Gaming Wii

[Guest DuBB3D]

well isnt the new nintendo only playing the old games?!? well wats the use of tht with newer things coming out. because ure pretty much bettr off buyin the old system n the old game instead of buyin a new system tht the only thing it does is save space on ure surge protector..

[Petie]

[quote name='DuBB3D']well isnt the new nintendo only playing the old games?!? well wats the use of tht with newer things coming out. because ure pretty much bettr off buyin the old system n the old game instead of buyin a new system tht the only thing it does is save space on ure surge protector..[/quote][font=Verdana][color=blue]I'm not sure where you got your information but you might want to check your sources as what you said is completely wrong. Nintendo is not just releasing another GameCube in a new shell. It's a whole new system with new games and new hardware. The fact that it can play older games only adds to its appeal.[/color][/font]
[font=Verdana][color=blue][/color][/font]
[font=Verdana][color=blue]You will be able to play your GameCube games, and using original GameCube controllers too, but that does not mean there will be no new games to plan on Revolution. Had you read any of the previous posts in this thread or even just information from a trusted site, you probably would have known this. So, if you're blowing off Revolution because you think there's nothing new to it, I'd advise you do some reading ^_^[/color][/font]

[Guest Warmaster]

@Brasil: Well, for the most part my posts here have been discussing innovation and other topics related to Nintendo. However, I have also been stressing that there is indeed quite little to discuss regarding the Revolution or its controller. We know its specs, to some degree, and we know what the controller is capable of. Beyond that, we're stuck at speculation. Sure, it's fun, but it's a bit meaningless. That's all I've really been saying. I'm not trying to argue with anyone regarding the matter, because if someone disagrees then they are welcome to give me something to talk about (like a game, etc., that has been confirmed for Revolution, about which there is solid and juicy info to discuss). I'd really like that, actually ^_^

You say that Revolution's industry buzz means there's something to talk about. Well, there WAS something to talk about, and it WAS talked about, and now people are done talking. Nintendo is a real scrooge when it comes to news about their new console, so people are milking the little they have for as much as they can, but somewhere along the line it just stops being a worthwhile discussion.

Now, you mentioned the lady and how the Revolution interests *even her*. I suppose that's something neat to bring to the discussion, and I have no problem going in that direction ^_^ I suppose it was talk regarding the "possible games" and the hardware and such that I thought sorta ran out of fuel.

[Brasil]

Warmaster, you can check online and see the buzz is still happening. lol. If you're really desperate, turn on G4TV. I recently saw a roundtable with some id software head honchos, and they're still talking about Revolution's controller. IGN and Gamespot are still running pieces on it. More and more games are being added to the "Tentative Games" list every couple of days.

And I think it's incredibly likely that the types of discussions we're having here, what types of gameplay we can see, what's possible, etc., are the same types of discussions game devs are having. Everyone is excited about this.

I think it's very likely that Peter Molyneux will bring Black & White to Revolution. Even during a videoconference, he was figuring out what could be done with the game mechanics and the Revolution controller. He has a habit of talking a bit too much, but his ideas there were solid.

We can be assured that Zelda Revolution will rock our world, because you know that it's going to be designed around the controller. Twilight Princess being the "last traditional Zelda game" is going to be entirely accurate. We may have movement with the joystick nunchuk, but swordplay is not going to be hitting the A button over and over again.

After Revolution, I doubt any swordplay in any game will ever be hitting a button over and over and still well-received. It depends on how the new gameplay fares, obviously, but what doubt do we have? ~_^

Nintendo has been the only company going in the right direction the entire time. If left to Sony and Microsoft, gaming would be totally exclusive; non-gamers and casual gamers would be almost completely alienated. Come to think of it, it's come close to that in the past few years. Instead of streamlining the UI and input, we've gotten more and more buttons. Games are rarely even an N64 controller affair anymore.

Even if Revolution comes in third, it's going to change the industry for the better.

[Guest Warmaster]

^_^ If Nintendo has been the only company goingi in the "right direction" the entire time, then how come most "casual gamers" pick up PS2s and not GCNs or DSs? Let's face it, Sony and Microsoft have attracted far, far more new gamers than Nintendo has in the past few years. Nintendo has at best managed to keep its old fans and attract *some* new ones, but nothing compared to the competitors.

All three companies are kicking arse, though, Nintendo is making good money still. I think it'll be around, but as far as bringing gaming to everyone, I'd say they don't have the marketing skills to do that in the States and especially Europe. (My friends here *still* call my Gamecube an Xbox on occasion ^_^) If I were to gamble, I'd say that 360 and PS3 will attract more new gamers than the Revolution will. I may be wrong, but I'd still put money on it ^_^

Also, the Revolution's controller isn't exactly simplifying things. It is simply adding yet MORE functionality! It's not "streamlining" anything ^_^ But that's ok, because I dont know why you'd ever think there's a need to streamline what we currently have been playing with. I'm not sure anyone has really complained about there being too many buttons on the X-Box controller ^_^

A far as swordplay in the next Zelda, well, it could be really cool, or it could be really dorky and lame. Unless you have force feedback, it still won't be anything like swinging a real sword, so I don't know why it'd be any cooler than using a joystick. Adapting a "sword swinging" system to control Ninja Gaiden... that'd be really tricky wouldn't it? ^_^

We'll see if Revolution changes the industry for the better or not. I honestly have no idea either way. For instance, I don't think the DS has really changed anything about the industry as a whole. It's not as if, if Microsoft makes a handheld, they're definitely going to throw in a touch screen interface. So, we'll see, but for the time being I'd just sit tight and see what Nintendo really has up its sleeve ^_^

[James]

[quote=Warmaster]^_^ If Nintendo has been the only company goingi in the "right direction" the entire time, then how come most "casual gamers" pick up PS2s and not GCNs or DSs? Let's face it, Sony and Microsoft have attracted far, far more new gamers than Nintendo has in the past few years. Nintendo has at best managed to keep its old fans and attract *some* new ones, but nothing compared to the competitors.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think anyone was saying that Nintendo has been the only company going in the right direction. But it depends on the perspective - are you talking about the right direction in terms of developers, or in terms of consumers? Or a combination of both? It really depends.

Sony has attracted new gamers, Microsoft has not. Most Xbox owners are either multi-console owners or they have simply evolved from Nintendo 64 to Xbox (bypassing GameCube along the way).

The biggest example here is DS. All you have to do is look at the demographics data presented at TGS for evidence on how DS is doing exactly what Nintendo said it would (in regard to attracting new gamers and gamers who haven't played in a long time).[/font]

[quote=Warmaster]If I were to gamble, I'd say that 360 and PS3 will attract more new gamers than the Revolution will. I may be wrong, but I'd still put money on it ^_^
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think Xbox 360 and PS3 don't have much chance to grow the market. Why? Because it's already about as big as it's going to get - it'll continue to slowly expand, but I don't think we should expect it to do that forever. Eventually the United States and Europe are sure to feel the same kind of decline that Japan is experiencing now.

More importantly though, these new consoles do nothing new. They have expanded media functionality, but that isn't going to draw in massive amounts of new consumers. If J Allard thinks that a senior citizen is going to play Xbox 360 just for Xbox Live Arcade...he has another thing coming, lol.

That's not to say that these systems won't expand the market at all. They very well may. But Revolution is much more specificially designed for it - Xbox 360 and PS3 are designed to chase existing consumers, they haven't been built with new consumers in mind.[/font]

[quote name='Warmaster']Also, the Revolution's controller isn't exactly simplifying things. It is simply adding yet MORE functionality![/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]How do you figure? lol

It's adding more functionality in terms of movement...but the design is a dramatic simplification of what currently exists. I don't know how it can be regarded as more complicated than what's on the market today.[/font]

[quote=Warmaster] It's not "streamlining" anything ^_^ But that's ok, because I dont know why you'd ever think there's a need to streamline what we currently have been playing with. I'm not sure anyone has really complained about there being too many buttons on the X-Box controller ^_^
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this gets to the core of the matter.

First of all, you only have to look at the controller to see that it's a dramatically simplified design. Less buttons, no second analog stick and the ability to be controlled with only one hand. Bang, immediately, you've knocked off a great deal of the complexity of current controllers.

So the next question is, why would you want to do that? This is where I recommend watching Nintendo's TGS press conference. Mr. Iwata explains it in great detail.

Current hardcore gamers don't care about complexity, because we are used to it - we've had years to adjust. But what about your mother or grandmother? They haven't had years to adjust. For them, such controllers are too difficult to play with right away. Revolution is therefore designed to "create a new starting line" for all gamers, in the same way as DS's touch screen.

So the point is simple. Hardcore gamers may enjoy the feeling of freshness that comes from the controller. But most importantly, [i]new[/i] gamers will be less intimidated by a simplified and more intuitive game controller. And that will ultimately be the key to drawing in such consumers (provided that the right software is made available, but given what we've seen unfolding with DS so far, we have no reason to really doubt that).[/font]

[quote=Warmaster] far as swordplay in the next Zelda, well, it could be really cool, or it could be really dorky and lame. Unless you have force feedback, it still won't be anything like swinging a real sword, so I don't know why it'd be any cooler than using a joystick. Adapting a "sword swinging" system to control Ninja Gaiden... that'd be really tricky wouldn't it? ^_^
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this is where two aspects come in. Primarily, I think we just have to wait - we don't even know how the new Zelda will play. Secondly, I think we have to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt so far - in all of their controller innovations, they have always created games that made the most of those systems.

So I don't see any reason to doubt that this will also be true on Revolution. Nintendo's games have always been about ease of play - regardless of the controller. I cannot imagine them creating some kind of clunky and awful control system for a new Zelda on Revolution. That's not to say that it's impossible, but it's very unlikely.

Moreover, these concepts do not need to be applied to third party games. Porting Ninja Gaiden over to Revolution wouldn't mean that Team Ninja would suddenly have to make all of these weird mechanics for a game that wasn't designed for them. It would be possible to port the game over without doing any of that, but while still having a fresh feeling.

I do not believe that developers will have to re-invent the wheel everytime they make a Revolution game (though it would be nice). Any type of game can be played on this controller and some games will no doubt feel much better as a result (ie: first person shooters).[/font]

[quote=Warmaster]We'll see if Revolution changes the industry for the better or not. I honestly have no idea either way. For instance, I don't think the DS has really changed anything about the industry as a whole. It's not as if, if Microsoft makes a handheld, they're definitely going to throw in a touch screen interface. So, we'll see, but for the time being I'd just sit tight and see what Nintendo really has up its sleeve ^_^
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this just shows me that you need to do a little more reading. ~_^

Nintendo DS has already demonstrated that Nintendo's philosophy in this area is basically working out as they'd suggested it would. Not only has the system sold through more than twice the amount of PSP globally, but the software tie-in ratios are significantly higher.

But more importantly, DS is bucking various industry trends right now. As Iwata explained in his TGS speech, a new game in Japan will sell in the first week and then sales will predictably begin to decline week-on-week. So a game's best sales will occur in the first two weeks, before a sharp drop-off.

Nintendo DS games (particularly Touch Generation software) are bucking that negative industry trend. They sell lower amounts in the first week, but continue to steadily climb (or stay flat) for several weeks at a time. This is a completely different sales result to industry standards.

Also, demographics data has shown that DS software is consistently drawing non-gamers and "ex-gamers" back into the market, which partially explains this sales behavior. Such software has performed particularly well with both women and older people (those above 45 years of age).

So, DS has (and is) doing a lot for the industry. Once you know about these things, the picture with Revolution becomes a little clearer, I think. ^_^[/font]

[Guest Warmaster]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]Sony has attracted new gamers, Microsoft has not. Most Xbox owners are either multi-console owners or they have simply evolved from Nintendo 64 to Xbox (bypassing GameCube along the way).

The biggest example here is DS. All you have to do is look at the demographics data presented at TGS for evidence on how DS is doing exactly what Nintendo said it would (in regard to attracting new gamers and gamers who haven't played in a long time).[/font][/quote]
Are you serious about Xbox not having attracted new gamers? Do you just ignore the fact that every generation of consoles has kids growing up that receive one of *these* as their first console? And, what, they don't ever get Xboxes, cause umm they do...
Here in the UK in particular, it seems to me that people are more keen on playing the Xbox than he Gamecube, especially if they've never played games before.
And to be clear I was discussing the three home consoles; not handhelds. The DS has likely attracted more new gamers proportionally than Xbox. As far as *actual numbers* of new gamers, I don't know, but it may well be less.

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]More importantly though, these new consoles do nothing new. They have expanded media functionality, but that isn't going to draw in massive amounts of new consumers. If J Allard thinks that a senior citizen is going to play Xbox 360 just for Xbox Live Arcade...he has another thing coming, lol.

That's not to say that these systems won't expand the market at all. They very well may. But Revolution is much more specificially designed for it - Xbox 360 and PS3 are designed to chase existing consumers, they haven't been built with new consumers in mind.[/font][/quote]
Hmm well are you saying that consoles have basically reached full market saturation in the "young adult" demographic, and that the only place left for consoles to conqure is the retirees?

As it stands, the system design has still less to do with attracting new customers than marketing does. Here, Nintendo has been doing such a piss-poor job at marketing that I'm not surprised at all that people think my Cube is an Xbox -_- I don't know how they do in Japan, and they may well be kicking arse so hard and winning over so many non-gamers that what I'm saying is just total rubbish. From what you're saying, I would have to assume that's the case ^_^

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]How do you figure? lol

It's adding more functionality in terms of movement...but the design is a dramatic simplification of what currently exists. I don't know how it can be regarded as more complicated than what's on the market today.[/font][/quote]
Well, seeing as it is capable of as much as the GCN controller *and more* I would have to say that it's not any simpler. Sure, if you only use some of the buttons and some of the functionality, it'll be simple, but so is any GCN racing game where you use the joystick and two buttons and that's it. Considering all that the controller is capable of at once, it's a bit strange to say that it is more streamlined. Games that utilize it may have you use only a fraction of the controller's abilities, therefore "streamlining" the interface, but that's something you can do with current-generation controllers as well.

Plus, it's not "controller complexity" that's standing in the way of expanding the market. A lot of people use rather complex "entertainment" equipment but don't play games. It's more about marketing than anything else.


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this gets to the core of the matter.

First of all, you only have to look at the controller to see that it's a dramatically simplified design. Less buttons, no second analog stick and the ability to be controlled with only one hand. Bang, immediately, you've knocked off a great deal of the complexity of current controllers.[/font][/quote]
No, you've knocked off a great deal of the functionality by losing that second joystick and those buttons, and added more such as pointer control and rotational sensors. You'd be insane to tell me that games such as Mario Tennis aren't bought by non-gamers due to controller complexity. It's marketing, simple as that.

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]So the next question is, why would you want to do that? This is where I recommend watching Nintendo's TGS press conference. Mr. Iwata explains it in great detail.

Current hardcore gamers don't care about complexity, because we are used to it - we've had years to adjust. But what about your mother or grandmother? They haven't had years to adjust. For them, such controllers are too difficult to play with right away. Revolution is therefore designed to "create a new starting line" for all gamers, in the same way as DS's touch screen.

So the point is simple. Hardcore gamers may enjoy the feeling of freshness that comes from the controller. But most importantly, [i]new[/i] gamers will be less intimidated by a simplified and more intuitive game controller. And that will ultimately be the key to drawing in such consumers (provided that the right software is made available, but given what we've seen unfolding with DS so far, we have no reason to really doubt that).[/font][/quote]
Believe me, I don't know anyone who has needed years to adjust to Mario Party or Mario Tennis or Pokemon. Learning curves have nothing to do with the controller and everything to do with the control *scheme*. Now, it is maybe simpler to just wave a controller around than use an analog stick, and that's a good thing for people who just can't muster up the coordination to use it as even a four-way all-or-nothing control, but it will still come down to marketing to make the Revolution a hit with *any* demgraphic.

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this is where two aspects come in. Primarily, I think we just have to wait - we don't even know how the new Zelda will play. Secondly, I think we have to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt so far - in all of their controller innovations, they have always created games that made the most of those systems.

So I don't see any reason to doubt that this will also be true on Revolution. Nintendo's games have always been about ease of play - regardless of the controller. I cannot imagine them creating some kind of clunky and awful control system for a new Zelda on Revolution. That's not to say that it's impossible, but it's very unlikely.

Moreover, these concepts do not need to be applied to third party games. Porting Ninja Gaiden over to Revolution wouldn't mean that Team Ninja would suddenly have to make all of these weird mechanics for a game that wasn't designed for them. It would be possible to port the game over without doing any of that, but while still having a fresh feeling.

I do not believe that developers will have to re-invent the wheel everytime they make a Revolution game (though it would be nice). Any type of game can be played on this controller and some games will no doubt feel much better as a result (ie: first person shooters).[/font][/quote]
Right, well that's why I also said we should just wait and see ^_^...

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this just shows me that you need to do a little more reading. ~_^

Nintendo DS has already demonstrated that Nintendo's philosophy in this area is basically working out as they'd suggested it would. Not only has the system sold through more than twice the amount of PSP globally, but the software tie-in ratios are significantly higher.

But more importantly, DS is bucking various industry trends right now. As Iwata explained in his TGS speech, a new game in Japan will sell in the first week and then sales will predictably begin to decline week-on-week. So a game's best sales will occur in the first two weeks, before a sharp drop-off.

Nintendo DS games (particularly Touch Generation software) are bucking that negative industry trend. They sell lower amounts in the first week, but continue to steadily climb (or stay flat) for several weeks at a time. This is a completely different sales result to industry standards.

Also, demographics data has shown that DS software is consistently drawing non-gamers and "ex-gamers" back into the market, which partially explains this sales behavior. Such software has performed particularly well with both women and older people (those above 45 years of age).

So, DS has (and is) doing a lot for the industry. Once you know about these things, the picture with Revolution becomes a little clearer, I think. ^_^[/font][/QUOTE]
Well, the "sales trend" for DS games might not look the same on a time-to-sales graph, but it's not like it's a better trend, especially if "they sell lower amounts in the first week, but continue to... stay flat.. for several weeks at a time."

When you say DS is doing a lot for the industry, you must really be limiting the industry's scope or something, because while it's doing a lot for Nintendo (well, a lot maybe in comparision to the big fat nothing that the GCN is currently doing, at least from my point of view), Microsoft, Sony, and PC game companies have largely ignored it, especially when you consider the direction they continue to take.

When I see an industry-wide trend that appears to have stemmed from the DS, then I'll agree with you that it has done *a lot* for the industry. For the time being, I remain largely unconvinced.

Also, don't speak too soon about the PSP. While I personally think the system is rubbish, it has blown the DS out of the water since its release a month-and-a-half ago. You talk a lot about Japan, but Japan's game market has been sagging for the last 5 years. USA and Europe is where gaming will probably continue to expand, and where the DS is not quite trouncing the PSP in sales.

But, sales have nothing to do with it. If the DS starts some industry-wide trend, then it'll have changed the industry. As it stands, it's simply keeping Nintendo afloat in a suffering Japanese gaming market and not much else.

But, meh, I probably won't reply in this thead futher. It's painfully boring -_-

[James]

[quote=warmaster]Are you serious about Xbox not having attracted new gamers? Do you just ignore the fact that every generation of consoles has kids growing up that receive one of *these* as their first console? And, what, they don't ever get Xboxes, cause umm they do...
Here in the UK in particular, it seems to me that people are more keen on playing the Xbox than he Gamecube, especially if they've never played games before.
And to be clear I was discussing the three home consoles; not handhelds. The DS has likely attracted more new gamers proportionally than Xbox. As far as *actual numbers* of new gamers, I don't know, but it may well be less.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The reason I mention DS while talking about home consoles is just to illustrate Nintendo's overall strategy. Handhelds are relevant there too.

In regard to Xbox, I don't doubt that plenty of younger gamers are having their first experience with that system. But that's not where the bulk of Xbox customers are coming from.

Microsoft has largely been successful by drawing away consumers from Nintendo (this actually could include younger gamers as well).[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Hmm well are you saying that consoles have basically reached full market saturation in the "young adult" demographic, and that the only place left for consoles to conqure is the retirees?
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm really talking about gamers versus non-gamers. The gamer population will continue to increase regardless, but Xbox 360 and PS3 are not really making any major attempts to cater to non-gamers. I'm sure that Xbox Live Arcade will help and I'm sure that having Blu-ray drives in PS3 will also play a role...but none of these features are going to directly impact the software, in terms of generating software that appeals to different users.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]As it stands, the system design has still less to do with attracting new customers than marketing does. Here, Nintendo has been doing such a piss-poor job at marketing that I'm not surprised at all that people think my Cube is an Xbox I don't know how they do in Japan, and they may well be kicking arse so hard and winning over so many non-gamers that what I'm saying is just total rubbish. From what you're saying, I would have to assume that's the case ^_^
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh, of course, marketing plays a role. But I think that's kind of a peripheral issue - what we're really talking about here is the product itself and who it appeals to.

Nintendo hasn't been doing so well in Japan with GameCube (though they've obviously been killing Microsoft there), but DS is really where they've been bucking market trends.

It is important to look at the DS experience because that can be extrapolated to the home market as well. If Nintendogs hadn't done well and if DS had failed, that would call into question Nintendo's entire strategy. But due to the success of the platform (and the particular demographic achievements), we can make some more accurate comments about where Revolution might be headed.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Well, seeing as it is capable of as much as the GCN controller *and more* I would have to say that it's not any simpler. Sure, if you only use some of the buttons and some of the functionality, it'll be simple, but so is any GCN racing game where you use the joystick and two buttons and that's it. Considering all that the controller is capable of at once, it's a bit strange to say that it is more streamlined. Games that utilize it may have you use only a fraction of the controller's abilities, therefore "streamlining" the interface, but that's something you can do with current-generation controllers as well.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's a much simpler controller, there's simply no two ways about it.

For instance, take a keyboard and a mouse. Some games may let me choose to move with either the keyboard or the mouse. So in essence, they can both do the same thing - but one is far more complex than the other. I'd draw that kind of analogy between other controllers and the Revolution controller.

Why is it more streamlined? Because it has less buttons and can be used comfortably with only one hand. It also relies on intuitive motion control in a 3D space, rather emphasizing the need to learn and understand an analog stick or multiple buttons. Motion can [i]replace[/i] stick and button commands, while simultaneously being more accurate.

Therefore, we can say that the controller is more intuitive/streamlined/simplistic.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Plus, it's not "controller complexity" that's standing in the way of expanding the market. A lot of people use rather complex "entertainment" equipment but don't play games. It's more about marketing than anything else.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]How can you make such a definitive statement for sure? Unless you've taken surveys with non-gamers, I can't imagine how you can make such a statement. lol

First of all, I would say that there is more to it than simply the controller. Of course, it's necessary for companies to create games that appeal to non-gamers as well. Nintendogs is a good example of that.

However, the controller is the beginning and end of the interactive experience - that's the point through which you interact with the game. As a result, the controller is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle.

Once again, I think it's worth checking out Nintendo's TGS presentation. In their own research, they found that the biggest barrier for non-gamers was the concept of using two hands quickly and nimbly on a controller - removing this psychological barrier was one way that Nintendo could encourage non-gamers to pick up the controller.

I have discovered this in my own experience too. My mother, for example, does not want to invest the time to learn to play games on current controllers. As mentioned, she doesn't have 20 years worth of learning about controllers to benefit from (as I have). So current controllers are very intimidating for her, especially because she is not generally familiar with technology.

That's why the longest time she ever spent with a game was an hour on Electroplankton. She spent that time with the game because it only required stylus control - and anyone can do that, because it is intuitive and requires no learned-skills. This is in stark contrast to current game controllers.[/font]

[quote name='warmaster']No, you've knocked off a great deal of the functionality by losing that second joystick and those buttons, and added more such as pointer control and rotational sensors. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I disagree. First of all, it's entirely dependent on the game itself - more button inputs does not necessarily make for more functionality. But moreover, if you can replace those button inputs with intuitive movement, the button inputs therefore become irrelevant.

The pointer control and rotational sensors do not add more complexity, because they can be controlled through intuitive movement. More buttons [i]does[/i] had complexity for the end user, because "two hands moving nimbly" is required to achieve the same effect.

It is easier to simply wave your hand around in mid-air than to press a million different buttons, for example. You and I would have no problem with this because we are gamers, but non-gamers may have problems with this.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]You'd be insane to tell me that games such as Mario Tennis aren't bought by non-gamers due to controller complexity. It's marketing, simple as that.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't be insane, I'd be basing my information on market research. ~_^

Marketing does play a big role, of course. But why do non-gamers avoid something like Mario Tennis or any other game? It's not just marketing - it's the product itself.

My mother might love the concept of Mario Tennis, but there's no way in hell she's going to be able to play that game. Too complex. The fast-paced movement and the necessary input with both hands is far, far too difficult for her to cope with initially. It would take a great investment of time and practice for her to become comfortable with that.

She simply isn't willing to make that time investment. This is true of most non-gamers.

It's very easy to think that because we are used to these input systems, they should be easy for everyone else too. Unfortunately that just isn't the case.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Believe me, I don't know anyone who has needed years to adjust to Mario Party or Mario Tennis or Pokemon. Learning curves have nothing to do with the controller and everything to do with the control *scheme*. Now, it is maybe simpler to just wave a controller around than use an analog stick, and that's a good thing for people who just can't muster up the coordination to use it as even a four-way all-or-nothing control, but it will still come down to marketing to make the Revolution a hit with *any* demgraphic.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's probably because you were playing the game with other gamers, or people who had played games before.

Learning curves have a [i]lot[/i] to do with the controller, in any case. If the controller is too complicated, it's going to take longer to learn your way around it. Simple as that.

Of course the implementation of that controller is important as well, but there's only so many hairs we can split in the one discussion. Fundamentally, a more complicated controller/input device is going to have a bigger chance of creating a psychological barrier for potential consumers. That barrier alone is often what's stopping people from getting into the world of video games.

Marketing will be important for Revolution, but of [i]more[/i] importance will be the game software itself.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Well, the "sales trend" for DS games might not look the same on a time-to-sales graph, but it's not like it's a better trend, especially if "they sell lower amounts in the first week, but continue to... stay flat.. for several weeks at a time."
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It [i]is[/i] a better trend, because it results in more overall sales as well as stronger hardware tie-in ratios. Many of the people who are responsible for purchasing these software titles after the first week are the same people who are buying hardware as well. Therefore, the software not only has unusual longevity in the market, but it also directly sells hardware. And that is very important.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]When you say DS is doing a lot for the industry, you must really be limiting the industry's scope or something, because while it's doing a lot for Nintendo (well, a lot maybe in comparision to the big fat nothing that the GCN is currently doing, at least from my point of view), Microsoft, Sony, and PC game companies have largely ignored it, especially when you consider the direction they continue to take.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No, I'm not limiting anything at all. How do you know that Microsoft, Sony and PC game companies have largely ignored it? How do you work that one out? lol

And I don't know how you can say that GameCube is doing nothing for Nintendo. Last I checked, they'd sold through over 18 million hardware units globally with several multi-million seller games for that system. That's certainly a "big" nothing.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]When I see an industry-wide trend that appears to have stemmed from the DS, then I'll agree with you that it has done *a lot* for the industry. For the time being, I remain largely unconvinced.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you're limiting your definitions a bit too much here though.

As I said, Nintendo DS has been bucking a downward cycle in the Japanese market. It has also clearly demonstrated that hardware power does not directly translate to market success (ie: PSP).

So the market evidence is already there. And that's about as solid as any evidence out there.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]Also, don't speak too soon about the PSP. While I personally think the system is rubbish, it has blown the DS out of the water since its release a month-and-a-half ago. You talk a lot about Japan, but Japan's game market has been sagging for the last 5 years. USA and Europe is where gaming will probably continue to expand, and where the DS is not quite trouncing the PSP in sales.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I am simply telling you the facts - the sales data suggest that DS is still outselling PSP globally by a ratio of 2:1 and with higher software tie-in ratios as well.

I'm not arguing that PSP isn't doing well in its own right, because it's doing just fine. Sales of five million units are nothing to sneeze at.

But globally - if you want to make the comparison - DS is killing it. That's simply the reality. lol

I have no idea how the future will go, maybe that will change. I'm only telling you what the reality is as of today. I'm sure there will be some specific territories where PSP is likely to fare better (such as the UK), but in terms of large territories you'll find that DS continues to outpace PSP at the present.[/font]

[quote=warmaster]But, sales have nothing to do with it. If the DS starts some industry-wide trend, then it'll have changed the industry. As it stands, it's simply keeping Nintendo afloat in a suffering Japanese gaming market and not much else.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sales have a lot to do with it, because sales are the end result. No sales, no success.

In any case, what trend does the DS need to start to have "changed the industry"? Do we need to see other companies making touch screen systems or what? I'm not sure how you define that. I don't think it matters, anyway. That stuff is all peripheral to the central issue.

DS is doing much more than keeping Nintendo afloat. It's demonstrating that on the one hand, Nintendo is able to create a new market segment beside Game Boy (which is significant). On the other hand, it is carving out a new alternative for Nintendo, third party developers and consumers. It's creating a different road, which may help to literally save game developers who cannot afford the associated costs of next generation software development.

As I said earlier, this philosophy is continued through with Revolution. So in that sense, DS and Revolution are intrinsically linked. The fact that DS is doing so well - far more than simply "keeping Nintendo afloat" (which isn't ailing in the first place) - is a demonstration that not only does Nintendo know what it's doing, but it is attempting to apply this philosophy to Revolution.

If Nintendo can do that effectively, things could look very different in the next five years, in terms of market demographics and percentage shares. You tell me not to rule out PSP so quickly, so by the same token I tell you not to rule out Nintendo so quickly. ~_^[/font]

[quote name='warmaster']I probably won't reply in this thead futher. It's painfully boring [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Then why respond at all? lol.[/font]

[Charles]

I'm surprised that no one has updated this thread with the specs that were released yesterday. Some light is finally being shed on what's under the hood. It's nothing surprising if you've been following the news but it's worth posting. This information is from IGN. If you're interested in reading it, visit their Revolution section.
[list]
[*][font=Tahoma][size=2]Revolution is not being positioned as a competitor to either Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Nintendo has instead chosen to design a console that will be very affordable for consumers[/size]. [/font]
[*][size=2]Revolution will build on GameCube's configuration of 24MBs 1T-SRAM and 16MBs D-RAM (40MBs) by adding an addition 64MBs of 1T-SRAM. The result is a supply of memory in Revolution that totals 104MBs. That number does not consider either the 512MBs of allegedly accessible (but hardly ideal) Flash RAM or the Hollywood GPU's on-board memory, said to be 3MBs by sources. [/size]
[*][size=2]Revolution's Broadway CPU, developed by IBM, is an extension of the Gekko CPU in GameCube. The Hollywood GPU, meanwhile, is [i]believed[/i] to be an extension of the Flipper GPU in GameCube. Since developers have not gone hands-on with the GPU, they can only go on Nintendo documentation, which is limited. [/size]
[*][size=2]Exact clock rates were not disclosed, but one development source we spoke to had this to say of the Revolution CPU and GPU: "Basically, take a GameCube, double the clock rate of the CPU and GPU and you're done." The clock rates may not be quite double that of GameCube however.[/size]
[*][size=2]"The CPU is the same as Gekko with one and a half to two times the performance and improved caching," said a source. "Our guys experimented with it and think they'll be able to get about twice the performance as GameCube."[/size]
[*][size=2]Revolution discs can store 4.7GBs of data on a single layer or 8.5GBs when double-layered on a single-side. This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game. [/size]
[*][size=2]Nintendo is not interested in competing in the high-definition gaming arena, and as a standard-definition console, Revolution is more than capable. Capcom's Resident Evil 4 remains one of the most gorgeous games this generation and it ran on GameCube, a console at least half as powerful according to developer reports. [/size]
[*][size=2]Every developer was in agreement that Revolution should launch with a price tag of $149 or lower. Some speculated that based on the tech, a $99 price point would not be out of the question. [/size]
[/list][size=2]All in all, I'd say that this is mostly good news. I know that a lot of people are likely to criticize the system for being underpowered but it's important to remember that without dedicating system resrouces towards high definition gaming, a system with double the power of the GameCube is probably capable of games that look comparably good to much of what we're seeing on Xbox 360. I'm sure that it will be capable of producing a lot of the latest shader techniques too, so there's not too much to worry about considering their goal.[/size]

[Semjaza]

Yeah, I also think it is important to note that none of these developers apparently have worked directly with the GPU at all. IGN seems to gloss over this as though it's not very important, but I imagine that some thoughts on its power will increase once that's available in the kits.

I was reading about some weird patent Nintendo recently got the rights to that involved some sort of graphics technique that would basically allow a comparatively less-powerful card to do some pretty crazy stuff. Who knows if it's feasible or if they're even using it.

The GameCube wound up being pretty strong. Hell, so did the PS2 near the end of its lifespan. Twice as powerful isn't so bad in my opinion... but obviously it's going to annoy some people who are bent on the whole "graphics are king" thing such as that guy at Epic.

Personally, after playing some Xbox 360 stuff, graphics aren't enough for me anymore. I don't know if the Revolution will pull off any of its new gameplay ideas well, but I hope it does. Strangely, not one of the three consoles is a definite purchase for me yet... but $150 sure as hell has my attention. For each of them I'm kind of waiting on a killer-app (all of which have one announced for me, at least, but not necessarily released yet).

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Since I've never cared about top of the line graphics, twice the performance of the GCN sounds fine to me. Games like Metroid Prime 2 Echoes, Resident Evil 4, and Zelda: Twilight Princess (what I've seen of it anyway) already look damn awesome to me.

What I [i]do[/i] care about is that low price tag. I kind of have a hard time believing the Revolution will be $150, considering that's how much the DS started out as, but it would be awesome if it happened. But even $200 or $250 would still be a long ways off from Xbox 360's $400 package. And then who knows how high the PS3 will go. I just don't have that kind of money.[/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Basically I think a lot of people just don't know how to interpret performance numbers. What this thing lacks in terms of RAM it makes up for in terms of being less complex than the competitors. I would be surprised if Nintendo opted for some kind of multi-core/multi-threaded CPU. At least now, it seems as though the CPU itself is more or less based on the GameCube's processor.

As I've said though, think about GameCube graphics and then think about a system with about four times as much RAM and a reasonably sophisticated graphics chip. You'd certainly be getting something on the level of the latest PC games in terms of graphics, I'd say.

As Tony says though, it's also true that so many details haven't been revealed. I would definitely hope for a low price point with this system - I think the end price may surprise some people.[/font]

[Bishi Big]

Would you buy a Nintendo Revolution if it were priced under 299 like GameSpot.com says that it just might be?

[Judgement]

No
Never
Not if you payed me
Rather poke my eyes out
Not even for a million dollars
Rather jump off a bridge
Rather eat vomit
After I threw it back up, I' still rather eat it
I'd rather become a vegetarian( not that there is anything wrong with that)
I'd rather stare at the sun
I'd would destory it on sight if it were near me(100 feet or less)
If someone gave me one I would beat it to a trillion pieces, then sweep the pieces up and put them in a rocket and send it to Pluto.

But seriously, no because I once had a Gamecube and it disappointed me with the titles they had. It is great for little kids and their family's but not for me.

[Bishi Big]

Fair enough. I expected atleast a couple responces like that.

[Kenshin DX]

I really hate the idea of the revolution controller. Its a remote :animesigh . A low price point is great and all but I rather have a regular controler.

[MirrIll]

[quote name='Grave Yard']I really hate the idea of the revolution controller. Its a remote :animesigh . A low price point is great and all but I rather have a regular controler.[/quote]

Have you seen the video of it in action? I was pretty turned off by the controller as well, until I saw the video. It seems that it works kind of like a light gun?

[Bishi Big]

Motion and Lazer dectection I guess haha, but yeah basic idea, I got sold by the video too, the idea of a remote as a controler first turned me off to the idea, but I like how they got it set up from the video.

[Kenshin DX]

Can someone post a link to this video? Id love to see it.

[Magus]

I can't really say that I'm a fanboy lol. (I hate all the fanboyism / fangirlism stuff)

[quote name='judgement']But seriously, no because I once had a Gamecube and it disappointed me with the titles they had. It is great for little kids and their family's but not for me.[/quote]
Agreed. Even though I started off with Nintendo, the whole "fun" concept wore off on me after owning 5 games on the N64. I don't own a gamecube because of all the kiddy / family games.... Mario party, Super Smash bros, Pokemon etc etc isn't really my cup of tea you know.

As far as the Revolution goes..... No I won't get it. Even if it was sold for $99. I've lost interest in Nintendo. The idea of a remote as a controller.... It doesn't really do a thing for me. (I'm pretty hard to please when it comes to gaming because I'm not looking for anything innovating.) And this video that's being talked about.... I'm assuming it's the same video that was shown at E3? Where they're showing different ways in how to use the controller? If so, I saw it on G4.... and it wasn't impressing.

[otakukev]

[QUOTE]I really hate the idea of the revolution controller. Its a remote . A low price point is great and all but I rather have a regular controler.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that there'll be some sort of shell that's akin to the Wavebird, so it's possible there will be games that use the traditional style of controller. Also, it's not a remote, it only looks like one.

The video shows only some of the possibilities that the Revo controller is capable of; in theory, there is an almost endless list of actions that could be performed with it. The video in no way is a complete list. As for the Revo's library, it's not exactly going to mirror the GCN's. To say the Revo will have kiddy games because the GCN/N64 had some is uninformed at best.

This is the first time I've seen Super Smash Bros referred to as a kiddy game...

[Judgement]

[quote name='otakukev']This is the first time I've seen Super Smash Bros referred to as a kiddy game...[/quote]

What I meant was that a majority of the games are childish and for little kids and their families. SSBM got an undeserved "T" rating from ESRB, too.

[Magus]

He might be talking about what I said.

Don't take it the wrong way but I find all mario games in general to be kiddy.... Even though they're family titles. (I find them one in the same) But then again... I'll use the term family titles instead from this point on.

[Morpheus]

I'll reiterate what has been said in previous threads of this nature: Clean does not equal kiddy. If you think just because a game doesn't have blood in it, you can't have any fun, you really need to get over yourself. Plus, to call an entire company kiddy (especially one that secured the best versions of 6 survival horror games) is, well, kiddy.

On the controller issue, Nintendo has realized what people want (and what they will want). Microsoft's and Sony's respective next gen controllers were made wireless because nintendo made theirs wireless. Sony created the Dualshock in response to Nintendo's analog stick and rumble pack. The button layout and D=pad on the Playstation, Playstation 2, PSP, and XBOX were modeled after the SNES controller. To believe that they are wrong with this controller would go against a 22 year history of doing everything right first. I'm sure the gyroscopes and pointers in the PS4 and next XBOX will be great...

[Magus]

[quote]I'll reiterate what has been said in previous threads of this nature: Clean does not equal kiddy. If you think just because a game doesn't have blood in it, you can't have any fun, you really need to get over yourself. Plus, to call an entire company kiddy (especially one that secured the best versions of 6 survival horror games) is, well, kiddy.[/quote]
Maybe I should reword what I said altogether. That is, if this is targeting me. Nintendo as a whole wore off on me because..... (I'm trying not to use the same excuse over and over but it seems I'm going to have to keep doing so.) I grew out of it. (That's all I can really say lol. Unless you want me to use a different way in saying that?) And if I said anything about Nintendo as a whole being a kiddy company. I apologize for that. I meant the games they were coming out with is too family oriented. (I like privacy.... I rarely play any 2 player games.... Maybe you can see where I'm getting at with the whole me not liking family titles)

[quote]If you think just because a game doesn't have blood in it, you can't have any fun, you really need to get over yourself.[/quote]
Misinterpretation. I don't care whether a game has blood or not. It has to catch my attetion and sadly none of the games for Nintendo has done any of this whatsoever. Outside of the new Zelda. Maybe I'm being narrow minded but then again that's just me. (I'm not curious about much. And I'm not willing to give many chances either.)

And then you mentioned "the best" version of the survival horrors. I haven't played it and personally..... I don't plan to either. Not a fan of that genre lol. But even so, if I wanted to play it I'd get it for the ps2. I'm a very hard person to please which is why I have a short stack of games.

I agree with you on all aspects of the controller though but what I think people don't like about it is the fact they fear it may be uncomfortable to use. I for one didn't like gamecubes controllers because it looked and felt a bit awkward. (The controllers are all the same {ps2, xbox, gc} so to speak... With the layout and such) Don't get me wrong though.... I'm not feeling the ps3's controller either. I'm hoping you can use the ps2 controller for that.

If none of that was too me...... Just skip over it.