Support NeoGAF

[imastalker co.]

Entire Keynote (with slides on the side no less)

i figured this would make for good discussion, and would be a good heads up for those who haven't seen the entire keynote (and just the controller unveiling).

 

[imastalker co.]

what the?

 

[Firest0rm]

If you had put Revolution in the title you probably would have attracted more customers.

 

[elostyle]

Wow this is awesome how the slides work, thanks.

 

[ThunderEmperor]

nighttrain what good, been a long time man

 

[Mrbob]

I listened to this while doing other things on the net. Those of you who don't want to be bored with charts go to about the 26 minute mark. This is where the Revolution stuff starts and when I started watching it. I didn't know the nunchuck attachment came with the system, so this is good.

Out of everything said, most intriguing to me was his comments about the controller and the western market. Iwata was pretty adament about using this controller for the FPS genre, which is extremely popular in the west. This is probably why the nunchuck comes standard out of the box. But I still think Nintendo has some major problems. First and foremost, they need to get customers who normally play FPS games on 360 to tackle them on Revolution instead. I think this is a major hurdle which they won't be able to go over. Main reason being game announcments:

UBIs big FPS game by UBI Montreal, Assassins, is for PS3 and 360. No Rev version
EAs big FPS game Medal of Honor Airborne for PS3 and 360. No Rev version
IDs new game is for PS3 and 360. No Rev version

I think the power of the system goes into question here as to why there is no Rev version. Yeah the controller is nice, but if you can't realize those ideas because of system hardware then it isn't worth making the game. Secondly, you need to convince people that playing FPS games with a gamepad is bad. It is an argument I used to buy into (KEYBOARD AND MOUSE FOREVER!!), but not one I subscribe too anymore. While key + mouse is a little better, I've been made a believe that FPS games can play extremely smoothly on consoles. Especially with the 360 pad. I played the Call of Duty 2 demo on my OXM demo disc, and I couldn't believe how smooth the gameplay was in relation to the PC version I own. With PDZ I did have to make some concessions with how to play, but I adjusted. With CoD2 I picked up the game and played it as seamlessly as I did on the PC.

I would like bigger, larger, more complex worlds in my FPS games. 360 and PS3 can give me this. Can Revolution? Time will tell but with the amount of RAM in the system I would have to say no.

 

[imastalker co.]

First and foremost, they need to get customers who normally play FPS games on 360 to tackle them on Revolution instead.

i think all it'll take it one killer FPS. i think matt from ign was right when he said something along the lines of "playing an fps with a traditional controller will feel primitive after playing with with the rev controller".

i also think Iwata is totally right when saying that the rev controller will be the new standard in the genre (even when compared to mouse/keyboard).

all it's gonna take is one game. Metroid definitely won't be it. even after it pulls off the FPS style controls flawlessly, the fact of the matter is, that it's not a run around and shoot stuff FPS. it'll still an adventure game first and foremost.

 

[Mrbob]

I think you need to add an addendum to your comment:

"It'll take one killer app bigger than Halo 3."

On the flip side of the Revolution controller making other controllers seem primitive (Which I don't buy at the moment), I can say the power brought forth in PS3 and 360 is going to make game worlds in other consoles seem primitive. So I can get slightly more precise control involved with a more archiac game experience? I'll choose the game experience over the controller. Even if the Revolution controller makes moving your aim cursor a little better than the 360 pad, it doesn't make controlling with a gamepad bad. What EA is doing with the PS2 and Xbox versions of Airborne is not nearly as exciting as what they are accomplishing with the PS3 and 360 version. At the end of the day the Revolution controller is an interface. It is only one part of the equation. If I can't get the same immersive experience on Rev as I can with PS3 and Xbox 360, then the controller does me no good. I'm part of the target market Iwata is trying to convince to play FPS games on REV, and when I see all the big name games going to PS3 and 360, it makes his words (and matts) seem a little hollow. My perfect situation would be the Rev control interface (with more buttons) combined with the power of 360, but I can't get that, so I'll have to make a choice. And with all the big FPS developers already backing the 360 I would say the choice is very easy.

 

[BuzzJive]

So you're saying that the top FPS developers out there can't make a great game without boatloads of RAM at their disposal? Would a game on the level of Halo/Halo 2 with better textures, physics, AI and control not be something you'd want to play?

 

[ThunderEmperor]

I think you need to add an addendum to your comment:

"It'll take one killer app bigger than Halo 3."

On the flip side of the Revolution controller making other controllers seem primitive (Which I don't buy at the moment), I can say the power brought forth in PS3 and 360 is going to make game worlds in other consoles seem primitive. So I can get slightly more precise control involved with a more archiac game experience? I'll choose the game experience over the controller. Even if the Revolution controller makes moving your aim cursor a little better than the 360 pad, it doesn't make controlling with a gamepad bad. What EA is doing with the PS2 and Xbox versions of Airborne is not nearly as exciting as what they are accomplishing with the PS3 and 360 version. At the end of the day the Revolution controller is an interface. It is only one part of the equation. If I can't get the same immersive experience on Rev as I can with PS3 and Xbox 360, then the controller does me no good. I'm part of the target market Iwata is trying to convince to play FPS games on REV, and when I see all the big name games going to PS3 and 360, it makes his words (and matts) seem a little hollow. My perfect situation would be the Rev control interface (with more buttons) combined with the power of 360, but I can't get that, so I'll have to make a choice. And with all the big FPS developers already backing the 360 I would say the choice is very easy.

i beg to differ, casue form what i have seen on the 360 colors me on impressed. i have COD2 on my pc and sorry ot say I prefer it there, yes COD2 is nicce an dplays well on the 360. best game i think on the console. PDZ was a complete hack. Not has screamed nexgen to me there, big words big deal. but do we already have that this current gen with GTA. i want games the immerse me, not a fucking huge stage(excise my languge). thats why the last to consle games i have playe dare RE4 and God of War. both immersive gmaes. i thin alot of people are underestimate the power of the revolution. I am not worried about assians or moh. ubisoft as 3 games in develop ment for the system and also pledge full support, which the always have given. ea we will have to see but i have afeeling e3 willsurprise everyone.

 

[ThunderEmperor]

So you're saying that the top FPS developers out there can't make a great game without boatloads of RAM at their disposal? Would a game on the level of Halo/Halo 2 with better textures, physics, AI and control not be something you'd want to play?

thank you, halo was a great game, for me who hates consle fps. but it didn't need all the 360 power to archive what it did. it was a well developed game period.

 

[Kroole]

I think you need to add an addendum to your comment:

"It'll take one killer app bigger than Halo 3."

On the flip side of the Revolution controller making other controllers seem primitive (Which I don't buy at the moment), I can say the power brought forth in PS3 and 360 is going to make game worlds in other consoles seem primitive. So I can get slightly more precise control involved with a more archiac game experience? I'll choose the game experience over the controller. Even if the Revolution controller makes moving your aim cursor a little better than the 360 pad, it doesn't make controlling with a gamepad bad. What EA is doing with the PS2 and Xbox versions of Airborne is not nearly as exciting as what they are accomplishing with the PS3 and 360 version. At the end of the day the Revolution controller is an interface. It is only one part of the equation. If I can't get the same immersive experience on Rev as I can with PS3 and Xbox 360, then the controller does me no good. I'm part of the target market Iwata is trying to convince to play FPS games on REV, and when I see all the big name games going to PS3 and 360, it makes his words (and matts) seem a little hollow. My perfect situation would be the Rev control interface (with more buttons) combined with the power of 360, but I can't get that, so I'll have to make a choice. And with all the big FPS developers already backing the 360 I would say the choice is very easy.

To each his own.
I'd rather play QW with mipcap than playing a new Halo on X360. Why? The control or rather, the lack of it playing on X360 (and every other console released). I grew up playing FPS with mouse + kb and can't really see why people would see a regular controller as anything more than a bad yet the only alternative if you want some console FPS gaming. It's slow, imprecive and less intuitive. If the rev controller will a better alternative then in my mind the Rev is going to be the best alternative for console FPS gaming. If hte games will be made I might add.

 

[Mrbob]

So you're saying that the top FPS developers out there can't make a great game without boatloads of RAM at their disposal? Would a game on the level of Halo/Halo 2 with better textures, physics, AI and control not be something you'd want to play?

I'm saying top FPS developers are making games at what their disposal is available on Xbox 360 and PS3. Why stop with specs of Revolution, when they can develop something more grand on PS3 and 360?

As for Halo and Halo 2, the games are great. But they are in a league of its own. Did you need 360 power to make Halo great? Of course not. Bungie used what was available. Which goes back to my point in my first paragraph. The power of 360 should make Halo 3 a game which should dwarf Halo and Halo 2 in scope. After the ending of Halo 2, I'm imagining full scale battle on earth. This is easier to realize on the specs of the 360 than the specs of the Revolution.

An interface is only a means to an end. The interface itself doesn't have the power to create worlds.

 

[Mrbob]

As a final note, can Revolution destroy the stigma that you buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games?

This is the biggest factor.

 

[D3VI0US]

FPS devs aren't going to bother making games for Rev, they'll be too busy with PC, PS3, and 360. The market wasn't there on GC for mature games, and the market definately won't be there on Military/Shooters as it is a sub genre of mature games that the competition has locked up tight.

 

[BuzzJive]

An interface is only a means to an end. The interface itself doesn't have the power to create worlds.

RAM does not create worlds either.

 

[JoDark]

RAM does not create worlds either.

Uh, yea it does.

More RAM, bigger worlds, more materials, further draw, more on screen, etc.,etc.

It matters, and porting down from 512 to 88 is going to be a strip fest.

 

[jman2050]

RAM does not create worlds either.

Uh, yea it does.

More RAM, bigger worlds, more materials, further draw, more on screen, etc.,etc.

It matters, and porting down from 512 to 88 is going to be a strip fest.

Simple solution: Don't port.

 

[BuzzJive]

RAM does not create worlds either.

Uh, yea it does.

More RAM, bigger worlds, more materials, further draw, more on screen, etc.,etc.

It matters, and porting down from 512 to 88 is going to be a strip fest.

Uh - no it doesn't.

More RAM can make it easier to do the things you mentioned - but good developers can - have - and will be able to make games with all those things using whatever amount of RAM the Rev turns out to have.

 

[KyotoMecca]

Not sure if this thread is necessary, but:

EXTRA SHOTS! EXTRA EVIDENCE?
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200509/107.asp

Oh well.

Seriously, I don't think there is any "retrospective" to IwataTGS / ControllerGate that did not exist as of "later that day".

 

[Mrbob]

Uh - no it doesn't.

More RAM can make it easier to do the things you mentioned - but good developers can - have - and will be able to make games with all those things using whatever amount of RAM the Rev turns out to have.

Yeah but you are fighting a losing argument. Good developers can always stretch hardware. Which means they can stretch the PS3 and 360 even further than the Revolution.

Why have the PS3, 360, or Rev at all? Sell the 360 pad for Xbox, the Revmote for Gamecube, and uhhhh, the boomerang for PS3. Who needs new hardware when developers can stretch that 64MB on XBox to create the similar enviroment found on 360.

But if you think Rev can somehow create the equivalent world, so be it. I'm not going back and forth on the subject anymore, and I think the game announcements speak volumes on the topic.

 

[imastalker co.]

As a final note, can Revolution destroy the stigma that you buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games?

it's only a matter of time i say.

 

[Zerodoppler]

As a final note, can Revolution destroy the stigma that you buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games?

This is the biggest factor.

Third parties need to be on board from the start with big franchises or projects and not give it the old "wait and see" treatment. Sure, the Cube got Resident Evil, but I'd say it needed at least four or five more big franchises from the beginning to make non-nintendo fans look twice.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Thanks for the link, I haven't gotten to watch the whole video yet. I am watching it right now.

And about the FPS arguement, I thought Ubisoft had already confirmed they were making a game for the Revolution? Am I mistaken?

 

[imastalker co.]

I thought Ubisoft had already confirmed they were making a game for the Revolution? Am I mistaken?

seems to be the word on the street.

 

[Ulairi]

Thanks for the link, I haven't gotten to watch the whole video yet. I am watching it right now.

And about the FPS arguement, I thought Ubisoft had already confirmed they were making a game for the Revolution? Am I mistaken?

They are. Michel Ancel is heading it up...which means good things for gamers.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

They are. Michel Ancel is heading it up...which means good things for gamers.

Wait a minute, when was it announced that Michel Ancel was doing a FPS for Revolution? If the FPS being made by Free Radical makes it to Revolution (which is heavily rumored) that would make the Michel Ancel game exclusive correct?

 

[imastalker co.]

If the FPS being made by Free Radical makes it to Revolution (which is heavily rumored)

what rumors?

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Free Radical is working on a 3rd person action game for PS3/X360/PC. They released a PR last year.

 

[TheDuce22]

i beg to differ, casue form what i have seen on the 360 colors me on impressed. i have COD2 on my pc and sorry ot say I prefer it there, yes COD2 is nicce an dplays well on the 360. best game i think on the console. PDZ was a complete hack. Not has screamed nexgen to me there, big words big deal. but do we already have that this current gen with GTA. i want games the immerse me, not a fucking huge stage(excise my languge). thats why the last to consle games i have playe dare RE4 and God of War. both immersive gmaes. i thin alot of people are underestimate the power of the revolution. I am not worried about assians or moh. ubisoft as 3 games in develop ment for the system and also pledge full support, which the always have given. ea we will have to see but i have afeeling e3 willsurprise everyone.

Are you drunk?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

that TGS presentation thing was great to watch while everyone was going "URGH WTF IS THIS SHIT" when the controller was announced. I thought the same and watched that and it got me really hyped. A must watch I think.

 

[Xiaoki]

Focusing on First Person Shooters is a big mistake, they only make up about 3% of total video game sales.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Focusing on First Person Shooters is a big mistake, they only make up about 3% of total video game sales.

...joke right?

 

[shuri]

i think all it'll take it one killer FPS. i think matt from ign was right when he said something along the lines of "playing an fps with a traditional controller will feel primitive after playing with with the rev controller".

i also think Iwata is totally right when saying that the rev controller will be the new standard in the genre (even when compared to mouse/keyboard).

all it's gonna take is one game. Metroid definitely won't be it. even after it pulls off the FPS style controls flawlessly, the fact of the matter is, that it's not a run around and shoot stuff FPS. it'll still an adventure game first and foremost.

I have no idea how the remote will become the new standard for fps games. I can play a fps games for hours with perfect precision without getting tired of holding my arm in the air.

Playing a lightgun game is pretty much a perfect demo of how fps games will be on the gamecube, without, of course, the benefice of being able to control the point of view. I recently bought myself a new lightgun (expect a shuri video review soon!) and my arm was tired after a solid 30 minutes of holding it in the air to aim and shoot.

Those wild claims by Nintendo are certainly entertaining.

 

[imastalker co.]

I can play a fps games for hours with perfect precision without getting tired of holding my arm in the air.

the same applies for the revolution controller, although you'll have even greater accuracy.

 

[Razoric]

I have no idea how the remote will become the new standard for fps games. I can play a fps games for hours with perfect precision without getting tired of holding my arm in the air.

Playing a lightgun game is pretty much a perfect demo of how fps games will be on the gamecube, without, of course, the benefice of being able to control the point of view. I recently bought myself a new lightgun (expect a shuri video review soon!) and my arm was tired after a solid 30 minutes of holding it in the air to aim and shoot.

Those wild claims by Nintendo are certainly entertaining.

You dont have to hold the controller in the air. You can rest it on your lap and move the controller with very little wrist movement.

 

[Shiggy]

You dont have to hold the controller in the air. You can rest it on your lap and move the controller with very little wrist movement.

I think these people who say the opposite just don't want to accept that...

 

[imastalker co.]

you're probably right.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Uh - no it doesn't.

More RAM can make it easier to do the things you mentioned - but good developers can - have - and will be able to make games with all those things using whatever amount of RAM the Rev turns out to have.

Really good developers are doing next-generation games with all those things using PSOne class hardware yeah .

We do no really know the full final and confirmed for specs as not even the RAM amount is really definitive and we do not know the features and capability of the CPU and GPU, just their "performance delta" over GCN's ones so we cannot really say too much, but at the end of the day if there is a large difference in RAM and performance between the Revolution and the other two consoles it will show on screen.

Still, that what it makes it so great as a companion console for me (companion as in it complements the other next-generation consoles in your house well IMHO): I want it to play different things or similar things to what I could find on GCN, but graphically updated and playing differenty.

 

[Xiaoki]

You dont have to hold the controller in the air. You can rest it on your lap and move the controller with very little wrist movement.

Yes, you can do that but how well does it work?

Has anyone here played with the Revolution controller?

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.
Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

 

[shuri]

Yes, you can do that but how well does it work?

Has anyone here played with the Revolution controller?

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.
Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

Upgrade this man to regular member!

 

[Razoric]

Yes, you can do that but how well does it work?

Has anyone here played with the Revolution controller?

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.
Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

The easiest way to test that out would be to get a laser pointer, rest it in your lap and point it at a TV screen.

 

[imastalker co.]

Yes, you can do that but how well does it work?

very very well.

Has anyone here played with the Revolution controller?

yes, a couple. they say it works very well.

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.

who?

Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

how do you figure? those who've played with it, say other wise. besides, it's just obvious that that isn't the case anyways. you can tell just by checking out the technology in the controller.

 

[jarrod]

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.
Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

It's entirely up to the developer and how they calibrate sensitivity. Just like any controller.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

i think all it'll take it one killer FPS. i think matt from ign was right when he said something along the lines of "playing an fps with a traditional controller will feel primitive after playing with with the rev controller".

i also think Iwata is totally right when saying that the rev controller will be the new standard in the genre (even when compared to mouse/keyboard).

all it's gonna take is one game. Metroid definitely won't be it. even after it pulls off the FPS style controls flawlessly, the fact of the matter is, that it's not a run around and shoot stuff FPS. it'll still an adventure game first and foremost.

I think people are overrating the Rev's capacity for FPS games. The technology to make a better, more immersive first person shooter has already existed (light guns, thank you Zapper and currently the GunCon), but hasn't been fully exploited (GunCon + standard controller for movement, let's say). The Rev's advantage in moving FPS gaming is that devs will have to fit traditional FPS games into the Rev-Nunchuk scheme, but I don't believe it will make the impact everyone thinks it will, unless, as you said, there's a killer FPS, but if it's not Metroid, then what is it? Most of the upcoming FPS multiplatform games haven't been announced for the Rev.

 

[imastalker co.]

The technology to make a better, more immersive first person shooter has already existed (light guns, thank you Zapper and currently the GunCon), but hasn't been fully exploited (GunCon + standard controller for movement, let's say).

well, as far as accuracy goes, i think it's safe to say that the Revolution controller will be much more accurate than a GunCon2.

as far as the supposed technology being out there, and not being exploited.... well, just because developers never used it to make FPS games (which they didn't because of obvious reasons), doesn't mean it's a bad idea, or that it won't work.

before DS came out, i remember how people would say "split screen gameplay already exist. there's a reason why developers don't make split screen games unless they're multiplayer".

the technology to make games that have 2 "screens" has been around forever. but because it was never used, it was a bad idea to do so? that argument, and your light gun comparison pretty much use the same logic.

nobody has made good use of the eyetoy yet, so what does that mean? that it's no good?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Yes, you can do that but how well does it work?

Has anyone here played with the Revolution controller?

People talk about holding the Rev controller in the air to play first person shooters because that would afford them maximum speed and precision.
Lazily holding the controller in your lap and moving it with minimal wrist movements is going to hamper your ability to precisely and quickly move your sight across the screen.

I was under the impression that the controller doesn't work like a light gun, as in I don't have to be pointing it directly at the bad dude on the screen all the time, Just that it will work like a mouse. Like when you use a mouse and you can recenter your view, but the mouse isn't back in it's original position.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

well, as far as accuracy goes, i think it's safe to say that the Revolution controller will be much more accurate than a GunCon2.

as far as the supposed technology being out there, and not being exploited.... well, just because developers never used it to make FPS games (which they didn't because of obvious reasons), doesn't mean it's a bad idea, or that it won't work.

before DS came out, i remember how people would say "split screen gameplay already exist. there's a reason why developers don't make split screen games unless they're multiplayer".

the technology to make games that have 2 "screens" has been around forever. but because it was never used, it was a bad idea to do so? that argument, and your light gun comparison pretty much use the same logic.

nobody has made good use of the eyetoy yet, so what does that mean? that it's no good?

I see your point, but mind you I still think dual-screen gaming is a gimmick (I'm looking at you DS and PS3), and the EyeToy has had good use (unless you mean good use on a Nintendo console).

 

[Ulairi]

Wait a minute, when was it announced that Michel Ancel was doing a FPS for Revolution? If the FPS being made by Free Radical makes it to Revolution (which is heavily rumored) that would make the Michel Ancel game exclusive correct?

A while back. The Michel Ancel FPS is a rev exclusive, which is going to be good for Nintendo.

 

[imastalker co.]

I still think dual-screen gaming is a gimmick

yeah, play castlevania or mario kart and try arguing that 2 screens isn't better than one.

the EyeToy has had good use

i dunno about that. it's been nothing but gimmicky mini games. granted, the interface is awesome and all, but i've yet to play an actual full blown game with it, that didn't suck hard ass chunks.