-
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
even with only a few games that support multiple ucontrollers, you *know* nintendo would love to let you "personalize" your own controller so they could sell more than one per household.Deku said:
they can do this with face recognition and the camera, of course, but it doesn't sell as much hardware
flyinpiranha
Member
I don't understand what the hell this thing is supposed to be doing. I am so confused right now. It's like they took a Mario game and all the "cool shit" people came up with and decided to build a system around it.
I was hyped, I was excited. Now I'm just confused. I have no idea what they want to do with this system.
I was hyped, I was excited. Now I'm just confused. I have no idea what they want to do with this system.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Wii Uflyinpiranha said:
U is referring to the one controller per system concept. All Wii accessories will continue to be sold for the new console.
So you'll have a tablet and four wiimote combos.
The tech probably isn't there for streaming an acceptable video to several controllers at once.
Zoramon089
Banned
Why are people acting like Nintendo came up with this yesterday? That Nintendo and all of it's super creative devs and R&D guys never considered using more than 1? Obviously there are reasons at the moment that they're trying to work out.
Zoramon089 said:
You really think so? I mean, it's surely much more likely that the brightest people in the business, working on this thing for three years, have NOT considered these problems from all angles. They have, most likely, spent all that time totally overlooking obvious problems that 12-year olds on a message board could see after only a day.
dilatedmuscle
Member
ALL I CARE ABOUT; Zelda with great graphics, Mario with great graphics, Metroid Prime with great graphics... they always nail the gameplay in those games IMO now im excited to see them in glorious 1080p with great graphics...
Although I think they should go back to Metroid Prime and make it a lonely experience like the first... the last one tried too hard with the characters... i preffer the original Metroid Prime style of lonelyness and atmosphere. If they can do something like a Metroid Prime with graphics close to Battlefield 3, im sold, done deal.
Although I think they should go back to Metroid Prime and make it a lonely experience like the first... the last one tried too hard with the characters... i preffer the original Metroid Prime style of lonelyness and atmosphere. If they can do something like a Metroid Prime with graphics close to Battlefield 3, im sold, done deal.
boiled goose
good with gravy
huge blunder IMO if only one controller is allowed per system.
The go many local multi options out the window.
The go many local multi options out the window.
Sammy Samusu
Member
If you want to play Game Cube and Wii games you can buy a Wii console.Anth0ny said:
We want Wii U games using Wii U controllers, that's how it should be.
David H Wong
Banned
Anth0ny said:
Other than that it eliminates the entire point of the system for everyone else playing.
Your online strategy needs to be part of the original system architecture else you'll be in a world of hurt. Just take a look at the current gen consoles for the good and bad examples. If Nintendo had an innovative online strategy, they'd be featuring it front and center with the Wii U. I personally don't think online is a huge deal to Nintendo beyond the store, some limited social interaction, and the occasional online game like Mario Kart.Why would you do that? said:
Sammy Samusu said:
The Wiimote is still an integral part of the system. They're not hiding that fact.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Sammy Samusu said:
I remember a lot of people wanted just a Wii HD, with full Wii game/controller support.
Sammy Samusu said:
And they do, and they use Wiimotes for multi.
You people all seem crazy to me. They have demoed MULTIPLE setups with WiiU's and Wiimotes, and you know what? It looks fun!!!
YOU want multiple Upads for games? Why? Give me some design examples.
Whats a matter, you're scared your big brother won't let you use the one with the screen?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
There are definitely things that could be enabled with all players having touch controllers (look at any multiplayer DS/3DS game that utilises it to get ideas, or Four Swords, or an FPS with everyone having his own squad to manage via the touchscreen, or whatever else, any concept you can imagine for single player that allows all players to control it in the same manner against or with each other basically) but yes, I agree people who pretend this means the system won't have great local multiplayer or that there aren't just as cool concepts that utilise one player with the touch controller to the benefit of all the others' fun appear to be delusional or lack imagination.Glix said:
As for those that hate Wii and want something that never even hints at its legacy, that Nintendo would be stupid to ditch, I would advice against any Wii ___ system.
That's pretty vague, you can have co-op and split screen with the current setup. You probably mean for every player to have his screen, for every player to have touch features, and so on. Co-op and split screen by itself doesn't necessitate these features. As cool as they would be. But it's not a game breaker not to have them cosidering no system does.
darkpaladinmfc
Member
Co-op and split screen.Glix said:
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Oh come on. Here's my design example: everyone will have the new capabilities of the new controller, which would allow for the most creativity. One controller and four wiimotes could then be an option, as well.Glix said:
Obviously it's not happening because of tech issues but you can't just scoff. Zelda FS and CC already happened dude. Picking plays in madden. Crazy Mario Party stuff.
DefectiveReject
Banned
Prob old but Iwata states Nintendo will concentrate on games that use one WiiU controller.
Maybe able to somehow use the 3 DS 3D at some point, if they can be assed
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09...ndo-president-satoru-iwata-talks-about-wii-u/
Maybe able to somehow use the 3 DS 3D at some point, if they can be assed
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09...ndo-president-satoru-iwata-talks-about-wii-u/
I find it a stupid decision by Nintendo. Somehow they always do something to their consoles that disables it to reach its full potential. In this case, I think it is a manufacturing and cost issue. I don't believe its a technological issue. Even being able to play with minimal graphics like 4 swords would be fun in local multiplayer but they must be thinking, no one will buy a 150$ controller so there is no point in making extra manufacturing costs.
I think they are wrong.
I think they are wrong.
Glix said:
With Nintendo it's always how they apply the technology that's interesting. This time round they've gone with a technology that is inherently limited. The multiplayer demonstrations are working within that limitation, but it's still a crippling one and goes against Nintendo's philosophy of players sharing the same experience. The sudden push for asymmetrical gaming is purely a result of the big flaw of this set-up.
The main benefits of a player having their own private screen is that they can see things the others can't. When only one person has that advantage you remove most of its advantages, one person having a fuller experience and playing a game in a completely different way to everyone else.
You could still have asymmetrical multiplayer with everyone having the new controller, and you could do it better as you could have people swap from being the master player without having to swap controllers.
As a concept the Wii U is half-baked because of the limitations of the technology, and it is a very strange decision of the part of Nintendo. If you are selling a new experience you'd want everyone to experience that, if the technology isn't there to let you to do it then it probably would have been better to wait until you could.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
DECK'ARD said:
Look, I'm of the complete belief that this issue is a technical limitation. There's no way they wouldn't know already if this is possible or not. They're just trying to avoid bad press.
That said, your post about multiplayer is missing the point. Iwata has already said Nintendo is trying to find new ways to play multiplayer. This is it. With games specifically designed for these control schemes (which Nintendo has been showcasing at E3), it appears they've been successful (judging by the massive positive press).
Now, will 3rd parties invent games for use this way as well? It remains to be seen, although Ubisoft already has something ready with their Killer Freaks game. I have my doubts about 3rd parties doing anything reasonably well on a Nintendo system.
Multiplayer as we know it now will still be exactly the same--if people want to use Wiimotes, they can. It sucks that one person gets the screen, but that can be dealt with as a group (traded around, etc). All this tablet does is add yet another type of gameplay.
Plinko said:
It's not missing the point, it's Nintendo being disingenuous. The push for 'asymmetrical' multiplayer is purely because of the flaw of the set-up. If it wasn't for the flaw of only one U controller you would have seen far more interesting demonstrations of multiplayer.
Indeed everything they demonstrated could have been done better with more than one controller. Chase Mii for instance could have swapped the master player on the fly when caught.
The tablet does add another type of gameplay, but what it can add is crippled by only being able to have one of them.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
DECK'ARD said:
That's fine and all, but it IS still missing the point. Iwata said they want to create new ways to play multiplayer. They've done that. If they could make it play with more than one controller I'm sure they would but it's clear they can't.
What you're basically complaining about is that the system can't do something that is theoretically possible but technically not. Would it be great if it could? Absolutely. But it can't. And yet it's still adding a new form of play--which is exactly what Nintendo set out to do.
It's like whining that Mario Kart is only 8 players online or that an FPS tops off at 100 players per map. It would be great to have 1000-player Mario Kart or 100,000 player FPS maps, but it's not technically possible right now. Does that mean they shouldn't make the games?
DECK'ARD said:
If they have something that will improve the vast majority of gaming experiences, you think they should have put it off just because it fails to significantly improve one tiny aspect? If they thought that way, we'd be waiting five or ten years to get this cool console.
I might agree if the controller design really hurt local multiplayer, but it doesn't. The controller is fundamentally an additive thing. It takes nothing away. Traditional local multiplayer experiences (the kind that are available on both the other consoles) can be crafted using the tablet + wiimote or especially the tablet + classic controller. All designers have to do is limit the use of the screen to something that doesn't give a competitive advantage.
At the same time, the tablet allows for some cool multiplayer experiences that wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances.
The biggest problem this creates is mostly about perceptions and messaging. It could be a confusing concept and it's different than what people expect for a console, but if xbox 360 and PS3 are the baselines for comparison, this console can deliver all the same local multiplayer experiences they can, as well as some new ones, with no more additional hassle or difficulty. If a person buys some wiimotes and CC's, or perhaps buys a CC that doesn't rely on the wiimote (if they make one, and I bet they will), they'll be ready to go.
It would be cooler if it could do Four swords and FFCC, but I don't think the inability to create that experience is a good enough reason to put off creating the console.
And yes, I agree they're being dishonest about the reason, but that's just PR. It would certainly be better in every way if they could work with several controllers at once.
bgassassin
Member
I get the feeling that this is a repeat of what happened with the Wiimote. Nintendo initially planned to give GC a long life through peripherals, one of which was motion controls, but the latency was too bad to try it so they release the Wii. Now once again they were looking for a way to extend the life of the Wii using the uPad (I like this suggested name), but the Wii didn't have the power for it. At the same time the lack of power finally caught up to the Wii after continuously being neglected by high-level third party games. So to kill two birds with one stone they release a much more powerful console to attract devs and support the uPad. But considering the level of the uPad it may be still a strain by itself considering that it is projecting two video feeds simultaneously.
Considering specs aren't finalized, we'd have to hope/believe Nintendo is working to find ways to support more than one uPad without it overly affecting the quality of the streaming feed or the console hardware when playing games.
Considering specs aren't finalized, we'd have to hope/believe Nintendo is working to find ways to support more than one uPad without it overly affecting the quality of the streaming feed or the console hardware when playing games.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Not worth my time. I'm not a developer, I'll let them figure it out.Glix said:
So the bottleneck would be in being able to stream to 4 controllers then.DR3AM said:
What's it take to stream in 1080p? ~30mbps? Is that likely?
It could be that wireless streaming is simply finicky by nature, and Nintendo doesn't want to do it unless it's 100% reliable. The Vitality sensor, for instance, worked with like 90% of people, but they still didn't want to do it. I guess they just don't like the idea of having shitty framerates in 4-player.
2 player, in any case, should be very much possible. And remember, Nintendo likes money. If they think they'll be able to profit off of controller sales, and everyone's already demanding multi-controller support, I suspect they'll put it in.
Any wireless experts wanna weight in on the issue?
SouthernDragon
Member
What?
Zoramon089
Banned
Basically "Stop asking us! We'll reveal it when we want to. Are you a developer? No? Then you don't need to know over a year in advance how it works!"FlightOfHeaven said:
Uhm, why? It's not like the console would support 1 tablet and nothing else. You'd still be able to use other controllers (including arcade sticks).richiek said:
I can totally see that happening. Any of you hoping for more than two WiiU tablets at the same time, though, should better stop hoping.Deku said:
Not if the only controller you can buy is the Wii remote.agrajag said:
Metroid Killer
Member
I was honestly pretty devasting when I found out that it was 1 Wii U controller per console (there goes my FFCC dream game, Four Sword perfect multiplayer game, etc. even small stuff like having a rear mirror in Mario Kart would be unfair in local multiplayer).Jocchan said:
But as Amirox said it, it's not like I play that much local multiplayer these days anyway, however 2 Wii U controllers would be leagues better than just 1 for the times when the lady or a friend wants to join in on the fun.
Plinko said:
No it's not the same at all. Your examples are just exaggerated examples of existing gameplay. You introduce new hardware to open up new possibilities, but that becomes much less compelling when the way you deliver it means its automatically limited. If the controller adds a compelling new experience then you'd want everyone to experience it.
Iwata would say the same about any new hardware they introduced, and he would have said exactly the same if it *did* support more than one controller. His argument would have also been a lot more compelling and backed up by much more tangible examples of how the controller would have been used. Wii Sports wouldn't have gone down half as well if one person had been swinging around a remote and everyone else was using a SNES pad.
The main benefit of a player having their own screen is private information to that player. Even the Dreamcast got that right. If only one person has access to that information you throw everything out of balance and relegate the players to a master and slaves effectively. Nintendo has always been about sharing the experience with others as a whole, the ony reason for the change in direction is because they are nailing their flag to a technology that can only deliver a portion of the concept.
And that's just not very exciting, if anything it's frustrating. And if the only way the Wii U experience can be shared on an equal basis is through online then that is a very risky thing to look forward to where Nintendo are concerned.
I love Nintendo, but this is the most half-baked thing they've ever done. Like the E3 presentation itself it screams too early, with a technology that is not ready to deliver the concept.
Jocchan said:
Well, because it seems that on the Wii, the classic controller was used mostly for VC and Gamecube games, while most Wii games used the Wiimote+nunchucks. On WiiU, because of the tablet controller, dual analog seems to be the standard method of play. I'm just wondering if most games will support pointer controls or not, and if not, the Wiimote+nunchuck won't work for many games because it only has one thumb stick.
Azure Dream
Member
At first I thought, "Well, they only budgeted the graphics hardware for one screen and the tv, they're pretty much at a hard limit," but then I realized something. If it's a matter of not having the graphics processing power, if the console is already budgeting resources for split screen play like many of the mini-games they showed off, then at 1080p resolution, if they don't output to the TV, or output only a very simple, fast-drawing display, they could easily render two 854 x 480 (estimated tablet resolution) screens and shunt them to the controllers. This is in addition to the already-planned hardware budget for the extra controller display. That's 3 right there, without really breaking a sweat. (This is assuming of course they include the necessary signal transmission hardware, whatever they're using.)
Suddenly 4 controllers doesn't seem so impossible, but the TV will pretty much be reduced to a mini-map or something. Limits what kind of games they can do with 4 controllers, but still better than no option at all, and doesn't restrict their existing one controller ideas.
Edit: Come to think of it, there's a lot of other tricks they could use, like for the games drawing simple menus on the controller screen, dropping to half-resolution.
Suddenly 4 controllers doesn't seem so impossible, but the TV will pretty much be reduced to a mini-map or something. Limits what kind of games they can do with 4 controllers, but still better than no option at all, and doesn't restrict their existing one controller ideas.
Edit: Come to think of it, there's a lot of other tricks they could use, like for the games drawing simple menus on the controller screen, dropping to half-resolution.
Sammy Samusu
Member
Monster Hunter, you need a screen for each of the four players, using only one Wii U controller would limit the multiplayer session to two players.Glix said:
Pokémon Stadium, you may watch Pokémons fighting at the big 42" TV screen, but you select your team, check your status and select a move to attack using your own Wii U controller, that way your opponent won't be able to check your strategy. If you have ever played Pokémon Stadium, you must have told your friend to not look at the TV at certain moments, "I'm checking some Pokémons and their move lists!"
And don't forget about Four Swords and Crystal Chronicles.
bgassassin
Member
agrajag said:
Yeah that's why when looking at things like that I believe the tablet was originally for the first Wii.
OliveJuice
Member
I don't really understand why developers can't just choose to limit the information being sent to the controllers to say, a map or inventory, and thus allow for more controllers to be used.
I think this might have more to do with the fact that the controller is probably quite expensive, so Nintendo doesn't want to push local multi-player as much.
I think this might have more to do with the fact that the controller is probably quite expensive, so Nintendo doesn't want to push local multi-player as much.
Jocchan said:
Joining the dots, I think the console is effectively hardwired to just support the main TV output and a lower-resolution second display to the controller. When the Zelda display was swapped, the TV displayed an image at the resolution of the pad. That would fit with AMD's comment about the GPU supporting multiple displays. So it's supporting one full 1080 image, and a second smaller one.
If that's the case there would be a lot less flexibility with how you'd handle more than one controller, even if you could get round the bandwidth/latency/syncing problems. You could still in theory support a simple interface on each controller for choosing plays etc. by alternating which controller's interface you drew in the second buffer. Just with a tiny delay. Streaming to more than one would be out of the question though, even if the bandwidth could handle it.