next »

[Richard Kain]

Innovation in general is good. Specific innovations aren't inherently good just because they're innovations.

This is an issue of perspective that I would like to address.

Game companies started using the term "innovation" to describe what they were attempting, and now it has become a label that gets applied to absolutely anything that is out of the ordinary. But this doesn't work, largely due to the positive nature of the word "innovation." Companies use that particular word because it is a safe term, that inspires positive feelings. "Innovation" makes for good PR.

But the truth of the matter is that most game designers aren't "innovating." They are "experimenting." They are making an attempt at developing or designing something different. The positive term "innovate" should be reserved for after the fact. It is an affirmation to be applied to an experiment that has already proven successful.

At the same time, I don't understand some of the resistance in the core gaming demographics toward the kind of experiments that hardware developers have been engaging in. Experimentation is necessary for progress and growth. It doesn't always lead to positive results, but it is essential for change.

When I see people being openly resistant towards experimental hardware design, I can't help but think that they are simply afraid of change.

[Christian Knudsen]

Not to get all semantically on you, but:

Definition of INNOVATION

1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

Applies perfectly to a new piece of gaming hardware that a developer has been experimenting on in private and is now going to sell as a finished product.

[Zecks]

this is the nth time someone has gotten semantical about the word. we get it, does it really matter?

every goddamn argument on this site follows the same pattern

[thatshelby]

It is a HUGE mistake on Nintendo's part if they don't allow multi-tablet support. I can give many scenarios where it would enrich gaming.

-Card games, obviously

-Turn-based strategies, players select their movements/actions while others are taking their turn

-Action games, having your own screen would be awesome.

-Mario Kart Double Dash - like game, imagine you being the driver and your friend being the item-thrower, full 360-degree aiming would be cool.

-Suppose two of you are playing on a team in a fighting game like SSB. One can control the fighter, the other can control elements of the stage, adding or removing things.


You get the idea- there is a lot of stuff. If Nintendo doesn't add this, they may have another Virtual Boy on their hands.


I think the Wii U will attract casual gamers who are not yet hardcore gamers, turning them into hardcore gamers and creating a hipster tribe of the current hardcore gamers. "I was a hardcore gamer before the Wii U; I play cool games and you play dumb ones".

[C.A. Sinner]

If someone makes an argument I'd be happy to talk about it, I just don't see anything to respond to in what he said. And stop quoting people and rewriting what you think they said, that's literally a strawman, and pretends that the words I have purposely chosen are some sort of mask.

Yeah, we all know AshfordPride's debating methods are questionable to say the least, but your original post was a strawman as well. You brushed aside (IMO very valid) criticisms of Nintendo and the Wii with "Welp I guess you just hate innovation."

The way I see it, the current standard format of buttons + monitor exists for a reason: It works and is extremely versatile, allowing for a great number of different types of games (which we aren't even close to having fully explored yet btw). Most "alternative" control methods, like motion, touch or mouse controls, are more specialized and only really work for a handful of games. Any system that prioritizes them over buttons is going to be limited by that. This is also why the DS works so much better than the Wii.

[unsilentwill]

My actual quote was "Frankly the Wii hasn't been worth the money until Skyward Sword, the only game that couldn't be done without motion control at its core".

What I'm confused about is dismissal of technology before you see the applications. And yeah, I thought I made clear that the Wii U also isn't actually all that innovative. The system is a year away and there are like 2 games actually announced and people are ripping this thing to shreds.

In fact the Wii U is all about going away from strange and new and possible commercial failure by making an HD DS living room. So, there's not much to worry about. I love old games as much as anyone else, it's awesome, I'll play the ports and the dual analog stuff. And I agree there there's thousand and thousands of amazing games for the traditional set up yet to come, but motion control and 3D especially are at the core of what I think gaming can do, and if companies want to try that I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: and at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, playing games like Wii Sports Resort (which honestly makes me ill to type) Red Steel 2, and the 3DS at Best Buy get me excited for what can be done with new tech, not just a fetish for shiny.

[C.A. Sinner]

Uh.. I own a 3DS and I find the 3D effect to be a visual gimmick that adds very little to games but yeah, whatever.

[lokijki]

From reading various hands on things about the controller, it seems like the general consensus is, "I know it looks bulky, but it actually feels great." And seeing as no one here has actually held one (as far as I know), we could probably do without arguing that it won't work well as a controller.

Also, I would say there are plenty of games for Wii that wouldn't work without motion control at their core. Wii Sports being an obvious one, but plenty of games just wouldn't have worked as well without it. And plenty of games that didn't need motion control at their core were still improved by them, like Resident Evil 4 and Twilight Princess, as mentioned before. To say that the entire console is only worth one game at the end of it's lifespan is ridiculous. I bought one at launch and have spent plenty of time with it since then, and I don't regret buying it. (And I wasn't even planning on buying Skyward Sword.)

[C.A. Sinner]

There's one flaw in the controller's design that's already obvious without ever having used it: You have to reposition your hand to press the Start/Select buttons.

[Samtagonist]

But the truth of the matter is that most game designers aren't "innovating." They are "experimenting." They are making an attempt at developing or designing something different. The positive term "innovate" should be reserved for after the fact. It is an affirmation to be applied to an experiment that has already proven successful.

Very well said.

At the same time, I don't understand some of the resistance in the core gaming demographics toward the kind of experiments that hardware developers have been engaging in. Experimentation is necessary for progress and growth. It doesn't always lead to positive results, but it is essential for change.

I don't oppose all experimentation.  If I did, video gaming would be a very bad hobby to get into.  Series, consoles, and even entire genres can undergo sweeping changes in little time at all, it's very volatile place.  I've come to accept many changes over the years, analog controls, shoulder buttons, three dimension graphics, etc.  However, I reserve the right to be leery towards things that don't interest me, things so far out of my schema for what I want out of a game that causes me mental strain trying to come up with ways that someone can use this to make a game that I would like.

When I see people being openly resistant towards experimental hardware design, I can't help but think that they are simply afraid of change.

But it's not very experimental.  The point I'm trying to drive home about the Wii U is that it is more or less everything we've seen for the DS and the Wii just polished up a bit more.  In my experience with the Wii and the DS, I saw a significant less amount of games that appealed to me because of Nintendo's choice of experimenting.

[Samtagonist]

There's one flaw in the controller's design that's already obvious without ever having used it: You have to reposition your hand to press the Start/Select buttons.

Everyone I talk to says this.  Anarkex was the first person I knew to bring it up and now everyone seems to be saying it.  I'm still hopeful that it's something they could fix, as I recall the Wiimote we first saw when the Wii was revealed was much different from the final product. 

Still, this sort of design harkens back to controllers like the Atari 5200 or the Jaguar where all the buttons weren't in easy reach of your fingers.  All the Wii U is missing is a numeric keypad and overlays. 

[mirosurabu]

You won't be using these buttons anyways cause there is this big screen in your hands. Maybe? Or maybe not.

[DavidCaruso]

lol holy shit I just realized the WiiU controller also has a mic.

Mic, touch screen, gyroscope and accelerometer for motion controls, camera, and the "hold up controller to screen" thing too. I really am greatly anticipating games for this console, only to see what kind of trainwrecks can be made as games try to incorporate all of these features. And oh my god imagine playing WiiU Virtual Console games.

Why is the hand repositioning for the Start/Select button such a huge flaw? Won't those just mainly be used to pause the game, in which case you wouldn't need to press any other buttons anyway? The bigger flaw I see is the Game Gear shenanigans going on (except that only had a D-Pad and 2 main buttons).

[Samtagonist]

You won't be using these buttons anyways cause there is this big screen in your hands.

Ah, there's the rub-a-dub-dub.

With a controller, you have a very nice convenience of familiarizing yourself with a layout that translates from game to game.  What I'm trying to say is, you'll always know where the A button is on a controller regardless of if it makes you jump in Game A or if it makes you shoot in Game B.  If the game prompts you to press the A button, you know where it is.

With a touch screen, we're kind of at the mercy of whatever UI the game devs make.  How do we know where we'll decide to put the button to pause the game?  Will it be in the top-right?  Bottom-left?  Upper-middle?  It's a bit of convenience that we'll have to sacrifice, because given a giant screen to work with devs have the potential to make a completely new control layout for each game.

I just want to pause the game.

[Samtagonist]

Why is the hand repositioning for the Start/Select button such a huge flaw? Won't those just mainly be used to pause the game, in which case you wouldn't need to press any other buttons anyway? The bigger flaw I see is the Game Gear shenanigans going on (except that only had a D-Pad and 2 main buttons).

I guess it's not that big of a deal.  I'm sure that the Wii U games will have more than enough buttons to work with.

Something to worry about moreso is how much the controllers are going to cost.  It seems like each one has more tech in it than a DS.  I thought paying sixty dollars for a 360 controller was painful, but, I can only imagine how much purchasing another would cost.  Wait, so, you only use one tablet per console?