Rev's innovation alone may not guarantee success.

K600 said:
^^^

Console Market != Handheld Market
Click to expand...

Exactly.

See the average joe gamer or non gamer, can easily justify purchasing a handheld moreso then a console. A handheld is usually cheaper in price, its small, and doesnt' require a lot of work to get it going. Where as a non gamer girl might go buy a DS for Nintendogs she most certainly probably will never buy a console.

Buying a console means, hooking up components, setting it up on your tv, pulling a larger object out of a box and possibly having to read a manual if you don't know what you're doing. The reality of console gaming is that, you sit in from of your tv to play .. sometimes for 10 minutes, sometiems for hours. Ususally not for short periods of time.

So once thats all done and setup, then someone who has no prior habbits of sitting in front of a TV and gaming for long periods of time, has to power everything on, and develop a new habbit when in front of the TV. A handheld makes for quick, easy, on the go simple button fun... without a lot of overhead.

Now, granted all that I listed is near a joke of work.. its probably part of a subconcious routine that goes on in a non gamers skull that ultimately prevents them from 'investing' time and money into a console system. Some guys can get their gf's to buy a DS for Nintendogs, but it would probably be a cold day in hell before these guys would come home to see their gf sitting on the couch, controller in hand yelling at the TV over a game.

There is a major difference and while I like Nintendo, their DS sales will probably in no way reflect the way the Rev will sell. I want Nintendo to gain some more market share, but I do not see it happening.. alteast in the US. The average gamer here is in his late 20s early 30s.. over Nintendo and onto more Mature content like whats on a PS or Xbox console. Non gamers in the state are few and far between, and those that do... probably stopped buying Nintendo products 10 years ago.

Most 20 something guys probably don't really want to waive/wiggle/flick/twirl/swing their hand around (silly) to play a game. As sad as that sounds, and as far from the truth as that sounds ... its probably true. Think outside the realm of folks like us who spend our freetime posting on the internet about games. Think Joe beerdrinker who likes to game here and there with cash to burn.

:shrug: I'm rooting for the Rev, but I just don't see it catching on outside of Japan, and the Nsider forums... really.
 
The only console games I can get my girlfriend to play from this generation are the Mario Sports/Party titles. She played/can play ANYTHING from the NES/SNES era (including some mad rounds of Contra... lol). She even beat me at Blades of Steel once. And she's really just a casual gamer... or what Nintendo calls the "lost gamer", who got jaded after the NES or SNES due to stringent requirments to play the games. In fact, you can't even get her to LOOK at an X360/Xbox/PS2 game, let alone try to decode the button scheme to play it. No she's not stupid or incapable, she just doesn't want to play for many reasons (one of which being that they are geared SO heavily toward the tiny 13-26 male demographic). There are a TON of these lost gamers or potential gamers of all sexes and ages, and they will definately come into play. Most aren't going to be buying PS3s and XBox360's, though. I'm not claiming this to be 100% truth, but you should both read these articles, as biased or unbiased as they may be/try to be:

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/694/694524p1.html
http://www.revolutionreport.com/articles/read/333

And no, don't skim them. As I said, these are people who are Nintendo fans, but try to point out what the whole purpose of the Revolution really is, and they are only scratching the surface. Bottom line is that it might fail miserably. But if I were you, I'd invest some money into Nintendo's stock if they are publicly traded.
 
The Revolution has as much opportunity at succeeding as do Microsoft and Sony. The difference will come in if Nintendo can learn from their mistakes after the SNES up to the release of the Revolution. Quite simply, from what both articles referred to, Nintendo must have a gameplan that builds on their core flagship games/icons, create new brands/genres and innovate the current genres. Then again, this is the same type of plan that Microsoft must follow in order to beat Sony.

Sony has been following this plan with exclusive titles (God of War, Final Fantasy series VII-X-2, Tekken series, Soul Calibur III), first release priveleges (Soul Calibur II, Grand Theft Auto series) and innovative new games (ICO, Katamari Damacy, Shadow of the Colossus). If all things being equal, all systems should have great new innovative games and franchises (one can only dream :cool: ). Then what will make that gamer spend the extra ~150-200 bucks on a new console. Real genre innovation will have to be the key which is what Nintendo is hoping their Revmote will bring to the table.
 
Could any of you actually imagine playing with that big fuck shell/revmote thing? I swear I would throw that thing through a wall before regressing from my 360 controller.
 
cb9fl said:
Could any of you actually imagine playing with that big fuck shell/revmote thing? I swear I would throw that thing through a wall before regressing from my 360 controller.
Click to expand...

I would at least hide them if company was coming over. The system doesnt cost $200 if you need to buy new controllers for every type of game that comes out. Even if they cost $15-20 a piece, you're getting close to the cost of other consoles by that point. Ok, you have to buy controllers for other consoles too, but if you want to argue that, then you can multiply $15-20 by 3 or 4 since you'd need to buy several of each one to be able to actually play multiplayer games. Yes, you could use another controller, but if the revolution sells itself on unique control you're completely defeating that if you use regular controllers. Revolution may be cheaper on paper, but shame on me for not being optimistic about peripheral and back library costs. Nintendo may be "different" but they're still a business.
 
cb9fl said:
Could any of you actually imagine playing with that big fuck shell/revmote thing? I swear I would throw that thing through a wall before regressing from my 360 controller.
Click to expand...

You seem to be oblivious to the whole idea of a "concept image" photoshopped by IGN to demonstrate what "it might" look like (it's a GCN wavebird with a revmote in it!!). Nintendo hasn't shown the shell. They also haven't said whether it would be packed in or not. What they have said is that if there are any peripherals for the revmote, they would be cheap (in the $10 range if they were packed in with a game, like they are now). There are also 4 Gamecube controller ports.

What you also fail to realize, is that when the revmote is plugged into the shell, you still have all of the 3D sensing capability available to it, thereby putting your X360 controller at a disadvantage of capability.
 
steviep said:
Where you are wrong, however, is your assumption that 16-30 is what is truly the biggest market, and what Nintendo is doing with the DS is proving that wrong. If analysts are right, and journalists, and editors, and so many others are right... the untapped market is everyone BUT us in the "hardcore" and they are, incidentally, the MUCH MUCH bigger market. I'll let Slarti explain the "blue ocean" strategy to you, since I'm tired of typing :p
Click to expand...

:) I think that all that needs to be said is that today, ~30% of American households have a gaming system. And 20 years ago, ~30% of American households had a gaming system.

That's a pretty depressing statistic, but look at it this way: how much more money does the industry bring in now than it did 20 years ago? Using the same proportion of the population we're up to what, $7 billion annually? That means if a way is found to tap just another 30% of households, it shouldn't be too long before the industry is doing $14+ billion. Factor in the generation gap and it shouldn't be too long to have cell phone-like market penetration.

There's a lot of people out there who think the rev is a gimmick and will fail, but so what? The 360/PS3/PC aren't going anywhere, you're not going to lose the gaming experiences you want, so give it a shot.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I would at least hide them if company was coming over. The system doesnt cost $200 if you need to buy new controllers for every type of game that comes out. Even if they cost $15-20 a piece, you're getting close to the cost of other consoles by that point. Ok, you have to buy controllers for other consoles too, but if you want to argue that, then you can multiply $15-20 by 3 or 4 since you'd need to buy several of each one to be able to actually play multiplayer games. Yes, you could use another controller, but if the revolution sells itself on unique control you're completely defeating that if you use regular controllers. Revolution may be cheaper on paper, but shame on me for not being optimistic about peripheral and back library costs. Nintendo may be "different" but they're still a business.
Click to expand...

They are still a business, but I highly doubt they're going to make a custom shell for every game. They're not retarded :rolleyes:
 
Slartibartfast said:
They are still a business, but I highly doubt they're going to make a custom shell for every game. They're not retarded :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Gamecube is a good example of their likely strategy. Nintendo themselves will always use the nunchaku+remote, or just remote (both pack-ins). Third parties will either use the nunchaku+remote, or the controller shell depending on how lazy porters they are... and the occasional niche game (think of a Donky Konga, DDR, or new Duck Hunt type thing) will have a $10 pack-in. Profit for everyone, new experiences for everyone, everyone wins :D
 
steviep said:
Exactly. The Gamecube is a good example of their likely strategy. Nintendo themselves will always use the nunchaku+remote, or just remote (both pack-ins). Third parties will either use the nunchaku+remote, or the controller shell depending on how lazy porters they are... and the occasional niche game (think of a Donky Konga, DDR, or new Duck Hunt type thing) will have a $10 pack-in. Profit for everyone, new experiences for everyone, everyone wins :D
Click to expand...

Also, guitar hero is like what, $80? And they can't keep the thing in stock! If people are willing to pay $30 for a controller for one game, I doubt paying $30 for custom controllers for three games is that big a deal.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Also, guitar hero is like what, $80? And they can't keep the thing in stock! If people are willing to pay $30 for a controller for one game, I doubt paying $30 for custom controllers for three games is that big a deal.
Click to expand...

I think 3 different controller perephs is a conservative estimate, but lets assume that its true. Thats $90, and therefore revolution conservatively costs $240-290, not the $150-200 that sells it as a much more attractive alternative to the more powerful systems. If revolution came boxed with 3 different controller types at $275, would you still buy it? I'm not sure as many people would. I believe these controllers costing $10 like i believe ps3 to be high up on the supercomputer list. Pre release marketing and hype, ill believe it when i see it.
 
I got Donky Konga for $60 Canadian ($50US). It came with a game and Bongos. Just the game would've been $40. The Bongos by themselves are $30 ($20US). This is what I'm talking about... I paid $10 for a set of Bongos, and considering that unlike the PS3/X360 games, Nintendo will probably keep their current gen prices... I don't expect it to change.

http://gamesfirst.com/?id=682
The article is a bit outdated (i.e. the X360 isn't anywhere near as easy to develop for as the XBox, despite MS' good tools) and has a couple errors, but a good reflection of what many editorials are saying. It's about time a gaming company thinks about the games :p
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I think 3 different controller perephs is a conservative estimate, but lets assume that its true. Thats $90, and therefore revolution conservatively costs $240-290, not the $150-200 that sells it as a much more attractive alternative to the more powerful systems. If revolution came boxed with 3 different controller types at $275, would you still buy it? I'm not sure as many people would. I believe these controllers costing $10 like i believe ps3 to be high up on the supercomputer list. Pre release marketing and hype, ill believe it when i see it.
Click to expand...

Where did you take your economics class? :p
The console will probably cost $200, and will be packed in with what you need to play most games. The end.

Peripheral controllers will be packins, and will likely be for $10 like they are this gen. If you buy them separate, they will cost $30. They will only be for niche titles. Why is that difficult to understand?
 
...do you have anything that would remotely resemble a firm source on those prices or "pack-ins" steviep, or are they all just wishful thinking by a fan?
 
One problem I see with the revolution is that if the controller doesnt catch on like they hope, and they dont appeal to all the "lost gamers" they say are out there, then their decision to go with this new controller type will greatly hinder them (why buy a rev to play new games when I could play them on a different system thats superior in every aspect but control).

Also, the games are going to have to be built around the controls, rather than now where you build the controls around the game, so I forsee either A) alot of multiplatform developers not putting in enough effort to completly redo their games so the controller works for it (and rightfully so) so the games end up actually becoming harder to control and less inviting , or B) Developers just right off the bat developing games that exclusively use the shell only and dont utilize the motion features, or regulate the motion features to task that dont really have any worthwhile effect on gameplay (kind of like how theres DS games where the 2nd screen is just a map, or a picture of your character, etc.).
 
No, Nintendo said that the revmote and the nunchaku would be packed in. I'm in class at the moment, but you can dig that up from a million sources (including IGN).

As for peripheral pricing, they have indeed said it would be similar or the same to this gen. So, speculation says that $10(current)-15 with a game, and $25(current)-35 on its own. Yes, it's speculation. But unlike Sony, I haven't heard Nintendo lie to me :p
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I think 3 different controller perephs is a conservative estimate, but lets assume that its true. Thats $90, and therefore revolution conservatively costs $240-290, not the $150-200 that sells it as a much more attractive alternative to the more powerful systems. If revolution came boxed with 3 different controller types at $275, would you still buy it? I'm not sure as many people would. I believe these controllers costing $10 like i believe ps3 to be high up on the supercomputer list. Pre release marketing and hype, ill believe it when i see it.
Click to expand...

The odds of an excessive number of controller attachments are pretty low. To date I believe the only confirmed add-ons are the analog stick, which comes with the controller, and the shell. Various sites and magazines have come up with a lot of mock-ups demonstrating the potential for add-ons, but in no way are you going to see one for every game :rolleyes: The odds of that are just as likely as every PS3 game having a custom controller. Even if the only shells/add-ons are the analog stick, the controller shell, and a gun-like attachement that's a hell of a lot of flexibility.

On top of that, you're completely overlooking the fact that developers tend not to want to design a custom controller for their game. It adds to the development time and cost for a low return, because the custom controller needs to be somewhat cheap in order for it to sell. If people were as eager to make custom controllers as you're imaging they are, you would have 19 different input devices for your ps2 alone.

Just because the possibility of having lots of add-ons exists, doesn't mean it will happen.

Additionally, it will be cheaper to make shells for the revmote than it is to make a custom controller for any other system: there doesn't need to be as much wiring/circuitry in the shell because the revmote itself will handle communication with the console.

And yes, I would still buy it, because it's still cheaper than a 360 and is still going to provide a unique experience.
 
Naldo said:
One problem I see with the revolution is that if the controller doesnt catch on like they hope, and they dont appeal to all the "lost gamers" they say are out there, then their decision to go with this new controller type will greatly hinder them (why buy a rev to play new games when I could play them on a different system thats superior in every aspect but control).

Also, the games are going to have to be built around the controls, rather than now where you build the controls around the game, so I forsee either A) alot of multiplatform developers not putting in enough effort to completly redo their games so the controller works for it (and rightfully so) so the games end up actually becoming harder to control and less inviting , or B) Developers just right off the bat developing games that exclusively use the shell only and dont utilize the motion features, or regulate the motion features to task that dont really have any worthwhile effect on gameplay (kind of like how theres DS games where the 2nd screen is just a map, or a picture of your character, etc.).
Click to expand...

Isn't control/gameplay the most important part of a game? Not its graphics? See here:
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/692/692479p1.html

Call of Duty and Splinter Cell are being worked on, by third parties, and both will use the Revmote+nunchaku... not the controller shell. EA sports titles are being made to use it, too. So yes, third parties are indeed working with it.
 
Naldo said:
why buy a rev to play new games when I could play them on a different system thats superior in every aspect but control
Click to expand...

What are you implying? :p
 
Naldo said:
Also, the games are going to have to be built around the controls, rather than now where you build the controls around the game
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can possibly make this claim. On every system games are built around the controls - unless you're selling an add-on like a guitar, bongos or maracas - because the controller is completely the same.

I think what you're missing is this: in porting a game to the Rev, adapting the controls is not going to be an issue. The attached analog stick functions like the left analog stick, while the motion-sensing abilities of the revmote can simply be made to operate in 2D only, hence replacing the right analog stick. Or vice versa. The revmote has a lot of potential to do unique things, but there's no reason it can't simply be a motion-based analog stick operating in two dimensions.
 
steviep said:
Where did you take your economics class? :p
The console will probably cost $200, and will be packed in with what you need to play most games. The end.

Peripheral controllers will be packins, and will likely be for $10 like they are this gen. If you buy them separate, they will cost $30. They will only be for niche titles. Why is that difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Addition is in fact taught in math class, not economics. I used a little multiplication there too, maybe that complicated my point.

That flame diffused, you're living in a dream world if you think they'll pack in everything you need to play it. They'll always release things later because that will make them more money. The thing im not getting in all of this is multiplayer games- if you're relegated to the gamecube controller, whats the point? If you want to play 4 player games and there's 3 different controllers, do you not need 12 different controllers (again, math class!)? Yes its nice that it uses the gamecube's controller, but i can do that on gamecube, and if the graphics arent the selling point then why should i buy it?
 
Naldo said:
???? I'm confused, where did I say graphics were more important than gameplay? And control /= gameplay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, control != gameplay, but can you show me a game with good gameplay and poor control? They're not the same, but good gameplay depends on good control, unless of course we're talking about turn-based and strategy games (ie games not based on reflex or movement).
 
I also wanted to address what you said about other systems being "superior in every way." Unless you've got an hdtv, the systems are going to be pretty much on par with each other.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I don't see how you can possibly make this claim. On every system games are built around the controls - unless you're selling an add-on like a guitar, bongos or maracas - because the controller is completely the same.

I think what you're missing is this: in porting a game to the Rev, adapting the controls is not going to be an issue. The attached analog stick functions like the left analog stick, while the motion-sensing abilities of the revmote can simply be made to operate in 2D only, hence replacing the right analog stick. Or vice versa. The revmote has a lot of potential to do unique things, but there's no reason it can't simply be a motion-based analog stick operating in two dimensions.
Click to expand...


I know, but if the rev controller is made to act like a standard controller, then what is setting the rev apart from the same game on a different console?
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Addition is in fact taught in math class, not economics. I used a little multiplication there too, maybe that complicated my point.

That flame diffused, you're living in a dream world if you think they'll pack in everything you need to play it. They'll always release things later because that will make them more money. The thing im not getting in all of this is multiplayer games- if you're relegated to the gamecube controller, whats the point? If you want to play 4 player games and there's 3 different controllers, do you not need 12 different controllers (again, math class!)? Yes its nice that it uses the gamecube's controller, but i can do that on gamecube, and if the graphics arent the selling point then why should i buy it?
Click to expand...

*slaps forehead*
OK let's go over it again...

Step 1) Purchase Revolution, look in box
"look, there is a Revolution console... a free NES game download coupon... there's my revmote, and there's my nunchaku attachment (and possibly the controller shell)... alright, good to go!"

Step 2) Play the Revolution
"wow!"

teh end.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I think what you're missing is this: in porting a game to the Rev, adapting the controls is not going to be an issue. The attached analog stick functions like the left analog stick, while the motion-sensing abilities of the revmote can simply be made to operate in 2D only, hence replacing the right analog stick. Or vice versa. The revmote has a lot of potential to do unique things, but there's no reason it can't simply be a motion-based analog stick operating in two dimensions.
Click to expand...

I still dont understand how you're gonna play games designed for controllers with 8+ buttons on that remote control. Movement is nice, but so are buttons.
 
Naldo said:
I know, but if the rev controller is made to act like a standard controller, then what is setting the rev apart from the same game on a different console?
Click to expand...

You're right, pretty much nothing. I'm just saying that I imagine using revmote as a standard controller will be commonplace, because it will make porting easier. And who knows, using it as a standard analog stick my prove to be better or worse than using a normal controller. Of course, they could just as well use the controller shell thingy.

I think there's this misconception that unless games are made for the rev, they will work terribly on it, and I'm saying that the revmote could easily operate as a standard analog stick, and hence ports should work fine.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I still dont understand how you're gonna play games designed for controllers with 8+ buttons on that remote control. Movement is nice, but so are buttons.
Click to expand...

There was a thread about this the other day.

Using the analog attachment, you have three trigger buttons, two directional movement devices, one face button, and a d-pad. If each arrow on the d-pad is a different button that's 8 buttons right there. Besides, remember the good ol' days where we had button combinations? A+B could be yet another button, etc.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Yeah, control != gameplay, but can you show me a game with good gameplay and poor control? They're not the same, but good gameplay depends on good control, unless of course we're talking about turn-based and strategy games (ie games not based on reflex or movement).
Click to expand...

I thought katamari damacy's control scheme was quite frustrating at times, but it was still a great game. Theres been plenty a time when I've been playing madden and the controller didnt repsond as a wanted it to, but its still a great game. Metorid Primes lock on system left alot to be desired (not being able to move and aim independantly), but I still thought it was a great game. I can go on if you need.
 
OK let's see... on the Revmote...

We've got a D-pad (4 buttons, essentiall), A button, B trigger. (standard start+select+home button, power button... they usually don't count since they're out ofthe way). That's 6 buttons that are easily within reach of your fingers.

On the nunchaku attachment (which most games will use) you've got the stick, and you have the 2 Z buttons. Now, you've got modifier buttons. Your 6 buttons turns into 18. That's more than enough buttons, not even counting the function keys like start+select or 2-button combinations.

Oh... and never mind the fact that you can now use actual MOTION to replace a button... lol. (i.e. in Madden, instead of pushing a button, and then another button, and then another button to throw... you can hold down 1 button, and flick your wrist in the direction that you want your ball to go).

Since there is a lot of education going on in this thread, please visit this link for IGN to explain to you how exactly this controller may work with established genres.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651224p1.html
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Yes its nice that it uses the gamecube's controller, but i can do that on gamecube, and if the graphics arent the selling point then why should i buy it?
Click to expand...

The Gamecube controller can only be used with Gamecube games, not Revolution titles.
 
Slartibartfast said:
You're right, pretty much nothing. I'm just saying that I imagine using revmote as a standard controller will be commonplace, because it will make porting easier. And who knows, using it as a standard analog stick my prove to be better or worse than using a normal controller. Of course, they could just as well use the controller shell thingy.

I think there's this misconception that unless games are made for the rev, they will work terribly on it, and I'm saying that the revmote could easily operate as a standard analog stick, and hence ports should work fine.
Click to expand...

but why would I play the port on the rev when I could play a graphically surpirior version of the same game that plays exactly the same on a PS3 or 360.
 
steviep said:
What are you implying? :p
Click to expand...

I'm implying that if the rev controller doesnt take off, and the developers / gamers dont imbrace it, that if I am given a choice between play, lets say madden, on the rev or on the PS3, what benefit do I get from playing it on the rev?
 
Naldo said:
but why would I play the port on the rev when I could play a graphically surpirior version of the same game that plays exactly the same on a PS3 or 360.
Click to expand...

Why would you play a port of a game on the X360/PS3 when you can play the graphically superior and control-superior version no the PC (i.e. let's say, oh... UT2007, Oblivion...Gears of War?) That's not a flaming comment, it's just an illustration that statements as such can go multiple ways.

You're going on the assumption that all developers will be lazy porters. And I'm telling you that yes, that will be the case with some developers. But many more are indeed making their games work with the Rev controller. EA has said yes. THQ/Square/etc are saying hell yes. Ubisoft has exclusives. I'm saying that some devs are actually making games that use the controller the way it's supposed to be used, and this for launch! Let's take shooters for example... Why would you play a graphically superior version of Splinter Cell 4, when you could be playing a version that controls much better and more accurately? The gamepad will feel incredibly clunky in comparison.
 
Naldo said:
I thought katamari damacy's control scheme was quite frustrating at times, but it was still a great game. Theres been plenty a time when I've been playing madden and the controller didnt repsond as a wanted it to, but its still a great game. Metorid Primes lock on system left alot to be desired (not being able to move and aim independantly), but I still thought it was a great game. I can go on if you need.
Click to expand...

Point well taken.

I personally am uber-picky about control. I think Katamari's control absolutely sucks (why is it that when I try to roll my 300m ball up a 10cm ledge, I hit it like a wall and stuff goes flying??) If a game doesn't have really good control it just frustrates me. I hated metroid prime's control scheme, and stopped after 10 minutes.
 
Naldo said:
I'm implying that if the rev controller doesnt take off, and the developers / gamers dont imbrace it, that if I am given a choice between play, lets say madden, on the rev or on the PS3, what benefit do I get from playing it on the rev?
Click to expand...

Given the choice, yes, you have no benefit playing a game on the rev over another system. Just like how this gen, if you have a choice, the xbox is the best platform to play a game on because of it's superior visuals and online capabilities. But there will be some people who only have a revolution (I'll be one of them). I think that the low price point is going to lead to a lot of people choosing the rev. as the console for their kids, just like the gamecube now.

So I totally agree, if you can get a better-looking version of the same game, go for it. I just bought Street Fighter Anniversary for PS2, so that I can play a better looking version of Third Strike (I also have it on the DC). My point is pretty much that if you only have a rev, I don't think you're only going to be able to play rev-only games because porting won't be that much of an issue.
 
Yes controllers does make the game. I am a hard core gamer I play fps, rts, rpg, flight sims, sport games, racing sims, strategic games like Civ 4, Chess master whatever except fighting and extremely few platform games.

Thus I have during my gaming period collecters a waste amount of controllers. Nostromo Speedpad, strategic commander, trackIR, edimensional stereo3d glasses, xxx numbers of mouses, Yokes, Various joysticks, wheels gamepads, pedals you name it...

Playing with the right controls does enhance the games so much. It´s crucial really. I mean see your self using game pad for racing games, game pad for fps, mouse and keyboard for sports games like FIFA 2006 or whatever... It just stinks in comparison.

Graphics yes it´s only surface but yes it certainly helps you enjoy a game more. Doesn´t make a game though so for me controllers are more important.

The Revolution controller does seem to bridge the gap somewhat making fps games much more playable. Also heck from what I have seen it looks like a remote. Do you guys run hide the remote from your television when you get guests? I mean doesn´t if we say males will still be the largest group who buys these consoles in the future love the remote and all it powers it brings. I mean we can force all around us to watch the programme we want to see :D

My father he zaps constantly every 10 seconds for 5 minutes all the times. Dunno why he does it we only have 3 channels...

Think that´s the reason Nintendo want´s it designed as a remote control. I would think it would be more ergonomic to design it like a pistol grip or something so you don´t twist your wrists and risk getting mouse arm. Gamepads are good in that sense. Much more ergonomic then mouses for sure...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top