Gaming Wii

[James]

[quote name='joshdude89']Even though I am a fan of Nintendo I am worried how the new controller will work with new Zelda Games and other games I think it will work a little strange. It makes me wonder if Nintendo will come out with a second controller that works more like normal controllers for certain games[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Honestly, I don't think you need to worry. Nintendo will be producing a "traditional" shell for the controller, as indicated by others here. However, the design shown on IGN is just a mock-up; nobody really knows what it will look like.

Having said that, it won't be necessary to use the shell all that often, I don't think. Most games will be designed with the new controller in mind, so they will not require the shell. Zelda, for example, will be designed specifically for the new controller - it will not play as the older Zelda games have.

In terms of backwards compatibility, it's obvious that the freestyle controller can be turned on its side to produce a NES layout. However, you can also plug in your GameCube controllers, which means that pretty much any game would be playable.

I think you'll find that the new controller will give added precision and intuitiveness to existing genres (especially FPS, as Nintendo has already pointed out). But it's one of those things, you just have to try it and see how it works. At this point I think the worries are pretty unfounded, especially based on the impressions that are already out there.[/font]

[Charles]

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']Having said that, it won't be necessary to use the shell all that often, I don't think. Most games will be designed with the new controller in mind, so they will not require the shell. Zelda, for example, will be designed specifically for the new controller - it will not play as the older Zelda games have.[/font][/quote]

Yeah wow, when I imagine how terrific the fishing mini games will become, I can't help but to feel anxious. Also, swinging Link's sword with the controller would help alleviate the stale feeling attached to the combat engine. :drool:

Even objects such as the wand from Wind Waker would adopt an entirely new level of depth and enjoyment.

[Athrun Zula]

[SIZE=2]Honestly, I don't think you need to worry. Nintendo will be producing a "traditional" shell for the controller, as indicated by others here.

they wont the closest thing is a a joy stick connector [/SIZE]

[satan665]

[QUOTE=Athrun Zula][SIZE=2]Honestly, I don't think you need to worry. Nintendo will be producing a "traditional" shell for the controller, as indicated by others here.

they wont the closest thing is a a joy stick connector [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

We'll just have to keep a box of controller parts next to our Nintendos, and build our controller based on the game.

I actually have a hard time imagining all these different controller attachments. Do you figure on having the regular remote control style one, the left hand analog stick and the "classic" controller?

Will developers choose to make their own attachments?

It should be interesting.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think many attachments will be needed, though.

Some games will probably play with just the freestyle controller, but most games (at least the more "traditional" ones) will probably utilize the nunchuku style controller most of the time. I imagine that the traditional controller shell will mostly only be used by third parties and for backwards compatibility purposes.

The nunchuku controller can really play any kind of game you can think of. Because the freestyle controller acts as a 3D mouse, the need for a second analog stick is eliminated. On top of that, you have four main buttons (Z1, Z2 and A, B) as well as a D-Pad, which is within reach of your thumb (if you look at the size of the controller, you'll find that the D-Pad can be used while you are pressing the B trigger on the back).

So, my feeling is that most games will use this control system. It strikes a good balance between what we know and something entirely new.

Of course, IGN recently showed their own mock-up of a shotgun attachment, which could theoretically have the freestyle controller inserted into it. Obviously that sort of stuff can happen - but I think the game could still be played fine by just holding the freestyle controller itself (though obviously it would be less authentic, even though games like Goldeneye and Halo never required a gun peripheral).

Also, if you look at traditional peripherals (such as the bongo drums or the light gun), those controllers had to do everything themselves - they were complete controllers.

However, Revolution doesn't require all-new controllers...it only requires attachments. This means that they should be significantly cheaper than entirely new, full controllers. Does that make sense? The shotgun peripheral would only be a "shell" to slide over the freestyle controller - it would not require its own gyroscopic sensors or a pointing device on the tip, because it simply utilises what the standard controller already has.

So because these new components are only components and do not need to have the full tech of a controller, I imagine the price should be very cheap indeed.

One thing that would be interesting is if they released special edition attachments now and then. To give you a lame example, a new Harry Potter game might come out with a wand attachment that slides over the freestyle controller - it's unnecessary, but it hides the controller and makes it look just like a wand from the novel/film. That sort of thing would be interesting and would probably be dirt cheap to make. Any kind of attachment could be produced in this way though - they could release a special "RE5"-themed shotgun attachment for example.

I can imagine the customization there being even greater than faceplates and so on. Lots of possibilities with that, given that we're only talking about shells and attachments, rather than full controllers.[/font]

[50 cent]

I really don't see a need for going back to the gamecube controllers at all, because the nunchuk idea actually is very comfortable. I say this is because there was a wireless controller designed for the xbox that wasn't really known and you could split it in half and have each hand be at your side and play efficiently, and it was easy and comfortable. So the revolution controller with the analog stick attachment should be fairly easy and comfortable.

[Athrun Zula]

[SIZE=2]I found out this morning that on one of the sides that they will hav conectors for the old type of controller so i'm sorry for the earlyer remark but i still want to get it and giv it a chance u never no[/SIZE]

[Guest Warmaster]

I think that while the controller allows for some really cool new play styles, it's not something to get excited about prematurely. I don't think any game has been good or better than another by virtue of the control capabilities of the system it is on. So, let's wait until Nintendo comes out with something *good* for the Revolution, and then decide that the controller is worth having over the traditional.

After all, Superman 64 doesn't exactly show that analog joysticks are better than standard 8-way directional pads.

Of course, it is a cool design, and I look forward to trying it out next year.

[JULES]

What about mario 64 and the N64 controller? or Gran tourismo with the GT4 branded wheel? Or Duck hunt with the light gun, Dance, Dance revolution with a dance matt?

Oh Titus made superman64, where as Nintendo have made a couple of slightly good games.

[James]

[quote name='Warmaster']I think that while the controller allows for some really cool new play styles, it's not something to get excited about prematurely. I don't think any game has been good or better than another by virtue of the control capabilities of the system it is on. So, let's wait until Nintendo comes out with something *good* for the Revolution, and then decide that the controller is worth having over the traditional.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you just have to look at the history of games.

Imagine if you'd had to play Super Mario Bros. on the original digital joysticks? Those giant, unresponsive controllers would have destroyed that game. The directional pad was as critical to the SMB experience as the SMB was to the NES.

There are many examples. Super Mario 64, for instance? Imagine playing that with a D-Pad versus an analog stick - if you've played Super Mario 64 DS, you know what I'm talking about. There's no comparison between the experiences - Super Mario 64 was clearly suited to the analog stick and no other mechanism. It was designed around that style of control.

I mean, technically you could probably try to play The Wind Waker on the bongo controller for GameCube. But that wouldn't exactly be intuitive, would it? Therefore, I think it's clear that games are not only designed for specific control styles...but that those styles help to define the game experience.

Considering that Nintendo established gameplay for analog sticks, I don't think it's premature to expect that they can create Revolution software that can only be properly enjoyed on that system's controller.[/font]
[quote=Warmaster]
After all, Superman 64 doesn't exactly show that analog joysticks are better than standard 8-way directional pads.

[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, but Superman 64 isn't really a great example, because it was universally canned by just about everyone. Super Mario 64 was really a defining game in the history of the entire industry...so a game like Superman 64 was probably never going to really be the best demonstration of 3D analog control. ^_^;[/font]

[Guest Warmaster]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]I think you just have to look at the history of games.

Imagine if you'd had to play Super Mario Bros. on the original digital joysticks? Those giant, unresponsive controllers would have destroyed that game. The directional pad was as critical to the SMB experience as the SMB was to the NES.

There are many examples. Super Mario 64, for instance? Imagine playing that with a D-Pad versus an analog stick - if you've played Super Mario 64 DS, you know what I'm talking about. There's no comparison between the experiences - Super Mario 64 was clearly suited to the analog stick and no other mechanism. It was designed around that style of control.

I mean, technically you could probably try to play The Wind Waker on the bongo controller for GameCube. But that wouldn't exactly be intuitive, would it? Therefore, I think it's clear that games are not only designed for specific control styles...but that those styles help to define the game experience.

Considering that Nintendo established gameplay for analog sticks, I don't think it's premature to expect that they can create Revolution software that can only be properly enjoyed on that system's controller.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, but Superman 64 isn't really a great example, because it was universally canned by just about everyone. Super Mario 64 was really a defining game in the history of the entire industry...so a game like Superman 64 was probably never going to really be the best demonstration of 3D analog control. ^_^;[/font][/QUOTE]


You missed the point. What I am saying is, is Mario 64 better than Super Mario Bros. 3? Is Ocarina better than Link to the Past? You may think they are, but even so, is it because of the controller you are using, or is it something else about the game? It's not a question of playability alone, it's something else about game design that makes games "good". I am not saying they will not make something that will work *best* or *only* on the Revolution. I am saying that we don't know yet if they will make something that is no doubt better than something that can be done with a traditional controller. That is why I am holding off judgment until I see what sort of playing experiences we will be enjoying.

[James]

[quote name='Warmaster']You missed the point. What I am saying is, is Mario 64 better than Super Mario Bros. 3? Is Ocarina better than Link to the Past? You may think they are, but even so, is it because of the controller you are using, or is it something else about the game? It's not a question of playability alone, it's something else about game design that makes games "good". I am not saying they will not make something that will work *best* or *only* on the Revolution. I am saying that we don't know yet if they will make something that is no doubt better than something that can be done with a traditional controller. That is why I am holding off judgment until I see what sort of playing experiences we will be enjoying.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think that it matters whether these games are "better". I think that's a bit of a non-issue.

I mean, do you really directly compare Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros. 3? The two are both Mario games, but they are also very different games in their own right. Comparing a 3D game with a 2D game is difficult due to those differences.

My point was that Super Mario 64 worked partly due to great game design and partly due to the controller - the controller was integral to the experience. The game would not have worked on any other type of controller, because it was designed around that control method.

So, whether Revolution games are "better" than what you've played before is 100% subjective. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not those games are designed around the controller and whether or not they can really only be truly experienced with that type of input device. If the games can be enjoyed on any other controller, the new controller's design will therefore be pointless.

I think a game is fun or good for many different reasons - there are reasons well beyond interaction, I'd agree with that.

But I'd say that play control is one of the most important aspects of game design - your experience with a game begins and ends with the console's controller, afterall.

So, whether or not Revolution-specific games will be "better" than any previous games will be entirely debatable at the time. I'm sure there are people who would argue that the 2D Mario games were "better" than the 3D Mario games - but nobody would doubt that Mario defined 3D gaming early on. Nobody would doubt that the 3D Mario games were as important to 3D software as the 2D Mario games were to 2D software.

So I know what you're saying, I just think that whether or not the games are "better" is almost a side-issue, because it's going to be so different for so many people.[/font]

[Guest Warmaster]

Well, I tend to get excited about *good* games or *fun* games much more readily than I do about *different* games. Donkey Konga is different, but I'd be lying if I said I think it was worth paying for Bongo Drums to play it. That's personal preference, but currently there isn't even anything to apply personal preference TO. When there is, Revolution's controller can be discussed on a more meaningful level than it is now.

[satan665]

[quote name='Warmaster']Well, I tend to get excited about *good* games or *fun* games much more readily than I do about *different* games. Donkey Konga is different, but I'd be lying if I said I think it was worth paying for Bongo Drums to play it. That's personal preference, but currently there isn't even anything to apply personal preference TO. When there is, Revolution's controller can be discussed on a more meaningful level than it is now.[/quote]

I feel the same way, they have to be good as well and not just a new direction. Since they altered the hardware itself though, its possible that nearly all of the Revolutions games will be unique because of the new control system. Hopefully games won't fall back on the traditional shell too often.

If they take a game we can pretty safely assume will be good like Metroid Prime, add a unique gameplay system with the controller and you get the best of both worlds.

A game (hypothetical) like virtual janitor where the controller gimick working like a mop or a broom would get old really fast.

[OtakuSennen]

Think about what the competition (Sony and Microsoft) are bringing to the table. A bit of an update in the graphics department, but what do you have after that? In the case of Xbox 360, some pretty and functional menus and online play, and in the case of Playstation 3.. Well, we're not quite sure yet.

My point is, aside from extra polygons and overused bump-mapping, the competing consoles aren't that different from what we have now, at least as far as games go. Hell, both controllers are practically the same now- four face buttons, D-pad, two analog sticks and four shoulder buttons- and if the only benefits you get for your $400 are shiny walls, you're paying for more of an "upgrade" than a "new generation."

The Revolution is doing something different, something that would be completely impossible to do effectively on current hardware setups, and that's something to look forward to. It's like MS and Sony are going from stick figures to oil paintings while Nintendo is going from stick figures to sculpture. Besides, then we have the controller "shell" that will allow it to work traditionally as well.

Though dreaded "use the controller to mop the floor!" tech demo launch titles are probably inevitable, I'm confident that developers will figure out how to handle it. The DS lineup is overflowing with unique and[i]worthwhile[/i]titles. It certainly wasn't that way at launch, but now that developers know what they're doing, we're getting some grade-A titles.

You have a point, though, Warmaster. There isn't much to debate over game-wise at this point, but speculation is the essence of game forums. :P

[Guest Warmaster]

[quote name='OtakuSennen'] if the only benefits you get for your $400 are shiny walls, you're paying for more of an "upgrade" than a "new generation."[/quote]
Well, then, I'm really glad we're getting a lot more than shiny walls, and you should be glad, too ^_^ In fact there are shiny walls in a lot of games already!

No current-generation console can run Oblivion, with its multitiude of independently running scripts, as well as very detailed and realistic areas. And, even ignoring the fact that "upgrade" and "new generation" do not have to mean different things, considering the level of *immersion* that a multicore system has the firepower to provide, what you are really limited by at this point is the effort that game developers are willing to put in. Immersion counts for a lot in a video game, which anyone who has played Resident Evil 4 will agree with. If the future consoles push the limits of it even further, then they will have done plenty for $400.

Heck, a top-of-the-line graphics card, which is definitely an "upgrade," will cost you $500.

I find it amusing when everyone is eagerly anticipating the next "Ocarina" or "Halo 3" (and when I think about how well the GTA series do), and yet also pretends that the game industry really needs innovation. I suppose, when GTA and Halo titles stop breaking sales records, I'll have to agree ^_^

[Shinmaru]

[quote name='Warmaster']I find it amusing when everyone is eagerly anticipating the next "Ocarina" or "Halo 3" (and when I think about how well the GTA series do), and yet also pretends that the game industry really needs innovation. I suppose, when GTA and Halo titles stop breaking sales records, I'll have to agree ^_^[/quote]

I think that the games you mentioned are really bad examples for the point you're trying to make. By 'Ocarina' I assume you're referring to Zelda... when have the Zelda games ever just been simple upgrades of each other? It's a franchise, yeah, but each sequel brings something new to the table. I haven't played Halo 2 very much at all, but I doubt that it's just 'Halo 1.5' or something. The GTA games have really pushed gameplay boundaries far beyond the norm - the leap from Vice City to San Andreas was pretty substantial, I think.

Franchises can only sell on name recognition for so long. Tomb Raider was a bankable series for a long time, but sales tanked heavily after the third game in the series. Why? Because the games never evolved much, and when they actually [i]did[/i] try to evolve they just made a mess of things. Resting on your laurels and relying on name recognition only fails in the long run. Zelda, Halo, and GTA aren't strong sellers simply because they're big name titles... people know that they will be getting a unique and worthwhile experience from these games that they wouldn't get anywhere else.

Franchises don't survive for very long if the developers don't make the effort spruce things up with each new title. I'm not saying that innovation has to be incredibly radical like what Nintendo is attempting, but the industry as a whole will stagnate very quickly if nobody dares to try something new. :)

[Guest Warmaster]

Well, for starters, by 'Ocarina' I was referring to 'Ocarina' and not Zelda. People want TTP to be like OoT, because it's a favorite title. People want improvements in successive Halos and GTAs, because they want *good games,* but they don't need overhauls of things they already like. Sequels sell because people know what to expect and they just happen to WANT what they expect. That's how successful franchises work. As soon as you start fixing something that isn't broken, you end up taking an unnecessary risk.

Now, Nintendo is in a different situation. It simply cannot compete on Sony's and Microsoft's level. If it targeted the exact same demographic as they did, it would be wiped from the market in due time. So, Nintendo is trying to attract new blood.

Also, even Nintendo is not "all about innovation," seeing as they constantly re-release titles and make formulaic sequels to games that sell very well. Innovation and Pokemon don't really seem to mix. Same goes for Mario Party, Donkey Konga, etc. And there's also Mario 64 DS to point out, and that Nintendo is pushing the fact that Revolution will make available all of Nintendo's old titles.

You shouldn't try to deny the simple truth: gamers play games they LIKE. These games do NOT have to be improvements or innovations of anything; they just have to be good. Ninja Gaiden Black is awesome, because it's more of the same... the same great gameplay, that is.

There are way too many examples to point out where innovation has played far less than even second fiddle to a simple "rearrangement" or "touch-up" of the core game design, and yet the results were blockbuster titles.

PS: Halo 2 was very much "Halo 1.5" if you were expecting it to be something really different. It has better graphics, a couple of new weapons, and a couple of new enemies. It's really the same game as Halo 1, with a few improvements. The biggest addition is the multiplayer mode, which isn't "innovation" at all. Halo 2 is actually a great example of sticking with a working formula, and it broke opening weekend sales records.

The thing is, the word "innovation" carries a lot of weight with it. For most intents, it implies a more radical change to gameplay than what we get with, say Splinter Cell 2 to Splinter Cell 3, or PGR1 to PRG2. I wouldn't call minor cosmetic enhancements to a car and a 10% upgrade in horsepower "innovative," and that is essentially what a lot of *successful* franchises have been akin to. Why? Because a cosmetic enhancement and 10% bhp upgrade to a Ferrari-level game is really all anyone needs ^_^

[GuyYouMetOnline]

[quote name='Warmaster']Also, even Nintendo is not "all about innovation," seeing as they constantly re-release titles and make formulaic sequels to games that sell very well. Innovation and Pokemon don't really seem to mix. Same goes for Mario Party, Donkey Konga, etc. And there's also Mario 64 DS to point out, and that Nintendo is pushing the fact that Revolution will make available all of Nintendo's old titles.[/quote]
Um... are you sure you understand what you're talking about? I mean, you just used Mario Party and Donkey Konga as examples that Nintendo [i]isn't[/i] about innovation. Have you ever seen another game like Donkey Konga? Didn't think so. As for Mario Party, I realize they're cranking out MP games like there's no tomorrow, but when that particular franchise began, there'd never been aything like it before, either. No, Nintendo is very much about innovation.

Yes, not every game of Nintendo's is something new, but many of them are. Oh, and don't forget the DS, a system built around the concepts of two screens and a touch screen. Definatly innovative. And look at the Revolution. Do we know much about it? No. But it's definatly innovative. Yes, Nintendo has some franchises that it sticks to, but I can't name a major game company that doesn't. And Nintendo has more innovative ideas than any other game company I can name.

[Guest Warmaster]

[QUOTE=Takuya]Um... are you sure you understand what you're talking about? I mean, you just used Mario Party and Donkey Konga as examples that Nintendo [i]isn't[/i] about innovation. Have you ever seen another game like Donkey Konga? Didn't think so. As for Mario Party, I realize they're cranking out MP games like there's no tomorrow, but when that particular franchise began, there'd never been aything like it before, either. No, Nintendo is very much about innovation.

Yes, not every game of Nintendo's is something new, but many of them are. Oh, and don't forget the DS, a system built around the concepts of two screens and a touch screen. Definatly innovative. And look at the Revolution. Do we know much about it? No. But it's definatly innovative. Yes, Nintendo has some franchises that it sticks to, but I can't name a major game company that doesn't. And Nintendo has more innovative ideas than any other game company I can name.[/QUOTE]
Well, when I said Donkey Konga, I was referring to the *franchise,* meaning Donkey Konga 2 and Donkey Konga 3. Perhaps you were not aware of these very much non-innovative titles. Whether the first title in a franchise was innovative or not is not at all what I was talking about, nor does it really matter. Successive titles in the franchises sell very well without being terribly innovative, and many franchises (fighting games, racing games, and shooters for the most part, admittedly) become very successful without so much innovation as just wonderful marketing and solid execution of the idea.

Also, I *have* seen another game like Donkey Konga. It's called Beatmania. I'm sure there are others that I'm simply unfamiliar with. But that's not the point.

Why do you bring up the DS? If you are trying to say that innovative things are successful, then sure, *some* are. But even DS had Mario 64 as its release title, which ironically is just about the least innovative release title for a system, ever.

Did you by any chance think that my point was that Nintendo is not innovative? If so, then you misunderstood what I was saying. I was simply pointing out that even Nintendo often makes decisions along the lines of "don't fix it if it's not broken."

I suppose that's all I really needed to address. I've also just realized that I have steered this thread quite far from topic. My apologies. Let's get back to discussing the Revolution, aka speculating about things we all know all too little about.

[OtakuSennen]

[QUOTE=Warmaster]Well, then, I'm really glad we're getting a lot more than shiny walls, and you should be glad, too ^_^ In fact there are shiny walls in a lot of games already!

No current-generation console can run Oblivion, with its multitiude of independently running scripts, as well as very detailed and realistic areas. And, even ignoring the fact that "upgrade" and "new generation" do not have to mean different things, considering the level of *immersion* that a multicore system has the firepower to provide, what you are really limited by at this point is the effort that game developers are willing to put in. Immersion counts for a lot in a video game, which anyone who has played Resident Evil 4 will agree with. If the future consoles push the limits of it even further, then they will have done plenty for $400.

Heck, a top-of-the-line graphics card, which is definitely an "upgrade," will cost you $500.

I find it amusing when everyone is eagerly anticipating the next "Ocarina" or "Halo 3" (and when I think about how well the GTA series do), and yet also pretends that the game industry really needs innovation. I suppose, when GTA and Halo titles stop breaking sales records, I'll have to agree ^_^[/QUOTE]And you found my weakness. Oblivion is one of the games that uses the 360 to a higher level of potential, but are 512MB of RAM and a multicore processor enough incentive to change anything? I read a while back that even Gears of War, one of the prettier upcoming 360 games, has been running on only one of the three processors. If a game runs that well on one processor, than why should the average developer bother to use these items? What is Dead or Alive 4 bringing to the table that's different? What about Perfect Dark Zero, Gun, Madden 2006, Quake 4 or Tony Hawk's American Wasteland? Apparently physics are all that some developers are looking to put out, and current-generation games have been capable of doing such things as well.

Maybe things will improve, but at this time a multicore processor seems to be more of a burden than a gift to programmers, and the thought of PS3's nine-core Cell is just hell for some.

The Revolution, like the DS, is most likely not going to destroy the competition in the video card department, but it will have its own niche of unique and enjoyable games.

Zelda's core gameplay concept has remained the same since OoT, true, but Nintendo has already stated that Twilight Princess is going to be the "last traditional Zelda," and Halo has only been around long enough for two games, which is hardly enough time to throw in some sort of 180-degree gameplay revolution. How many franchises do that in one console generation anyway?

[Guest Warmaster]

Well, the thing is, developers aren't used to working with multicore systems at all. It's hard, and it's definitely true that they would *rather* just have a system with a SINGLE very very fast processor that they can dump all the work on. However, multicore systems can do tasks that far outperform any current single-core processor, and so there is potential there to do very cool stuff.

Honestly, every single generation of consoles has done one thing only: push the boundaries of what developers can do with games. This can and has been done in many different aspects, and in a way, 360 and PS3 are just taking a different, if familiar, approach than Nintendo.

You don't have to bring anything "different" to the table in order to allow for good games. I personally can't wait for Oblivion, Gears of War, or DOA4. I know what to expect, and I know I'll enjoy the games.

What Nintendo's approach will allow for is "different" games, which is not sufficient nor necessary to make *better* games. Now, I am interested in what Revlolution will have in store for us, but I'm not gonna claim they're bringing ANYTHING to the table until I see SOMETHING. A slick controller design is great, but if hardware was the only thing that got me drooling, then I'd actually be concerned about the Revolution's firepower when it comes to cross-platform games more than anything else.

I'm also not going to ask to get "back to the topic" anymore, hehe, because I realised that there is no topic to discuss, and really that's the point I've been trying to make ^_^

[Brasil]

[quote name='Warmaster']there is no topic to discuss[/quote]
I think Peter Molyneux, IGN, Gamespot, Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto, Reggie Fils-Aime, id software, and EA might disagree with you. Not to mention Square-Enix, Peter Jackson, Tom Clancy, Retro Studios, HAL Laboratory, Capcom...the list goes on.

No topic to discuss? The entire game development community sure as hell thinks there's something to discuss, and they're professionals in the actual field.

[Guest Warmaster]

^_^ well then, if you feel so strongly about it, how about you say something new about the Revolution or its controller that hasn't been talked about to death on every forum already? I mean, we're all dying for some information here.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Warmaster']^_^ well then, if you feel so strongly about it, how about you say something new about the Revolution or its controller that hasn't been talked about to death on every forum already? I mean, we're all dying for some information here.[/quote]
I don't get what you're trying to do here (if you aren't trying to be some lame troll, that is). I get the sense you're posting in here just to argue or to be a nuisance, because you're saying there's nothing to talk about, but the very fact that Revolution has caused such a buzz in the industry should key you in that there's something to talk about here, or in other words, that there's a topic.

Revolution's controller and the philosophy behind it have created such a stir that even non-gamers are excited about it.

Case in point: I'm good friends with the department of the English Department here at Rutgers. She's around 45, I think, but you would never guess that. She's a grandmother, too, and I still can't believe it. I stop in there every so often to chat and catch up, and being the dork I am, the conversation sometimes drifts to games.

Turns out, though not surprisingly, the men in her family (her husband, her sons, her son-in-law) are keen on different aspects of video games. The younger generation...Generation H...are hardcore FPS/Halo devotees who feel right at home with the Xbox controllers and all manners of shooting games.

The older folk--those who grew up with Atari and NES, some even with experience with SNES--are turned off by the Halos because there's so much going on they can't keep track of everything on-screen and controller-wise.

I describe Revolution to Dee (we're on a first name basis, by the way) and she gets interested. Really interested. I guarantee you that when Revolution launches, her interest will simultaneously double when she sees the software, and also spread throughout her family.

So here Nintendo has a system and a controller that excites developers, media, gamers, non-gamers, and even grandmothers.

Nothing to talk about? Lack of a topic? Don't make me laugh.