killbot wrote:Misery wrote:The simplest way to think about it is this: If it's not a basic, simple controller, it is a gimmick.
So the NES and Master System controllers were gimmicks (a d-pad instead of a joystick?
Two fire buttons?), as were the N64 controller (what's this stupid analogue thing?), Dual Shock (TWO stupid analogue things?) and the Dreamcast controller (why is there a screen on the controller?).
Game controller design is a constant process of change and evolution. Sometimes the changes introduced will be considered good ones and be adopted (d-pads, analogue sticks, shoulder buttons) and other times they won't. Sometimes a change will be made that at the time seems like a blind alley but which just wasn't right at the time and will later be revisited and become more accepted (the analogue sticks on the 5200 and the Dreamcast's second screen both being examples).
If you banned anyone from experimenting with new ways to control games, we'd still be using digital joysticks with one fire button, or even little paddles with
no fire button at all. And that would seriously limit the kind of games you were able to make. That's the point - innovations in control frees up software designers to do new things as well.
What I MEAN is, a controller that goes TOO far from the usual norm.
Hell, the N64 controller is.... well, let's just say I've often heard alot of bad about it. Many players didnt know what to make of it then, and still dont know what to make of it now. I rather liked the N64, but even I think the thing is bloody weird.
But yes, obviously the "basics" of a controller is going to evolve over time.... generally, this is a very slow process and wont bother most consumers. Provided they notice. The leap from "stick" to "d-pad" was probably the largest, way back when. The analog bit was a bit different, as the controllers still had d-pads, and you hold/use something with an analog in the same way as a d-pad, with your left thumb.
But THIS thing? The Wii U one? Oh yeah. You better believe consumers will see it as a gimmick. That thing isnt any slow evolution; it's a massive and bizarrely random LEAP. And that's part of what I mean here as well; I can understand that alot of people HERE, in this place, on this forum, will understand something like that controller. *I* understand it as well, as I've seen just what a tablet in general can do for gaming. But the average consumer DOES NOT know what to make of it. The Wii was easy: All you had to do was hold the thing, and wave it around, and BAM, there you go. Particularly if you had a demonstration area set up in a store for this, it was probably the easiest to understand of all consoles, period. Even those that had never done gaming before could understand that thing.
But this one? No. It's like being given a tablet for the first time, when you're NOT a computer user or at all tech-savvy. A situation that usually results in bafflement. People can find devices like this intimidating. They dont know how it works, they dont know what it's being used for, and they wonder, why cant they just do this the usual way? What does this addition to the normal idea accomplish? Why didnt they just take the ideas of the previous Wii and continue evolving onto that? Doesnt the Wii mean motion controls? These sorts of questions are the things consumers will come up with when they see this. With all of this, it's a MUCH more difficult sale than the easily-understood-by-anyone-at-first-glance Wii.
And dont get me wrong here: I dont think that just because something is a gimmick, that it is automatically bad. As I've stated before, I thought the Wii U had potential to it; albeit potential that isnt really being met yet (not enough games), but still. And I've liked Nintendo's older ones.... the Super Scope, for instance, I loved that thing. And I seem to be one of the very few that actually enjoyed the Virtual Boy.
However, Nintendo's gimmicks end up being very..... unpredictable, in terms of what happens with them. The DS ended up taking off, and did well for them. As did the Wii's thing, sort of. But the vast majority of their gimmicks, well.... Nintendo often doesnt seem to know what to DO with them once they have them. And from what I've seen, that's been the case with the Wii U as well. Nintendo seemed to jump in with the idea of "The previous system printed money: Thus, this one will too". That hasnt really been the case, and now they seem a little lost on exactly what they should be doing with it. With all most of their older gimmicky stuff, the devices would get one or two supporting games, and then just fall by the wayside. Nintendo is famous for this, though less so these days as they're releasing gimmicky things as entire consoles, rather than just addons to a console.
There's more to say, but I havent been awake long and havent had my caffiene yet, so I've lost track of what it was.
i was'nt going to type too much out (in orig. post) about Dino Crisis 3, as not sure if i could even post it, way forums been today.
