You're kind of arguing something kind of odd here.
Corret me if I'm wrong but your assertion seems to be that the future of games, platformers included, will be a scenario in which direct player control over movement will be removed, right?
If so I'm... I'm not sure how you have a platformer without direct player control of movement. That strikes me as a pretty integral part of the genre and really pretty integral part of a lot of other genres too.
You don't manage life bars in FPS games these days. And lots of puzzle/platformer games don't let you control your character. That DS Kirby game with the rainbow bridges. Loco Roco. Mario Minis. Lemmings. Mercury.
I imagine an on-rails platformer would not be unlike Panzer Dragoon games, a shooter series where control of your character;s movement is taken away in favor of 360 degree shooting.
"Platformer where you don't have any direct control over your character" is practically a sub-genre in itself - 'Ivy the Kiwi?' is a recent example that is hard as all hell in its later stages. It's never a simplication though - usually it's simply an additional hazard/stress factor because you have less influence over your character than you'd like.
You're kind of arguing something kind of odd here.
Corret me if I'm wrong but your assertion seems to be that the future of games, platformers included, will be a scenario in which direct player control over movement will be removed, right?
If so I'm... I'm not sure how you have a platformer without direct player control of movement. That strikes me as a pretty integral part of the genre and really pretty integral part of a lot of other genres too.
You don't manage life bars in FPS games these days. And lots of puzzle/platformer games don't let you control your character. That DS Kirby game with the rainbow bridges. Loco Roco. Mario Minis. Lemmings. Mercury.
I imagine an on-rails platformer would not be unlike Panzer Dragoon games, a shooter series where control of your character;s movement is taken away in favor of 360 degree shooting.
"Platformer where you don't have any direct control over your character" is practically a sub-genre in itself - *snip* is a recent example that is hard as all hell in its later stages. It's never a simplication though - usually it's simply an additional hazard/stress factor because you have less influence over your character than you'd like.
Nintendo as a company really isn't comparable to Sony or MS as companies, though. If Sony releases a turd of a system that loses money hand over fist, oh well - win some lose some, we'll just sell some more TVs. If Nintendo blows a console, whoops, there goes half our revenue stream. They quite literally can't afford a business model which doesn't not guarantee profit, because it's really all they have.
And for them, at the end of the day, it really is all about profit. If they release consoles I don't like but they turn a profit, it's hard to fault them.
Whatever dude they have that breakfast cereal. That stuff is the highest margin product in the whole damned grocery store.
In the future, movement will be trivialized and you can focus on the parts of the game that matter most.
Um, so what happens when movement is the part of the game that matters most?
If movement is the only fun part of your game you don't have much of a game in the first place, regardless of control scheme.
Super Mario Bros isn't fun just because you go from A to B.
You were being sarcastic, right? I mean, why even bother with telling Mario where to go? He's going to the finish line, that's pre-determined. The AI in that video is very impressive as a demo, but as a game, it took everything interesting away from the player's control and left only the absolute least interesting piece (deciding that Mario should go towards the finish) for the player to input. You seem to be suggesting that the superior platformer is one where you just watch the avatar beat the level without having to offer any input.
Putting that aside, your point is well taken that video games often shed even the most sacred tropes in the interest of removing frustration and focusing on fun. But it seems to me that, cynicism notwithstanding, these evolutions in gaming do not usually lead to simpler, less interactive experiences.
Yar on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
What we know:
- Called: Wii U (pronounced Wee-You)
- Has new controller with 6" touch-capacitive viewscreen, camera, accelerometer, tilt gyro, mic, d-pad and thumbsticks.
- 1080p output
- Games are on disc-based proprietary format as well as DLC
- compatible with Wii-mote and nunchuck
What we do not know:
- Tech specs on console
- capacity of proprietary discs
- online capabilities
- price
- street date
- launch titles
At this point, I think we can say it's as potentially brilliant as it is stupid.
It's apparently still compatible with the wii-mote and nunchucks. But it has the new controller too. I can't imagine developers are particularly excited to make sure games work with the even broader variety of control inputs this new console is offering.
It's apparently still compatible with the wii-mote and nunchucks. But it has the new controller too. I can't imagine developers are particularly excited to make sure games work with the even broader variety of control inputs this new console is offering.
Yeah, that's why I ignored it. "Compatible" isn't saying much. Historically, the majority of developers make games for what they know 100% for sure the user will have.
What we know:
- Called: Wii U (pronounced Wee-You)
- Has new controller with 6" touch-capacitive viewscreen, camera, accelerometer, tilt gyro, mic, d-pad and thumbsticks.
- 1080p output
- Games are on disc-based proprietary format as well as DLC
- compatible with Wii-mote and nunchuck
What we do not know:
- Tech specs on console
- capacity of proprietary discs
- online capabilities
- price
- street date
- launch titles
At this point, I think we can say it's as potentially brilliant as it is stupid.
We do know one launch title: Darksiders 2.
Also when talking with Geoff Keighley on GT's stream, Reggie said that they would be talking about the online capabilities during E3.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
Some things have been puzzling me, though I'm sure it'll be sorted out soon.
Kotaku is saying that the handheld controller will be capable of playing games from the console without the need for a TV. I want to know whether that means that the controllers themselves are getting their own titles, or that the disc-based console games are able to be used without a TV at all, or what.
You can stream directly to the controller screen, bypassing your TV (ie you can play the disc-based game without a TV at all). So if someone else wants to use the TV you can switch to the controller and play from there. However I'm not sure how it will work when the controller screen is used for other things, like when were using it as an inventory on that Zelda tech demo.
You can stream directly to the controller screen, bypassing your TV (ie you can play the disc-based game without a TV at all). So if someone else wants to use the TV you can switch to the controller and play from there. However I'm not sure how it will work when the controller screen is used for other things, like when were using it as an inventory on that Zelda tech demo.
Duh, that's what the Nintendo 3DS Secondary Wireless VisionPLUS Wii U Satellite Screen Conversion Adapter is for.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
You can stream directly to the controller screen, bypassing your TV (ie you can play the disc-based game without a TV at all). So if someone else wants to use the TV you can switch to the controller and play from there. However I'm not sure how it will work when the controller screen is used for other things, like when were using it as an inventory on that Zelda tech demo.
I just wonder how "1080p HD" it really can be if there's the capability to choose playback on a 6" screen.
Simple. It outputs 1080p over HDMI (confirmed) and switches to SD mode when you switch it to the controller. Not that hard to do.
Not hard to do at all, and this is potentially kinda cool. Not the sort of thing I would buy a console based on - I mean, if I wanted a handheld, I'd buy a damned handheld.
I'm unconvinced about how this will translate into improving games, though. It seems like a souped-up version of the GBA compatibility of the GC. Crystal Chronicles was neat and all, and it was handy to be able to access inventory screens without having to pause, but as a single-player mechanism I think a screen on your controller is one step above useless. You can't really viewing it while there's action on the TV screen, so as a visual device it's not really better than a menu that comes up when you hit the Pause button.
As a motion input device, it's pretty clearly inferior to the Wiimote, what with being so large and clunky. It looks like it'll be expensive as fuck as a controller, too. It's basically a DS that can also stream video, so I imagine it costs as much to produce as a DS. (Granted, it doesn't have the same processor, but I imagine the processor is one of the cheapest parts of the DS by now.)
I guess it could function like the touchpad on a laptop, where you use it for sweeping motions that don't require you to look at it while you're doing it, but that's just waggle with a paintjob, basically.
So far, this looks pretty stupid. I will reserve judgment until Nintendo has a chance to prove otherwise, but so far... guh.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
To me, this looks basically like a non-handheld version of the DS. We've got an upper screen (usually) for the main gameplay action and a lower touchscreen for controls and (usually) secondary display. Only here the upper screen is the TV and the lower screen is the [strike]VMU[/strike] WiiU controller. This can totally work. Maybe.
Yeah, I'm giving this a definite "maybe" right now.
Yeah, I'm surprised people aren't seeing more potential in the new controller. And the launch lineup is already miles ahead of the 3DS with just Darksiders 2.
Z0re on
0
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
I'm waiting to see how things turn out before I pass judgement. I'm sure a good number of us were bewildered and skeptical when the Wii Remote was unveiled, this is kind of the same deal. We may be unclear as to what kind of things developers have hidden up their sleeves, but I'm sure there will be some surprises.
I'm waiting to see how things turn out before I pass judgement. I'm sure a good number of us were bewildered and skeptical when the Wii Remote was unveiled, this is kind of the same deal. We may be unclear as to what kind of things developers have hidden up their sleeves, but I'm sure there will be some surprises.
This is how I feel too, and I'm actually sure Nintendo's developers will make some amazing games for it.
Thing is, I'm tired of playing mostly a few awesome Nintendo games and then one or two great third party ones. If they get the same third party support they did the last two generations I'm not sure I'll be able to bring myself to get this.
Yeah, I'm surprised people aren't seeing more potential in the new controller. And the launch lineup is already miles ahead of the 3DS with just Darksiders 2.
Because if you analyze it, the controller doesn't let us do anything we haven't be able to already do before in a less pretentious manner.
For instance, games where one player is hidden out of view and 4 other people have to find em. Sounds cool and innovative! Until you realize thats pretty much every online multiplayer game ever.
Then theres the whole using the controller as a way to view the world around you. What the fuck? Why on Earth would you not just use an analog stick or something to look around? I'd rather not look like a jackass.
The touch screen nature of the screen might allow us to finally play some RTSes on a console... but it's going to be a vastly inferior experience than playing on a computer.
Why on Earth would you not just use an analog stick or something to look around? I'd rather not look like a jackass.
Well, if you're already using the Wii, this is kind of a moot point.
The touch screen nature of the screen might allow us to finally play some RTSes on a console... but it's going to be a vastly inferior experience than playing on a computer.
Actually, touch screen would be my preferred method to plan an RTS. It may not offer the exact same capabilities over a mouse and keyboard but it would certainly be an excellent improvement over the current console options.
But those reasons definitely wouldn't convince me to buy it on its own.
Quid on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
To me, this looks basically like a non-handheld version of the DS. We've got an upper screen (usually) for the main gameplay action and a lower touchscreen for controls and (usually) secondary display. Only here the upper screen is the TV and the lower screen is the [strike]VMU[/strike] WiiU controller. This can totally work. Maybe.
Yeah, I'm giving this a definite "maybe" right now.
Except with a DS, you can see both screens at once. (And honestly, I've never seen what the advantage of the DS is over having a single screen as big as the two little ones combined. You can still split it in two via software if you wish, only you also get to have a single giant screen if that's your fancy.) So you can actually take advantage of both at the same time.
With the Wii U (which to me sounds like noise you make when someone stinks up your bathroom), to look at the lower screen you have to take your focus off the TV. Which makes it exactly as useful as any other pop-up menu for a zillion times the cost.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The World Ends With You is one of only a handful of games that would be literally impossible to do on other systems.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. I'm not sure the touch controls are absolutely necessary for TWEWY. I know, I'm a heathen, but I think the story and style are strong enough that they would survive with a totally different interface. I do think a dual screen perspective is necessary, but even that could be shifted to left/right instead of top/bottom.
Either way, you could just as easily port The World Ends With You to, say, the iPad. Many Square-fans-slash-iPad-owners are delusional enough to believe this is actually a real possibility. I don't see it ever happening, but I don't think it's impossible from any standpoint other than that Square just isn't going to do it.
Why on Earth would you not just use an analog stick or something to look around? I'd rather not look like a jackass.
Well, if you're already using the Wii, this is kind of a moot point.
Ouch, what a burn.
The touch screen nature of the screen might allow us to finally play some RTSes on a console... but it's going to be a vastly inferior experience than playing on a computer.
Actually, touch screen would be my preferred method to plan an RTS. It may not offer the exact same capabilities over a mouse and keyboard but it would certainly be an excellent improvement over the current console options.
But those reasons definitely wouldn't convince me to buy it on its own.
Yes, a touch screen would be cool perhaps if you were overlooking the big battlefield.. but why am I buying a console RTS to play it on a 6" touch screen? What the fucks the TV even for then?
And touch screen RTSes have been done on iPad before and there not exactly anything to get excited about.
Yes, a touch screen would be cool perhaps if you were overlooking the big battlefield.. but why am I buying a console RTS to play it on a 6" touch screen? What the fucks the TV even for then?
And touch screen RTSes have been done on iPad before and there not exactly anything to get excited about.
You're right, there's no point in playing it on the smaller screen. However, the screen could be the control for the television is what I was getting at. Essentially an input for a larger, more detailed screen. Which would be a massive improvement over current console capabilities.
Yes, a touch screen would be cool perhaps if you were overlooking the big battlefield.. but why am I buying a console RTS to play it on a 6" touch screen? What the fucks the TV even for then?
And touch screen RTSes have been done on iPad before and there not exactly anything to get excited about.
You're right, there's no point in playing it on the smaller screen. However, the screen could be the control for the television is what I was getting at. Essentially an input for a larger, more detailed screen. Which would be a massive improvement over current console capabilities.
So basically imitating a mouse.
You know I don't get why consoles never just made some trackball mouse type control for RTS like games.
I will reserve judgment until Nintendo has a chance to prove otherwise, but so far... guh.
This is kinda how feel. So far, nothing about this has justified its existence or shown a particularly useful form of innovation; all I really see so far is Nintendo's predictable "innovation," i.e., producing a product and hoping developers fit their function to its form, instead of vice-versa.
Overall, I'm optimistic, but not naive. An HD Nintendo box was all I ever really needed, so right now it's going to come down to price points and additional functionality. For any MSRP over $200-250, this thing is going to have to do a hell of a lot than just provide me with another way to play yet another underwhelming Metroid title.
Atomika on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
here's the deal
if this system is up to snuff in the graphics and power departments and has 3rd party support
it doesn't matter if all the pad is is a way to play the games without the tv. everything nice will be a bonus.
wii had to rely on waggle because it lacked in power. this system APPEARS to be a contender on that front. so hopefully developers really put their minds to it and make some awesome fun shit with the new peripheral, but worst case it's used to hide HUDs, and play your games while watching baseball or while your dad flips to check the news or some other bullshit.
That doesn't display images on your mouse. It displays images on a screen, presumably the one you're playing the game on.
This allows the menu, used to control things on the screen, to be placed mainly on the controller and be used in a quick and efficient manner. For RTSes on consoles it would be a significant improvement.
Posts
"Platformer where you don't have any direct control over your character" is practically a sub-genre in itself - 'Ivy the Kiwi?' is a recent example that is hard as all hell in its later stages. It's never a simplication though - usually it's simply an additional hazard/stress factor because you have less influence over your character than you'd like.
I also want to share this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZq_D3X3mlY
You control the board and not the monkey.
I want this on a t-shirt.
You were being sarcastic, right? I mean, why even bother with telling Mario where to go? He's going to the finish line, that's pre-determined. The AI in that video is very impressive as a demo, but as a game, it took everything interesting away from the player's control and left only the absolute least interesting piece (deciding that Mario should go towards the finish) for the player to input. You seem to be suggesting that the superior platformer is one where you just watch the avatar beat the level without having to offer any input.
Putting that aside, your point is well taken that video games often shed even the most sacred tropes in the interest of removing frustration and focusing on fun. But it seems to me that, cynicism notwithstanding, these evolutions in gaming do not usually lead to simpler, less interactive experiences.
What we know:
- Called: Wii U (pronounced Wee-You)
- Has new controller with 6" touch-capacitive viewscreen, camera, accelerometer, tilt gyro, mic, d-pad and thumbsticks.
- 1080p output
- Games are on disc-based proprietary format as well as DLC
- compatible with Wii-mote and nunchuck
What we do not know:
- Tech specs on console
- capacity of proprietary discs
- online capabilities
- price
- street date
- launch titles
At this point, I think we can say it's as potentially brilliant as it is stupid.
This appeals to me.
Yeah, that's why I ignored it. "Compatible" isn't saying much. Historically, the majority of developers make games for what they know 100% for sure the user will have.
We do know one launch title: Darksiders 2.
Also when talking with Geoff Keighley on GT's stream, Reggie said that they would be talking about the online capabilities during E3.
Kotaku is saying that the handheld controller will be capable of playing games from the console without the need for a TV. I want to know whether that means that the controllers themselves are getting their own titles, or that the disc-based console games are able to be used without a TV at all, or what.
Duh, that's what the Nintendo 3DS Secondary Wireless VisionPLUS Wii U Satellite Screen Conversion Adapter is for.
I just wonder how "1080p HD" it really can be if there's the capability to choose playback on a 6" screen.
Not hard to do at all, and this is potentially kinda cool. Not the sort of thing I would buy a console based on - I mean, if I wanted a handheld, I'd buy a damned handheld.
I'm unconvinced about how this will translate into improving games, though. It seems like a souped-up version of the GBA compatibility of the GC. Crystal Chronicles was neat and all, and it was handy to be able to access inventory screens without having to pause, but as a single-player mechanism I think a screen on your controller is one step above useless. You can't really viewing it while there's action on the TV screen, so as a visual device it's not really better than a menu that comes up when you hit the Pause button.
As a motion input device, it's pretty clearly inferior to the Wiimote, what with being so large and clunky. It looks like it'll be expensive as fuck as a controller, too. It's basically a DS that can also stream video, so I imagine it costs as much to produce as a DS. (Granted, it doesn't have the same processor, but I imagine the processor is one of the cheapest parts of the DS by now.)
I guess it could function like the touchpad on a laptop, where you use it for sweeping motions that don't require you to look at it while you're doing it, but that's just waggle with a paintjob, basically.
So far, this looks pretty stupid. I will reserve judgment until Nintendo has a chance to prove otherwise, but so far... guh.
I'm disappointed in Nintendo trying to jump onto the "me too!" bandwagon considering how innovative they were last generation.
Just give me a fucking Wii HD.
The name is also fucking terrible. Wii University? Go to hell nintendo.
Yeah, I'm giving this a definite "maybe" right now.
This is how I feel too, and I'm actually sure Nintendo's developers will make some amazing games for it.
Thing is, I'm tired of playing mostly a few awesome Nintendo games and then one or two great third party ones. If they get the same third party support they did the last two generations I'm not sure I'll be able to bring myself to get this.
Because if you analyze it, the controller doesn't let us do anything we haven't be able to already do before in a less pretentious manner.
For instance, games where one player is hidden out of view and 4 other people have to find em. Sounds cool and innovative! Until you realize thats pretty much every online multiplayer game ever.
Then theres the whole using the controller as a way to view the world around you. What the fuck? Why on Earth would you not just use an analog stick or something to look around? I'd rather not look like a jackass.
The touch screen nature of the screen might allow us to finally play some RTSes on a console... but it's going to be a vastly inferior experience than playing on a computer.
Actually, touch screen would be my preferred method to plan an RTS. It may not offer the exact same capabilities over a mouse and keyboard but it would certainly be an excellent improvement over the current console options.
But those reasons definitely wouldn't convince me to buy it on its own.
Except with a DS, you can see both screens at once. (And honestly, I've never seen what the advantage of the DS is over having a single screen as big as the two little ones combined. You can still split it in two via software if you wish, only you also get to have a single giant screen if that's your fancy.) So you can actually take advantage of both at the same time.
With the Wii U (which to me sounds like noise you make when someone stinks up your bathroom), to look at the lower screen you have to take your focus off the TV. Which makes it exactly as useful as any other pop-up menu for a zillion times the cost.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. I'm not sure the touch controls are absolutely necessary for TWEWY. I know, I'm a heathen, but I think the story and style are strong enough that they would survive with a totally different interface. I do think a dual screen perspective is necessary, but even that could be shifted to left/right instead of top/bottom.
Either way, you could just as easily port The World Ends With You to, say, the iPad. Many Square-fans-slash-iPad-owners are delusional enough to believe this is actually a real possibility. I don't see it ever happening, but I don't think it's impossible from any standpoint other than that Square just isn't going to do it.
Ouch, what a burn.
Yes, a touch screen would be cool perhaps if you were overlooking the big battlefield.. but why am I buying a console RTS to play it on a 6" touch screen? What the fucks the TV even for then?
And touch screen RTSes have been done on iPad before and there not exactly anything to get excited about.
You're right, there's no point in playing it on the smaller screen. However, the screen could be the control for the television is what I was getting at. Essentially an input for a larger, more detailed screen. Which would be a massive improvement over current console capabilities.
So basically imitating a mouse.
You know I don't get why consoles never just made some trackball mouse type control for RTS like games.
This is kinda how feel. So far, nothing about this has justified its existence or shown a particularly useful form of innovation; all I really see so far is Nintendo's predictable "innovation," i.e., producing a product and hoping developers fit their function to its form, instead of vice-versa.
Overall, I'm optimistic, but not naive. An HD Nintendo box was all I ever really needed, so right now it's going to come down to price points and additional functionality. For any MSRP over $200-250, this thing is going to have to do a hell of a lot than just provide me with another way to play yet another underwhelming Metroid title.
if this system is up to snuff in the graphics and power departments and has 3rd party support
it doesn't matter if all the pad is is a way to play the games without the tv. everything nice will be a bonus.
wii had to rely on waggle because it lacked in power. this system APPEARS to be a contender on that front. so hopefully developers really put their minds to it and make some awesome fun shit with the new peripheral, but worst case it's used to hide HUDs, and play your games while watching baseball or while your dad flips to check the news or some other bullshit.
A mouse can always be as little as one mouse click away from emulating anything you could do on a graphics capable touch pad.
which click makes my mouse display images again?
But still not practical for a console. A touch pad is.
Edit: What Variable said too.
The one where you click a menu tab?
?????
This allows the menu, used to control things on the screen, to be placed mainly on the controller and be used in a quick and efficient manner. For RTSes on consoles it would be a significant improvement.