Support NeoGAF

[Graphics Horse]

With the news that Miyamoto added the face-tracking 3D tech to the New Nintendo 3DS at the last minute, can we assume that the team was looking into the technology for NX?

Similarily to how Miyamoto stopped the 3DS manufacturing to add the gyroscope that they were putting into the Wii U GamePad.

That patent makes more sense taken into this context.

Yes I was thinking the same, I was even wondering if they avoided showing off the feature as a gameplay input mechanic so that they could give more impact on the next system, although as they already made a game for the DSi that does it with a standard camera, it doesn't it doesn't exactly strike me as a huge new feature.

Amazon also didn't have much success introducing a phone with a similar IR face tracking feature, but that's another story. Nintendo should be able to find ways to make it interesting, and it would be something that could work for both console and handheld systems if they wanted to do keep the controls similar across devices.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's the standard controller. Every button on a controller is "optional" depending on the game. Saying they're "required" is outright silly. The Wii itself proved that all those buttons weren't necessary.

You're completely missing the point, but at this point it's getting clear you knew perfectly well what I'm talking about, just choosing to sidestep that argument.

You tell me if it's possible to play Smash Bros or Mario 3D World to completion using the touchscreen only. You also tell me if it's possible to play Wii Sports using buttons only. No, it isn't. The games themselves are either designed with a standard controller in mind or they're not. The WiiU's games are. It's a clear difference, there's no need to feign ignorance on it.

The GamePad screen streaming by its nature cannot be an afterthought, as it was a forethought to put it in the machine in the first place. It's like saying that rumble was an afterthought in Wii games because it just rumbled. I can't say this clearly enough: They put the screen there for the very purpose they're using it for now. But besides the streaming itself, I've already listed several Nintendo games that have used it for things that are not simply streaming. You keep ignoring them but it doesn't make them cease to exist.

Duplicate streaming to the controller display was just ONE of the applications that they touted, arguably the simplest one, and that's currently the only one that is getting the most implementation. The second simplest is just dumping HUD info on it, which is essentially the rest of the implementations. Nintendo's doing the bare minimum in including Gamepad functionality in their games, and for all intents and purposes the core of the WiiU's games themselves are using traditional controls.

I can't stress this enough: The GamePad doing exactly what they planned for it to do does not make it an afterthought. The fact that you don't use it that much doesn't make it an afterthought. The streaming possibility to play without needing your TV on IS the feature. It can be used for other things, yes, but that doesn't discount that ability.

Nobody's "discounting that ability", whatever that's supposed to mean. The ability is there, and it provides value to people if they use it. However, it's unequivocally clear that this implementation isn't significantly influeantial in Nintendo's or the industry's games in any meaningful way. That's what actually matters, whether or not these implementations are worth using beyond the occasional convenience used by a minority of fans (who would honestly find value in anything Nintendo does anyway, that's not really a difficult litmus test to pass)

And yes, since you keep missing the point, I'm going to try and be as clear as humanly possible here.

My entire point is that people, including you, keep blasting "gimmicks" despite the fact that every part of "traditional controls" was at one point a gimmick. Gimmicks are not bad things. They're necessary and inseparable from innovation. People like to say Nintendo should go "back to traditional controls" but they've never, ever done that. They were never there in the first place.

And, not surprisingly, you're employing double standards here. You claim these hardware changes shouldn't be called "gimmicks" because everything was a "gimmick" before it got accepted by the industry, but, once again, you claim it doesn't matter if the industry doesn't jump on the WiiU's hardware changes simply because you personally find a value. Sorry, it just doesn't work both ways.

The reason the market's acceptance or non-acceptance of the GamePad is irrelevant is because the list of innovative gimmicks that then became "traditional" is about as long as the list of things Nintendo introduced that didn't take off. Virtual Boy. Game Boy Camera. Game Boy Printer. The three prongs of the N64 controller. Analog triggers with a digital click. And so on.

That's some mental gymnastics there. So, by your logic, if Nintendo fails at their innovative gimmicks we just toss it along "oh well, didn't work! *Price is Right fail horn*" without actually analyzing why they didn't work in the first place. The Game Boy Camera and Printer failed to take off because they were incredibly limited peripherals that had provided no meaningful additional interfaces with existing gaming conventions and didn't solve any particular problem. The virtual boy was an incredibly limited console that provided no meanginful additional interface with existing gaming conventions and didn't solve any particular problem.

Once again, I point to you one simple fact: whether Nintendo is innovating simply for the sake of innovating, or whether they're actually solving a problem. The N64 stick solved a problem. The Wii remote solved a problem. The WiiU's GamePad, the Game Boy Camera, the eReader, the Virtual Boy, none of those solved a problem.

The reason I said people were being ridiculously conservative by not asking for gimmicks is because, by definition, they ARE.

The GamePad's lack of success doesn't say: "people don't want gimmicks, Nintendo!"
It says: "people don't want THAT gimmick, Nintendo!"

No, it says "people don't want gimmicks that provide nothing of true value, don't advance typical gaming conventions, and don't solve any problems". It's really easy to tell when that is the case. If you don't feel like making this distinction yourself that's all right, but don't attack the people who are actually thinking critically about NIntendo's output instead of just tossing things in binary "GUD!" "NOT GUD!" piles.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Can't they just make something like the Shield Console and Portable?

 

[StevieP]

I don't think we can assume much given how Iwata has talked about expanding the definition of "platform."

There are already design specs in place for the handheld, though

 

[Pizza]

Good so I guess that means the gamepad is gone forever

I mean, if you buy games like one does with an Apple account, than theoretically I'd be able to play Nintendo iPhone is games on the nx, implying it requires a touchscreen, implying that the gamepad isn't dead hopefully!

 

[timetokill]

You're completely missing the point, but at this point it's getting clear you knew perfectly well what I'm talking about, just choosing to sidestep that argument.

The fact that you're still not getting the point makes me think you're intentionally trying to not get it.

You tell me if it's possible to play Smash Bros or Mario 3D World to completion using the touchscreen only. You also tell me if it's possible to play Wii Sports using buttons only. No, it isn't. The games themselves are either designed with a standard controller in mind or they're not. The WiiU's games are. It's a clear difference, there's no need to feign ignorance on it.

This is an absurd standard, and I think you know it is. The screen has touch capabilities, but it doesn't mean it MUST BE TOUCHED to be considered utilized.

Duplicate streaming to the controller display was just ONE of the applications that they touted, arguably the simplest one, and that's currently the only one that is getting the most implementation. The second simplest is just dumping HUD info on it, which is essentially the rest of the implementations. Nintendo's doing the bare minimum in including Gamepad functionality in their games, and for all intents and purposes the core of the WiiU's games themselves are using traditional controls.

As I linked above, the GamePad streaming was one application, yes, but it was also the PRIMARY one. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand. You can argue they're underutilizing the GamePad if you want, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Nintendo's intent with it. The GamePad is meant to be a traditional controller with a screen in the middle of it, primarily for Off-TV play but with some added features in case they could be useful. That's it. And that's exactly what they delivered.

Nobody's "discounting that ability", whatever that's supposed to mean. The ability is there, and it provides value to people if they use it. However, it's unequivocally clear that this implementation isn't significantly influeantial in Nintendo's or the industry's games in any meaningful way. That's what actually matters, whether or not these implementations are worth using beyond the occasional convenience used by a minority of fans (who would honestly find value in anything Nintendo does anyway, that's not really a difficult litmus test to pass)

I said discounting it because it's exactly what you're doing by saying they're not using the GamePad features. It's the primary feature. I agree it's not influential on the industry. A lot of Nintendo's gimmicks haven't been.

And, not surprisingly, you're employing double standards here. You claim these hardware changes shouldn't be called "gimmicks" because everything was a "gimmick" before it got accepted by the industry, but, once again, you claim it doesn't matter if the industry doesn't jump on the WiiU's hardware changes simply because you personally find a value. Sorry, it just doesn't work both ways.

But I'm not saying they shouldn't be called gimmicks. That you haven't pieced that together by this point makes me think you're not even reading what I'm posting.
The word "gimmick" being used as a slur here is what doesn't make sense. I'm saying that asking for "no gimmicks" is asking for absolutely nothing innovative or of note. It's a demand made by gamers that just want the same but prettier, and that's why it comes across as "old man yells at cloud." The resistance to change is unflattering, to put it mildly. Especially when they've benefited from so many gimmicks in the past.

That's some mental gymnastics there. So, by your logic, if Nintendo fails at their innovative gimmicks we just toss it along "oh well, didn't work! *Price is Right fail horn*" without actually analyzing why they didn't work in the first place. The Game Boy Camera and Printer failed to take off because they were incredibly limited peripherals that had provided no meaningful additional interfaces with existing gaming conventions and didn't solve any particular problem. The virtual boy was an incredibly limited console that provided no meanginful additional interface with existing gaming conventions and didn't solve any particular problem.

No, by my logic, if a gimmick fails, it doesn't mean they should never try a new gimmick again. That's literally it. I don't know why you're trying to add so much onto it.

Once again, I point to you one simple fact: whether Nintendo is innovating simply for the sake of innovating, or whether they're actually solving a problem. The N64 stick solved a problem. The Wii remote solved a problem. The WiiU's GamePad, the Game Boy Camera, the eReader, the Virtual Boy, none of those solved a problem.

And again, I point you to one simple fact: the GamePad streaming was intended to solve a problem, one that Nintendo explicitly talked about during the GamePad's reveal. Whether they actually solved the problem should not dictate whether they should attempt to solve a problem ever again, which is what you're asking for. It's ludicrous.

No, it says "people don't want gimmicks that provide nothing of true value, don't advance typical gaming conventions, and don't solve any problems". It's really easy to tell when that is the case. If you don't feel like making this distinction yourself that's all right, but don't attack the people who are actually thinking critically about NIntendo's output instead of just tossing things in binary "GUD!" "NOT GUD!" piles.

Saying "people don't want gimmicks that provide nothing of value" is a truism. Who the fuck cares?

Here's the issue at hand: if you were to ask someone like yourself whether motion controls as provided by the Wii "solved a problem" they would have said no. We heard endless cries about "just do something traditional! no gimmicks!" around the launch of the Wii. But it DID address a problem, and for many it did so quite effectively. That was the reason for its success.

The GamePad has obviously failed to do the same thing. Nobody is arguing against that. But the idea that they were not trying to address a problem is a falsehood steeped in ignorance at best. They literally pointed to the problem they were trying to address. That they tried and failed is not a damnation against trying in the first place.

The idea that you're the one thinking critically about this is the best example of mental gymnastics I've seen, though.

 

[DizzyCrow]

There are already design specs in place for the handheld, though

Wait, what? Source?

 

[blu]

Wait, what? Source?

Assuming we're about a year before 3ds' successor launch, there should be design specs at this stage, or nintendo would be in serious trouble.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

Can't they just make something like the Shield Console and Potable?

Why would tehy make something like the Shield console that is safe to drink?

 

[Endo Punk]

I'm planning to start a family soon and I see myself finally purchasing a Nintendo system with NX.

 

[Adam Tyner]

You can argue they're underutilizing the GamePad if you want, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Nintendo's intent with it.

Nintendo themselves have said the gamepad is underutilized. Iwata said in 2014 that "we have not been able to offer a decisive software title that enriches the user's gameplay experience when playing alone with the GamePad". For crying out loud, Miyamoto's tech demos from E3 last summer were expressly referred to in the investors' Q&A as the "GamePad Utilization Project".

Iwata from back in 2013:

“Asymmetric gameplay” is one of the important elements which differentiate Wii U from other products. Thus, we have released “Nintendo Land” as the software to make consumers understand the value of asymmetric gameplay.
. . .
In addition, we have also learned that the name “asymmetric gameplay” does not fully explain the GamePad’s value to consumers. As for the software going to be released from now on, we would like to describe the experience that the GamePad provides with a different expression in order to adequately convey its necessity to consumers and increase the number of consumers that think, “Indeed it is good to have a GamePad.” In this sense, starting with “Pikmin 3,” we aim to include functions that make good use of the GamePad that consumers can appreciate.

There's no denying that off-TV play was very important to Nintendo and something they were certainly pushing hard, but the idea that the gamepad is "primarily for Off-TV play but with some added features in case they could be useful" is out of step from what Iwata and Miyamoto have said repeatedly.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Assuming we're about a year before 3ds' successor launch, there should be design specs at this stage, or nintendo would be in serious trouble.

Of course, I thought he meant they were known to the public.

 

[EatinOlives]

This is an absurd standard, and I think you know it is. The screen has touch capabilities, but it doesn't mean it MUST BE TOUCHED to be considered utilized.

How is it an absurd standard? First of all, I'm not only talking about "screen must be touched". You're viewing this from an incredibly simplistic and superficial attitude.

Look at the way the Wii Remote was shown off with Wii Sports. This was a game that, for all intents and purposes, is not possible to play using buttons and joysticks without severely undermining its base gameplay design and overall wide-appeal gameplay goal. The game, from bottom-up, was designed with motion controls in mind. It's a game idea that was born out of the new method of interaction with a game, rather than the way around (where they simply pick and choose a couple of new-ish ideas and fit them into their existing games).

Nintendo in its own reveal trailer detailed several different kinds of proof-of-concepts of gameplay ideas that were relatively new. The challenge in this is to integrate them into a full-fledged game beyond a collection of mini-games. When you get down to it and look at the games that are the biggest hitters of the WiiU, the vast majority of them barely use these kinds of gameplay ideas in any meaningful way or don't use it at all.

It's not about the touchscreen. It's about integrating the dual display, mic, IR sensor, camera, asymmetrical multiplayer, and touch to create something new. Otherwise, the fact that they enforce these concepts at a hardware level isn't worth the trouble. If you want to argue you can see the industry and market rejecting this outright. I know you'll continue to ignore those facts, though.

As I linked above, the GamePad streaming was one application, yes, but it was also the PRIMARY one. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand. You can argue they're underutilizing the GamePad if you want, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Nintendo's intent with it. The GamePad is meant to be a traditional controller with a screen in the middle of it, primarily for Off-TV play but with some added features in case they could be useful. That's it. And that's exactly what they delivered.

No, not even close. This is just revisionist history. Look at the gameplay reveal trailer, look at NintendoLand (their "look at what this console can do" of the WiiU, much like Wii Sports). And I'll defer to Adam Tyner's post above. Nintendo themselves have admitted they haven't use their hardware as much as they would like, why can't you?

I said discounting it because it's exactly what you're doing by saying they're not using the GamePad features. It's the primary feature. I agree it's not influential on the industry. A lot of Nintendo's gimmicks haven't been.

I don't see how that, and that alone, is the primary feature. I could just as well argue that stylus control is a primary feature (considering the WiiU menu launched with touch navigation as mandatory in many menus), and several games like Smash 4 don't even use it (the extremely rudimentary level editor notwithstanding).

But I'm not saying they shouldn't be called gimmicks. That you haven't pieced that together by this point makes me think you're not even reading what I'm posting.
The word "gimmick" being used as a slur here is what doesn't make sense. I'm saying that asking for "no gimmicks" is asking for absolutely nothing innovative or of note. It's a demand made by gamers that just want the same but prettier, and that's why it comes across as "old man yells at cloud." The resistance to change is unflattering, to put it mildly. Especially when they've benefited from so many gimmicks in the past.

"Gimmick" in this context, at least the context I used it in, is a hardware innovation form Nintendo that was developed solely for the purpose of differentiating themselves from the market, not because they're out to solve a problem or provide a new dimension to game design.

Nobody, by the way, actually supports "absolutely no innovation". That's just building a strawman. Innovation also comes from the other players of the market. Clickable touchpad on the DS4, Suspend/Resume on XB1/PS4, OS-level integration of video and screen capture, video broadcasting, etc. are all innovations as well that get people excited about using new consoles. Nobody actually desires the exact same features and exact same architecture with just souped up specifications.

No, by my logic, if a gimmick fails, it doesn't mean they should never try a new gimmick again. That's literally it. I don't know why you're trying to add so much onto it.

We're in agreement with that. If they fail at a gimmick, they'll try something else and that's fine. What is not OK is giving Nintendo a pass on even their worst ideas by coming up with the most contrived reasons as to why they provide value. The WiiU Gamepad without a doubt is a failure in providing a legitimate hardware innovation, to argue otherwise will only encourage Nintendo to keep making nonsense gimmicks that don't advance game design rather than sitting down and honing in on an aspect of their own games that could stand to be improved, and it doesn't have to be this flashy, attention-grabbing hardware gimmick. At this point it's like Nintendo's hardware design team dumps all subtlety out the window and tries to attract attention by making really flashy hardware, then dump that hardware to the software team who has no idea how to actually make good games with it, and just ends up making traditional games and begrudgingly includes one or two extremely basic features from said hardware just to say they're not entirely ignoring it.

And again, I point you to one simple fact: the GamePad streaming was intended to solve a problem, one that Nintendo explicitly talked about during the GamePad's reveal. Whether they actually solved the problem should not dictate whether they should attempt to solve a problem ever again, which is what you're asking for. It's ludicrous.

Off-TV play is integrated into basically every one of Nintendo's first party titles. In that sense the feature is essentially the only feature I'm willing to give credit to Nintendo for being an integral part of their console that affects all their games.

I'm not knocking Off-TV as a feature, I'm knocking the fact that Nintendo isn't doing anything with the GamePad beyond this feature, and that this feature in particular is fairly passive in terms of what it means to the actual games themselves. It's really just outputting the same video feed to a different device, something that 1) has definitely been done before and 2) both of its competitors also do. I know you'll argue otherwise, but in my opinion, for the two reasons above it's not worth designing the entire console and forcing the WiiU around the GamePad.

Because Off-TV streaming has been done before, the natural question is "ok, what else?" What else does the GamePad afford Nintendo's big-hitter first party titles? In some cases like the Wind Waker, it's used mostly for dumping a bunch of HUD elements. Okay, not that innovative either, but it's something. And...that's it. That's how it's used with Mario Kart 8, that's how it's used with 99% of Mario 3DWorld, that's how it's used with Tropical Freeze, and that's how it's used with Smash Bros. What about the asymmetrical multiplayer? What about flinging gameplay elements to and from the GamePad's screen? What about integrating microphone use more meaningful besides "blow in mic mapped to button action"?

Saying "people don't want gimmicks that provide nothing of value" is a truism. Who the fuck cares?

Here's the issue at hand: if you were to ask someone like yourself whether motion controls as provided by the Wii "solved a problem" they would have said no. We heard endless cries about "just do something traditional! no gimmicks!" around the launch of the Wii. But it DID address a problem, and for many it did so quite effectively. That was the reason for its success.

The GamePad has obviously failed to do the same thing. Nobody is arguing against that. But the idea that they were not trying to address a problem is a falsehood steeped in ignorance at best. They literally pointed to the problem they were trying to address. That they tried and failed is not a damnation against trying in the first place.

The idea that you're the one thinking critically about this is the best example of mental gymnastics I've seen, though.

The mental gymnastics I'm now seeing is building strawmen.

I never said the Wii didn't solve a problem. Absolutely it did. Nobody can possibly deny it wasn't one of the key players in the rise of very accessible gaming that literally anybody could pick up and play. The main issue with the Wii, incidentally, was that Nintendo seemed to run out of ideas after the first 3 or so years of its lifetime. Had they put as much effort into fitting their existing IPs to provide a new experience instead of churning out a New Super Mario Bros game as a "killer app" (which sadly sold gangbusters and only enabled Nintendo's behavior, but hey, that's what the market spoke and I won't knock Nintendo's success for reading the market. They correctly read that 2D Mario itself is very accessible and capitalized on it, and I commend them for that. I would've rather they continued to go with accessible gaming through motion control instead but that's just personal preference), the Wii wouldn't have dropped so quickly in interest, especially after mobile gaming stole its thunder.

---

Let me lay this out:

1. Nintendo should continue to attempt innovation, when it's needed. No, this innovation doesn't have to be focused around quirky hardware. This fails more often than it lands.

2. Nintendo has solved problems through hardware before, and that's because it read the market successfully. Just because it read the market successfully in the past doesn't mean it can't in the future. We shouldn't give Nintendo free passes just for trying. In essence, though, they aren't getting free passes. They threw together some haphazard "innovation" with the WiiU and are currently paying dearly for it, but we don't need cheerleading of Nintendo's failed attempts even when Nintendo themselves admitted as such.