-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Miyamoto on using 2 controllers on Wii U
- Thread starter Oni Link 666
- Start date
Zoramon089
Banned
agrajag said:
You guys say this now but when devs start using this for "cheap" multiplayer you're going to start complaining that it isn't what you were "promised" at launch, much like with the wiimote
bgassassin
Member
Tom Penny said:
I would like to see two at least for fighting games. Seems unbalanced to me especially when listening to the guy from Namco talk.
Zoramon089 said:
Not really. I saw the demos of the asymmetrical Mii games, and I'm completely meh about them. It seems like it could be fun, but I'm not sold.
Also, when you're playing a game like Zelda, why do you need it to stream to your controller while you're playing it on the TV? It'd make sense to have that feature as something you can toggle on/off, when you flip the channel or turn the tv off. But having it stream all the time sounds like a waste. I'd rather use the screen as an input device.
bgassassin said:
I don't like the idea of one player playing with a tablet and another with a gimped controller. That's why you should be able to use more than one.
elrechazado
Banned
Are you really not clear on why someone would want two controllers?Tom Penny said:
With two controllers you could play local head to head like you would with a split screen, but each player would have there own private view and the same controls.Tom Penny said:
Also imagine facing each other and moving the controller so that the screen showed different locations. Of course this would be tiring over time, but it would be fun for the short term. If each Wii U controller had a Wiimote camera and sensor bar on the back this would be even more awesome. Though, if the gyros and accelerometers are good enough they might not need the camera and sensor bar.
bgassassin said:
If they got it to 2 that would be an acceptable compromise, and it would at least mean what the EA bloke was talking about with sports games be possible for choosing plays etc.
I have a feeling though the way the console is engineered at the moment would mean streaming to 2 pads would be impossible though even if the wireless solution they are going for allowed it.
Zoramon089
Banned
Gahiggidy said:
Yeah it would, because the controller is simply a screen. The only difference is in how computationally heavy it will be for the console to generate whatever is being sent to the controller screen
bgassassin
Member
agrajag said:
Right. That's what I said.
Glix said:
LOL. Well I was thinking about how the Namco guy talked about drawing on the losers face and them having to fight like that. Seems inconvenient for the second player to use a CCPro and then pick up a Wiimote to draw (which probably wouldn't be as easy to draw with).
DECK'ARD said:
Yeah sports games would be another area where two would be needed. And that's what I was mentioning earlier. Hopefully since the specs haven't been finalized they can make the necessary adjustments to make a second one work.
DidntKnowJack
Member
You're playing Madden with a friend. Using the tablet to call plays, so he can't see what's coming. Your friend is doing the same on his own tablet.Tom Penny said:
EDIT: Too late.
I've had nothing but a bad feeling about this console since it's announcement. I love Nintendo games, so it's likely a purchase, but there's a lot about this system that sounds...well...kind of bad.
bgassassin said:
Yeah I'd hope they make the changes as well, it really is such a big and obvious flaw with the system. However I'm not counting on it, because of how the console has been presented so far. With the whole spin of just 'you' having that experience and everyone else enjoying the joys of 'asymmetrical' gaming.
Assuming the big sticking point for more than one controller is being able to stream more than one video feed efficiently and lag free, it's likely the GPU has been designed just to render a single extra image for the controller. And the Zelda demo suggests that's the case, and a lower-resolution one at that which makes sense for Nintendo from a cost/power point of view.
If you ditch streaming for more than one controller, you could still kludge things like HUD and choosing plays, but then Nintendo have the problem of explaining why you couldn't have your 4-player splitscreen playing on your new controllers instead.
Basically the whole Wii U concept is a bit strangled by the technology issues and rather than admit the problems with that they are going with the hard-sell of what it can do within its limitations. In other words, just a single controller.
Don't how how many more times people need to say this before Nintendo listens. It's so true. If Nintendo had even the slightest expectation that they'd have a great online system in place for launch, they definitely would've made it a point to at least mention it a few times. But that's just one of the things that's troubling from a gamers standpoint.Mudkips said:
My guess is third parties in general won't support a "closed" system when they can't make extra money on the backend through DLC or expansion packs or any other type of micortransaction. Granted, the system is still far from being out and a lot of things can change, but from everything I've read and seen, I don't think this will end well for Nintendo.
Mudkips said:
Yeah, online is always a worry and that's another reason why the local multiplayer issues is disappointing. If the only way for everyone to share the benefits of the Wii U controller is online, well I'd rather the Wii U controller was coming from anyone else but Nintendo
Hell I'll be surprised if we're even able to send/receive messages from one.
If it's something like Madden and you are choosing plays why not half the refresh rate on the controller? That way you can alternate rendering each screen so the console isn't doing any extra work and half the bandwidth required for each controller. If you are choosing plays on the controller how much would half the frame rate really matter?
Or display the stuff at a lower resolution on each controller?
Doesn't really work for something like Four Swords where you need full res nice frame rates but for games where the second screen provides extra info like plays and cards in hand seems like it would be ok.
Or display the stuff at a lower resolution on each controller?
Doesn't really work for something like Four Swords where you need full res nice frame rates but for games where the second screen provides extra info like plays and cards in hand seems like it would be ok.
UberTag
Member
It's the most uncharacteristic platform launch I've ever seen from Nintendo. Sure, the Wii had its doubters but Wii Sports was front and center, was tangible and while different you could see how it could win over people who hadn't been gaming for a while. In short, it tapped into a new audience.DidntKnowJack said:
With the Wii U we have no firm games... we have tech demos.
There's potential with asymmetrical gameplay... but it can only stream to a single controller.
Nintendo wants third parties to bring their big franchises to the system... but it has no plan for online support, community building, achievements, storage for DLC and other key things gamers take for granted.
Everyone says "never bet against Nintendo" and I agree with them when it comes to portables. But Nintendo's console mindshare steadily decreased until the Wii's launch for over a decade and it hasn't had concentrated third-party support with AAA titles aplenty since the days of the SNES.
I will buy a Wii U eventually because I love Nintendo's properties. I owned a GameCube and loved it. But that was largely a 3rd place system and if Nintendo can't find a way to bring in new audiences or to motivate their base of Wii owner casuals to upgrade, they're going to run into trouble.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I'll probably get the Wii U for Ninty's franchises but I wouldn't mind them getting their ass kicked in the upcoming gen. They need a fire lit under their ass to finally become competent with things like online.
They are in hubris mode right now and it shows
They are in hubris mode right now and it shows
Margalis said:
Yeah, that's do-able it just depends whether Nintendo would implement it.
Nintendo would then also have the problem of selling extra expensive controllers when they couldn't do their main selling point which is streaming. People would expect to be able to use extra ones in the same way as they used the main one. Would take some explaining, and also make the already high cost of the controllers hard to justify.
I get the feeling Nintendo are saying sod it and just pushing the aspects it can do within the limitations of the technology.
bgassassin
Member
DECK'ARD said:
See. This is why for years I have been saying the new console should be named Uus. Now it's even more justifiable.
I mentioned in a previous post that I think the controller was intended to just be an add-on for the Wii and it didn't have the power to support it. I also agree in that one was the plan they intend(-ed) to go with and they were spinning that decision the best they could. I sometimes wonder if they went the route they did with the lack of info as a "feeler" to see how the response would be and use the extra time to to adjust accordingly. The one controller issue is becoming bigger as time passes and hopefully that can get them to fix it. That said there maybe something to the GPU and the discussion about Eyefinity. I'm definitely not knowledgeable on it to talk a lot about it, but it seems that at least the foundation is there to expand to more than just one controller.
But yeah two has to be the minimum. I also think that would expand the gameplay ideas for the controller. But considering Nintendo's cost consciousness, I wonder if the other concern of selling the uPad individually would be the cost on top of the technical infeasibility of a second controller. Of course with everything that is in the controller, I think whatever the price may be would be justifiable ... unless it goes over $150.
CoffeeJanitor said:
Well hopefully they got enough of that from the Wii to wake them up, but like I said in the old Cafe thread Nintendo has two methods they practice.
"If it's broke, don't fix it."
"If it is broke, try it a little longer till we know for sure."
Hopefully the latter did the trick, which with Iwata's admission about online they seemingly realize now that it's broke.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
I disagree, I thought the unveiling was much like Wii's, just not necessarily coming as actual software, though some of these concepts will probably evolve into a pack in themselves. The Wii had a similar reel that wasn't even playable, videos only, I'm sure many remember the flashlight horror game among others. They all still just showed brief, casual, shallow if you will, ideas that could be expanded in full games. If it doesn't appeal to you that's one thing, claiming they have no vision altogether is different. For me all they showed were as clear examples of the platform as Wii Sports and the other Wii showcases, perfectly demonstrating the potential, but of course not guaranteeing it in any way. The system is a year off at least, we'll most certainly see more of it before then, they aren't asking you to put down your money for what you saw.UberTag said:
Source? For the things other than achievements at least, that's hardly important.
PaperBoy_JJ
Neo Member
I do not understand how only 1 U controller will be acceptable to developers, are they introducing yet another controller that has bumpers, triggers, and dual analog sticks or does the wii already have this accessory. I see mentions of madden and how it wouldnt be fair that the second controller didnt have a screen but what about the basic buttons.
How do you play many multi-platform games that are designed with these additional buttons in this scenario. Are split screen games gone from the wii U environment at least when it comes to games that rely on a traditional controller. I know I wouldnt play a sports game with anyone locally when only 1 person had a traditional controller.
I can think of so many scenario that the other consoles can provide for local multiplayer that the wii U will just not be able to do. Granted the Wii U will have things that the other consoles can mimic but it rely only boils down to things that require an additional private screen.aronnov reborn
Banned
i feel so betrayed and hurt the more i read updates on this... YAY a system built around using 1 new controller and the rest last gen controllers!! YAY! you say 3ds connectivity possible? You know how to disappoint me... what happened to the core users? You're breaking my heart Nintendo.
megashock5
Member
PaperBoy_JJ said:
This is a good point. As it stands right now, not only can players 2-4 not have a screen, but they can't have every other button/trigger/stick that player 1 has without 3 wiimotes and 3 classic controllers.
Plus, having the CC tethered kind of sucks. It's not huge, but it would be so much nicer to have one that basically acted like the New Controller minus the screen.
That said, the other players will still want the screen.
boiled goose
good with gravy
megashock5 said:
BINGO.
Multiplayer games will be a nightmare to design if only one controller can be used. Potential for so many awesome games gravely reduced.
A HUGE FLAW.
Can be mitigated (a tiny bit) with a screenless-Wii U controller. At least that would give a bit more standardization, but one screen per system is honestly terrible. By far the worst thing we know about the WiiU so far.
Oh maybe a 3DS can be used? We get a sreen that way! Yeah, but you lose an analogue stick and two triggers.
:/
Nintendo needs to really look into fixing this.
Mama Robotnik
Member
My hopes of a Four Swords game with 3D visuals, in which all the individual Links cooperate to complete dungeons in a similar way to Portal 2, are fading.
Yeah it can be done over the internet, but it won't be the same awesome local experience that Four Swords Adventures was.
The UMote has such potential, and the idea of one per system is increasingly maddening.
Yeah it can be done over the internet, but it won't be the same awesome local experience that Four Swords Adventures was.
The UMote has such potential, and the idea of one per system is increasingly maddening.
PaperBoy_JJ
Neo Member
Would creating another controller even be feasible, I can only imagine a game store employee attempting to explain how to purchase a controller to the casual gamer You can by this control to do this or you can by that control to do that or hey you can by this here controller if you want to do both. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Peasant Princess-King
Member
If bandwidth is the problem there can always be a work around.
Let's say for instance that the wireless rf channels used by the wii u can only support one video feed to a controller.
One easy work around would be to just process traditional 4 way split screen at the console level and broadcast that single feed to all 4 controllers.
Each controller is registered to the system as player 1, 2, 3, or 4. Then each contoller will only display a quadrant of the screen from that single video feed.
So essentially you send all the controllers a 4 way split screen image but each controller is designed to only render a part of the screen based on which controller it is registered as. Since this is static the controllers should still act as dumb terminals and you are using the same bandwidth as a single video feed. The only consequence is decreased resolution, however the displays are low res as it is, so it doesn't matter.
That's a quick and dirty way to patch the problem.
Let's say for instance that the wireless rf channels used by the wii u can only support one video feed to a controller.
One easy work around would be to just process traditional 4 way split screen at the console level and broadcast that single feed to all 4 controllers.
Each controller is registered to the system as player 1, 2, 3, or 4. Then each contoller will only display a quadrant of the screen from that single video feed.
So essentially you send all the controllers a 4 way split screen image but each controller is designed to only render a part of the screen based on which controller it is registered as. Since this is static the controllers should still act as dumb terminals and you are using the same bandwidth as a single video feed. The only consequence is decreased resolution, however the displays are low res as it is, so it doesn't matter.
That's a quick and dirty way to patch the problem.
Peasant Princess-King said:
Sounds like a cool idea. I'd like to hold out for a wireless solution, but even if it somehow couldn't work wirelessly for whatever reason, couldn't they at least have additional controllers stream over USB or a split video cable? It wouldn't be ideal, but better than nothing, I think. Someone should bring these to Nintendo's attention. Harass them, preferably.
Seems at least half the great uses for these controllers will go to waste if you can't use them for multiplayer.
UltimaPooh
Member
If they can do two I think that's a good middle ground.
Need to make plays in a football game? Well each team will have a captain with a tablet and they share that info with their teammate who has a regular controller.
Need to make plays in a football game? Well each team will have a captain with a tablet and they share that info with their teammate who has a regular controller.
I don't see why they couldn't do 1 @60fps, 2 @30fps, 3 @20fps, and 4 @15fps. Have the controllers all receive the same video stream, except they would alternate which frames they'll be displaying. For stuff like Madden play calling, nobody would give a shit, let alone notice, that their controller screen isn't running @60fps.
I'm very surprised the Wii U will be a "single player console". This is a mistake in my opinion. Every single console ever is more than one player, more than one controller wtf.
I understand that controller is uber expensive and there must be complications if you stream to multiple controllers and synch all the jazz together but damn, is the Wii U concept THAT important to sacrifice what Nintendo is recognised for? (the masters of living room multiplayer aka family play?)
I understand that controller is uber expensive and there must be complications if you stream to multiple controllers and synch all the jazz together but damn, is the Wii U concept THAT important to sacrifice what Nintendo is recognised for? (the masters of living room multiplayer aka family play?)
Zoramon089
Banned
UberTag said:
It's over a year from launch. What are you talking about?
lednerg said:
The issue for Nintendo is you'd then be selling very expensive controllers that couldn't be used in the same way the main controller is. People would expect to have streaming on extra controllers as well, and it would be hard to justify the price when it would have limited uses.
People playing Mario Kart with an extra view on the controller or whatever would expect to be able to buy another one for the same. To pay all the money for another controller and then have it reduced to item select might not go down so well. Not to mention you'd also kill the other person's experience with the controller as soon as you connect 2.
I think we'll only see a change if they can manage to get streaming to work with two of them because of how hard they are selling the streaming aspect. Trouble is I think the GPU's second buffer is only enough to support one controller at that exact resolution anyway, and a change in that is even less likely than them getting round the bandwidth/latency/sync'ing problems of more than one controller.
They decided to push ahead knowing the limitations of the technology, I think it's a mistake personally and it's an issue that will always hang around the console no matter how hard they push asymmetrical gaming and whatnot.
Ranger X said:
The problem is Nintendo have gone with a concept which the technology isn't there yet to deliver. They've wanted to have something to distinguish themselves from rival companies again, and settled on a screen. They'd already explored that around the time of the Wii, as just a touch screen controller, but rejected it because it was too close to the handheld experience.
So they then revisited it with the concept of streaming which differentiated it enough from handheld in their eyes, but that came with a problem. Not being able to do it with more than one controller.
Instead of dumping it, they've run with it and come up with a new spin to try and get round the flaw. Asymmetrical gaming, master/slaves, a focus on 'you' rather than the 'we' of Wii. Trouble is with Nintendo's history of social gaming, everyone sharing the same experience, their strength, it doesn't ring true and why the concept was so hard to get across at E3. Even Reggie didn't seem convinced by it.
They will work within the limitations, but I don't think anything is going to come close to a Wii Sports killer-app because it's going to be so unbalanced. You can't share in the enjoyment of something when one person is experiencing something completely different. If the console's strength is its new controller, you only piss people off by not letting them all enjoy it. And you also kill most of the ways it could be used.
Strange times for Nintendo indeed.
Prophane33
Member
I'm surprised more people aren't aware of the existence of the Classic Controller Pro, it's up there with the Dualshock as far as controller's go, I was not a fan of the original CC, but the pro is fantastic. Some of the best recent 3rd party games for Wii have had bundles including it. Nintendo themselves haven't really tried to push it too hard it seems (other than creating it), correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm assuming if there's any type of controller created without a screen for the Wii U it will be a wireless version of the CCP. Which would kick ass. If anything Nintendo's willingness to have the system support only 1 Wii U controller at a time shows that they are really trying to push Online multiplayer.
Yeah, I definitely get that. Still, it would be nice to have the option of letting your friends come over with their own controllers so they can use them. At the very least, the option of doing 30fps on two controllers for stuff like Madden play calling would be brilliant.DECK'ARD said:
I should have specified I'm only talking about when it's split-screen on the TV, and you're just using the controller screen for the HUD, menus and other stuff. Playing an actual game at 15fps is obviously not a viable solution.
That's definitely possible. One route would be, like you're saying, to go from 854x480 to 427x480 native for the screens, and then doing the 30fps thing.
It's a good thing they're getting so much bad feedback and investor panic BEFORE they've committed to final specs and all. I know Nintendo is stubborn as hell, but this backlash/lack of praise better get them to adjust their approach.