• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Revolution - Bringing Genres Together

due to the fact that developers now have the option to change controls on the fly, and not really have to worry about people having to stop and re-learn the buttons, i think we're gonna start seeing a lot of games having chunks for many genres.

im paticularly excited about games that take a little from all kinds of genres.

games like Snatcher, that are pretty much point & click, and light gun at the same time. or a GTA style game. imagine all the different items, tools, and weapons the controller will be in the next Zelda.

i think something we'll see a lot more of is just each section or unique item in a game, will all start having its own experience.

really depends on the game obviously, but yeah, im sure you guys know what i mean.

but i can definitely see this controller doing wonders for stuff like Oblivion, Survivor/Horror, Espionage Stuff, Point & Click, and well, everything.

thoughts? genres you'd like to see molded? ideas?
 
Amir0x said:
Don't say stupid shit right at the beginning of a thread like this.

But he's right

I kid. Seriously though, I hate sports games, and I don't think even this type of controller would make me like them all of a sudden

As for the topic, Rail shooter+platformer ftw :)
 
jman2050 said:
But he's right

I kid. Seriously though, I hate sports games, and I don't think even this type of controller would make me like them all of a sudden

As for the topic, Rail shooter+platformer ftw :)

That's kind of the point, though. Sports games have always been fun. But they've also always appealed to certain people. That's not going to change, except perhaps in the amount of people that give it a chance.
 
Amir0x said:
That's kind of the point, though. Sports games have always been fun. But they've also always appealed to certain people. That's not going to change, except perhaps in the amount of people that give it a chance.

Heh, that's kind of what I wanted to say >_>

That said, it might end up allowing more interesting and intuitive controls for sports games, I don't doubt that. But that won't make them fun if you previously thought they were unfun.
 
jman2050 said:
Heh, that's kind of what I wanted to say >_>

That said, it might end up allowing more interesting and intuitive controls for sports games, I don't doubt that. But that won't make them fun if you previously thought they were unfun.

Yeah, I don't doubt that. Tennis games and baseball games in particular should benefit from it, for sure.
 
jman2050 said:
But he's right

I kid. Seriously though, I hate sports games, and I don't think even this type of controller would make me like them all of a sudden

As for the topic, Rail shooter+platformer ftw :)

That already has been done in way. Ever heard of AntiGrav?
 
Amir0x said:
Don't say stupid shit right at the beginning of a thread like this.

I agree with him, I'm a nerd so I'm not really into sports too much to begin with, but even if I was I don't think sports games today properly represent sports. Yeah they're looking more realistic, have the TV-like feel and have accurate stats and such...but with something as active as sports I don't really feel "in" the game by just holding a stationary controller in my lap. I think alot of people feel this way, even people who are REALLY into sports, sometimes can't get into sports games. Why do you think those CRAPPY Xavax (sp?) games sold so well...they're a lil' bit more active, making the interactive experience moreso than console sports games with more complex controls/graphics.

I have tons of freinds who are into Madden, but I never could get into it...if I played, I felt I was watching more than I was playing. But with this, I think (if EA takes advantage of it) things like stiff arming, passing, catching, interceptions, fumbling, fouls, etc. will not only be more realistic between players, but also a hell of alot more fun!
 
I think it would be cool if you could use the controller for like an NHL game where you hold the controller like and stick and actually shoot the puck and whatnot. :)

I'm actually kinda glad Nintendo is going in a different direction. If they didn't, they put out another system with a handful of must haves and nothing else.
 
Andrew2 said:
That already has been done in way. Ever heard of AntiGrav?

No, but you've piqued my interest. That genre is what I've been wishing for since... forever I guess.

Explain please.

Reilly said:
I think it would be cool if you could use the controller for like an NHL game where you hold the controller like and stick and actually shoot the puck and whatnot. :)

I'm actually kinda glad Nintendo is going in a different direction. If they didn't, they put out another system with a handful of must haves and nothing else.

Oh crap. Use the controller for play, and jerk it forward/backward for checks. The timing of the jerk and the accuracy determines how hard the hit is.

Okay, MAYBE I'd buy an NHL game for that :P
 
Imagine a Basketball game where you literally wave the remote back and forth to move the player's arms to block on opponents shot.


Dribbling and passing could be fun too. Short up and down movements for a regular dribble. Make a "V" shape to dribble from left-to-right hands. Then flick it to the side to make a quick side-pass. Pull the remote vertical and flcik it foward to make an overhead pass.
 
DrGAKMAN said:
I agree with him, I'm a nerd so I'm not really into sports too much to begin with, but even if I was I don't think sports games today properly represent sports. Yeah they're looking more realistic, have the TV-like feel and have accurate stats and such...but with something as active as sports I don't really feel "in" the game by just holding a stationary controller in my lap. I think alot of people feel this way, even people who are REALLY into sports, sometimes can't get into sports games. Why do you think those CRAPPY Xavax (sp?) games sold so well...they're a lil' bit more active, making the interactive experience moreso than console sports games with more complex controls/graphics.

I have tons of freinds who are into Madden, but I never could get into it...if I played, I felt I was watching more than I was playing. But with this, I think (if EA takes advantage of it) things like stiff arming, passing, catching, interceptions, fumbling, fouls, etc. will not only be more realistic between players, but also a hell of alot more fun!

You're a nerd. I'm a nerd. I love sports, and I love sports games. Sports games have always been, and will always be fun. Saying otherwise is simply inaccurate. It's better to say 'sports games never appealed to me.' But I'm sure through your tireless romps through Mario arcade sports crap that you've overlooked the near endless gems we have in the "realistic" sports game category. Because you've never felt "in" them, or because they weren't as fun as you thought they should be. Because, durr, they don't appeal to you. And your silly anecdotal story aside, Madden is one of the all time greatest selling franchises. Because football fans who are also videogame fans LOVE IT. And that's proven with sales. So it's actually palpable, instead of poor DrGAKMAN friends who HAVE NEVER SEEN THE LIGHT until the miraculous Rev controller.
 
happyfunball said:
An FPS football game where the hold the controller like a football would rock and be totally retarded at the same time.

I'm in.

Not trying to toot my own horn...I just realize that alot of people's posts get missed amoungst the larger Revolution threads. Here's my vision of how Madden might work...

Not really into sports or sports games myself so I'm no authority on how they should be made/controlled. It's quite obvious that tennis, golf & baseball would instantly benifit from this new interface. I even theorized (in the past when I talked of dual gyro control, which BTW alot of people though I was crazy then, yet it came to fruition) about a Punch Out! game where you used two of them to "shaddow box" against an on-screen opponant...which would be killer.

However, when it comes to something as popular (and pivotally important) as Madden this new control interface doesn't really seem to fit (these are fears of alot of casuals I've shown the controller to). It's possible though, by rethinking some things:
-tilt control: QB veiw "cone"
-analog: player movement
-D-PAD: jukes, dives, stiff arms (this is cool 'cos you could do these in the opposite dirrection that you're actually running)
-Z1 & Z2: turbo, leaps
-A: change receiver selection (I know Madden isn't set up this way as each button is above each receiver, but this way the QB can use the veiw "cone" more effectivly to fake out defenders following the QB's eyes and then throw it to a receiver they're not looking at to throw them off)
-B: cock arm to throw, once the QB is in this mode the ball won't be released until B is released (making strips, premature releases, fumbles and accidental bad throws more realistic)
-B + tilt control: pump fake by not letting go of the B button or let go of the B button to release after you've done a passiong motion, you flick the controller slightly then that's a short toss, you put an arch on your motion and that's a deeper pass, etc.

Overall this makes the QB possition more realistic 'cos you have to follow the motions just as in real life: move (analog), scan the feild (tilt control), choose receiver (A), cock the arm (B), do a throwing motion (tilt control) then release the ball (release B) all while being able to use more strategic moves (D-PAD) to prevent getting sacked.

Tilt control could also be used for hand motions before the play starts (same thing with baseball) in order to call plays on the fly, do audibles or even call a time out out if you see blitz. Stiff arms can also be more intense with tilt control, when trying to make a catch you can use tilt control to reach out for them better and if you're carrying the ball the possition your holding the remote-controller can simulate how you're carrying the ball...closer to your body and craddled means less likely stripping/fumbling.

Imagine four player multiplayer now. 3 on the couch, QB in chair...pivotal possitioning you see...player 1 sits next to player 2 and player 3 sits next to player 4.

Player 1- QB (goal is to throw the ball without getting sacked)
Player 2- defensive line (goal is to put pressure on the passer and/or sack them)
Player 3- receiver (goal is to get open and catch the ball)
Player 4- outside defenders (goal is to cover receivers and try to pick off passes)

Don't you see? Full contact video games, imagine stripping, interceptions, fumbles, more realistic passes and more realistic catches! I know what you're thinking...it could get violent, but they could code the remote-controllers to know when/if they get to close to one another and thus a foul (pass interface, unneccessary roughness, facemask, roughing the passer, lates hits, etc.) results...awesome IMO.
 
Amir0x said:
You're a nerd. I'm a nerd. I love sports, and I love sports games. Sports games have always been, and will always be fun. Saying otherwise is simply inaccurate. It's better to say 'sports games never appealed to me.' But I'm sure through your tireless romps through Mario arcade sports crap that you've overlooked the near endless gems we have in the "realistic" sports game category. Because you've never felt "in" them, or because they weren't as fun as you thought they should be.

What? "Roller coasters are really fun! But they don't appeal to me." Does that sound right to you? But you're right: he doesn't like sports games so he must love Mario arcade sports games. There's obviously no other option. And since where should things be a certain amount of fun? There's no fun requirement; there are no fun Nazis, except for Amir0x, I guess.
 
Y'know, not to pee in the cornflakes, but people were all a twitter at the possibilities of the Gamcube to connect with the GBA, and the payoff on that was lousy. Granted, the new controller is more substantial than that, but before a thousand new genres get created and the most popular genre in all of video games suddenly becomes "fun" (wha? I guess sports games sell so well because they're not fun?), I think having somewhat more humble expectations are in order for everyone's sake. There will probably be a few neat and original ideas along the way, but video games will not be reinvented.
 
Mihail said:
What? "Roller coasters are really fun! But they don't appeal to me." Does that sound right to you? But you're right: he doesn't like sports games so he must love Mario arcade sports games. There's obviously no other option. And since where should things be a certain amount of fun? There's no fun requirement; there are no fun Nazis, except for Amir0x, I guess.

Not all games are going to appeal to all people. Are you a fucking idiot? Games are NOT equivalent to rollercoasters. But if you want to go there, then guess what... rollercoasters DON'T appeal to everyone.
 
VALIS said:
Y'know, not to pee in the cornflakes, but people were all a twitter at the possibilities of the Gamcube to connect with the GBA, and the payoff on that was lousy. Granted, the new controller is more substantial than that, but before a thousand new genres get created and the most popular genre in all of video games suddenly becomes "fun" (wha? I guess sports games sell so well because they're not fun?), I think having somewhat more humble expectations are in order for everyone's sake. There will probably be a few neat and original ideas along the way, but video games will not be reinvented.

Don't you know? Its a REVOLUTION. The skies will crack open. Pure videogame love will shower down and old controllers will be thrown to the depths.

A pikmin in every pot.
 
Amir0x said:
Not all games are going to appeal to all people. Are you a fucking idiot? Games are NOT equivalent to rollercoasters. But if you want to go there, then guess what... rollercoasters DON'T appeal to everyone.
Uh... that's my point. Why can't you learn to debate without insulting people whose arguments you don't understand? Roller coasters don't appeal to everyone, which is why they're not fun for some people. Sports games don't appeal to everyone, which is why they're not fun for some people.
 
Amir0x said:
You're a nerd. I'm a nerd. I love sports, and I love sports games. Sports games have always been, and will always be fun. Saying otherwise is simply inaccurate. It's better to say 'sports games never appealed to me.' But I'm sure through your tireless romps through Mario arcade sports crap that you've overlooked the near endless gems we have in the "realistic" sports game category. Because you've never felt "in" them, or because they weren't as fun as you thought they should be. Because, durr, they don't appeal to you. And your silly anecdotal story aside, Madden is one of the all time greatest selling franchises. Because football fans who are also videogame fans LOVE IT. And that's proven with sales. So it's actually palpable, instead of poor DrGAKMAN friends who HAVE NEVER SEEN THE LIGHT until the miraculous Rev controller.

Woah woah woah there. I have never bought a sports game..."realistic" or "mario" so don't pit me in the usual Nintendo-only catergory that far.

Nowhere am I saying that sports games aren't fun at all...the sales #'s would prove such a comment wrong. But I believe they will be more fun/appealling to someone like me (who doesn't like sports/sports games so much) to the point I may even play or buy them myself (if I bought Madden though, it'd have to be somewhat like I described in my vision 'cos I think that would be KILLER for multiplayer gaming...full contact video games almost...it's sports afterall, it SHOULD be more active). Game genre's that are fantastical (not real) I can feel "into" with past "normal" controllers 'cos it's escaping reality and such, bla bla bla. But more realistic games like sports simulations and even FPS's I couldn't get into too much. Granted I like FPS's better and I've bought some, but, just like sports games I don't feel like I'm "in" them so much (I don't like the current dual analog/aiming system of today's controllers for FPS's).

Sorry, but I feel the freedom of the remote-controller will make all games (fantasy or realistic) more fun to play 'cos it's more involving & interactive. Sorry if that wounds your soul to the point you take offence to me say that I don't like today's sports games...but I happen to think sports games should be like sports...more ACTIVE.
 
Mihail said:
Uh... that's my point. Why can't you learn to debate without insulting people whose arguments you don't understand? Roller coasters don't appeal to everyone, which is why they're not fun for some people. Sports games don't appeal to everyone, which is why they're not fun for some people.

Then why the fuck did you respond if we agree?

DrGAKMAN said:
Woah woah woah there. I have never bought a sports game..."realistic" or "mario" so don't pit me in the usual Nintendo-only catergory that far.

I was teasing you because you write 18 page essays speculating about Nintendo's decisions. But moving off of this pointless aspect of my post...

DrGAKMAN said:
Nowhere am I saying that sports games aren't fun at all...the sales #'s would prove such a comment wrong. But I believe they will be more fun/appealling to someone like me (who doesn't like sports/sports games so much) to the point I may even play or buy them myself (if I bought Madden though, it'd have to be somewhat like I described in my vision 'cos I think that would be KILLER for multiplayer gaming...full contact video games almost...it's sports afterall, it SHOULD be more active). Game genre's that are fantastical (not real) I can feel "into" with past "normal" controllers 'cos it's escaping reality and such, bla bla bla. But more realistic games like sports simulations and even FPS's I couldn't get into too much. Granted I like FPS's better and I've bought some, but, just like sports games I don't feel like I'm "in" them so much (I don't like the current dual analog/aiming system of today's controllers for FPS's).

Sorry, but I feel the freedom of the remote-controller will make all games (fantasy or realistic) more fun to play 'cos it's more involving & interactive. Sorry if that wounds your soul to the point you take offence to me say that I don't like today's sports games...but I happen to think sports games should be like sports...more ACTIVE.

No, that's fine. The original statement was that "sports games will finally be fun." My argument was that it's bullshit, since sports games have ALWAYS been fun. They've ALWAYS had killer multiplayer. And with the recent online element, they've just got even MORE fun. So this doesn't change. What pisses me off is when people like monkeyrun, who have an agenda and never liked the genre in the first place, try to revise gaming history by making ridiculous statements. He never liked sports games, because they never appealed to him. And that's the end of it, isn't it.
 
Amir0x said:
Then why the fuck did you respond if we agree?

Because you don't agree. You said...

Sports games have always been, and will always be fun.

That just isn't true. Sports games are fun for some people and not fun for other people, that does not make them inherently "always fun". If he feels a new method to control something would make the game more fun for him, who are you to say he's incorrect. That's like saying that someone whom never enjoyed rhythm games with a controller, couldn't possibly like them using a drum or a guitar peripheral. On a side note you really should learn how to carry on a debate/conversation without insulting someone.
 
Amir0x said:
No, that's fine. The original statement was that "sports games will finally be fun." My argument was that it's bullshit, since sports games have ALWAYS been fun. They've ALWAYS had killer multiplayer. And with the recent online element, they've just got even MORE fun. So this doesn't change. What pisses me off is when people like monkeyrun, who have an agenda and never liked the genre in the first place, try to revise gaming history by making ridiculous statements. He never liked sports games, because they never appealed to him. And that's the end of it, isn't it.

Well, um, *to me*...sports games finally will be fun if the game is made like I suggested.

And...*to you*...sports games have always been fun.

Why does my opinion of sports games finally being fun for me offend you so much, but YOUR OPINION that sports games were ALWAYS fun to begin with is suddenly more valid? Just because Madden sells so well year after year your opinion is corrent and my opinion is wrong? I guess your point is to say that since I don't like sports/sports games so much to begin with that I was never gonna buy them anyways...but my point is that 'cos of this new interface I think alot of games (like sports) could get a kick in the ass and be fun for me and people like me (ya know, the TONS of Nintendo nerds who don't buy sports games, but might now thanks to this new interface). Instead of the bickering (pointless anyways), why not tell me what you think about my other post where I thought out how Madden could be mapped out to the Revolution's interface?
 
Shoryuken said:
That just isn't true. Sports games are fun for some people and not fun for other people, that does not make them inherently "always fun". If he feels a new method to control something would make the game more fun for him, who are you to say he's incorrect. That's like saying that someone whom never enjoyed rhythm games with a controller, couldn't possibly like them using a drum or a guitar peripheral. On a side note you really should learn how to carry on a debate/conversation without insulting someone.

Because sports games HAVE always been fun. Nothing changes that. A new controller doesn't change that, an old controller doesn't change that. Each and every single generation, sports games are fun. Period. How can you even make a case that it isn't true? That's the difference between the points we're arguing. I'm not saying your opinions or his aren't valid. I'm just saying its about appeal.

That's the point, though: If they don't appeal to you, they're not FUN for you personally. The key difference. Saying things like 'maybe sports game will be fun' is just stupid, since they never stopped being fun. They just never started being appealing to you.

DrGAKMAN said:
Why does my opinion of sports games finally being fun for me offend you so much, but YOUR OPINION that sports games were ALWAYS fun to begin with is suddenly more valid? Just because Madden sells so well year after year your opinion is corrent and my opinion is wrong? I guess your point is to say that since I don't like sports/sports games so much to begin with that I was never gonna buy them anyways...but my point is that 'cos of this new interface I think alot of games (like sports) could get a kick in the ass and be fun for me and people like me (ya know, the TONS of Nintendo nerds who don't buy sports games, but might now thanks to this new interface). Instead of the bickering (pointless anyways), why not tell me what you think about my other post where I thought out how Madden could be mapped out to the Revolution's interface?

Because we're arguing semantics now, basically. I'm not saying your opinion that sports games weren't fun isn't valid. I'm saying that sports games were always fun, just not for you. Because for whatever reason, it didn't appeal to you. That's the difference.

And as for your Madden speculation, I don't even want to think about that honestly. I would just prefer brand new sports franchises spring up with Rev controller in mind.
 
The revolution controller will be good for gimmicky mini-game style titles but not that great for real games (except when used with that standard controller shell).
 
Amir0x said:
Because sports games HAVE always been fun. Nothing changes that. A new controller doesn't change that, an old controller doesn't change that. Each and every single generation, sports games are fun. Period. Zero debate allowed.

That's the point, though: If they don't appeal to you, they're not FUN for you personally. The key difference. Saying things like 'maybe sports game will be fun' is just stupid, since they never stopped being fun. They just never started being appealing to you.

MAN...so sports games have ALWAYS been fun and that's a FACT? WOW.

Hey guys don't EVER argue this point with Amir0x again, his opinion is absolute and he doesn't tolerate questioning!

Now that we have established that sports games have forever and always will be fun (not an opinion anymore, it's a FACT) we can now get back on topic...
 
DrGAKMAN said:
MAN...so sports games have ALWAYS been fun and that's a FACT? WOW.

Hey guys don't EVER argue this point with Amir0x again, his opinion is absolute and he doesn't tolerate questioning!

Now that we have established that sports games have forever and always will be fun (not an opinion anymore, it's a FACT) we can now get back on topic...

Yes. It IS a fact. No shit. On the example, Rollercoasters have always been fun too.

But they don't always APPEAL to everyone. Because people always will like different things.
 
Pimpbaa said:
The revolution controller will be good for gimmicky mini-game style titles but not that great for real games (except when used with that standard controller shell).

Did you ever read how the controller is used in games? FPSers are not gimmicky minigames.
 
gamergirly said:
Did you ever read how the controller is used in games? FPSers are not gimmicky minigames.

When used with the standard controller shell maybe (point by tilting the controller around). Not with the controller itself and that little analog stick attachment.
 
Amir0x, a sports game cannot be fun by default, it depends on the game, not the genre. Sports games aren't always fun! Some are, some are not. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ruzbeh said:
Amir0x, a sports game cannot be fun by default, it depends on the game, not the genre. Sports games aren't always fun! Some are, some are not.

That fifty exclamation points thing at the end almost made me want to laugh out loud in horror. But, uh, of course it depends on the games. I would think that's the most obvious thing of all in this conversation. Something that doesn't even need to be stated. It's a general statement, meaning that there have always been sports games that have been fun. It does NOT mean that every single sports game ever made has been fun.
 
Amir0x said:
Because sports games HAVE always been fun. Nothing changes that. A new controller doesn't change that, an old controller doesn't change that. Each and every single generation, sports games are fun. Period. How can you even make a case that it isn't true? That's the difference between the points we're arguing. I'm not saying your opinions or his aren't valid. I'm just saying its about appeal.

:lol

You've got to be kidding. I have a question for you, if a certain group of individuals finds a particular activity fun, like running, is that activity inherently fun? Or even in the case of video games, if some people (or to take it a step farther a majority of people) find something like Enter the Matrix fun, does that make that game conclusively fun? I'd love to here your replies.
 
Shoryuken said:
You've got to be kidding. I have a question for you, if a certain group of individuals finds a particular activity fun, like running, is that activity inherently fun? Or even in the case of video games, if some people (or to take it a step farther a majority of people) find something like Enter the Matrix fun, does that make that game conclusively fun? I'd love to here your replies.

It's clear to me that you have missed the point like twelve times. If a certain group of people find running FUN, is it inherently fun? That's a silly question, because nothing can EVER be inherent when discussing fun. It IS, however, fun. And running was always fun... for THAT certain group of people. Running never had to START being fun, or never STOPPED being fun. It's just that the activity appealed to certain people. Using a critically panned game like Enter the Matrix doesn't really do much to help your case, except to show you're missing the point.
 
You're the one missing the point. When I state something, as an opinion mind you, like: "I don't find sports games very fun" and I give my reasons (I like fantasy games more, I'm not into sports in general and I find the idea of sitting still and watching the game isn't fun 'cos I'd rather think that a sports game should be more active, etc.) it's a general statement. But when you say, bar none, that sports games are forever "fun" (which is your opinon, granted alot of people share this opinion, but an opinion none the less) and then try to turn around and say that your nazi-like approach (again, I don't know why you were so offended by my opinion) is suddenly "just a general statement" I find you to be the one missing the point!

That whole tangent should be dropped now, our opinions differ. The dirrection I was running wasn't that sports games aren't fun ('cos obviously they are fun to alot of people), but that they could be more fun for people who don't get into them today with the whole added action the new interface can bring...I didn't have a "I hate sports games" agenda, or an "OMG, Nintendo will revolutionize all games forevermore and suddenly make unfun games fun" agenda...I was the one making the general statement and speculating on how this interface could make sports games more fun for me and people like me.
 
DrGAKMAN said:
You're the one missing the point. When I state something, as an opinion mind you, like: "I don't find sports games very fun" and I give my reasons (I like fantasy games more, I'm not into sports in general and I find the idea of sitting still and watching the game isn't fun 'cos I'd rather think that a sports game should be more active, etc.) it's a general statement. But when you say, bar none, that sports games are forever "fun" (which is your opinon, granted alot of people share this opinion, but an opinion none the less) and then try to turn around and say that your nazi-like approach (again, I don't know why you were so offended by my opinion) is suddenly "just a general statement" I find you to be the one missing the point!

That whole tangent should be dropped now, our opinions differ. The dirrection I was running wasn't that sports games aren't fun ('cos obviously they are fun to alot of people), but that they could be more fun for people who don't get into them today with the whole added action the new interface can bring...I didn't have a "I hate sports games" agenda, or an "OMG, Nintendo will revolutionize all games forevermore and suddenly make unfun games fun" agenda...I was the one making the general statement and speculating on how this interface could make sports games more fun for me and people like me.

I cannot believe we're still discussing this.

Sports games are forever fun. That's not "every single sports game" is fun, because some suck. The general statement part comes from the fact that I had to clarify for Ruzbeh that it naturally depends on the gameplay for it to be fun.

Putting that aside, you're going in circles. As am I. Because we don't disagree. You're saying exactly what I am, except using different words. You're saying sports games are fun - for certain people - and that you hope that in the future sports games will be fun to you in this way due to Rev controller. I'm saying that sports games are already fun for certain people as well, the ones they appeal to. And so, nothing changes. It's the way it has always been since gaming began.
 
Moving on...

My brother Tim is an absolute football fanatic. He's played Madden, but he doesn't know what does what. He can move and such, but people would have to explain what the other buttons do. I think he would like my concept better...and since he knows more about football I'm gonna go over my ideas and see if there's any problem with what I'm tring to envision. So far, he understands where's I'm going knowing that the new controller can recognize hand gestures...and I think he grasps the *actions* of football better than pressing all sorta of different buttons.

I really think this could take sports games to a more interactive level. For people like me who find the non-action aspect boring and to people like him who would understand actually acting it out better than memorizing button combinations, I think it's going to be killer!
 
The only problem is nintendo needs to be extra careful with the boomerang weapon in the next zelda. I can see it, some kids through the controller at the tv set and blaming the big N :lol
 
Amir0x said:
Because sports games HAVE always been fun. Nothing changes that. A new controller doesn't change that, an old controller doesn't change that. Each and every single generation, sports games are fun. Period. How can you even make a case that it isn't true? That's the difference between the points we're arguing. I'm not saying your opinions or his aren't valid. I'm just saying its about appeal.

What the fuck does it even mean to call something fun if you're not speaking from the perspective of a person? Objects aren't endowed with some universal "fun" or "boring" aspect. Those words only have meaning in the context of a person's opinion. Saying something is fun as a fact, but doesn't have appeal to certain people is drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.

Fah real.
 
Trident said:
What the fuck does it even mean to call something fun if you're not speaking from the perspective of a person? Objects aren't endowed with some universal "fun" or "boring" aspect. Those words only have meaning in the context of a person's opinion. Saying something is fun as a fact, but doesn't have appeal to certain people is drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.

Fah real.

A distinction exists only in the context of this discussion. monkeyrun said sports games might finally get fun. But they've always been fun, they've always appealed to certain people. Just not monkeyrun.
 
Amir0x said:
A distinction exists only in the context of this discussion. monkeyrun said sports games might finally get fun. But they've always been fun, they've always appealed to certain people. Just not monkeyrun.
MY HEAD A SPLODE

EDIT: Let me try this approach: what criteria would something have to meet to "[have always been fun]"?
 
Mihail said:
MY HEAD A SPLODE

EDIT: Let me try this approach: what criteria would something have to meet to "[have always been fun]"?

The criteria in question only relies on such wide generalizations. For instance "sports" has always been fun. "Shooting" has always been fun. But "game X" might not always be fun.

To make it clearer: Sports games have always been fun. But it cannot be said that Madden football has always been fun.
 
Sgt. Killjoy said:
Ami, I do think you've finally lost it.

How about sports games CAN be fun?

Killjoy, this is probably the clearest and most indisputable point of all time. If you're sitting here saying "sports games might finally be fun", you're an idiot. If you're sitting here saying "Madden might get fun", totally different story. Because ANYONE that can trash an entire genre of games by saying they've not been fun up until this point is a idiot. Thus the whole reason this discussion has started.
 
Amir0x said:
The criteria in question only relies on such wide generalizations. For instance "sports" has always been fun. "Shooting" has always been fun. But "game X" might not always be fun.

To make it clearer: Sports games have always been fun. But it cannot be said that Madden football has always been fun.
If I understand you correctly, if something is wide enough, it has to be fun, right? Burials is a pretty wide category. You have mob hits, you have funerals, you have animals putting their feces in the ground -- a LOT of stuff. So since it's such a wide category, it must have always been fun?

I know it's a ridiculous example, but I'm just trying to understand how you decide whether something has always been fun or not. There must be SOME sort of evaluation being made, and so far all you've given me is the evaluation of "How wide is this?"
 
Top Bottom