To be fair...MetalDooley said:-snip-
OP: Not really, they don't impact the rest of the industry in a manner which would change other consoles negatively, although motion controls are debatable.
To be fair...MetalDooley said:-snip-
There is a lot of difference between hate and what you see here, hate is a sort of reverse fanboy mentality where instead of "Half Life 2 is the best thing ever" you get "Half Life 2 was shit, I don't see why anyone can say it's a good game". I use Half Life 2 a lot because it's an example brought up a lot as something loved by the Escapist, but instead has a large number of haters who constantly say they are the hated minority. The Nintendo is the exact same thing, bunch of people who have this odd hated minority complex when the reality of the matter is people just don't care.spartandude said:to me it just seems that way because over the past few weeks there seems to be alot of anti Nintendo, and i hadnt expereinced that here until now, so im just curious why its happening recently
For the first comment, I dont think Yahtzee meant that you could play any game with any controller. Just that Just that you dont need all this "fancy motion control BS" to enjoy a game.wulf3n said:Yahtzees position has always bugged me.Yuuki said:I'm very much with Yahtzee regarding what he said in his E3 2010 episode:
Let me make my position clear: gaming should be about games, not about controllers. Controllers as they stand are a perfectly adequate conduit for connecting man to machine by way of thumbs.
Firstly how a game is controlled is very much about the game. Try playing halo on a N64 controller or any PC RTS using anything other than a keyboard and mouse, it's not the same game.
Secondly "perfectly adequate" isn't exactly high praise. Yes controllers work, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the complexity modern games are trying to achieve is limited by the number of buttons on a controller which is why you end up with "Press A to do everything".
GameCube controller is still the best controller ever designed for gaming I think because it was both functional, and comfortable, which is why I was disappointed that they didn't remake it when making the Wii U Pro Controller and instead went with a more 360 controller design. Really the only bad thing about the GameCube controller was honestly the clicking, as it was just plain bad with the clicking for some reason.Mudokon said:all of Nintendo's controllers were risk cause it changes the gameplay drastically, N64 gamecube wii wiiU all the controllers are so different, i agree with region lock though i dont like it at all.
Beware some of the Microsoft forums, they can be...very antagonistic to say the least, but then again it's been the same when being on a Sony forum or a Nintendo one. XDKingH3nrry said:I've actually been on a few Sony forums (back when I had a PSP), never a Microsoft forum. But, I guess you have a point.
1) Hence Halo (or similar) was never released on an N64. Each major revamp in controls was driven by a huge core necessity...the need for dual analog sticks (or d-pad + analog stick) became obvious once console games went full 3D with player-controlled cameras (PC users already had mouse camera). Bam, console controller revolution.wulf3n said:Yahtzees position has always bugged me.
Firstly how a game is controlled is very much about the game. Try playing halo on a N64 controller or any PC RTS using anything other than a keyboard and mouse, it's not the same game.
When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that are too complex for a regular controller or mouse+keyboard (keep in mind the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles point). Modern games are getting LESS complex if anything, a typical PC game from 10 years ago would make people break their fingers trying to figure all the keybinds. Something like Dark Souls, Super Street Fighter IV, etc on console is still nightmarishly complicated if you want to become good at it, linear first person shooters aren't the only kinds of games on consoles lol.wulf3n said:Secondly "perfectly adequate" isn't exactly high praise. Yes controllers work, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the complexity modern games are trying to achieve is limited by the number of buttons on a controller which is why you end up with "Press A to do everything".
You know what I meant about "we" I'm talking about the Escapist in general.Yuuki said:-snip-
Yuuki said:Until Activision killed the Golden Goose...wulf3n said:When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that don't involve the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles thing.
For highly specific games that do require special controls and are built around it, we have stuff like this:
Releasing the controller bundles with the game has worked perfectly fine for the industry, as seen by Guitar Hero's wild success.
Just like any series really. When you think about it, Activision will drop a franchise the moment it stops selling. Case and point, the Guitar Hero franchise, and before that the Tony Hawk franchise which many people seem to have forgotten. XDWanderingFool said:Until Activision killed the Golden Goose...
Moving your head is natural the same way that moving your arms around are natural.cloroxbb said:FYI, The Oculus Rift is a display not a motion control, although it allows camera movement by moving your head (which is natural, not like holding a wii mote and pointing at the side of the screen).Dragonbums said:If all three should be ashamed of motion controls, then why are we praising the Oculus Rift?
Motions Controls are not mandatory for use of the Oculus Rift either.
I think the reason we praise the Rift and badmouth the Wiimote, Move, and Kinect, is because they are not utilized in a fashion that actually creates the feeling of "being in the game." The Oculus Rift has that potential, and I have no doubt that Oculus Rift gaming will be much more compelling than anything played solely with "Motion Controls."
When done right, motion controls will be great. Im guessing it is going to take the "STEM" and the Oculus Rift for motion controls to really be compelling, and for people to stick with wanting to use them.
Oh I'm sure the need for something new will eventually come down the road, that's how we progress. But necessity is still the mother of all invention as far as mainstream game controls go (i.e. not niche/gimmicky), this is simply a fact you have to understand.Dragonbums said:And quite frankly it's people like those behind the Oculus Rift and Nintendo that are pushing gaming forward. There is nothing more dangerous than having people be content with the average controller and anything beyond that is a "stupid gimmick' if nobody is trying things out, then there is no possibility to find new avenues to explore gaming. While you may not care about Oculus Rift and Motion controls, they have still provided a base that can be very beneficial to the gaming industry years down the line when the public is more ready for it.
Link_to_Future said:So the touchscreen and motion capabilities weren't pioneered by Nintendo?
What's the excuse for the rest of the internet?Dragonbums said:That makes sense. I remember it was either the 2DS thread or something similar, but a few users were goading him by stating they there is a good chance many users on the Escapist do these anti-Nintendo threads just so they can piss him off.
My issue with the statement is that it separates the controller from games, implying they're separate concerns.WanderingFool said:For the first comment, I dont think Yahtzee meant that you could play any game with any controller. Just that Just that you dont need all this "fancy motion control BS" to enjoy a game.
Perhaps but this then is a case of the developer working around the limitations of the controller.WanderingFool said:Second, I would say the problem is not the lack of buttons on the controller, but that excess of buttons reqiured. I mean, do we really need 6 different buttons to determine how high we want to crouch[footnote]This is in reference to System Shock 1, which when I tried, had a shit ton of bottons to do things that I would never use.[/footnote]?
I think we can concieve of more complex gameplay without having to invent new buttons to use...
The necessity here is evident by the influx of quick time events and context sensitivity. Though the solution isn't as simple as add more buttons or a new analogue stick. Or even motion control for that matter.Yuuki said:1) Hence Halo (or similar) was never released on an N64. Each major revamp in controls was driven by a huge core necessity...the need for dual analog sticks (or d-pad + analog stick) became obvious once console games went full 3D with player-controlled cameras (PC users already had mouse camera). Bam, console controller revolution.
Adequate but not optimal.Yuuki said:2) What Yahtzee was hinting at was that our traditional control inputs work just fine for all the games we have today. RTS games evolved on PC around keyboard+mouse controls, they suck on consoles because of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's constant refusal at allowing mouse+keyboard as native inputs (no modded adapters). That's their choice, not a technological limitation.
Motion controls were just the first attempt at solving the issue of games wanting to be able to do more things.Yuuki said:The genuine NEED for motion controls to become a "primary" control method isn't there whatsover. Putting that aside, Yahtzee explained all the other reasons in his Kinect review:
You have to look at the console and pc's seperately as they evolved along different paths. The level of control given to players in console games has only gotten more complex shown by the increased complexity in modern controllers. PC's have gotten less complex, though I can only speculate to the reason.Yuuki said:When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that are too complex for a regular controller or mouse+keyboard (keep in mind the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles point). Modern games are getting LESS complex if anything, a typical PC game from 10 years ago would make people break their fingers trying to figure all the keybinds. Something like Dark Souls, Super Street Fighter IV, etc on console is still nightmarishly complicated if you want to become good at it, linear first person shooters aren't the only kinds of games on consoles lol.
I would actuallyYuuki said:Would you rather press A to do some things, B to do some other things, Y to do the rest of the things? Does it really matter as long as the goal is to accomplish an action with a button-push?
again perfectly fine but not optimal, it could be improved, which is what I believe Nintendo were trying to do.Yuuki said:For highly specific games that do require special controls and are built around it, we have stuff like this:
Releasing the controller bundles with the game has worked perfectly fine for the industry, as seen by Guitar Hero's wild success.
Obviously none of the companies have claimed to have invented the internet because obviously Al Gore invented it! XDZachary Amaranth said:snip
I always thought keeping an open mind to all products and showing no loyalty to any corporation or brand is what pushes any market forward. It creates competition and is better for everyone! especially the consumer. And also if gamestop (I assume this is who you mean when you say trade in market) was so terrible for the market, publishers wouldn't give pre-order incentives for specifically buying from gamestop.Verlander said:No, extortionate development costs as a result of a narrowing demand by a jaded audience with no loyalty to a brand or the scene who are actively involved in the trade-in industry are what's holding the games industry back.
Also, I object to the idea that Nintendo produce "casual" games. Actual casual gamers play FPS.
You do realize QTE's are considered a negative thing right? I could probably count on one hand the number of times where QTE's have actually improved a game. Tons and tons of examples of excellent games with zero/minimal QTE's. And they work just fine with a button press, they are supposed to be "quick".wulf3n said:The necessity here is evident by the influx of quick time events and context sensitivity. Though the solution isn't as simple as add more buttons or a new analogue stick. Or even motion control for that matter.
Err yes...I said that's their choice. And if you're referring mouse+kb not being "optimal" for RTS, I have no idea what other control scheme could possibly be better. It's beyond my brain's capacity.wulf3n said:Adequate but not optimal.
That's a tad misleading, assuming that Nintendo was the one who spurred motion controls to begin with, their goal was far from "solving an issue". Nintendo's primary goal with the Wii was to appeal to a demographic that was scared-away from the idea of controllers with buttons, people who associate controller-users with obese basement-dwelling mouth-breathing nerds, i.e. parents, grandparents, very small children, generally folk who have zero interest in mainstream gaming. That demographic turned out to be pretty huge.wulf3n said:Motion controls were just the first attempt at solving the issue of games wanting to be able to do more things.
Dualshock 3 (2007) is almost identical to the original Dualshock (1997) at first glance, there have been minor improvements. Exactly about console controllers has become more complex over the last 10-15 years of 3D games?wulf3n said:You have to look at the console and pc's seperately as they evolved along different paths. The level of control given to players in console games has only gotten more complex shown by the increased complexity in modern controllers.
Ha, no need to speculate at all, the primary reason is obvious: Console ports. Console ports everywhere.wulf3n said:PC's have gotten less complex, though I can only speculate to the reason.
No offense but that's...a really, really dumb analogy. What if you want to jump over an enemy instead of attacking it? How will the game know? Also movement has at least 8 different directions, 10 if you want to go vertical. How can you combine movement with jump/attack? How are you going to tie interaction into all that? How will you rotate/swivel the camera if it's all tied to movement/jumping/attacking/interacting?wulf3n said:If we keep going with that argument why don't we just have a controller with a single button that does everything move, jump, attack, interact?
Guitar Hero controller wasn't optimal for Guitar Hero? What?wulf3n said:again perfectly fine but not optimal, it could be improved, which is what I believe Nintendo were trying to do.
Yes which is why I said they were a sign of limitations in current control methods. While not the only reason for Quick Time events mind you.Yuuki said:You do realize QTE's are considered a negative thing right? I could probably count on one hand the number of times where QTE's have actually improved a game. Tons and tons of examples of excellent games with zero/minimal QTE's. And they work just fine with a button press, they are supposed to be "quick".
Your missing the point. Just because something works does not mean it can't be improved.Yuuki said:Err yes...I said that's their choice. And if you're referring mouse+kb not being "optimal" for RTS, I have no idea what other control scheme could possibly be better. It's beyond my brain's capacity.
So there issue with controllers was barrier to entry, I'm not seeing your point.Yuuki said:That's a tad misleading, assuming that Nintendo was the one who spurred motion controls to begin with, their goal was far from "solving an issue". Nintendo's primary goal with the Wii was to appeal to a demographic that was scared-away from the idea of controllers with buttons, people who associate controller-users with obese basement-dwelling mouth-breathing nerds, i.e. parents, grandparents, very small children, generally folk who have zero interest in mainstream gaming. That demographic turned out to be pretty huge.
I agree, it's just not something I can backup if someone challenges.Yuuki said:Ha, no need to speculate at all, the primary reason is obvious: Console ports. Console ports everywhere.
The point was exaggerated I'll admit, but it was trying to show my rationale. The controller to me is a way of becoming the character, the more actions that are bundled to a single context sensitive button the less control I feel I have.Yuuki said:No offense but that's...a really, really dumb analogy. What if you want to jump over an enemy instead of attacking it? How will the game know? Also movement has at least 8 different directions, 10 if you want to go vertical. How can you combine movement with jump/attack? How are you going to tie interaction into all that? How will you rotate/swivel the camera if it's all tied to movement/jumping/attacking/interacting?
Are...are you even familiar with how game controls work and WHY we have different buttons to do different things??? I can't possibly explain all that.
Not the guitar hero controller, the concept of needing game specific peripherals. It works, but it'd be nice not to have an entire fake recording studio in my living room just to play rock band.Yuuki said:Guitar Hero controller wasn't optimal for Guitar Hero? What?
So one company hasn't changed their controller, that doesn't mean controller technology hasn't changed. You only have to look at Nintendos history, or Sega, Or Microsoft. Though Microsoft has been more about ergonomics than control.Yuuki said:Dualshock 3 (2007) is almost identical to the original Dualshock (1997) at first glance, there have been minor improvements. Exactly about console controllers has become more complex over the last 10-15 years of 3D games?