Wii U Controller Limitations to Save on Costs, Says Nintendo

[Pendragon9]

Oh, I'm sorry Nintendo. I guess we shouldn't expect quality from you if it costs too much. After all, you are SWIMMING IN MONEY.

Geez, this is the laziest thing they've ever done. I'm not buying a Wii U just because of it.

 

[walrusaurus]

I never claimed that you-claimed-they-did. It's "just a little fact" while we were on the subject of Nintendo innovation and pioneering new interfaces and gaming concepts.

Precisely. It was completely irrelevant to the conversation. Its the equivalent of me popping up and saying: "ya those things are all well and good but Nintendo didn't invent the television. Thats been around since the twenties and it has a way bigger impact on gaming than rumble."

I think you are being pretty narrow minded to say I'm the only one to give due praise to thumbstick click-down. The feature is absolutely pivotal for console games that are trying to match the flexibility of PC's mouse + keyboard controls.

It's telling that:
-Nintendo has not implemented a click-down thumbstick, ever
-you are a self confessed nintendo fanboy (post #93 of this thread)
-you assert click-down thumbsticks are "universally disliked"

Ok, I have to admit, you actually made me laugh pretty hard at this one.
The vast majority of gamers love Nintendo from when we were kids, they just hate where the company has been going for the last 8 years. Nearly all of my favorite games growing up were Nintendo's. Thats not some earthshattering revelation.


L3 and R3 have been derided since their inception for being very awkward to use when tilting the stick. Having to use analog click to melee rather than a shoulder button is the thing i hate most about CoD's default control scheme. There's a reason why in 90% of games those buttons do nothing, or something extremely trivial.

 

[BrotherRool]

So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?

 

[Treblaine]

L3 and R3 have been derided since their inception for being very awkward to use when tilting the stick. Having to use analog click to melee rather than a shoulder button is the thing i hate most about CoD's default control scheme. There's a reason why in 90% of games those buttons do nothing, or something extremely trivial.

What is this? 2002? Sure many people USED TO derided thumb-click then when most games had fixed camera angles the right thumb hovered over the 4 face-buttons that were obviously going to be better buttons. But not any more.

But you know what we all hated even more? Shitty camera controls, or more precisely lack of camera controls, with the camera either fixed overhead or following you hopelessly and erratically. Developers have learned how satisfying it is for the players to control precisely where the camera looks and where they are aiming.

This new control standard relegates the face-buttons to similar status as the D-pad, secondary input mainly for small adjustment that raen't so time-critical such as reloading, weapon-select and so on. HERE the thumb-click is appreciated as it is the function you can activate with your thumb at ANY TIME while aiming and moving without having to adjust your fingers that are in comfortable position on the shoulder-buttons.

Look, console games are trying to match the depth and complexity of PC controls, and they can only possibly do that by maximising the ergonomic efficiency of your fingers, that includes making full use of the buttons available.

"(objects to) analogue click to melee rather than a shoulder button"

OK, it is reasonable to move Melee to say Right Bumper, but what about the function that WAS on that shoulder button? Does it disappear? You can't dismiss it so easily. What makes a good button is more than just the quality of it's press but how easy it is to press.

You can press the right or left thumbstick any time, even while using sights (holding L-Trigger) and shooting (R-trigger).

Halo Reach has melee as the Right-bumper, grenade throw is another shoulder button and "use-sights" is down on Right-stick button. It fits the playstyle of Halo, where melee is less time critical, it takes many well aimed hits to kill. In CoD melee is a twitch-response, the first to strike wins and there is little time for a 2nd strike.

 

[Treblaine]

So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?

Well in a way you can still do it, as you only have one EXTRA screen.

Player A= uses TV
Player B= uses screen controller

The Wii-U's setup would be most uselful for novel multiplayer modes such as where player A (using screen) has to do something while player B can see both his opponent's perspective yet keep his own hidden.

Doesn't seem that amazing, IMHO Pac-Man Versus did it better:


But would people care about something like this? I don't know. But if anyone can sell it, it's Nintendo.

 

[walrusaurus]

What is this? 2002? Sure many people USED TO derided thumb-click then when most games had fixed camera angles the right thumb hovered over the 4 face-buttons that were obviously going to be better buttons. But not any more.

But you know what we all hated even more? Shitty camera controls, or more precisely lack of camera controls, with the camera either fixed overhead or following you hopelessly and erratically. Developers have learned how satisfying it is for the players to control precisely where the camera looks and where they are aiming.

This new control standard relegates the face-buttons to similar status as the D-pad, secondary input mainly for small adjustment that raen't so time-critical such as reloading, weapon-select and so on. HERE the thumb-click is appreciated as it is the function you can activate with your thumb at ANY TIME while aiming and moving without having to adjust your fingers that are in comfortable position on the shoulder-buttons.

Look, console games are trying to match the depth and complexity of PC controls, and they can only possibly do that by maximising the ergonomic efficiency of your fingers, that includes making full use of the buttons available.

"(objects to) analogue click to melee rather than a shoulder button"

OK, it is reasonable to move Melee to say Right Bumper, but what about the function that WAS on that shoulder button? Does it disappear? You can't dismiss it so easily. What makes a good button is more than just the quality of it's press but how easy it is to press.

You can press the right or left thumbstick any time, even while using sights (holding L-Trigger) and shooting (R-trigger).

Halo Reach has melee as the Right-bumper, grenade throw is another shoulder button and "use-sights" is down on Right-stick button. It fits the playstyle of Halo, where melee is less time critical, it takes many well aimed hits to kill. In CoD melee is a twitch-response, the first to strike wins and there is little time for a 2nd strike.

Wow, ok, where to begin. Your proclivity for wandering way off topic has left you talking about an entirely different topic than what this thread is about. Your vearing further away here with a discussion of camera controls.

Although, it's pretty clear that you play fps' to the exclusion of most everything else. Or at the very least your perspective is wholly focused on FPS'. Every post in this thread you've used CoD as an example, and your assertion that the face buttons have been relegated to d'pad status is--frankly-- ridiculous. Play anything, Assassins creed, Fable, UNcharted, Prototype, Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur, Ratchet and Clank, or God of War just to name a few titles you may have heard of.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

....And what happenned to the whole local multiplayer thing?

Look, Nintendo. Nothing but love, but AT LEAST ALLOW FOR TWO CONTROLLERS! Only allowing one per console is...well...Stupid. It SEVERELY limits the things you can do with the console, specifically multiplayer.

...AT LEAST allow for two!

 

[BrotherRool]

So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?

Well in a way you can still do it, as you only have one EXTRA screen.

Player A= uses TV
Player B= uses screen controller

The Wii-U's setup would be most uselful for novel multiplayer modes such as where player A (using screen) has to do something while player B can see both his opponent's perspective yet keep his own hidden.

Actually that's really interesting. There can't be any straight up versus modes because only one player would have the touch and there can't be any motion control ones, unless they throw away the new controller already (unless it turns out that it's actually not unwieldy to swing around a large flat touch screen, as opposed to a stick) but you're right, they could do some really interesting asymmetrical co-ops and multiplayers.

It would however require them making game mechanics very different to that of the actual single-player game though.

Even for a multiplatform game, like COD, FiFA or any fighting game, it would require throwing away the touch and just getting out two wii-motes if people wanted a balanced multiplayer match

 

[Treblaine]

Wow, ok, where to begin. Your proclivity for wandering way off topic has left you talking about an entirely different topic than what this thread is about. Your vearing further away here with a discussion of camera controls.

Although, it's pretty clear that you play fps' to the exclusion of most everything else. Or at the very least your perspective is wholly focused on FPS'. Every post in this thread you've used CoD as an example, and your assertion that the face buttons have been relegated to d'pad status is--frankly-- ridiculous. Play anything, Assassins creed, Fable, UNcharted, Prototype, Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur, Ratchet and Clank, or God of War just to name a few titles you may have heard of.

It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.

Nintendo are using cheap nub-sliders for Wii-U that have no click-down ability, that is a problem to spite what contrivances you resort to in attempts to dismiss it. Nintendo have screwed up and unless THE FANBASE actually stand up to them and make a fuss then they won't correct it in time!

I use CoD as an example because it is a GOOD example of its use and so many people are familiar with it. I also referenced Halo. It's not just First Person shooters, third person shooters like Uncharted and Gears of War use click down to "activate sights" also Red Dead Redemption uses r-stick button to activate Dead Eye, very important. Other games that depend on stick click-down:
-infamous
-Resistance 1&2
-Batman: Arkham Asylum
-Mass Effect 2

While it may be true that face-buttons aren't ENTIRELY as relegated as the d-pad, you have to admit aren't any were near as important as when people use to complain about analogue-stick buttons. Perhaps I've been too harsh, but I assure you it came after me playing games where you had similar status-change functions (rather than action buttons) mounted to both d-pad and face buttons. I certainly view them similarly: the thumbsticks and shoulder buttons are primary interface, d-pad and face-buttons for selecting items, or change character status, or whatever.

"Play Soul Calibur, or God of War"
Two games with FIXED cameras, right stick is not used, so thumb is on face-buttons.

"Assassins creed, Fable, Prototype, Prince of Persia"
All uses lock-on-targeting for combat, so again right thumb is free of controlling camera to use face-buttons.

You have cherry picked the few games that avoid the main feature of the right-stick to control the camera. Are you saying all action games on Wii-U will require a rock-solid lock-on targeting system or a fixed camera? Because those kinda sucks in games with multiple enemies or with long range. Very limiting.

At least with a fully featured controller like an Xbox 360 gamepad you have the OPTIONS to use a variety of combat types, the Wii-U is undeniably more limited than the established platform Nintendo "claims" they are now directly competing with.

You have to admit that Wii-U's controller has been far too conservative to appeal to "experienced gamers" as Iwata tried to claim.

Really the form factor seems to appeal far more to the iPad crowd who Nintendo seems to think will somehow settle for:
-a smaller screen
-at smaller resolution
-and lower pixel density.
The Wii-U's screen (determined by clever pixel counting tricks at E3) is only 854x480p, against ipad's 1024x768p.

Just compare and contrast Wii-U with an iPad using fling controller:


Look a how similar that Fling-peripheral is in use to Wii-U's nub-slider, yet in use here (on a $400 device) you get overall a far larger viewing area. THIS is a platform and form factor that appeals to both casual and core gamers yet doesn't need to be tethered to a console.

iPad 3 will be out by the time Wii-U comes to market but look what iPad 2 can do already in terms of graphics:

(watch in HD)

I think Nintendo have chosen the wrong fight here. They are not strong enough to take on the Big Apple. Even if they are able to outshine Apple in 2012, the next iteration of iPad will smoke it easily even if not as graphically powerful it will have the devs and market forces behind it to push the potential. And if iPad implements on-live style streaming... Wii-U is up shit creek.

Nintendo seems to have taken a bold idea yet compromised much it is now the worst of all worlds.

They aren't unique and pioneering any more, they are derivative and tacky.

 

[holy_secret]

Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.

I hope you're not sarcastic.

I agree. What's the big deal?
It's like everyone's forgetting it's. Completely new console. There is the wii u and then the wii u controller. The wii u is more powerful than the current generation consoles. It's not a damn wii.

Jesus Christ peeps. I can bet my arm that people would've complained when they'd seen the price for the controller.
"omg are we supposed to pay this much for the controller to play multiplayer it's insane waaah".
It's a new console. It's a new controller. It can only use one wii u controller at a time.

I ask again. What is the issue?

 

[weirdee]

Issues:

- Can't use more than one new controller. Defeats whole purpose of having a special controller that your whole product is based on if only one person gets to use it because the Wii is supposed to be a social gaming device. However, probably should have seen that one coming with the whole "U" thing. If anything, just makes it look like an overpriced peripheral to the same ol console they've had for years that they're just reselling to you.

- Still no actual dual sticks, just a couple sliders. Peeps are dead set on that kind of thing. Of course, these people are also the ones saying "don't make shooter ports because we have other consoles for that" so really we shouldn't listen to those complaints as they're not the target market in the first place and adding them wouldn't really do it any service if they're just going to continue being dicks about it.

- People just want normal controllers. Once again, these are the people who are saying that it's too late to get those people back anyway. So...still, why would they bother to have a normal controller if the people who would have cared say they don't? Whatever.

- Continued lame online support. They need to figure that one out themselves.

- People don't fall for the same thing twice, they're going to need to put some really solid proof of concept out there before anybody's going to bite. Just because the Wii was successful doesn't mean that they came out with enough games to support it afterwards...it just meant that a lot of people believed in them, then were consequently let down and couldn't return their unit to the store. if they don't see anything that they want then they're not going to keep paying money.

yes i know they say it's more powerful but it's not powerful enough to do what they need to do to make this thing fly, if they half-ass it now, they're not going to sell anything and by the time the next gen for the other guys comes around it'll just get buried and everything is ruined again because leaving it to the other two idiots means losing fun forever because those dorks don't got anything new either

price point or not they're just designing it for failure because they're making something people don't care about, and if the cost to make people care is too great, hey maybe take another look at the design because you need to remake it to work better with the market

admit it to yourself

at this point i would prefer if they somehow made a more public demonstration that would get the facts straight about this thing because the rumor mill is shredding them

 

[Asuka Soryu]

This is nice for me. All my friends live to far away are are to busy with work so I only see them rarely, so I won't need multiplayer.

 

[walrusaurus]

It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.
*snip*

Seeing as my post which you originally responded to was debunking the claim that all Nintendo's gimmicks have failed over the last 2 decades, I'd say that, ya, your wall of text about how awesome sticks with click buttons under them are compared to digital sliders, something about ipad, and some other drivel is pretty far afield.

The fact that those games don't use the right stick was the point. I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death. Happy gaming to you sir.

 

[Treblaine]

It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.
*snip*

Seeing as my post which you originally responded to was debunking the claim that all Nintendo's gimmicks have failed over the last 2 decades, I'd say that, ya, your wall of text about how awesome sticks with click buttons under them are compared to digital sliders, something about ipad, and some other drivel is pretty far afield.

The fact that those games don't use the right stick was the point. I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death. Happy gaming to you sir.

Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.

How about you read my post rather than skimming over and concluding it is "Some drivel about ipads". That is poor forum etiquette calling people's well reasoned posts "drivel" it's a meaningless insult. Part of my argument was how Nintendo's slider-nubs do little to distinguish Wii-U from the iPad where it will inevitably be compared badly. It already would compare badly with PSVita if it tried to fill the same niche thanks to real analogue sticks.

On the subject of Nub sliders, the developers of Alien Freaks From Space seems to have such little faith in them they are using gyro control for aiming instead. Oh god.

So you call my last post a load of drivel then say:

"I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death."

Hmm, so you just felt the need to put the last word in with a snide jab? Utterly disingenuous how you flit from tabloid mockery to be suddenly diplomatic.

 

[walrusaurus]

Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.

That's a pretty wafer thin justification. I very seriously doubt that sticks are in any meaningful way more expensive than sliders. Maybe an extra dollar since its got a button built into it, maybe.

I called your iPad comparisons drivel, because everything I've read that rag's on Nintendo for producing an iPad clone, or talks about how iPad is so much better than WiiU has been precisely that: inane bullshit. I didn't read the latter half of your post or watch any of your imbedded video's, so if you've achieved some new level of insight my apologies.

 

[Treblaine]

Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.

That's a pretty wafer thin justification. I very seriously doubt that sticks are in any meaningful way more expensive than sliders. Maybe an extra dollar since its got a button built into it, maybe.

I called your iPad comparisons drivel, because everything I've read that rag's on Nintendo for producing an iPad clone, or talks about how iPad is so much better than WiiU has been precisely that: inane bullshit. I didn't read the latter half of your post or watch any of your imbedded video's, so if you've achieved some new level of insight my apologies.

Huh? It's "Wafer thin justification" to stay on topic? Yeeeeeah, keep telling yourself that, I don't care if you ignore it, that just shows how little faith you have in your own argument. You clearly don't have a leg to stand on with this point that's why you keep desperately trying to say it is not relevant.

You're getting desperate, I've got your goat now and you are lashing out with baseless insults, just calling all unfavourable comparisons "inane bullshit" without any possible explanation.

Then taking the ultimate in immaturity and refusing to read my whole reply... yet you felt the need to respond? If you don't think my post is worth reading why is it worth replying?

I'm sorry these home truths are hard for you to swallow but that's no excuse to resort to such petty fallacies as "I won't read it, LA LA LA LAH! If you can't hear your argument it's not true!".