• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Revolution control.

only couch potatos don't want games phisical, besides as I said before, this new technique will make gamers more in-touch with their games. no more is it about the characters skill, but the players skill...

@Dakota
I'm sorry, but I don't argue with fanboys, seeing as you'll simply ignore every correct thing I say.

Nah... you just know i'm right ;)
 
Last edited:
The huge focus on motion sensor technology really wrecks the concept of the traditional video game for me...it's been tried before as various peripherals on several systems (ie NES Light Gun, SNES Super Scope, PS2 Eye Toy) and has always been met with limited success. It's not a matter of laziness that makes the controller, and now the Revolution itself, so undesirable, it's just that there is a limit to how much a controller should be able to do and what should define a controller. Games and one's prowess at games revolve around dexterity, which is an equalizer among all types of gamers, but games that involve motion can induce fatigue quickly in some gamers that would otherwise be very skilled at their craft...I, for one, don't want to be up and swinging swords, punching, touching, etc.

I'm disappointed that nintendo managed to turn the Revolution into what is basically a console version of the DS. I couldn't care less about interactivity, in fact I've found it to be hampering to the game experience. I think of the Super Scope and several arcade games I've played that involve swords and guns, as well as test Eye Toys at gaming stores, and I've found that with all of them they don't have complete accuracy; I'm concerned that a device in a controller won't even be able to stand up to what's already out; be angry at me all I want but I have very little faith in Nintendo's ability to deliver something worthwhile at this point. The fact that they haven't even revealed one game for the system makes me wonder if they rushed to make their "innovation", then sat around, puzzled, asking themselves how they could possibly apply this to anything now. I just have no idea whatsoever how this is going to be anything but awkward.
 
They're promising one, Sykora, but I think it hampers gameplay...or in some unexpected way it may enhance it from the standard Revolution "controller" <_<;
 
Chairman Kaga said:
The huge focus on motion sensor technology really wrecks the concept of the traditional video game for me...it's been tried before as various peripherals on several systems (ie NES Light Gun, SNES Super Scope, PS2 Eye Toy) and has always been met with limited success. It's not a matter of laziness that makes the controller, and now the Revolution itself, so undesirable, it's just that there is a limit to how much a controller should be able to do and what should define a controller. Games and one's prowess at games revolve around dexterity, which is an equalizer among all types of gamers, but games that involve motion can induce fatigue quickly in some gamers that would otherwise be very skilled at their craft...I, for one, don't want to be up and swinging swords, punching, touching, etc.

I'm disappointed that nintendo managed to turn the Revolution into what is basically a console version of the DS. I couldn't care less about interactivity, in fact I've found it to be hampering to the game experience. I think of the Super Scope and several arcade games I've played that involve swords and guns, as well as test Eye Toys at gaming stores, and I've found that with all of them they don't have complete accuracy; I'm concerned that a device in a controller won't even be able to stand up to what's already out; be angry at me all I want but I have very little faith in Nintendo's ability to deliver something worthwhile at this point. The fact that they haven't even revealed one game for the system makes me wonder if they rushed to make their "innovation", then sat around, puzzled, asking themselves how they could possibly apply this to anything now. I just have no idea whatsoever how this is going to be anything but awkward.

There isn't a huge focus on movement. That is just a feature they are showing right now to say, "Hey, we've got the buttons as a possiblity, as well as this new thing to attract new gamers." The idea is to make things easier to play which has been accomplished. You all against evidentally just don't get it. As I said (but evidentally no one read), there is attachments to use that are like their older systems to their controllers (just like the gamecube one in my post above.

So if you don't like what's new, then use those and you'll already be used to the controller.

As far as your remarks like "controller", it is very much so a controller. Better than any others. You just don't understand it. As I've said, at first glance, "Oh it's just a remote." But it's far more and will rule over the other gaming platforms.
 
Barry said:
There isn't a huge focus on movement. That is just a feature they are showing right now to say, "Hey, we've got the buttons as a possiblity, as well as this new thing to attract new gamers." The idea is to make things easier to play which has been accomplished.

Yes, the movement control is there as a possible option, but I have a feeling that Nintendo promised everyone when the DS was announced that the touch screen would only be there "just incase", but instead the whole system revolves around the secondary feature...I think Nintendo is going to run headlong into this and forget that the system itself should affect what games they produce for it, not the controller.

You all against evidentally just don't get it. As I said (but evidentally no one read), there is attachments to use that are like their older systems to their controllers (just like the gamecube one in my post above.

I do get it, I just don't like it. There's a difference between not understanding and simply having a preference. The attachments will definitely be a plus but motion-centric games (and probably all their flagship games will be motion-sensor heavy to force people to get used to it) will be almost unplayable with the gamecube-style controller.

As far as your remarks like "controller", it is very much so a controller. Better than any others. You just don't understand it. As I've said, at first glance, "Oh it's just a remote." But it's far more and will rule over the other gaming platforms.

It's alright to be optomistic, but it's kind of hard to say that a strange and unconventional controller will surpass two more orthodox and tested designs in quality from sight alone.

I love Nintendo as much as anyone, I've suffered as much as anyone for my patronage...I just want to make sure that they're not digging their own grave, which they seem to be on the fast track to doing at this point...
 
they're like using a pnumatic drill to dig their graves... anyway, i was reminded by this whole "motion" thing of kirby's tilt and tumble. that was probably the most frusterating game i have ever played... and, like kaga said, nintendo will like to show off all of their fancy features and make their games dependent upon such needless attributes... i don't ever want to play a game like tilt and tumble again... i won't do it! *pouts in the corner hugging his ps3 controller*
 
A lot of you are missing the point. Yes I see that it will get tiring to move the controller around all the time. And I myself wouldn't like it if I had to do it with every single game out there. Doing day and night over and over and over will kill me. But read FG's post, look at the IGN mock-up pic (to all of you that thinks that is a real controller, it isn't. It's IGN's mock-up of what Nintendo said they will do). I'm betting most games won't have the feature for the moving controller thing (Kaga has a point in saying Nintendo might run out there and make every single game revolve around that remote controller. But unlike the Rev the DS was just a side system to kill sells of the PSP. The Rev is Nintendo's next gen system so I would think they are putting work into it to make it top of the line). More or less just shooting games, flying games, Mini-Games, music stuff, maybe a few sword games, and a few other type of games. You still got the RPGs, fighting games, SSB game, racing, all the different type of sports games (right off the top of my head them are 5 different types of sports games) and lots of different types of games I can't think of right now. And how many of them shooting games, flying games etc will use the standard controller (like the mockup IGN pic). For all we know in the games it might have a option to switch from Stantard-Controller to Expansion-Controller. Where if you don't want to swing a sword all day you can just tap a button for that.
All I'm saying is, right now my point of view, you get the best of both worlds. If you love first person shooters this is for you, if you love fighting games and SSB then this is also for you.
I think before everyone pass judgement on it on not to get it you should try it first, and wait till Nintendo lets out a little more info on it. Only then we will be able to say for sure if we are going to get it or not (I'm going to get one anyway, I don't care if it's like the NES controller and is in 2D, just like I'm going to get the PS3 even if it turns out to be a game/grill system).
 
Well this actually interests me.
It's been years since I thought on investing some of my large allowance on a gaming console that wasn't a handheld. Then I saw this new control and I was just curious.
I'm going to give this new controller a chance just like I did the new English Pokemon opening XD. It doesn't hurt to try. But then there's that opposing saying "better safe than sorry"
it just depends on your view of things
 
Arcanine said:
A lot of you are missing the point. Yes I see that it will get tiring to move the controller around all the time. And I myself wouldn't like it if I had to do it with every single game out there.
This is just another step in the sucession of lightguns, dance mats, eyetoys, and more in the category. The only difference is, this is what they're basing the console around. The new features aren't much of an option, they're the succession to original gameplay. The fact of the day is, with the Revolution, traditional gameplay has become what used to be the minority gameplay-wise.

Its either...
-Traditional gameplay being the focus with [insert funky, exotic, weird, new, etc here] gameplay being the sideshow.
or
-[insert funky, exotic, weird, new, etc here] gameplay being the focus, with traditional gameplay being the sideshow.

So we're not missing the point, we've just chosen which option we prefer. And I think it's rubbish to think they would be able to integrate one into the other without annoying gamers, but we have yet to see how skilled Nintendo is at pleasing both audiences.
 
Seriously, it's not cool to be a blind fanboy, it's just annoying. To just ignore facts simply because you love a company so much.

I don't care how much of a fan of Nintendo you are. Nintendo controls 10% of the console market...10%!! Compared to Sony's 50 and X-box's 20ish? How is that not a slum?

Nintendo prides itself on being original, but there IS such a thing as being too deviant. Nintendo needs to focus it's primary base on the primary consumer. They need to make the mainstream gamer AND the hardcore gamer happy. If this is their idea for the next generation of Nintendo...I'm not down with that...
 
Dakota said:
Seriously, it's not cool to be a blind fanboy, it's just annoying. To just ignore facts simply because you love a company so much.

I don't care how much of a fan of Nintendo you are. Nintendo controls 10% of the console market...10%!! Compared to Sony's 50 and X-box's 20ish? How is that not a slum?

Nintendo prides itself on being original, but there IS such a thing as being too deviant. Nintendo needs to focus it's primary base on the primary consumer. They need to make the mainstream gamer AND the hardcore gamer happy. If this is their idea for the next generation of Nintendo...I'm not down with that...

All what Dakota have said is truth, like it or not.

Plus what they said of the scope and the gun of nes and snes. Yes they were cool, but you easily got bored with that.
 
And that's just another huge point. Because Nintendo controls so little, is conforming to gameplay that a very select few will enjoy really keep Nintendo going?

Many posters here argue that they'll still keep original gaming implemented via controller attachments(which you may have to pay for), but then where's the Revolution? And if they became dependent on this, MS and Sony have already gotten control of this market, so what's really going to boost Nintendo sales to even get past this gen?
 
Dakota said:
Seriously, it's not cool to be a blind fanboy, it's just annoying. To just ignore facts simply because you love a company so much.

I don't care how much of a fan of Nintendo you are. Nintendo controls 10% of the console market...10%!! Compared to Sony's 50 and X-box's 20ish? How is that not a slum?

Nintendo prides itself on being original, but there IS such a thing as being too deviant. Nintendo needs to focus it's primary base on the primary consumer. They need to make the mainstream gamer AND the hardcore gamer happy. If this is their idea for the next generation of Nintendo...I'm not down with that...
I'm a Nintendo FanBoy. And I do give out facts on why this controller is going to rock.

The GC has came in last in this gen's race. But it's sells wasn't that far off of the X-Box's sells (the PS2 came out a year before so you can't really count that). Yes both Sony and Microsoft has a larger market. The X-Box is a new system, and Nintendo did kind of do poorly on the GC (it would have been better off with a DVD player), I think it would have been better for them to have the standard sized CDs. And I can't really think of something new out of that system. And you have to remember, back in the days of the NES and SNES there was only 2 big console makers out there. Nintendo and Sega (and back then Nintendo owned the market). And as soon as 2 new console makers pops up and pulls in more sells then Nintendo everyone goes "OMG Nintendo isn't big anymore and it's going to hell". And you know good as well Microsoft's X-Box wouldn't be half as big if it wasn't for Halo. That is like the only thing pushing the X-Box and the 360. If they didn't have that then I couldn't see them lasting all that long.
And I might add that Nintendo owns the hand-held market. The DS has more sells then the PSP, and the GBE should be out sometime in 06 or 07 (GameBoys is Nintendo's real hand-held pusher).

If you like the GC style controller then buy a controller shell. If you don't like the remote style and you also don't like the normal style then what do you want to use? A mouse?
I don't see what's the over the top big deal downside about the controller. It's going to have a shell and it's going to be no different then the 360 and PS3 controllers (as in 1 normal controller that everyone has been using since they were a kid and got their first game system). So what's wrong with it? The only thing I see wrong with it is making people jump the gun and think it's a crazy idea when they first see a pic of it. And it's going to do it too. You'll have people that looks at it and doesn't read up on it and will just brush it off as something crazy when it isn't. It's just something new, and people is going to be ify at first. Like they were with the analog sick or CDs or hand-helds etc. Are we always going to stick with the same old stuff and never try to make games and systems and controllers better? If you think that way then we shouldn't be using CDs, we should be using cartridges. We shouldn't have 3D games, we should be back to the old 2D ones. We shouldn't have analog sicks, we should only use the D-Pad. We should go back to the days of the 8 bit games, and not the 128+ bit we have now.

What happens if Nintendo succeeds in making the next way in gaming. And just blows way them two in sells (I don't think it can beat the PS3 because you got all them nuts that just goes by power, and the 360 has a head start). And Sony and Microsoft does what Nintendo has done. What then? You going to quit gaming? Nintendo has came up with lots of great ideas that has lasted and has made it's way to other systems. I'm not saying they wouldn't have thought of it, but Nintendo came out with it first. This might just be the next thing Nintendo came out with that adds a spin on gaming and might change the way we play games in the future.

I think this might be my last post in the thread. Because if you guys have read all my posts and is still not open minded about the controller then there isn't anything more I can say.
 
ohhhh...Dakota,ryan,Zero ex,Kaga, I think it's time you bow to the winner of this debate: Arcanine!!! He can really dish out the facts! Zero, since you were pounded with awsome facts already, your curse is lifted! Go Arcanine, he's the winner, he provided facts, you provided squat, he's the winner, he's the winner!
 
The PS3 is seriously going to be the worst system (not by sales but by attributes). It's full of crap. I don't expect it to improve on the PS2 by much at all so people who plan to buy one, just remember me and you'll feel stupid after you see that the only improvement is graphics (which won't be great because they lied about it).

You guys should now understand. Nintendo is indeed reinventing the way we play games while the only competition just sticks with what works with slight graphic improvement. I mean, an admin is going to know what they are taling about and they just said basically what I did.

Arcanine, the reason the Gamecube wasn't the greatest was because their focus was to improve gameplay, not the system itself.
 
Wow, I belive I said that earlier, let's have a flash back shall we?
(funny lights fill the room as we enter the flashback!)

they aren't in a slum in gaming! the games rock! it's called 3rd party! nobody buys the games though, there in a slum of *style* everybodys got to pretty things up nowadays, heck, I would buy the revolution if the case was a cardboard box!

Also adding onto what Barry said, because the PS3 is full of "Crap" The loading time will probably be the worst con, also if you have been studing on the internet, part of their system doesn't even exist yet!
they are still trying to develop two crucal parts of their system called Blu-Ray, It is the format of disk that they are using to play in HD And Their Cell processor don' exist yet. here is a quote with a souce to prove it:
Cell processor and blu-ray dont exist yet

https://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3/4514-6464_7-31355103.html
Frag Daddy - May 19, 2005

I present my first disadvantage! (I Debate so I know this stuff, if It was earlier, I would write up a case!)
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
The PS3 is seriously going to be the worst system (not by sales but by attributes). It's full of crap. I don't expect it to improve on the PS2 by much at all so people who plan to buy one, just remember me and you'll feel stupid after you see that the only improvement is graphics (which won't be great because they lied about it).
Okay, that's full of crap. Only so much can be done to graphics because of the Cell, that doesn't mean it won't be able to provide photorealistic games, but achieving the level of realism developers are willing to work for in this generation won't take up all of the system's resources.

So what is the rest of it taken up by? By multitasking other things, like AI, dynamic weather/growth systems, providing better control over sound, letting events that take up multiple passes just jump from one core to another, and there's alot more. I'm not saying that it's 'better' than the Revolution, because that's your opinion, but it is capable of alot more than the Revolution, traditional gameplay-wise.
Arcanine said:
I'm a Nintendo FanBoy. And I do give out facts on why this controller is going to rock.

The GC has came in last in this gen's race. But it's sells wasn't that far off of the X-Box's sells (the PS2 came out a year before so you can't really count that). Yes both Sony and Microsoft has a larger market. The X-Box is a new system, and Nintendo did kind of do poorly on the GC (it would have been better off with a DVD player), I think it would have been better for them to have the standard sized CDs. And I can't really think of something new out of that system. And you have to remember, back in the days of the NES and SNES there was only 2 big console makers out there. Nintendo and Sega (and back then Nintendo owned the market). And as soon as 2 new console makers pops up and pulls in more sells then Nintendo everyone goes "OMG Nintendo isn't big anymore and it's going to hell". And you know good as well Microsoft's X-Box wouldn't be half as big if it wasn't for Halo. That is like the only thing pushing the X-Box and the 360. If they didn't have that then I couldn't see them lasting all that long.
So basically, are you saying 'Sony didn't pwn Ninty because they came out a year earlier', and 'MS didn't pwn Ninty because of Halo' ?

Aside from that, you argue that Nintendo will pick itself up because two competitors provoked them to do it in the past, so history will repeat itself?

Okay, I'm hoping we can gain an understanding here. Sony controls the market. Because Nintendo is making a console like the Revolution doesn't mean everyone's going to hop on their little wagon this time around.

And I might add that Nintendo owns the hand-held market. The DS has more sells then the PSP, and the GBE should be out sometime in 06 or 07 (GameBoys is Nintendo's real hand-held pusher).
And GBE has exactly squat to prove it's existance?
What happens if Nintendo succeeds in making the next way in gaming. And just blows way them two in sells (I don't think it can beat the PS3 because you got all them nuts that just goes by power, and the 360 has a head start). And Sony and Microsoft does what Nintendo has done. What then? You going to quit gaming? Nintendo has came up with lots of great ideas that has lasted and has made it's way to other systems. I'm not saying they wouldn't have thought of it, but Nintendo came out with it first. This might just be the next thing Nintendo came out with that adds a spin on gaming and might change the way we play games in the future.
The shell is an option, not the focus. Why buy it just to gain what we already had, and be left with a console doing less? If you use the shell, Nintendo has suceeded in creating a console less powerful than the others with no Revolution at all.

And really, it's complete rubbish to think this would be accepted as the next wave in gaming, with the hate it's recieving in forums all over the net, and how it doesn't have a stable foundation to build on.

I think this might be my last post in the thread. Because if you guys have read all my posts and is still not open minded about the controller then there isn't anything more I can say.
Sorry, but that's kinda good. You repeatedly say we're missing the point, or something to the effect, but we're not, we have our own opinions, and many of us are being open-minded about it, but the possibilities aren't endless, they're extremely limited.

And that limitation is fine if you'll love the gameplay, or just happen to be a fanboi thinking it's the best thing since sliced bread.
 
Alright, and it's true that anywhere entitles you to your own opinion, and that if anyone posts about something you're likely to be rebuttled or piggybacked? I'll do both.

Arcanine says:
The X-Box is a new system, and Nintendo did kind of do poorly on the GC (it would have been better off with a DVD player)

Arcanine, I'm not sure it even needed a DVD player. ^^;;

Barry says:
Arcanine, the reason the Gamecube wasn't the greatest was because their focus was to improve gameplay, not the system itself.

Yet I'm very sure I liked that focus, though the GCN did have its failing points. The focus on simple gaming would go uninterrupted if it weren't for what's now becoming a necessity, such as online play and DVD playing. =\

Brittany says:
Okay, I'm hoping we can gain an understanding here. Sony controls the market. Because Nintendo is making a console like the Revolution doesn't mean everyone's going to hop on their little wagon this time around.

What evidence is there that they control the market? All I've seen is their attempts at monopolising the market.
 
Back
Top