FROSTY'S FUNHOUSE

For many of you, this will be one of the most interesting rides you'll probably ever go on. My life is a bumpy journey full of of chills and thrills, so jump in and buckle up. I'll be sure to supply plenty of popcorn.

Friday, September 16, 2005

My "Revolution"-ary Opinion

As Chris Slate posted on his blog, I am impressed that Nintendo had the balls to pull off such a radical change in its next controller. I’m still getting my mind around the whole thing, but I do feel a bit excited about the potential. Speaking as a gamer first, I can imagine a bunch of cool game scenarios that the controller could be used for… and I bet (sadly) that those scenarios are ones that only Nintendo would end up creating. My only concern is going to be how much fun swinging around a controller will be eight to ten hours into a game. At that point, would I be happier if I could just do the same sorts of actions with a simple combination of buttons? Right now, I’m not sure yet, but I’m inclined to believe that some sort of boredom/fatigue is going to set in.

As a game developer, I’m truly scared of the controller. Typically, innovation is fine if you don’t force it upon people. As long as the core mechanics of a console are similar to past ones (and you build an additional layer of innovative features upon that), then the developer has free choice to add support for those features when they feel comfortable or when it truly works with the particular type of game that they are creating. Take the DS, for example. Sure, it introduces dual-screens and touch-based technology, but it does it on top of a standard handheld design with a familiar number of buttons. Technically, I could build a fighting game for that system that just utilized the enhanced processing power and the additional buttons… I don’t need to necessarily throw in an elaborate system of touch-based elements, etc. to make my game work well on the system. However, in the case of the Revolution, I am now forced (due to the extremely unique nature of the controller) to create completely different interface systems and gameplay mechanics than the ones I have in my PS3 or X360 versions of the game. This is mainly due to the lack of buttons available to me. If I don’t take advantage of the gyroscopic features, then I only really have around four main buttons to work with and one analog stick. Hmmm…. That means that I probably will have to radically change my multi-SKU game in order to cater to the Revolution’s controller. I don’t have a basic controller setup to fall back on. For most developers, that is going to be a hard sell, especially with Sony and Microsoft going more traditional routes.

Some of my thoughts and opinions may change on this topic over the next few days, so I might add to this post later on. Until then, I’ll just keep reading up on the controller and try to figure out if there is any possible way that I can translate my current game’s control scheme to it. I’m just not sure it’s possible without cutting back on a lot of stuff. Oh, well. I might not even do a Revolution (or whatever it is going to be called) version anyway. We’ll see.

UPDATE: It seems the current news is that Nintendo will also be releasing a more traditional (but optional) controller for the console. Wow, that is even scarier because it would seem to reveal that even Nintendo is not completely sure in how well the "remote control"-er will fair in the marketplace. Yikes!

On a related note, it seems that Nintendo always tries to innovate with its controllers each generation, but that innovation generally comes with a price.

  • N64
    Innovation: Introduced analog stick to modern “packed-in” controllers
    Limitation: Player couldn’t access all the buttons on the controller very easily

  • Gamecube
    Innovation: Introduced completely wireless controller for a modern game console
    Limitation: No rumble and lack of button resulted in game ports that lacked some features/move sets

  • Revolution
    Innovation: Introduced gyroscopic/motion-tracking feature
    Limitation: Currently, a lack of standardized buttons and layout, but still remains to be seen

    • posted by Frosty @ 10:47 AM  

    14 Comments:

    • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Chris Slate said…

      Good comments. Since I'm always slipping into the role of "Nintendo's Advocate", here's a few things to consider regarding your main points:

      - From Nintendo's perspective, this is probably the best business direction for them. If they made a more traditional console, even if it was as powerful as PS3, they'd likely go nowhere. Gamecube was more powerful than PS2, and it didn't help them with third-parties or any of their other problems. Sony just as too much momentum, and the ball's in their court until they drop it. So, by differenciating themselves, Nintendo have given us a reason to care/be interested/get excited. For some people it may make sense as their only system; for hardcore gamers, it's likely a great second option behind the PS3 -- you get your quirky, innovative games and your great-looking standard types of games.

      - I don't think arm fatigue will be a problem, because the hands-on reports say that you only have to move it a little bit. One guy stated that the controller finally "clicked" for him when he quit waving it around like a maniac, sat down and rested it on his leg. (Of course, waving it around like a maniac could be fun in small bursts.)

      - I think that, to some degree, innovation has to be forced. It's a very valid argument that gamers already know what they like and want, and it's an uphill battle to try to sell them on something new. But, although it's risky, the upside is huge. Time and time again, Nintendo have redefined what gaming is. Hell, after Atari crashed they brought it back with the NES and everyone thought they were crazy.

      - The system is supposed to be very developer friendly. Nintendo keep going on and on about how the biggest problem facing developers and publishers right now is the cost of making next-gen games, and that Revolution will be much simpler to make games for. I think they even talk about how you can basically use Gamecube dev tools to do it, or something. So, although using the controller to its fullest will require extra R&D, maybe that can be balanced out by a more affordable dev budget o verall.

      - Nintendo have said that the analog stick attatchment will come packed with the system, which avoids any weird split there. But I think, what's good about the "remote" approach is that casual gamers (the type that love using the stylus with Nintendogs) likely won't ever need to use it. I imagine that Nintendo will create games aimed at casuals that can be played using only the remote, in which case I can totally see non-gamers that I know giving it a shot. When you add the analog stick, that's when you're getting into real gamer territory. And if the whole combo still isn't your idea of fun, Nintendo will be making a standard controller based off the Gamecube design for straight third-party ports and classic games. Hell, you'll probably be able to simply plug in an old wired Gamecube pad and use that, if the developer wants to. But I think that packing the weird new controller in the box is the way to go, because if it were an optional accessory, developers would ignore it.

      Anyways, like I said at my blog, whether you think this is overall a bad move for Nintendo or a good one, God bless them for pushing the envelope -- somebody has to. For the most part, the only true gaming innovations have come from them. It's great that PS3 and 360 will have HD graphics and all, but every once and awhile a true change is healthy.

      Look at it this way:

      - REVOLUTION: NES
      - EVOLUTION: SNES, Genesis

      - REVOLUTION: N64, PlayStation
      - EVOLUTION: Gamecube, PS2, Xbox

      - REVOLUTION: Revolution / EVOLUTION: PS3, Xbox 360

      If Nintendo *didn't* do something freaky, this would be the first time in a while that we went this long without a big shake up.

      Personally, I think the idea is fantastic, I love them for trying it, but it's really going to come down to real games that can wow us with how the controls are used. That, and Nintendo is going to have to market this thing really carefully -- they have to get across the idea without making it seem overly alien or complex. That's going to be a much bigger challenge than simply making fun games, I think.

       

    • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Frosty said…

      You made some good comments, but I'm still not very conivinced about this whole paradigm shift in the controller. I think from the standpoint that you would need to rest the controller on your leg means that it has some design issues. Building upon that fact is the news that Nintendo is also planning a regular-type controller for the system (which is optional). That just kind of shows they even might not be sure how the "remote control"-ler is going to be received.

      I don't necessarily think that innovation needs to be forced. In the case of the DS, I think it is something innovative wrapped up in something very traditional. I can still have the standard control system in the game, if I want and then suplement it with innovative elements, like the touch screen. I'm not forced to completely abandon most of the standard control mechanics I'm used to as a gamer/developer. In fact, gamers can just generally use the standard controls if the touching aspect doesn't work for them.

      As for developer-friendly... that is a dangerous phrase. I'm sure that if I was a developer who was just devloping for the Revolution, then I would hope that my dev process would be easier and somewhat cheaper. However, a good chunk of developers (even some in Japan now) need to release games across multiple systems. In that regard, the Revolution is not really developer-friendly at all. It will actually cost me more to spend the time changing around gameplay mechanics and adjusting controls, etc. for the Revolution. In fact, in a somewhat recent survey, it was discovered that the average cost of game development for the PS2 and NGC were the same and that the Xbox generally cost more. Go figure. And I seem to recall that Nintendo said that costs of making games for the NGC would be cheaper than the other two consoles.

      Also, as far as innovations from Nintendo (at least on the controller side), it wasn't the first to introduce analog controls or wireless controls or gyroscopic controls. It just did them first on the current "golden age" of console systems and were the ones to introduce it to today's current wave of gamers. You can easily see those "innovations" in very early consoles or in the PC market.

      Anyway, my opinion still relatively remains unchanged. As a gamer (who can actually afford to buy multiple systems), I love the idea that Nintendo did something drastically different. However, as a developer, I find myself disliking the aspects of trying to make my games work on that "remote control"-ler. In the end, though, I still predict that Nintendo will still sell considerably less Revolution consoles than it did the Gamecube. As a Nintendo game fan, I hope that's not true... we'll just have to see.

       

    • At 9:13 PM, Blogger Chris Slate said…

      Debating the Revolution is fun! :) I'll stay on Nintendo's side and see where else we can take this...

      "I think from the standpoint that you would need to rest the controller on your leg means that it has some design issues."

      I should clarify that I didn't really mean that you *needed* to hold it that way -- just that you could kick back and be a sloth about playing a game, just like most of us do now with normal controllers. I usually have my controller lying against my leg somehow while I'm holding it (I don't, like, hold it out in mid-air, or anything...).

      "Building upon that fact is the news that Nintendo is also planning a regular-type controller for the system (which is optional). That just kind of shows they even might not be sure how the "remote control"-ler is going to be received."

      I think that they're just being realists. They feel the need to blaze a trail, but they know that a lot of people won't want to -- or know how to -- follow them. You're worried about how third parties can shovel ports to this thing -- well, that regular-type controller (or a Gamecube pad, or a Wavebird) is how. When new technology is first introduced, it often has to bridge that awkward gap between the old and the new. For example, OSX macs had to support OS9 software, and Blu-Ray players will still play DVDs. Although the multiple controller option might send a somewhat muddied or confusing message to some people, I think Nintendo is smart to realize that it can't just push everyone in the direction they want all at once.

      "I don't necessarily think that innovation needs to be forced. In the case of the DS, I think it is something innovative wrapped up in something very traditional. I can still have the standard control system in the game, if I want and then suplement it with innovative elements, like the touch screen. I'm not forced to completely abandon most of the standard control mechanics I'm used to as a gamer/developer. In fact, gamers can just generally use the standard controls if the touching aspect doesn't work for them."

      That's still true for the Revolution -- you can take any Nintendo game ever made for any of their systems and there will be a way to play it. Nintendo's even said that, like with the DS, the new control options are simply there for developers to use or not use as they see fit. Having to rely on different peripherals, however, is a bit more cumbersome than the DS' all-in-one functionality.

      "a good chunk of developers (even some in Japan now) need to release games across multiple systems. In that regard, the Revolution is not really developer-friendly at all. It will actually cost me more to spend the time changing around gameplay mechanics and adjusting controls, etc. for the Revolution."

      Well, you could simply keep the same controls since they'll work on the Revolution, but the best selling games will likely be the ones that put forth the extra effort to do something special with the system (just like with the DS). For better or worse, I think that Nintendo fans have become increasingly used to longer waits between the few big games that make owning their systems worthwhile. This isn't the best scenario for Nintendo or gamers, but it says something about Nintendo's fans. The ones that have stuck around want quality over quantity, and have proven to be a pretty patient bunch. Seriously, do most of Nintendo's current fans care if Prince of Persia 3 or Tony Hawk Whatever come out for their system or not? Most likely they only bought it for Nintendo's own games in the first place. Maybe this strategy won't topple Sony, but it might be good enough to sustain the profit-leading position Nintendo's always managed with its smaller audience. And, as a gamer, innovation is one of the things I demand of developers -- since I've got the dollars, I have that right. Should I be satisfied if presented with a scenario where game development always stays pretty much the same from now on, just to make it easy on the game makers? ;)

      "Also, as far as innovations from Nintendo (at least on the controller side), it wasn't the first to introduce analog controls or wireless controls or gyroscopic controls. It just did them first on the current "golden age" of console systems and were the ones to introduce it to today's current wave of gamers. You can easily see those "innovations" in very early consoles or in the PC market."

      Well, that may be true, but we can certainly credit Nintendo with taking these concepts, re-tooling them, re-introducing them and popularizing them. Every 3D action game today is based off of how the analog stick worked with Mario 64 and how the lock-on camera worked in Ocarina -- not some old PC game nobody remembers.

      "Anyway, my opinion still relatively remains unchanged. As a gamer (who can actually afford to buy multiple systems), I love the idea that Nintendo did something drastically different. However, as a developer, I find myself disliking the aspects of trying to make my games work on that "remote control"-ler. In the end, though, I still predict that Nintendo will still sell considerably less Revolution consoles than it did the Gamecube. As a Nintendo game fan, I hope that's not true... we'll just have to see."

      As much as I personally love the ideas behind Revolution, I could still see it being a complete and total failure. I can also imagine it really taking off too, though. This isn't anything against developers at all, but I think that there's a real problem with the industry if it can't support fresh new ideas. Sometimes I do feel like Sony and Microsoft have taken us down the wrong road. I mean, I can't wait to play hyper-realistic games like MGS4, but if I'd never seen them, I wouldn't lust after them so much. People were pretty much happy with Game Boy for decades before PSP showed up with its super graphics. What I'm saying is, the industry keeps making things harder on itself. I think Nintendo has made a lot of sense in its arguments against the way things are being done. All this extra work to make prettier games, and what has it gotten the industry? Movie-sized budgets, longer and more complex development cycles, and a consumer base that's been taught to constantly demand better, faster. And yet, games cost roughly the same that they did back in the 16-bit era when they could be made by a handful of people in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost. Is this smart business?

      Anyway, I digress :)

      Just for fun, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Revolution will actually sell more than the Gamecube. Of course, I've yet to hold the controller in my own hand, but I look at it like this: Gamecube got its butt kicked by Sony because it offered essentailly the same product, the same experience, but not as good. No DVD playback, an overall weaker game lineup, etc. There were other factors, too -- such as the "kiddy vs. cool" factor -- but essentailly, Nintendo was trying to sell a PlayStation that wasn't as compelling as the real PlayStation. With the Revolution, it's good that they're offering something unique and different. Even if you're buying it as a second system, at least there's still a reason to buy it. And also, I'm willing to trust Nintendo. They're not stupid -- they know how bold this move is. If they didn't have rock-solid games in the works, if they didn't believe in their hearts that this thing was going to be 100% fun, they wouldn't take this big of a risk.

      Believe ;P

       

    • At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      I totally believe my friend...totally.

      I find myself, as a fan of gaming, thinking constantly about what this new window would do in specifi genre's. How sports titles like madden can be physically "played" with subtle yet true-to-life movement of the players controller, as if it was the ball.
      I see myself imagining racing games with the subtle play of gas and brake, being applied by using a tilt within the controller itself. I doubly see the same tilt in a motocycle game controlling the weight shifting notion in turns for that specific racing genre.

      This will make the games harder to develop, yes...I can safely say you wont see the same games merely "ported" over so that everyone in the market has the same games. But what I DO see is the developers taking this by the reigns and forging new gameplay mechanics and aspects not yet seen in todays titles.

      The fact that other peripherals can be utilized speaks doubly for that effort. In essense, the same headset that is used in games like Socom, could become a "codec" like device in a MGS game. The pointer device itself could be a FPS's best friend if used appropriately.

      I, as a fan of gaming, will hope to see this come from the developers in the future. After all, we have had the "joypad" layout for the past 20 years now, isnt it time for something to mix it up? Even thinking back to before the era of "pads" for gameplay, I remember the Joystick...it did alot for games. As well as the Paddle that one would turn to control a paddle onscreen. I understand where alot of people may think "if it aint broke, dont fix it" but in all rights, who are we to say what is broken and what isnt?

      We have hit a plateu I feel in the genre of games. I hate to think the only innovations I have to look foward to is an updated combo system, a new item to collect, and an updated roster/manufacturer list. I loathe thinking that somehow I may be missing out on alternate ways of playing that the controller as we use it today limits our enjoyment potential to an extent that we, as consumers, do not even recognize until something so outrageously different comes along.

      Whether this will become a success depends on major factors, one of the main will become developer support outside of a first party. Nintendo led that with thier own collection of first party titles back in the NES days. If they have to create an entire lineup of First-party titles again to show other developers the creative content that the Revolution should be capable of, I think they have the cajones to do so. But I hope to see at least every big development studio attain at least one title for this machine as well. I hope EA will consider a Madden title(Football throwing action). I hope Konami will at least consider a Castlevania title(Whip action), I hope to see a Namco Title like Soul Calibur(Sword Swinging action...heck even Pac-Man), and I definately hope to see all the major genres get some support and even entire new genre's.

      I overhear alot of speculation across the internet, and even from friends. They think it will only be third best, if even that. They feel like the system will be the "second system" for people to own alongside the XB360 and PS3. Honestly, if that is the case, then it could potentially become the silent winner amongst the console race. If 20% buy all three, 20 percent get only one or two, and 20% get only 2 out of three, then 40% gets only one...you could be looking at the Revolution on top just as quick as any other system. In the end the developers will decide what thrives and what does not. I hope Nintendo gets a fair shake in the end, because they definately have my respect as a company to do what they have done.

      I am not saying that Sony, nor Microsoft has been crap either....but Looking at past titles and looking at thier next gen sequels just doesnt speak much to me in the terms of something fresh. It gives me the feeling that innovation has no place as a mainstream market, and that makes me feel awful for the industry I love.

       

    • At 11:05 PM, Blogger Chris Slate said…

      OMG, using it for the whip in Castlevania would rock! Randy and I were also talking about using it for Zelda's first-peron bow-and-arrow firing mode: hold the "remote" out towards the TV, press the big "A" button and hold it to mimic holding an arrow to the bow string, then pull the remote back towards you to pull the string back. Finally, simply release the A button to release the arrow -- it'd feel *just like* using a real bow!

      Now I'm trying to figure out how you could use it to fly in a new Kid Icarus ;)

       

    • At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      I think the bow thing would work in Icarus as well....and use the analog dongle to move, and perhaps alternate the Z buttons to "flap" or just one to prevent too too many complications.

       

    • At 9:32 PM, Blogger Frosty said…

      I guess the only possible problem about relying so much on that standard controller (that the Revolution controller can be inserted into) would be related to if it will be included with the actual console or not. If it isn't, then that could be a major problem for developers. If Nintendo were smart, they would include that additional controller "shell" so that any major issues could be bypassed. Though, I'm just trying to figure out what the controller shell would look out considering the look of the actual "remote control"-ler. I can't imagine that it would be that ergonomic... but, again, we'll see. And how would it provide for additional face buttons, etc.?

       

    • At 9:46 PM, Blogger Frosty said…

      Oh, and I'm still waiting to see the proof that Nintendo is right in their opinions about this industry. The biggest game on NGC was Smash Brothers and it kind of went downhill from there (sales-wise). Casually speaking, if it were truly right about its observations and are creating games "the way games are meant to be made" then why doesn't the company have far greater success in general (if you decide to remove Pokemon from the list)? They are obviously very profitable, but its regular set of games aren't selling that hot these days. Don't you think that more people would be heading their way if that was truly the right path? Innovation is great for hard-core gamers, but I'm still not convinced that the mainstream audience (the biggest one) really cares a lot about it. Yeesh, the Pokemon games have remained relatively unchanged from version to version... yet they are hugely popular. Derivative sequels are made because that is what sells. I'm not trying to defend the practice, but that is what you see on the Top 10 list pretty much every month. The mainstream audience buys them by the bucket. EA is on top because it caters to the mainstream audience. Don't you think that if innovation truly was the answer to everything that many more innovative games would sell? I think the hard-core audience gets bored much more quickly and they are the ones that truly demand innovation. Every so often innovative titles do get noticed by mainsream Americana... but that is certainly not that often.

      I could go on talking about this topic for a long time, so I'm going to hold off and write a post about it. My main feeling is that innovation is something that press and hardcore gamers constantly long for... it's just that the biggest audience of gamers isn't always ready or wanting of it.

       

    • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Frosty said…

      On another note... when you are using the controller to do all these interesting mechanics, how is the gamer controlling the camera? That could be a challenge.

       

    • At 1:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      I almost expect a truly self-righting camera for 3-d titles. Developers have had almost 10 years to develop something that would help fix the camera for most games, right? Perhaps this is a kick in the can to do just that? Perhaps this will create the thusfar impossible perfect camera setup?

      In all realism, I expect the first person to play a role in camera mechanics when it is necessary. But I think that it wont be necessary in most cases since we really have no idea just how the games will play out yet..anything we can possibly come up with will be our own blown out imagination. The only game that will need camera controls will be 3-D exploratory, and I have seen some cases where the camera works out fine. You are right in saying it is too early, and I believe as time passes perhaps you will see the things mentioned here in a different light.

      I actually embrace innovation like this in my gaming experience, but I see where youre coming from about the Nintendo first party, and the fact that mainstream is more popular. However, I feel that innovation in the games alone is not enough. This is something more of a shock to the industry than just a title like Katamari Damacy or Burnout. This require every title to be so in its own way. It redefines the way games are played.

      I feel it will not win all of the mainstream market, I can agree to that. But with winning a little of the mainstream, a little of gamers that quit, a little bit of hardcore gamers, and then the ones new to gaming...you no longer limit yourself to merely one group for your income, but instead you create a brand new group dedicated to spend money for the completely different experiences the Revolution claims to offer.

      I can see this as a disagreement. And I can agree to disagree for now ;-). Time will be the ultimate tell-tale sign for what the market will bring behind the Revolution as opposed to the XB360 and PS3. Time will tell all...and so, I patiently wait.

       

    • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Frosty said…

      I guess it will really boil down to the simple point of if the mainstream audience will really get ito the new controller... or will they just think it is too different and strange?

       

    • At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      I know this isnt the entire mainstream, but we do manage a fair amount of people around PSM forums. The overall opinion there is a resounding show of support for the controller. It is about 10:1 in most places on the forum but again, this is handful versus the majority. Joystiq offered up a poll of some of its readers and it was either a positive or a "wait and see" response.

      http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000030059096/

      Out of 7000+ votes it looks like the main showing is for the controller at about 4700+ votes, again not proving anything since it is still a small following when compared to the mainstream. I feel pretty confident that if Nintendo and a few 3rd perties can show some of the potential they tried to bring to the Revolution trailer they have out, then it is almost definately going to go over well. I haven't been this excited for the big N since the N64, and I am glad I have a reason to be so excited.

      I just hope that if/when the next generation hits, we dont see the other two follow suit :-/ Thatd kinda stink not to have something out there "different".

       

    • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Frosty said…

      Well, Sony will probably just "steal" the idea and then further mainstream it. Sad, but true. They've done it before.

       

    • At 4:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Dualstick 2 is born :( Instantly Everyone leeches onto the ideal that Sony can do no wrong all over again. Blast them...

       

    Post a Comment

    << Home