The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pretty much confirmed news:
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
Page:
Gyro control would suck. Maybe as a handheld gimmick it can work, but when I'm playing Pro Evo 6, Tony Hawks 94 or whatever, I want some goodold fashioned normal controls to bust my tricks.
Dringo wrote:
> Gyro devices have worked well in games such as Kirby Tilt n Tumble.
A game specifically designed to be used in that way.
But use that sensor for playing Resi 4 ... F-Zero ... it doesn't work.
> Gyro devices have worked well in games such as Kirby Tilt n Tumble.
A game specifically designed to be used in that way.
But use that sensor for playing Resi 4 ... F-Zero ... it doesn't work.
Gyro devices have worked well in games such as Kirby Tilt n Tumble.
There can be a button that keeps you perfectly still.
I've never said touch screen is a good idea but then, it might work.
But these are just 2 rumours, if they are true I have perfect faith in the company that it'll be implemented correctly. Not many companys stake so much on an idea that "might" work. Nintendo seem pretty sure of themselves that the new control method works very well.
There can be a button that keeps you perfectly still.
I've never said touch screen is a good idea but then, it might work.
But these are just 2 rumours, if they are true I have perfect faith in the company that it'll be implemented correctly. Not many companys stake so much on an idea that "might" work. Nintendo seem pretty sure of themselves that the new control method works very well.
Stuff gyros. I want to play my RPGs with DRUMS DAMMIT!!!111
Dringo wrote:
> Then go and tell me gaming doesn't need to change.
That's it Dringo, enough with your crappy assumptions and criticism evasion.
Stop trying to prove that gyroscoping controllers are a good idea. They are not. They are gimmicky and pointless and offer no benefit over standard controllers.
Also point me in the direction of the part where I said that gaming doesnt need to change. I've said the exact opposite. For the last time, my point is that gaming won't change through crappy new control methods, it will change due to more processing power and differently structured internal architectures. This will mean that games themselves will actully change, just as they did in 1996, because the consoles will have the power to be able to break the boundaries of the current generation. There's a whole post where I say that if the Revolution is only as powerful as a GC then it's pointless, because that won't change anything.
> Then go and tell me gaming doesn't need to change.
That's it Dringo, enough with your crappy assumptions and criticism evasion.
Stop trying to prove that gyroscoping controllers are a good idea. They are not. They are gimmicky and pointless and offer no benefit over standard controllers.
Also point me in the direction of the part where I said that gaming doesnt need to change. I've said the exact opposite. For the last time, my point is that gaming won't change through crappy new control methods, it will change due to more processing power and differently structured internal architectures. This will mean that games themselves will actully change, just as they did in 1996, because the consoles will have the power to be able to break the boundaries of the current generation. There's a whole post where I say that if the Revolution is only as powerful as a GC then it's pointless, because that won't change anything.
Dringo wrote:
> Why do I bother posting here?
You gave speculation and you expect people not to speculate?
> Why do I bother posting here?
You gave speculation and you expect people not to speculate?
Dringo wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I fail to see why anything memo said was crap.
> A gyro controller and touch screen controller would be crap.
>
> Oh right well I'll listen to you when you've used it.
It's called using your brain, Dringo, your imagination.
You know? It's really quite easy to imagine how it would be like to control games with the above methods.
And in answer: crap.
For all the reasons already stated time and time again.
I'll put them again for you:
Gyro:
You have to move the controller around. Doesn't that say enough? You have to put more work in, to get the same results. It's painfully innacurate - how can you possibly tell how much a little tilt of the controller is going to move you? With the analogue stick, you can see the limit - here, it's an invisible field, there's no markers to tell you anything.
You have to hold the controller perfectly still if you don't want to do anything. Do you do this? Ever? You don't play games like that.
= aching arms.
There was, actually, a PSX controller out whereby you had to tilt it to control things. I got one, I used it for all of 2 minutes on Colin McRae and the level of impresision is godawful.
In summary:
no precision whatsoever
aching arms
game of statues
Touch-screen:
There's nothing you can actually feel on the controller.
Meaning that you never know quite where your fingers are - on a normal controller, you can feel the button, and know how hard you're pressing it.
And that is the whole point - you can control the game without having to look away from the TV for one second. With a touch-screen, you'll have to constantly look down to check the placement of your fingers - when you need quick reactions, you can never garuntee that you'll be able to move to the right area on the pad without feeling something's there. Bang goes your 'immersion'
Again:
lack of precision. If that's how you spell it.
and very expensive - put that with gyro as well.
*
That wasn't too hard, was it?
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I fail to see why anything memo said was crap.
> A gyro controller and touch screen controller would be crap.
>
> Oh right well I'll listen to you when you've used it.
It's called using your brain, Dringo, your imagination.
You know? It's really quite easy to imagine how it would be like to control games with the above methods.
And in answer: crap.
For all the reasons already stated time and time again.
I'll put them again for you:
Gyro:
You have to move the controller around. Doesn't that say enough? You have to put more work in, to get the same results. It's painfully innacurate - how can you possibly tell how much a little tilt of the controller is going to move you? With the analogue stick, you can see the limit - here, it's an invisible field, there's no markers to tell you anything.
You have to hold the controller perfectly still if you don't want to do anything. Do you do this? Ever? You don't play games like that.
= aching arms.
There was, actually, a PSX controller out whereby you had to tilt it to control things. I got one, I used it for all of 2 minutes on Colin McRae and the level of impresision is godawful.
In summary:
no precision whatsoever
aching arms
game of statues
Touch-screen:
There's nothing you can actually feel on the controller.
Meaning that you never know quite where your fingers are - on a normal controller, you can feel the button, and know how hard you're pressing it.
And that is the whole point - you can control the game without having to look away from the TV for one second. With a touch-screen, you'll have to constantly look down to check the placement of your fingers - when you need quick reactions, you can never garuntee that you'll be able to move to the right area on the pad without feeling something's there. Bang goes your 'immersion'
Again:
lack of precision. If that's how you spell it.
and very expensive - put that with gyro as well.
*
That wasn't too hard, was it?
:D
Why do I bother posting here?
If all these rumours turn out to be true then doing a Dreamcast could be a good thing. At least we'd get 1 or 2 games worth playing instead of a constant supply of "SMASH DA MONKEY IN DA FACE WITH DA TOUCH SCREEN PAD" games.
Page: