Revolution Controller

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nintendo was fun for all of us back in the day.... when we were far younger. It did not take a lot to impress us when we were 5-12 years old. That's why we still think nintendo kicked ass.

Do yourself a favor: whip out your old N64 and put in goldeneye. Time how long it takes before you get bored. Laser watches and such don't impress us anymore.

And that's where nintendo lacks. Play a PSP and you feel impressed. Play a DS and you feel like a 12 year old again.

There is no question if nintendo is innovative... I mean, one DS game requires you to hum the correct note into the mic to do something. That's clever, original, interesting.

Nintendo's innate problem is that they are not appeasing to anything but the prepubescent gamer. "Teens" or adolescents don't go out and buy a gameboy, unless its for their child.

For the target audience, your wee Junior, Nintendo will always be there, getting their profits. It doesn't take much to impress an 8 year old (e.g. Pokemon!). They have a formula for that. But for the growing masses of older gamers, Nintendo is at a lack of products.

Care to differ?
 
I love how every Nintendo thread on here turns into the exact same thing somehow, actually I don't, there's always one who feels the need to take a quick stab at the company. How about discussing the topic on hand?
 
I dont think it would be a good move by Nintendo to introduce a controller with no buttons. Gyroscopic mice did not do well for the same reason this controller will not. People need some sort of feedback when using a hand input device. The hand uses the sense of touch, removing this sense and using movement instead is a bad ergonomic decision.

I mean why not attach it to your arm and call in the "power glove 2", if your not going to press any buttons. The power glove was a fad that died out pretty damn quick, because of lack of developer support. This type of movement sensitive controller will go the same way.
 
First I would like to say that if nintendo does go down the tubes with this generation of consoles they would go down in history as the greatest video game company ever. Whoever said nintendo doesn't innovate is an idiot, do you enjoy using your anolog stick PS2 controller? Nintendo did it first. Do you like force feedback? Nintendo did it first. How about handheld games? Nintendo did it first. Nintendo has brought so much to this industry EVERY game player owes it to them to be respectful and thankful for what they have done.

Second, the thing pictured is not the new controller, that is an obviouse fake. HOWEVER, I have to applaud Nintendo for FINALLY breaking free of the buttom mashing style of game play. I am so sick of holding a tiny controller in my hand and pushing tiny little buttons to drive my 500hp Viper around the track, or fire an m16 into a crowd of terrorists. The controller, above all else, is a constant reminder that what you are doing is not real. With the power of these new systems we will be closer than ever to blurring that line between whats real and what we see on the screen. Unfortunately, no matter how good the graphics are, how realistic the sound effects and gameplay are, it is impossible to be submersed in a game while sitting on your couch holding a plastic box in your hand and pushing buttons.

I don't know what type of input nintendo will be using for the revolution, all I know is that it is a step in the right direction. If it wasn't for nintendo's inovative (and very risky) business practices we would be stuck mashing buttons long into the future. God knows that Sony or Microsoft don't have the balls to do something like this.
 
krizzle said:
Nintendo was fun for all of us back in the day.... when we were far younger. It did not take a lot to impress us when we were 5-12 years old. That's why we still think nintendo kicked ass.

Do yourself a favor: whip out your old N64 and put in goldeneye. Time how long it takes before you get bored. Laser watches and such don't impress us anymore.

And that's where nintendo lacks. Play a PSP and you feel impressed. Play a DS and you feel like a 12 year old again.

There is no question if nintendo is innovative... I mean, one DS game requires you to hum the correct note into the mic to do something. That's clever, original, interesting.

Nintendo's innate problem is that they are not appeasing to anything but the prepubescent gamer. "Teens" or adolescents don't go out and buy a gameboy, unless its for their child.

For the target audience, your wee Junior, Nintendo will always be there, getting their profits. It doesn't take much to impress an 8 year old (e.g. Pokemon!). They have a formula for that. But for the growing masses of older gamers, Nintendo is at a lack of products.

Care to differ?
Click to expand...
yes. gameplay > graphics for MANY PEOPLE. at college, in the dorms, the most common video game played was SSB for the n64. and many people i know still LOVE to play goldeneye. or even SNES games. fun is fun, even if its old. teens DO go out and buy a gc, i have and my friends have.
 
As cool as this could be, I have to wonder what this would do for the fps/driving/street fighter-esque genres. It seems they'd kill off a lot of marketability with this just to get a few innovative games. I love nintendo over the other guys (with the exception of my dreamcast), but they do have a rep for making interesting hardware and then abandoning it or not using it to it's potential.
 
CHollman82 said:
Whoever said nintendo doesn't innovate is an idiot, do you enjoy using your anolog stick PS2 controller? Nintendo did it first. Do you like force feedback? Nintendo did it first. How about handheld games? Nintendo did it first. Nintendo has brought so much to this industry EVERY game player owes it to them to be respectful and thankful for what they have done.
Click to expand...

Nintendo did none of these first. Arcades and early consoles already had analog-style control design (though lacking true analog input, primarily because games like Pitfall didn't exactly need 360-degree control.) Force feedback was done first and better on PC peripherals: the Rumble Pak gave a generic vibration at a preset scripted time, rather than true feedback in conjunction with a real-time event. And in actuality, Microsoft seems poised to deliver true force feedback, something that Nintendo has yet to do, if this story is to be believed. Handheld games had been done before the Game Boy: ever heard of Tiger Electronics?

Stop cloaking your arguments with the company's past in order to dodge the subject of their current performance.


The controller, above all else, is a constant reminder that what you are doing is not real. With the power of these new systems we will be closer than ever to blurring that line between whats real and what we see on the screen. Unfortunately, no matter how good the graphics are, how realistic the sound effects and gameplay are, it is impossible to be submersed in a game while sitting on your couch holding a plastic box in your hand and pushing buttons.
Click to expand...

Your television is a far greater reminder that what you are doing isn't real than any joypad. You can buy a steering wheel peripheral for racing games: that doesn't mean you're actually in the car.


I don't know what type of input nintendo will be using for the revolution, all I know is that it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

How can you not know what a company is doing, yet automatically know it's good? Oh, wait... blind loyalty, yeah.


If it wasn't for nintendo's inovative (and very risky) business practices we would be stuck mashing buttons long into the future. God knows that Sony or Microsoft don't have the balls to do something like this.
Click to expand...

Replace "balls" with "desperation" and you'd be correct. I can easily turn your statement around and say Nintendo doesn't have the balls to make a game running at 720p, while Sony and Microsoft do, and it would mean about the same as your statement: precisely nothing.

Innovation occurs in software, not hardware. Let's say that the DS actually is innovative: no one buys a system because the system itself is innovative. Name the last console you bought because it did something different: I doubt you can. Now, name the last console you bought because its games appealed to you, and I'm sure you have a nominee.
 
Terpfen said:
Nintendo did none of these first. Arcades and early consoles already had analog-style control design (though lacking true analog input, primarily because games like Pitfall didn't exactly need 360-degree control.)
Click to expand...

Arcades did not have anolog sticks, they had d-pads with a joystick on top giving them at most 8 directions (up, down, left, right, and diagonals) and I don't care what you say that is not even close to the same thing.

Terpfen said:
Force feedback was done first and better on PC peripherals
Click to expand...

I don't recal any FF PC peripherals before the N64 controller came out, but I may be wrong... I wasn't as much of a PC gamer back then....

Terpfen said:
Handheld games had been done before the Game Boy: ever heard of Tiger Electronics?
Click to expand...

Thats not the same thing. Those games used static displays and lights to illuminate parts of the image you were supposed to see, far FAR from a real LCD display. Other than the display those games had no where near the depth of gameplay (or the market penetration for that matter) as the Gameboy and later revisions of... If Nintendo didn't do this first then they at least perfected it and made in mainstream.

Terpfen said:
Your television is a far greater reminder that what you are doing isn't real than any joypad. You can buy a steering wheel peripheral for racing games: that doesn't mean you're actually in the car.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While I am playing games I can tune out whats going on around me and forget completely that I am looking at a monitor or TV, especially with a big display (65" DLP big enough lol). Add in 1000 watts of 7.1 surround sound and I could lose myself in the experience if it wasn't for the controller.

Terpfen said:
How can you not know what a company is doing, yet automatically know it's good? Oh, wait... blind loyalty, yeah.
Click to expand...

I know that they are not sticking with traditional controllers, which, as I said, is a step in the right direction....

Terpfen said:
Innovation occurs in software, not hardware.
Click to expand...

Thats the most ignorant thing I have heard in this thread. There is nothing innovative in software. The only difference between todays FPS and Unreal Tournament (for example) is that the models are composed of 10x the number of polygons and there are new texture and lighting techniques... big fucking deal. Does that make a better game? I would rather play classic UT than most FPS out nowadays... because it is more FUN. Graphics != fun. Innovation comes in hardware. When the day comes that you no longer play a game sitting on your couch with a controller in your hand but in your own mind come and tell me that software is what innovates the industry....
 
Lack of developer support? If devs don't want to develop for the console that is THE EASIEST to develop for, they can enjoy creating half assed games for other consoles or games that take forever to release.

The only thing Microsoft and Sony are doing with their hardware is making it harder to develop games for them.
 
retardedchicken said:
Lack of developer support? If devs don't want to develop for the console that is THE EASIEST to develop for, they can enjoy creating half assed games for other consoles or games that take forever to release.

The only thing Microsoft and Sony are doing with their hardware is making it harder to develop games for them.
Click to expand...

Excuse me ? XNA tools ? If by harder, you mean much easier, to simultaneously develop for XBOX360 and PC, then you are correct.

Lets see, make a game for one platform, relatively easy, or make one game for multiple platforms, which may be a little harder, although the article which stated this has since been pulled. I know which route I would take... but if you dont believe me just look at the formerly exclusive developers that Nintendo has lost.
 
Shennanigans. The OP is just a troll.

None of the Nintendo patents cover anything remotely like this. You've all been had.
 
bonkrowave said:
Excuse me ? XNA tools ? If by harder, you mean much easier, to simultaneously develop for XBOX360 and PC, then you are correct.

Lets see, make a game for one platform, relatively easy, or make one game for multiple platforms, which may be a little harder, although the article which stated this has since been pulled. I know which route I would take... but if you dont believe me just look at the formerly exclusive developers that Nintendo has lost.
Click to expand...
actually, if you had read in that thread about the difficulty of creating multi-threaded games, you woulkd know the ps3 and xbox 360 are ALOT harder to develop for.
 
ryanrule said:
actually, if you had read in that thread about the difficulty of creating multi-threaded games, you woulkd know the ps3 and xbox 360 are ALOT harder to develop for.
Click to expand...

Well Softimage just announced a partnership which means 3D models and effects are very easy to create for the XBOX 360.

http://www.softimage.com/Home/Press/PressReleases/050628_dotfx.htm



I think I would rather take an actual developers word for how hard it is to program for the xbox 360. And Real Time Worlds is one, and has a very different opinion.

RTW said:
"We're delighted to be working with Microsoft," said David Jones, Creative Director, Real Time Worlds. "In the short time we've had to get to know Xbox 360, we've been blown away by the potential this platform offers and what it means for gamers – the exciting hardware means we can harness even more power to create amazing worlds that utilise innovative online components thanks to Xbox Live. The combination of powerful hardware, great software and innovative services has freed us up to concentrate on creating incredibly immersive game worlds and experiences that will define what this next generation means for gamers."
Click to expand...
 
CHollman82 said:
Thats not the same thing. Those games used static displays and lights to illuminate parts of the image you were supposed to see, far FAR from a real LCD display. Other than the display those games had no where near the depth of gameplay (or the market penetration for that matter) as the Gameboy and later revisions of... If Nintendo didn't do this first then they at least perfected it and made in mainstream.
Click to expand...
Gameboy's release in Japan: 1989
Gameboy's release in US: 1991
Atari Lynx's release in US: 1989

As far as GB Japan and Lynx US, I don't know who beat out who month-wise, but the Lynx was color. So there goes that argument. I'm not arguing this either way though, Torgo has it correct.
 
And how many people owned that atari lynx? As I said if they weren't the first to do it they were the first to do it well and bring it to the mainstream...
 
CHollman82 said:
And how many people owned that atari lynx? As I said if they weren't the first to do it they were the first to do it well and bring it to the mainstream...
Click to expand...
No, they just did it cheaper. The Lynx was pretty mainstream right before GB's release, or at least a good number of people I knew had one. But the point was you were implying the GB was the first of it's kind.
 
CHollman82 said:
And how many people owned that atari lynx? As I said if they weren't the first to do it they were the first to do it well and bring it to the mainstream...
Click to expand...

I had 3, they broke easy. I LOVED that system big time, I couldn't get enough Slime World, or that one racing game where you were driving down tunnel-like courses and could shoot stuff. It was all polygons, great game... ah memories. :)
 
redhalo said:
No, they just did it cheaper. The Lynx was pretty mainstream right before GB's release, or at least a good number of people I knew had one. But the point was you were implying the GB was the first of it's kind.
Click to expand...
It was the first of its kind, in the sense that someone wanted to buy it.

If Microsoft was losing money overall, yet still retained their share of the OS market, would you call them a failure?
Click to expand...
Certainly. They'd go out of business.

Anyway, Nintendo makes money thanks to their 16 year control of the portable market, which is more due to inept initial competition and lack of interest from primary competitors than it is to their brilliant business decisions.
Click to expand...
Apparently, their business decisions were more brilliant than those of their competitors if they're still in the market.

People joke about the PSP not having any decent battery life: they're about 14 years after their time. Sega's portables were horrendous, getting maybe 2 hours before you had to replace your non-recharging AA batteries. After Sega, what has Nintendo competed with in the portable arena? Bandai? SNK? They were about as fearsome as the Republican Guard, without the reputation.
Click to expand...

Which is why the GameBoy outsold the Game Gear.
Which is why the DS is outselling the PSP.

krizzle said:
Do yourself a favor: whip out your old N64 and put in goldeneye. Time how long it takes before you get bored. Laser watches and such don't impress us anymore.

And that's where nintendo lacks. Play a PSP and you feel impressed. Play a DS and you feel like a 12 year old again.

There is no question if nintendo is innovative... I mean, one DS game requires you to hum the correct note into the mic to do something. That's clever, original, interesting.

Nintendo's innate problem is that they are not appeasing to anything but the prepubescent gamer. "Teens" or adolescents don't go out and buy a gameboy, unless its for their child.
Click to expand...
I bought a Gameboy.

I never liked Goldeneye, but I still like Super Mario Bros.

I'm not impressed with the PSP or the DS, as neither of them have software which interests me.
For the target audience, your wee Junior, Nintendo will always be there, getting their profits. It doesn't take much to impress an 8 year old (e.g. Pokemon!). They have a formula for that. But for the growing masses of older gamers, Nintendo is at a lack of products.

Care to differ?
Click to expand...
I like Pokemon. I saw a guy in one of my university programming courses playing Pokemon on GBA.

Aye, if you believe an E rating is automatic grounds for rejection, then do as you wish.
I suppose it depends on if you want an interactive movie or just a video game.

Graphics are very important, as is selection. But overall experience is where Nintendo excels.

Arcades and early consoles already had analog-style control design (though lacking true analog input, primarily because games like Pitfall didn't exactly need 360-degree control.)
Click to expand...
Then it wasn't analog input and you're wrong.

Force feedback was done first and better on PC peripherals: the Rumble Pak gave a generic vibration at a preset scripted time, rather than true feedback in conjunction with a real-time event.
And in actuality, Microsoft seems poised to deliver true force feedback, something that Nintendo has yet to do, if this story is to be believed.
Click to expand...
A rumble pack is no more scripted than force feedback. You can't really force anything on a standard game controller and these expensive, specialized input devices will only appeal to 1% of gamers.

Handheld games had been done before the Game Boy: ever heard of Tiger Electronics?
Click to expand...
Tiger did not have a cartridge system. That's like comparing an arcade machine to a NES.
Nintendo had Game and Watch.
Innovation occurs in software, not hardware.
Click to expand...
That's just stupid. If so, we'd all be playing pinball and the console would have died years ago.
 
tiger did have a cartrige system, it was called Game.Com, it had some really cool games like Duke Nukem, Virtua Fighter Remix, Resident Evil 2 & u could go online with this thing.
 
krizzle said:
Nintendo was fun for all of us back in the day.... when we were far younger. It did not take a lot to impress us when we were 5-12 years old. That's why we still think nintendo kicked ass.

Do yourself a favor: whip out your old N64 and put in goldeneye. Time how long it takes before you get bored. Laser watches and such don't impress us anymore.

And that's where nintendo lacks. Play a PSP and you feel impressed. Play a DS and you feel like a 12 year old again.

There is no question if nintendo is innovative... I mean, one DS game requires you to hum the correct note into the mic to do something. That's clever, original, interesting.

Nintendo's innate problem is that they are not appeasing to anything but the prepubescent gamer. "Teens" or adolescents don't go out and buy a gameboy, unless its for their child.

For the target audience, your wee Junior, Nintendo will always be there, getting their profits. It doesn't take much to impress an 8 year old (e.g. Pokemon!). They have a formula for that. But for the growing masses of older gamers, Nintendo is at a lack of products.

Care to differ?
Click to expand...


I still play Nintendo alot. Me and friends still play Goldeneye, and it's better then most FPS games right now.

I bought a Gamecube not to long ago, and it's fun,
 
pr0pensity said:
It was the first of its kind, in the sense that someone wanted to buy it.
Click to expand...

Popularity doesn't make something original.

pr0pensity said:
Certainly. They'd go out of business.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Taking losses is part of business. Survival of the fittest isn't always translated to who is making the most money..sometimes it is viewed as who can survive losses the longest while gaining marketshare.

The fact that Nintendo posted minimal gains with the Gamecube. They're losing marketshare and that is what will count in the end.

pr0pensity said:
Apparently, their business decisions were more brilliant than those of their competitors if they're still in the market.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but being outsold by a fledgling competitor with a first-attempt console in an industry that you have been in for 20+ years isn't brilliance. It's downright pathetic.

pr0pensity said:
Which is why the GameBoy outsold the Game Gear.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the new millenium. The industry is completely different than it was.

pr0pensity said:
Aye, if you believe an E rating is automatic grounds for rejection, then do as you wish. I suppose it depends on if you want an interactive movie or just a video game.
Click to expand...

Games like Ninja Gaiden and Splinter Cell are far more than interactive movies.

pr0pensity said:
Graphics are very important, as is selection. But overall experience is where Nintendo excels.
Click to expand...

Then why are they repeating the same ignorant/stubborn practices that lost them their third-parties in the first place?
 
CHollman82 said:
I don't recal any FF PC peripherals before the N64 controller came out, but I may be wrong... I wasn't as much of a PC gamer back then....
Click to expand...
Thrustmaster had a Force Feedback joystick for PC on the market LOOOONG before Nintendo ever thought of strapping a woman's pleasure device to a controller. Seriously, anyone who thinks Nintendo's fucking rumble pack was Force Feedback is on some kinda drug induced high...or they haven't experienced REAL force Feedback.

Granted the Thrustmaster FF stick sucked, and would bust your knuckles if you had your hand near it while it was doing an effect (reason why MS put Infra-red sensors on their sticks, motors aren't active if your hand isn't on it) A couple flightsims supported the feature back when the stick was released (though which ones completely elude me at this point).
 
WickedAngel said:
Popularity doesn't make something original.
Click to expand...
They certainly did something original to succeed where others had failed.
Wrong. Taking losses is part of business. Survival of the fittest isn't always translated to who is making the most money..sometimes it is viewed as who can survive losses the longest while gaining marketshare.

The fact that Nintendo posted minimal gains with the Gamecube. They're losing marketshare and that is what will count in the end.
Click to expand...
One generation won't kill them. The X-Box had more powerful graphical hardware, yet the Gamecube sold just as well. Hardly a failure.


Sorry, but being outsold by a fledgling competitor with a first-attempt console in an industry that you have been in for 20+ years isn't brilliance. It's downright pathetic.
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with the GameBoy, what we were discussing?

Welcome to the new millenium. The industry is completely different than it was.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on completely neglecting the pertinent comment below that one.
Games like Ninja Gaiden and Splinter Cell are far more than interactive movies.
Click to expand...
Splinter Cell titles are available for Nintendo.
Then why are they repeating the same ignorant/stubborn practices that lost them their third-parties in the first place?
Click to expand...
What practices caused them to lose third party support?
 
pr0pensity said:
They certainly did something original to succeed where others had failed.
Click to expand...

...that doesn't make the GameBoy original.

pr0pensity said:
One generation won't kill them. The X-Box had more powerful graphical hardware, yet the Gamecube sold just as well. Hardly a failure.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the whole N64/Virtual Boy era. The Revolution will be their third generation of underachievement by the way things look now.

pr0pensity said:
And what does this have to do with the GameBoy, what we were discussing?
Click to expand...

This topic has evolved to include all aspects of Nintendo. Try to keep up.

pr0pensity said:
Congratulations on completely neglecting the pertinent comment below that one.Splinter Cell titles are available for Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Should I go on to list all the Mature content that isn't available/exclusive to Nintendo or would you rather I just said your point is moot?

pr0pensity said:
What practices caused them to lose third party support?
Click to expand...

A few of their foolish tendencies come to mind;

Internet=Bad (They're trying to fix this with the Revolution; too little too late)
Third-Party Support=Unnecessary
Franchise Whoring=Good
Mature Content=Secondary
Niche Peripherals=Good
Little Advertisement=Good

Did I leave anything out?
 
I would hardly call the N64 under achievment.

On the other hand the gamecube had so much potential but there was no online support, dvd drive, or support from more developers. I would bet that if Nintendo had Online support they would have sold 20% more consoles, DVD support they would have sold 10% more, and more developer support another 20%. Maybee even more.

I see some problems with the Revolution though. I dont remember them mentioning a single thing about a partnership with EA for the revolution. I dont even know what if any games are planned for it. Consoles have to have EA support now. There is no question about it. If you dont have support from EA you wil fail to be the top performing console.
 
For the past couple years I've been a Nintendo fan out of denial. I kept wanting to believe that Nintendo was innovative, and fun. As stated many times, this is because I greatly enjoyed playing the original NES when I was younger and I want those times back.

I was in denial about innovation. Most of Nintendos "innovations" are cheesy and are more annoying than fun. When I heard about Nintendo DS, I was excited. When I purchased it, and played Super Mario 64 with a touch pad analog stick, I realized the truth. Sure, some Nintendo games are still fun...I love Wario Ware, Mario Party, Zelda, and every Mario game to be released, but it's getting boring and more out of touch with me with every debut.

Even if the Revolution is fun, and actually innovative, I doubt many people would buy it. Most teenagers are stuck up about consoles now, they would refuse to buy it out of spite (Should I retract that comment?)
 
Yep you are right. I talked to a lot of people who said that they will get the xbox 360 then the PS3 but the wont get the Revolution. I ask them if they even know a single thing about the Revolution and they respond with no. They wont buy the Revolution because Nintendo isnt cool in their opinion.
 
Michael.R said:
Yep you are right. I talked to a lot of people who said that they will get the xbox 360 then the PS3 but the wont get the Revolution. I ask them if they even know a single thing about the Revolution and they respond with no. They wont buy the Revolution because Nintendo isnt cool in their opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm sure many of us here don't agree that that is a good reason to ignore a system, but that is the general opinion of the masses. As for one product cycle killing a company...<cough>SEGA<cough>
 
CHollman82 said:
Arcades did not have anolog sticks, they had d-pads with a joystick on top giving them at most 8 directions (up, down, left, right, and diagonals) and I don't care what you say that is not even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it isn't the same thing. However, the claims here are that Nintendo invented and first applied the analog stick, not analog control. Hell, I had a third party SNES controller with a 360-degree touchpad, beating out the N64's analog stick by a good 3 years.

The point is that too many Nintendo fanbots ascribe a certain ingenuity and intelligence to the company that simply is not there. Nintendo is like any other company: they look at what others do and adapt that for their own use. It's stupid to praise Nintendo as the ultimate innovator when they have done no such thing. Nintendo's hardware is evolutionary, not revolutionary, the same way that Sony's and Microsoft's hardware is. Every hardware manufacturer is standing on someone else's shoulders in the video game industry, and that's just how it is.


I don't recal any FF PC peripherals before the N64 controller came out, but I may be wrong... I wasn't as much of a PC gamer back then....
Click to expand...

Steering wheel peripherals with true force feedback (not one-pitch scripted rumbling) were available before the Rumble Pak.


Thats not the same thing. Those games used static displays and lights to illuminate parts of the image you were supposed to see, far FAR from a real LCD display. Other than the display those games had no where near the depth of gameplay (or the market penetration for that matter) as the Gameboy and later revisions of... If Nintendo didn't do this first then they at least perfected it and made in mainstream.
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't the same thing. However, the claim that Nintendo created and innovated the handheld gaming market is complete BS, which is why I mentioned Tiger Electronics' products. Again: the purpose of the comment is to show that Nintendo is not a great innovator, but improves on other people's work, just like every other hardware company in the history of the video game industry.


I disagree. While I am playing games I can tune out whats going on around me and forget completely that I am looking at a monitor or TV, especially with a big display (65" DLP big enough lol). Add in 1000 watts of 7.1 surround sound and I could lose myself in the experience if it wasn't for the controller.
Click to expand...

That's good for you, but first-person mode in Gran Turismo isn't the same as actually driving a car. True force feedback from a good steering wheel peripheral can help, but nothing short of virtual reality can subsitute the actual real-life experience. Changing a joypad's input from button-based to gyroscope-based will not influence your experience in any significant manner.


I know that they are not sticking with traditional controllers, which, as I said, is a step in the right direction....
Click to expand...

Again: how do you know? You don't. For all we know the Revolution's controller could be a Gamecube controller with a built-in touch screen.


Thats the most ignorant thing I have heard in this thread. There is nothing innovative in software.
Click to expand...

Software is absolutely innovative. Hardware is not. Hardware can facilitate innovation, but innovation cannot occur outside of software. That's how the video game industry works.

There is nothing innovative about the DS' stylus and touch screen. Absolutely nothing. These technologies on their own offer nothing, and they are not new technologies. Both have existed for years. However, Kirby DS is innovative because it--not the DS, but the game--offer a new experience. The game is new, the hardware is not.

And it looks like this thread is degenerating in a torrent of "HOW DARE YOU INSULT NINTENDO?" replies, so no more shall be said from me.
 
WickedAngel said:
...that doesn't make the GameBoy original.
Click to expand...
Nothing is entirely original, only an innovation of existing inventions.

I don't know what you would call original



You must have missed the whole N64/Virtual Boy era. The Revolution will be their third generation of underachievement by the way things look now.
Click to expand...
Though you know nothing of it, you say it will fail?

The N64 and Gamecube were not failures.

Should I go on to list all the Mature content that isn't available/exclusive to Nintendo or would you rather I just said your point is moot?
Click to expand...
There are many exclusive titles available for all of the systems. The rating does not interest me.

You seem rather vehement about this, though the company apparently does not interest you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top