The Upcoming (And Pointless) Console War

[Treblaine]

I dunno. To me, the touchscreen's biggest upside is that it's a touchscreen. You can now design "mouse-driven" menus and interface elements into console games. Which, as Ioa points out, is a function the Wiimote was also capable of performing, if a bit clumsily. When someone comes up with a way to point your own finger at a screen ten feet away and click and drag and swipe with the efficiency and accuracy of a touchscreen, then we can look back and laugh at the days when we had to use a second screen.

Touchscreens just plain aren't a replacement for a mouse. Case in point, laptops with touchpad mice, sure they work, but they are nowhere near as efficient at a physical mouse, which is why so many people have usb travel mice for their laptops. Touchscreens are just not accurate, there's a reason the touchpad keyboard on so many Android phones read the movement of your finger over the keyboard and attempt to figure out what your trying to type rather than having you type it out on the touchscreen.

Even if we do have a way to point with our fingers and manipulate menus we're still going to be blocking huge parts of the screen with our hands and arms unless the screen is right in front of our eyes or is three dimensional. I just think that we're going backwards as far as control is concerned, there is no more efficient way of controlling a two dimensional UI than with a device that can only move in two dimensions, that's the problem with motion sensing controls like the Kinect. The problem with touch screen is essentially that the cursor, which is my finger, is about 80 times larger than the single pixel point at the tip of my mouse cursor, it's like throwing a hundred darts taped together at a dart board and trying to figure out which one to count for points, so the software has to try and figure out which part of my finger I'm trying to use as the cursor tip. The only way for a touch screen to be accurate is when you use a stylus, and if the touch screen is in the controller like the DS and you want to use the buttons as well you have to switch between the two.

Yep, touchscreens are not an upgrade to the mouse, they are an upgrade over tiny miniature keyboards used on older smartphones.

They proliferated within the limitations of small portable media devices (including phones) where you needed maximum screen area on small devices yet intuitive and flexible controls. Touchscreen works pretty well FOR A BLOODY SMART PHONE! It's not a technological silver bullet for all interfaces, it's a new technology for a very particular niche.

It doesn't work with a 12-17 inch screen laptop which has plenty of room for a full size keyboard at a suitable angle to the screen. Keyboards are great for extended and accurate typing.

The touchpad on a keyboard is actually in SOME cases more useful for typing by how I can keep my hands in position and move the cursor and lick with my thumb(s). But the mouse is always appreciated when I am not typing. This iMac idea of having a touchpad TO THE RIGHT of the keyboard is pointless. The main advantage of a touchpad is having it right below the space bar to be used by thumbs while fingers are in "home position".

The WiiU I find to be very much a Gimmick. As a touchscreen it is not very useful as from the holding position where you can use thumbsticks and face-buttons the thumbs cannot reach to critical parts of touchscreen. You need to completely let go of one half of the controller to touch it, and it's a resistive touchscreen so you really want to use the stylus if you want accurate and reliable interaction.

The touchpad just seems to be there for the sake of it... anything to distract from how this is nothing but a match for the PS3/360 only 7 years too late and about 50% too expensive and with far too meagre a library of games.

WiiU is not "Next-Gen" any more than Wii was "current gen" with the PS3.

Nintnedo doesn't seem to want to give the customers what they want, they USED to do that, follow trends amongst gamers and deliver it to them with N64 and Gamecube. Touchscreen on our gamepad was not what we wanted and now we have it isn't not what we want. We want higher

 

[Somebloke]

There are many titles which are tied down to certain platforms, that I would be delighted to sample, but won't because of the attached "dongle tax" - Journey comes to mind, as a recent example.

Now; I don't mind if a developer limits their market due to non-ubiquity of one absolutely vital hardware/infrastructure requirement or other, nor if they stick with one platform because they haven't got the resources to support others, or even if they are just too lazy, or do it out of some misguided brand loyalty -- heck, I could handle even petty spite.

However; When they think no higher of their own art, than to take money to not have people play their game, as opposed to wanting to see it enjoyed by as many players as possible...

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

The touchscreen-plus-big-screen setup has precisely one function, and that's local multiplayer. There's a lot of potential in the concept of one player having exclusively access to an additional screen, and while I haven't had much of a chance to try them out myself, I'm assured that the local multiplayer games in Nintendoland can be quite the larf and a harf. Actually one application that occurred to me was co-op sniping: one player could act as the spotter, highlighting targets on the big screen using a Wiimote like a laser pointer, while the other player uses the touchscreen as the scoped view and follows their directions.

I would personally love to break away from split screen. It's one of the only things that bother me about shooter co-op. It's why I prefer to send my friend home and have them get online on their own system, so we can play Borderlands over the internet rather than have them sit on the couch next to me and deal with having only half a screen.

Skyward Sword is the worst 3D Zeldas,

I agree on Majoras Mask being the best Zelda but why was Skyward sword the worst (of 3D) according to you?
I think it was a good game, and I am not looking for a flame wars I just have not gotten to discuss Skyward enough during the year and want more opinions on it.
So please, hit me

I'm not OlasDAlmighty, but I have this opinion (Skyward Sword is the worst 3D Zelda game), because it felt "stripped down". Skyward Sword has it's good points, it had a pretty good story, a creepy villain, Zelda and Link felt like they actually had a relationship...

But the world is where the game falls short, it's segmented into a few giant sections that you'll find yourself treking through over and over again, and I didn't find any of them to be particularly entertaining enough for me to revisit them. They also don't feel connected to each other, so the world doesn't feel as "epic".

The sky is a particular disappointment, I loved the controls of flying and I wanted to explore all the sky, like I did with the ocean in Windwaker, but unlike Windwaker where the ocean is full of things to discover, the sky in Skyward Sword is empty with the exception of some mini games. Also, like everything else in Skyward Sword, it felt shrinked down, not vast, like I imagine the sky is supposed to feel.

 

[Ringo666]

Really well descrpited the wii u specially concerning the local mplayer.
It was the one thing that caught my attention.being able to shoot online at Cd with a buddy with one tv-console and do not forget without an online fee was instant and superb
otherwise yes icant see it becoming more than a gimmick or a draw tablet for maps etc

 

[geizr]

Once again, Yahtzee's missed the point of motion controls like a buggy whip maker misses the point of an automobile. Yeah, if you're playing a game designed for the standard hunch-back controls with motion controls you're gonna have a crappy experience. Standard controls are really good at measuring precise timing and, to a lesser extent, fine motor accuracy.

Motion controls aren't. They're good for reading strength of motion and directional change on multiple axes. When you play a game that's designed with that in mind -- like Wii Sports Resort's frisbee or bowling games -- which even Yahtzee was unable to pan in his review of the game -- they do great. So to start off with a premise that there's nowhere to go in hardware based UI is simply wrong in the first place. There's actually a hell of a long way to go.. which is part of the problem we're having with them. Yeah, the first automobiles were noisy, unreliable, expensive, slow, and a lot more effort than a typical cart with horse.. but looking at those first attempts and concluding from them that there's never be any use for them simply isn't good thinking.

To go on from that though to suggest that consoles have everything to lose if they keep exclusivity is beyond wrong and well into loony bin territory. One has to remember that where the console makers make their money is in the licensing. Microsoft makes money on any Xbox game sold. Sony makes money on any Playstation game sold. How long does anybody think they could continue to charge those fees if the game format and coding had a standard? Get rid of those, and suddenly MS and Sony can't sell their hardware at a loss any more. Now the cost for your "standard" console goes up a couple hundred dollars to be in the realm of a mid-range gaming PC -- which is all it is at that point -- and which is why Valve's steambox won't be flying very far either -- it still requires a mid-range gaming PC, and part of the reasons consoles sell well (and why the initial Wii sold so well) is because they typically cost less, supported by that exclusivity.

Maybe after another couple hardware generations when the price of creating a console falls to the point that hobbyists can do it, then we'll see a push for a standardized format -- which will force the big guys to jump in on that as well. Until then though.. I don't think so. And of course, that's assuming they don't go further with the UI.

I have to agree, and it's not just Yahtzee that seems to miss the point of motion controls. Game developers also seem to miss the point of motion controls by continuously creating games based in the old paradigm of the D-pad controller and trying to map that scheme to "waggles" of a motion controller. It's simply the wrong approach and wrong design.

In my opinion, if we go by Yahtzee's opinion, gaming is doomed to stagnation. There are some game designs and ways of experiencing gaming, especially in a multi-player scenario, that simply do not work as well with a single TV and the D-pad controller. If no attempt is made to go beyond this paradigm, then you are forever prohibited from an entire realm of innovation that requires breaking free of that paradigm.

Yahtzee's opinion feels similar to statements like "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings" or "If it could be done, they would have done it already". They're statements born of extreme cynicism (or lacking vision) that distorts reality every bit as much as naivety.

ADDENDUM: I have to add that, in my opinion, the real console war pointlessness is gamers arguing, like religious zealots, over which console is the better and whether console or PC is better. Different people have different tastes, desires, and needs and will pick the one that suits them best. Wasting time dick-waving about which system is objectively the best choice for all is nothing more than insecure people trying to justify themselves. Pick what you like, play what you like; all else be damned, and afford others the latitude to do the same.

 

[Treblaine]

The sky is a particular disappointment, I loved the controls of flying and I wanted to explore all the sky, like I did with the ocean in Windwaker, but unlike Windwaker where the ocean is full of things to discover, the sky in Skyward Sword is empty with the exception of some mini games. Also, like everything else in Skyward Sword, it felt shrinked down, not vast, like I imagine the sky is supposed to feel.

That is the problem right there.

Zelda fans have grown up, they are thinking bigger and are bolder... but Nintendo hasn't.

Nintendo seems to be living in Never Never Land where the children are in a perpetual state of infancy, they sold games to kids and they were very good at that, they made great games for kids but those kids are grown up now and Nintendo are wondering where the kids are?

They can't make a Zelda game fit for fans without discarding their goal of having something suitable for children. I don't mean violence, hell, we all know kids are totally fine with violence. I'm talking about "epic bigness" that's too much for a kid to take in, it'll just seem empty and boring to them.

This is why I think Nintendo has to let go of Zelda. Nintendo can keep wii-sports resort and all that crap but Zelda, it's clear they have to let this one go free to where it belongs. Like how Lucas was ruined by Star Wars, maybe it's time just to give it to someone else, ANYONE else, to let it go where it's original creators cannot take it.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

The sky is a particular disappointment, I loved the controls of flying and I wanted to explore all the sky, like I did with the ocean in Windwaker, but unlike Windwaker where the ocean is full of things to discover, the sky in Skyward Sword is empty with the exception of some mini games. Also, like everything else in Skyward Sword, it felt shrinked down, not vast, like I imagine the sky is supposed to feel.

That is the problem right there.

Zelda fans have grown up, they are thinking bigger and are bolder... but Nintendo hasn't.

Nintendo seems to be living in Never Never Land where the children are in a perpetual state of infancy, they sold games to kids and they were very good at that, they made great games for kids but those kids are grown up now and Nintendo are wondering where the kids are?

They can't make a Zelda game fit for fans without discarding their goal of having something suitable for children. I don't mean violence, hell, we all know kids are totally fine with violence. I'm talking about "epic bigness" that's too much for a kid to take in, it'll just seem empty and boring to them.

But I didn't have this problem with Twilight Princess, and even going back and playing Windwaker. It's mainly just Skyward Sword that I felt this way.

 

[Treblaine]

The sky is a particular disappointment, I loved the controls of flying and I wanted to explore all the sky, like I did with the ocean in Windwaker, but unlike Windwaker where the ocean is full of things to discover, the sky in Skyward Sword is empty with the exception of some mini games. Also, like everything else in Skyward Sword, it felt shrinked down, not vast, like I imagine the sky is supposed to feel.

That is the problem right there.

Zelda fans have grown up, they are thinking bigger and are bolder... but Nintendo hasn't.

Nintendo seems to be living in Never Never Land where the children are in a perpetual state of infancy, they sold games to kids and they were very good at that, they made great games for kids but those kids are grown up now and Nintendo are wondering where the kids are?

They can't make a Zelda game fit for fans without discarding their goal of having something suitable for children. I don't mean violence, hell, we all know kids are totally fine with violence. I'm talking about "epic bigness" that's too much for a kid to take in, it'll just seem empty and boring to them.

But I didn't have this problem with Twilight Princess, and even going back and playing Windwaker. It's mainly just Skyward Sword that I felt this way.

Well that was the Gamecube generation (even TP)... where Nintendo got spanked. Hell they didn't do all that well with N64 vs PS1.

They made so much money on Wii by distancing from their fanbase and pandering with shallow gimmicks to a much wider (but disloyal) audience. A huge mistake I think but the way capitalism works is it's more important to make as much money as you ever possibly can in every quarter than to guarantee a steady stream from loyal fans.

I think that Nintendo has just lost it's sense of vision with their goal of maximising breadth of shallow appeal. And their attraction to gimmicks like having a sky-world for Hyrule just for the sake of avoiding having a Hyrule field. They may have missed that it's easy to have a lot of stuff populate a water-world but a sky-world less so, so would inevitably feel empty and therefore journeys couldn't be too long and hence make the world seem small.

But Nintendo I think had the problem of listening to it's detractors. Wind Waker was criticised by some for overly long journey times, but they took that criticism without considering the praise for the sense of scale of the world that came FROM the long journeys.

 

[144_v1legacy]

I love how quick people in this thread are to make sweeping generalizations about the state of the industry and the behavior of the public. Time and time again, it is proven to me that forum posters are not consultants, economists, analysts, or anything else.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The problem with touch screen is essentially that the cursor, which is my finger, is about 80 times larger than the single pixel point at the tip of my mouse cursor, it's like throwing a hundred darts taped together at a dart board and trying to figure out which one to count for points, so the software has to try and figure out which part of my finger I'm trying to use as the cursor tip. The only way for a touch screen to be accurate is when you use a stylus, and if the touch screen is in the controller like the DS and you want to use the buttons as well you have to switch between the two.

Eh. That's why you design the interfaces with large controls that are easy to aim at. And since video game GUIs already are, needing to be easily readable on a screen ten feet away and all, I don't see any issue.

 

[Colt47]

Having two screens to play with can only be justified if both screens are used synchronously. It makes sense on the DS because the screens are right next to each other and there's a dearth of screen real estate on a handheld, but my living room TV is very big and lots of stuff can fit on it.

Bully for you. My living room TV isn't all that big, and a lot of games tend to look quite cluttered and cramped on it because of all the HUD crap thrown onto it. Have you seen the HUD for Battlefield 3? A messier collection of maps and info I have yet to see. If the Wii U controller can be used for something even as simple as decluttering the utter mess that has become the Shooter HUD screen, then I'll be thankful. Being able to go through inventories and menus and keyboards without having to wrestle with D-pads and bumpers is another plus. Being able to play directly on my controller while someone else watches the TV is a third.

There you go: three direct benefits that can arise from having a touchscreen controller, none of which require any touch-screen gameplay gimmickry, and all of which would make gaming more enjoyable for the likes of me, who can't afford 40" HD monstrosities. That's just off the top of my head.

I envision people going back and forth on this one depending on their home set up. The primary use of the screen seems to be focused more around a means for kids to play games while the parents are watching TV. Other uses for the device are kind of an after thought. It's still not as much of a dead end as core handheld gaming is and is continuing to be, with lesser versions of mainstream console titles continuing to be ported to them just to give them a facsimile of a game library. However, it's probably a feature that will exist solely in this coming generation of consoles and then cease to be, much like the Dreamcast.

 

[David Chadwell]

Yahtzee is demonstrably wrong this time. The so-called 'video game crash' of 1983 was due to non-exclusivity. Consoles aren't viably sold at a price that covers their manufacture. What subsidizes that manufacture is software. In 1983 Ataris and Colecolovisions and whatever elses all had the same Pong, PacMan, Q-bert and no reason to buy any particular console. Hence, each one failed to stay profitable and the concept of home videogames nearly took one in the face. Shigeru Miyamoto's work allowed an NES to exist: a console with exclusive content. Nintendo became a powerhouse as the only place to get Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc.

If Yahtzee's thesis was that the future can get away from this with leaps in tech and market (cloud computing giving access to games via a service and access devices become interchangable, for example) then fine. But MS is only in the console business to make sure other companies don't make that money (in the same way Google docs is a free service from a search engine/advertising company). MS has no vested interest in stopping the console war, neither does Sony and Nintendo remains the only company in any hope of a position to win one (regularly going after yet-to-be gamers, in house great-not-just-good properties). To ask for a console and NOT a console war is kinda stupid.

Even this Steam Box is just a leap down the same road. Valve will make money from Half-Life 3 to cover any other endeavor and giving developers a direct line to customers for a cut is a profitable and respectable service. Linux plus a free install of the Steam service allowing it to go home brew kicks other console makers in the teeth. EA getting jacked on Origin, X-Box/PS? being undersold and out-manuevered...all that helps not only customers but Valve in the long run. But companies still need a reason for a customer to make the choice to purchase their particular device instead of another to maintain the growth of capabilities of consoles. Even if not every experiment agrees with every customer (Wii controls for some people apparently).