. I've been immersed in MANY games. And when we get this new interface with Revolution the same will apply. Same games will be immersive, some games will not. They're not going to be "more immersive" than any other platform simply because of a more direct interface.

Maybe when we reach virtual reality I'll get back to you on this subject.

 

[callous]

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.

Exactly. The above statements are the reasons why, even though I adore some of Nintendo's GC offerings and the hardware itself, I sometimes just want them to be put to sleep. Seeing something as pathetic as their desperate lashing out at the industry this generation sometimes makes me want to put them out of their embarassing misery.

It's sort of like that guy at the party who's not very cool, but he's had a few drinks too many and is now acting all tough. Everyone just wants him to shut the hell up so they can stop feeling uncomfortable.

 

[Deg]

The hilarious thing is that Nintendo fans so constantly hate on competitors for bringing in casual non-gamers to the market because "the mainstream doesn't know shit." And yet now when Nintendo wiggles its dick around a bit and says "Hey guys, we want EVERYONE to play - come on mainstream casual gamers!" it doesn't matter that they're essentially just trying to enlarge the industry with the exact same people Nbots cry about, as long as they're doing it in a "different way." There is an underlining hypocrasy here that is hard to swallow. Even if it isn't coming from you, the undercurrent is clear.

You either want the industry a certain way or you don't. If the industry grows any larger it's just going to continue to be largely those casual non-gamers, and that's the situation we'll end up with.

Which is fine by me because I never complained about it in the first place, but some people better learn to stick with a position.



The Gamecube controller is much less complicated than the PS2 and Xbox, and yet it isn't close to as popular at those two. If "less complicated" is one of the determining factors in how "popular" something is or how appealing it is to casual non-gamers, then what is the reason it failed? Yes, the Gamecube controller is still 'too complicated' by your standards, but that doesn't explain why the least complicated controller this gen didn't cause people to flock to that system. I mean, the buttons were freakin' color coded and size coded.



Thanks, this entire post is anecdotal. Until you can provide a scientific poll that says girls don't want "cubersome" (quoting it because controllers are not cumbersome) controls don't even bother going here.

My sister adores her PS2 and Gamecube. And my ex-girlfriend used to play Devil May Cry, and she was as casual as it comes. In fact, I know a lot of girls who play regular games all the time and just fucking love em'.

I guess our anecdotal cases cancel each other out, huh?



If this is all about gaming, and playing good games, then we are not missing any potential here. We play amazing games all the time, and a changing interface is not going to offer comparatively better experiences simply because the interface is different. It'll just end up different with - at best - games which are equally as great as any other "normal" platform.

What you're talking about with potential is potential growth in the industry, which is fine if you're a business suit trying to make money off the videogame boom, but you're not. You're a gamer. Why do you care where the industry grows?

Now I'm almost playing devils advocate here because I want the different interface Revolution is going to bring because I love options and I love different experiences. But what you're talking about - industry growth and gaming potential - are two things that are almost entirely exclusive.

This was like the idiots who were claiming before the DS came out that because it has a different control scheme it'll offer experiences that are fundamentally better than its competitors, such as PSP. And the hilarious thing is that this is probably the furthest thing from the truth possible. Gaming experiences certainly could be called "different" on DS, but they are no more better than any other system with more "complimicated" controls.

And the great thing is? They never will be. They'll always just be equal but different. The same will apply for whatever Revolution will bring.



See, this was a nice attempt to avoid the point... but you failed. The point is it doesn't matter how many people play games in comparrison to watching movies. The point is that the industry has grown exponentially over the years, and so has the amount of people playing games. If complicated controllers were preventing growth this would NOT have been happening. And the industry does not yet show any signs of slowing down. You're trying to insert something into this videogame industry that isn't happening as if it's a matter of life or death - saving it before it collapses.

It's not.

The industry WILL continue to grow regardless of any control scheme changes. Kids will be born. They will want videogames. Their mommy will buy them one. They will grow up. Their tastes will mature. They'll buy their own videogame systems and the cycle will continue.

It's that simple.



The problem here is you're equating "more direct input" to "potentially more immersiveness." And the fact is immersiveness has ALWAYS lied in the game itself - the gameplay, the story, the music. I've been immersed in MANY games. And when we get this new interface with Revolution the same will apply. Same games will be immersive, some games will not. They're not going to be "more immersive" than any other platform simply because of a more direct interface.

Maybe when we reach virtual reality I'll get back to you on this subject.

you fanguys hate on GBA despite it owning everything.

 

[Amir0x]

you fanguys hate on GBA despite it owning everything.

You need some qualifiers here.

Owning "what"? "Everything" encompasses a lot. You mean owning everything with the quality of its games? Owning everything with the amount of people playing it?

I mean, throw me a line here. Not to mention I love GBA.

 

[Deg]

You need some qualifiers here.

Owning "what"? "Everything" encompasses a lot. You mean owning everything with the quality of its games? Owning everything with the amount of people playing it?

I mean, throw me a line here. Not to mention I love GBA.

Then the maoning about the mainstream buying GBA because of its... etc.

So predictable.

 

[Amir0x]

Then the maoning about the mainstream buying GBA because of its... etc.

So predictable.

Heh. Normally I could decipher these things but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at here

 

[callous]

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.

Until mind controlled games becomes possible, as human beings, our hands are our best instrument for handling other objects.

If Nintendo wants something like this to save them from impending doom:

------TITLE SCREEN-------


Click Your Tongue to Start

Options: Flash Eyelids


-----------------------------

Then they're going to have to do it without me, and I think they'll be painting themselves even further into the corner.

 

[KeithFranklin]

Do Nintendo fans ever listen to Nintendo with an ounce of skepticism?

 

[gofreak]

The hilarious thing is that Nintendo fans so constantly hate on competitors for bringing in casual non-gamers to the market because "the mainstream doesn't know shit." And yet now when Nintendo wiggles its dick around a bit and says "Hey guys, we want EVERYONE to play - come on mainstream casual gamers!" it doesn't matter that they're essentially just trying to enlarge the industry with the exact same people Nbots cry about, as long as they're doing it in a "different way." There is an underlining hypocrasy here that is hard to swallow. Even if it isn't coming from you, the undercurrent is clear.

You either want the industry a certain way or you don't. If the industry grows any larger it's just going to continue to be largely those casual non-gamers, and that's the situation we'll end up with.

Which is fine by me because I never complained about it in the first place, but some people better learn to stick with a position.

I don't know if you're directing this specifically at me or not, but I can't help but feel you are. I am passionate about this, not because I am Nintendo fan, but because I have always been big on interface. Check my posts in those "what do you want in next-gen?" threads from years ago, long before the DS or Revolution whisperings came to the fore. I've been harping on about this for a long time. I have always wanted change on this front and have always believed that it is necessary. And this isn't just about Nintendo - Sony are experimenting on this front too.

The Gamecube controller is much less complicated than the PS2 and Xbox, and yet it isn't close to as popular at those two. If "less complicated" is one of the determining factors in how "popular" something is or how appealing it is to casual non-gamers, then what is the reason it failed? Yes, the Gamecube controller is still 'too complicated' by your standards, but that doesn't explain why the least complicated controller this gen didn't cause people to flock to that system. I mean, the buttons were freakin' color coded and size coded.

It's complicated enough that it may as well be as complicated as the other controllers. It's not enough to have non-gamers "flock" to the system.

Thanks, this entire post is anecdotal. Until you can provide a scientific poll that says girls don't want "cubersome" (quoting it because controllers are not cumbersome) controls don't even bother going here.

My sister adores her PS2 and Gamecube. And my ex-girlfriend used to play Devil May Cry, and she was as casual as it comes. In fact, I know a lot of girls who play regular games all the time and just fucking love em'.

I guess our anecdotal cases cancel each other out, huh?

I would call "girls who play regular games all the time", gamers. I'm not describing them. I highlighted girls because there are probably more of them among non-gamers than men. That stands to reason if we agree that gaming remains a predominantly male past-time. I'm not even talking about casuals here. I'm talking about non-gamers - people will little to no experience of games. Most people's parents are a good test: take one of them, introduce them to Halo2, and see how quickly they pick it up. I know my experience is not unique.

I'm repeating myself, but for the unintiated, modern gamepads absolutely are cumbersome.

If this is all about gaming, and playing good games, then we are not missing any potential here. We play amazing games all the time, and a changing interface is not going to offer comparatively better experiences simply because the interface is different. It'll just end up different with - at best - games which are equally as great as any other "normal" platform.

When I talked about potential I was talking about the potential size of the market. But I do think a better interface could improve games and provide a quality differential over "gamepad" competitors, if it was a big enough leap. Of course, to be better, it has to be different from what's come before. I'm not talking about making something different for the sake of it, and I hope that's not what will be done.

What you're talking about with potential is potential growth in the industry, which is fine if you're a business suit trying to make money off the videogame boom, but you're not. You're a gamer. Why do you care where the industry grows?

In a direct manner, I'll be working in the industry, so the size of the market does matter to me. As a gamer, I think the larger the market is, the better it will be for the ultimate destination of games. To get where I, at least, want to go in games, we'll need massive budgets. Think about how much money is spent making movies. Could they do that if total movie audiences numbered in the low hundreds of millions? Or 8-10m people only went to see the most popular movies (to take a typical high end sales figure for game today)? No, you couldn't. Movies wouldn't be where they are today in terms of scale or sophisitication. The games market does need to ramp up if we are to explore more ambitious territory.

Now I'm almost playing devils advocate here because I want the different interface Revolution is going to bring because I love options and I love different experiences. But what you're talking about - industry growth and gaming potential - are two things that are almost entirely exclusive.

I think this is a matter of opinion, and I would disagree. A larger market would support greater creative diversity and the larger budgets we'll need if we're ever to hit true virtual reality. By your logic, if we want better games, the industry should shrink? Or do you think we've reached some sort of magic number for hardcore gamer bliss? That'd be nonsense. The magic number is the biggest number possible.

This was like the idiots who were claiming before the DS came out that because it has a different control scheme it'll offer experiences that are fundamentally better than its competitors, such as PSP. And the hilarious thing is that this is probably the furthest thing from the truth possible. Gaming experiences certainly could be called "different" on DS, but they are no more better than any other system with more "complimicated" controls.

For you or me they are no better as such, but I'd take my chances introducing a "non-gamer" to certain DS games over PSP games. Turning to next gen home systems, the potential for a "so much better experience" will depend on how far anyone experimenting with human-interface goes. If it's a big leap, the experience could be a lot more compelling versus traditional setups. Of course this is a matter of opinion..

In Nintendo's case, I don't expect them to go so far as to make traditional control methods look primitive. As I said before, the ultimate destination won't be reached overnight or in one generation - but at least they recognise this need and are trying. Sony are too, but I'm anticipating Nintendo's efforts a little more because I think they'll be more "stubborn" about it and push it harder.

See, this was a nice attempt to avoid the point... but you failed. The point is it doesn't matter how many people play games in comparrison to watching movies. The point is that the industry has grown exponentially over the years, and so has the amount of people playing games..

Exponential is hardly the word. It has at most doubled over the NES days - 20 years ago.

If complicated controllers were preventing growth this would NOT have been happening. And the industry does not yet show any signs of slowing down. You're trying to insert something into this videogame industry that isn't happening as if it's a matter of life or death - saving it before it collapses.

I'm not saying it'll collapse at all. I'm sure games will go on fine without such developments. But, I firmly believe that there is the potential for much more if it does happen, and I think will happen, sooner or later, and I'm hoping sooner.

The problem here is you're equating "more direct input" to "potentially more immersiveness." And the fact is immersiveness has ALWAYS lied in the game itself - the gameplay, the story, the music. I've been immersed in MANY games. And when we get this new interface with Revolution the same will apply. Same games will be immersive, some games will not. They're not going to be "more immersive" than any other platform simply because of a more direct interface.

Maybe when we reach virtual reality I'll get back to you on this subject.

I agree that it's down to the game in a major way. You can be immersed by a lot, visually, aurally. But the piece of plastic between you and the game is a major reality check, at least for me. It'll be easier to suspend your disbelief if we map instinctive and natural human motion and action to in-game action. Thus games could be more immersive than they might otherwise be with tradtional controls. I'm not saying games can't be immersive without that, I'm just saying they could be more so.

Let me clarify one thing: I'm not saying interface is a cure-all or a magic bullet for getting gaming into new audiences. For this reason, Nintendo may successfully execute on a generally applicable and intuitive interface, and not capture new audiences in the way I am deeming potentially possible, for example. There are a number of factors at play, but I do think that interface is one of the biggest, and thus am happy to see the console manufacturers tackle it.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't know if you're directing this specifically at me or not, but I can't help but feel you are. I am passionate about this, not because I am Nintendo fan, but because I have always been big on interface. Check my posts in those "what do you want in next-gen?" threads from years ago, long before the DS or Revolution whisperings came to the fore. I've been harping on about this for a long time. I have always wanted change on this front and have always believed that it is necessary. And this isn't just about Nintendo - Sony are experimenting on this front too.

I wasn't directing it at you, no. I was just saying that in general Nintendo fans - and there are a lot of examples we could turn to - cry about how mainstream gaming now is. They cry about how it's ruining the industry, and how it's stiffling gaming creativity. Now you can chalk this up to last place syndrome or whatever, but what I am saying is that there has to be a decision. Do you WANT the industry to continuing growing that way? I do. I haven't complained about it. But if you don't, why would you want any interface that would potentially increase the amount of non-gamers/casual gamers/mainstream gamers in the market? That's silly and two-faced. Again, this is not directed at you, it's just a rant I chose to center around one of your comments.

The thing that does apply between you and I is that I feel the industry will continue to grow just fine using control schemes like we have right now. I like the idea of having options with the Revolution, but it's not going to fundamentally change anything in terms of better game experiences.

It's complicated enough that it may as well be as complicated as the other controllers. It's not enough to have non-gamers "flock" to the system.

But that's not really the point. The point is that since it IS simplified it should have a proportionately bigger usebase, which it doesn't.

Therefore there are obviously many other factors that determine what system casual gamers buy.

I would call "girls who play regular games all the time", gamers. I'm not describing them. I highlighted girls because there are probably more of them among non-gamers than men. That stands to reason if we agree that gaming remains a predominantly male past-time. I'm not even talking about casuals here. I'm talking about non-gamers - people will little to no experience of games. Most people's parents are a good test: take one of them, introduce them to Halo2, and see how quickly they pick it up. I know my experience is not unique.

But that's not the point, because once a "non-gamer" starts playing games they automatically become a gamer. There's a line that you're drawing here. Someone who plays games a lot can still be a casual/mainstream gamer.

But anecodtal evidence is not going to work here. You're trying to determine the primary reason people stay away from gaming, and whether it is because of complicated controllers or not. I can tell you that I have introduced two people to DS, and both people had a comment that they didn't like the touch screen because it was TOO complicated to learn how to control it when they could just use buttons. And these are two people who almost never played a game in their lives.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a whole lot, is my point.

I'm repeating myself, but for the unintiated, modern gamepads absolutely are cumbersome.

But they're really not. They're super direct, and the only hinderance is memorizing the button layout. This can be done with a few hours of continual gaming, perhaps a little longer for someone who has never played games.

It's only cumbersome to people who don't try to learn. The only thing that will be different is the learning curve.

But I do think a better interface could improve games and provide a quality differential over "gamepad" competitors, if it was a big enough leap.

I don't. Different but equal.

In a direct manner, I'll be working in the industry, so the size of the market does matter to me. As a gamer, I think the larger the market is, the better it will be for the ultimate destination of games. To get where I, at least, want to go in games, we'll need massive budgets. Think about how much money is spent making movies. Could they do that if total movie audiences numbered in the low hundreds of millions? Or 8-10m people only went to see the most popular movies (to take a typical high end sales figure for game today)? No, you couldn't. Movies wouldn't be where they are today in terms of scale or sophisitication. The games market does need to ramp up if we are to explore more ambitious territory.

But if 8-10 million people purchase a 50 dollar game it does indeed allow you to increase the money you spend on those big profile games. With games you don't need as many people to buy games as watch movies because the revenue you bring is in proportinately equal because they're 50 dollars a pop, as opposed to 7 bucks for a movie ticket.

I think this is a matter of opinion, and I would disagree. A larger market would support greater creative diversity and the larger budgets we'll need if we're ever to hit true virtual reality. By your logic, if we want better games, the industry should shrink? Or do you think we've reached some sort of magic number for hardcore gamer bliss? That'd be nonsense. The magic number is the biggest number possible.

Creative diversity does not come from large budgets. Creative diversity comes from creative, intelligent people making creative, intelligent games.

But that said, I want the industry to grow. My whole point has BEEN that the industry should grow, and it'll continue to grow with normal controllers regardless of any fluff about needing "alternative control schemes."

For you or me they are no better as such, but I'd take my chances introducing a "non-gamer" to certain DS games over PSP games. Turning to next gen home systems, the potential for a "so much better experience" will depend on how far anyone experimenting with human-interface goes. If it's a big leap, the experience could be a lot more compelling versus traditional setups. Of course this is a matter of opinion..

Yes, it IS a matter of opinion. Now you're hitting the money tree. In the end it'll be exactly the same. The experiences won't be any more "compelling", it will simply offer something that SOME people prefer over others. And the others will go the traditional route. It does not and never will fundamentally improve games simply to have a more direct or "natural" interface. Different but equal. Again, that's my theme. It's good to have different, I love different. But it doesn't improve games. You gotta have great gameplay for that, and great gameplay will be great on any platform.

Exponential is hardly the word. It has at most doubled over the NES days - 20 years ago.

Doubling is quite a lot. Not saying there isn't room for much more growth, but I think exponential is a fine word for what happened.

I agree that it's down to the game in a major way. You can be immersed by a lot, visually, aurally. But the piece of plastic between you and the game is a major reality check, at least for me. It'll be easier to suspend your disbelief if we map instinctive and natural human motion and action to in-game action. Thus games could be more immersive than they might otherwise be with tradtional controls. I'm not saying games can't be immersive without that, I'm just saying they could be more so.

Games could be very immersive in non-traditional controls. But I do not think the level of immersiveness is ever going to be anything but negligible until virtual reality.

 

[Pimpwerx]

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..

Everyone wants this. That's why the market has been expanding and not contracting. and I will say it again, it has expanded more under Sony than under Sega and Nintendo. Gaming has become more mainstream, and I don't think it has much to do with hardware so much as the software. The leap to 3D helped, but would be nothing without the quality titles to make it worthwhile.

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.

Too complicated in that you now need to combo the worthless Z-button with other buttons to make up for the lack of a functional set of buttons in a functional layout. Again, no game makes this more apparent than Madden. You sit down with Madden on the PS2 and Xbox and it's intuitive, even for a Madden newb. You set down with Madden on the GC and it's an excercise in frustration. Canceling audibles? Forget about it. Just get it right the first time. I've mastered the controls, but not without some effort and frustration. The GC pad got the ergonomics right, but Miyamoto's Fischer-Price button layout makes me wretch.

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

So could the 50+ granny crowd. The point is? There will always be more non-market people than market people. The market will expand, but not by changing the formula that's working for your target audience. By trying to cater some of the games to a different demographic, that's one thing. Changing the way gaming is played just to cater to non-gamers is assinine. I'd like to see Nintendo try it...and fail miserably. Virtua Bomb.

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.

This is a software issue. And it's being done each and every day. Until we can read brain waves or make gyro-enabled devices cheap enough, you will have an interface that requires finger inputs. Why hasn't the keyboard changed in 30 years? Why hasn't the mouse changed in 20+? No one is thinking about it? What I'm reading is someone saying, "we need a revolution." And THEN trying frantically to find something that could fit that mold. Revolution for the sake of it will only lead to disaster. The market dictates where it should go, not a company. As drohne mentioned, the reason we have more buttons is b/c the games are becoming more complex. You want more control, you need more controller inputs. Gaming has gotten more complex b/c core gamers (which I was once one of) demand greater levels of control. It doesn't stop a company from making a game that only uses one button on the Dualshock, right? If a non-gamer can't get into a Tetris clone on the PS2, or some other super-simple game, just b/c the controller has 8-buttons, then they are worthless and should be ignored. Chances are they won't buy as many games as core gamers. The industry is built around us b/c we are the ones who take enough interest in the hobby to learn the controls, to give the feedback and MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy over a dozen games for each system we own. That tie-ratio is us, and should stay us. Why bother with flakey non-gamers who haven't commited enough time to join yet, and could just as quickly drop the habit later? Seems like controllers are being blamed for a simple software problem. Again, PR bullshit by Nintendo.

Is it?

Yes, Sony and MS are grabbing more non-gamers than Nintendo, or am I mistaken? I thought they were gaining the most marketshare. If the industry is still expanding, that must mean previous non-gamers are joining the fold now, right? Where are they going? Obviously not to 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.

Good luck to them. Call me when they've been reduced to 3rd party.

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

Yeah, b/c gaming isn't important enough to them. Want to cater to them? Write some software. I've said my piece about the abundance of potential women gamers out there. It's got nothing to do with the controller, it's about making games they like. And not lame-ass Barbie games. One of my female students plays HL2 and CoD online. Another plays Final Fantasy games non-stop. Female gamers need a hook, that's all.

It will, and it needs to.

I'll bet you $50 right now it won't. The only way the Revolution will have fewer buttons than the GC is if they replace them with a touch screen or something else that will function as an input. The PS3 and Xbox2 will have at least the same number of buttons, guaran-damn-teed.

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.

So write software for them. If the make another stupid move like the GC pad, they'll lose. Why? B/c Sony and MS are catering to the core audience (us). People who want to play Madden and SSX and GT and so on. They'll always have that, and Nintendo won't (if they do what you say). So what if Nintendo makes games for women, like Sony and MS couldn't do the same? They have more buttons, they don't have to use them all? I'll say again, you can make a single-button game for a PS2 or Xbox. You can't make 8-button games well on the GC. Advantage: Sony/MS. And even if Nintendo made some "innovative" input device, MS and Sony could pack it in with whatever game clone they make. Eye-Toy just so happened to be for a the system with the most complicated button interface. Wow, so complicated AND intuitive on the same machine. Do you see why I think the Nintendo PR is simply bullshit?

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.

Driving doesn't take that long to learn. Relatively speaking, most people become competant drivers with under an hour of stick time. Most gamers takes days or weeks of stick time to get good. Part of the draw of gaming is the challenge. But using a controller shouldn't be a challenge, and isn't so long as the software is written well. take Metroid Prime for instance. Thanks to the stupid button layout, that game was much harder to control than it should have been, and that was a marquee title for Nintendo. The game would have controlled better with a Dualshock. So much for dumn button layouts. The GC controller isn't any easier to pickup than a DS. It's just easier to play certain Nintendo games b/c they've written the software to cater to the pad. I think I should stop now b/c it's clear the theme of my post is that controllers aren't the problem, software is.

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.

The NES was the start. Yeah, going from the 2600 to the NES will be the biggest leap. That's not what I'm talking about. Nintendo's only gone down from there. Their share shrank from 55M to 45M to 30M to 15M. The market went from 70M to 90M (16bit) to 130M (32bit) to what's expected to be a bit more than that at like 150M this gen. Looks to me like the 16bit->32bit leap was the biggest. Coincidentally, that's around the time gaming became truly mainstream.

This market is small compared to other industries, but that's a lot of factors. (1) Price: How much does a movie cost? A music CD? And a game? (2) Availability: How many households are there? Gaming has a MASSIVE penetration at least here in the US. It may not be as great as PCs, but that's b/c gaming is a luxury, not a necessity. For all those gamers out there, lots share the same household and thus the same system. How many households have multiple versions of the same system compared to multiple tvs, phones, stereos and so on? (3) Time: Thankfully, games have gotten longer. On the NES, a one-day game was the norm. Games were generally smaller and shorter. With more complexity comes more time, and gamers clamor for 30hours of action. How long do you watch a single movie? Listen to music? Games take a time investment that also limits how much money can truly be earned.

For what gaming is (an expensive, time-consuming luxury), gaming is VERY mainstream. Gaming was popular from the NES to the SNES. And Sega kickstarted the push to the mainstream with their great ad campaign. Exposure...that's the key. But it didn't become mainstream until the PS1, and that's also due to the market exploding and the start of more complex and mature gaming. OGs have gotten older and now we're adults who play games. There are still little groms who will get into the market too, and so that's how things will expand. Until we start hitting the age where we basically "retire" from gaming, then the market will continue to expand. Women are the missing demographic. I don't think we need them to be considered mainstream though. Fashion and style is mainstream, and that's a largely feminine industry. They don't need to pull in a lot of men to be considered mainstream, do they? You're mainstream when you're accepted into pop culture. All the stars play games now. MAINSTREAM!

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 has kept pace, which is why it has gotten more complicated. The NES was as simple an interface as you'll get really. The DualShock still has that, but with 6 extra buttons and two analog sticks. It ADDS functionality, it doesn't take it away. You can still play a one or two-button game on a PS2. But you can't play an 8-button game on a GB or something else with a limited number of inputs. And no Eye-Toy or other gimmicky device will change that. If it hasn't happened yet, I'm not holding my breath. We all know the areas the interface will expand into. We're just waiting on the technology for it. Until then, we're gonna use controllers with buttons and sticks. Accept it. PEACE.

P.S. To sum it up for anyone not interested in reading my reply: "Controllers aren't the problem, software is. you Ycan write a simple game for the DualShock. You can't write a complex game for a GB pad." Software > Hardware.

 

[StRaNgE]

i always enjoyed the fact that the buttons on the gamecube were of different shape and size. seeing that games are using sight and feel of our senses might as well make the best out of them. sight works with graphics. feel with the controller and texture, shape, and size of everything.

i do agree that dang z button placement is bad. they should have had a second set of right left buttons fitted under the 1st set. would have been comfy and easier to use.

 

[GamerDiva]

Wow. Some people agree with me.

 

[shpankey]

I have never known Nintendo to innovate. They are pretty much the same. They make the exact same types of games as they always have. I have never enjoyed a single solitary game from Nintendo, at all. For me, their direction has always been flawed. But they have their following. So, for someone else... I am sure they're great.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Generalizing the "N-BOTS"...
This argument has been used over and over. I am a Nintendo fan, and there are lot's of others here too...but don't lump us ALL into one category. Not all of us think the same. I don't really like the "casual gaming" movement 'cos alot of people only seem to be into gaming 'cos it's the "in" thing now, but that's not to say I hate casual gamers...Why? Because not all people are the same...to lump casuals together into this kind of group is the same thing people do with me as a Nintendo fan.

Hardware shortages...
While I do believe Sony is having some trouble with producing PS2's, PSP's and the new slim PS2 all at the same time to meet demand...this is ALSO something Nintendo did last year with GCN. They're creating demand...Nintendo does it, Sony does it, MS does it. How is creating false demand around the Holiday's showing a spike in industry growth?

Industry growth...
Yes games are making more money, yes they're more popular, yes the industry continues to grow. But it's growing 'cos of it's "in" status...Hollywood & TV, the press who don't even know shit about games, grandma's...EVERYONE talks about games these days 'cos it's more "cool" to be into them. But let's seperate the people who only buy $20 games, or who only buy 3 games a year, or people who hardly even play games and are just into them 'cos of it's "in" factor and really the industry hasn't grown much. Grown in popularity yes...but those people outside the circle who COULD be into games or even once were into games but dropped them 'cos of complexity or not knowing which system to buy or time/money restraints are STILL there waiting to be properly tapped. Why do you think there's a HUGE market for Jakk's Pacific plug'n'play joysticks, Xavix & Radica games? Cheap, less complexity, easier controls/gameplay. There's growth going on, but I think it's mainly due to popularity...and that growth is mainly amoung the gaming circle...gamers who have kids/freinds/relatives that game.

What will cause growth???
I think what would really drive growth is if there were ONE standerd platform...most people who would potentially buy a game system don't 'cos they don't see the investment in buying one just to buy the "next" iteration in the next 4 years or so. Plus there's people who worry about buying the wrong system too. However, this isn't going to happen anytime soon as Nintendo, Sony & MS all are strong healthy businesses who won't stop what they're doing for themselves to better the industry as a whole. Nintendo seems to think that there IS a market of people out there who want less complexity...and I'm sorry, but I agree with that.

Why does Nintendo think the industry needs change???
Alot of people keep saying that Nintendo is using this cop-out to give themselves more relivance in the industry. I...believe that Nintendo knows what they're talking about. Yes the industry is growing, mainly in popularity, but that doesn't mean Nintendo is wrong in saying that there needs to be change. Alot of people think that Nintendo is just saying it to save face as they lose marketshare, but really look at these distinct points:
-how many companies went belly under in this generation?
-how many companies had to merge or invest in each other to stay afloat or prevent take-overs?
-how many unique small developers are now under constraints 'cos they have to rely on seregate publishers?
-how high has the cost of developement (and marketting) of games gone up?
-how many real risks have been taken?
-how far down has the Japanese (a biggy for NCL) game industry gone?
-how many big games across all platforms didn't meet expectations?
-MS & Sony are building their games business by losing money...when a stalemate comes...do they plan on losing money forever?
-what happens when graphics can't get much better...or the cost of making graphics better outweigh the money that could be made on it?
-what happens when gamers lose interest?
-poor world economy...maybe someday less need for games?
-there IS a potential with all the hardware platforms of another crash due to over-saturation
-what happens when some (especially casuals...where the industry has grown mainly)gamers just find games too complicated (and as gofreak points out...already are)?

Nowhere do I pretend to say that Nintendo is the savior of the industry, but if Sony's game business were to go down, they as a company would go down...and if MS ever came to the realization that they can't buy their way to the top and lose enough money, they'd quit this X-BOX hobby of theirs...leaving lil' Nintendo who always knows how to make a buck and who has been preparing for transformation just in case.

Please don't retort all my points 'cos really I'm not trying to start an argument. I merely wrote down some potential reasons why Nintendo may feel there needs to be change off the top of my head.

GAMECUBE controller...
Some people are using the argument that: "well if less complicated controllers = non-gamer growth, why does Nintendo have the least marketshare?" That is SO ignorant. Nintendo has less marketshare 'cos they made mistakes, their image is and has been shit and competition is more feirce than ever...it has NOTHING to do with the controller.

MY point to this topic...
I think that Nintendo can *easily* keep traditional gaming in tact AND create new ways to play games with Revolution...this argument that Nintendo is going to make ONE type of control interface that IS going to alienate traditional gaming, ports and BC is totally unfounded. Look at NDS...it has new as well as traditional functions. Thanks to JJConrad for backing me on this point too.

EDIT: forgot to finnish a sentence

 

[soundwave05]

Actually I think the biggest reason why Nintendo feels the industry needs change is because they're getting their asses kicked in the console arena now.

If the GameCube was in the same position as the PS2, you wouldn't be hearing any complaints from Nintendo, after all the PS2 might even outsell the PSone (which outsold the NES/Famicom) to become the best selling game console of all time.

Some of their other concerns are valid, but I think this is really the main reason. When they were the market leader they always tried to push a philosophy of staying with a current generation (who needs a Saturn or Playstation? We'll give you Donkey Kong Country!").

 

[pkasho]

At least the gamecube controller has the ergonomics right. I still have troubles accidentally hitting "cancel" when I want to hit "ok". This might have more to do with how every game seems to have different button layouts for these functions @_@"

I can't really think of a game that's really immersive... I mean, ya, nice graphics and music, but watching a tv and holding a controller... meh. Not that this'll likely be changed any time soon (not with the revolution either )