• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Wii 2 (Project Cafe): Officially Announced, Playable At E3, Launching 2012 [Updated]

Status
Not open for further replies.

birdchili

Member
Sep 18, 2005
3,210
0
0
Retro said:
Heh, thanks. Once I tossed a couple ideas out there, they snowballed and I had to make a big long list.
yeah... great post. the pad could make a lot of pc games much more do-able without compromise on a console controller, which would be a nice boon. i quite like the though of re-assignable on-the-fly face buttons - that seems quite functional for slower-paced genres.
 
Net_Wrecker said:
The bottom screen is still in your field of vision. Having a HUD on a CONTROLLER would mean moving your head to look down at the controller, or moving the controller to eye level to quickly scan for info.
Right. Having to look away from the screen to see the HUD would be no more helpful than, say, making the HUD appear on the TV screen only when the game is paused.
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
JoshuaJSlone said:
Right. Having to look away from the screen to see the HUD would be no more helpful than, say, making the HUD appear on the TV screen only when the game is paused.

Which is why I think the insistence by some members of this thread of moving the HUD to the controller is confusing. It's easily the least useful and functional suggestion one could make based on the proposition of the screen on the controller.
 

PaperBoy_JJ

Neo Member
Aug 21, 2009
22
0
0
I do not know if this has been discussed or not as this thread has grown quite large; however what has gotten me most excited is the streaming of content to the controller. I have 2 young children and they constantly fight over who has the PSP or who has the DS and who has game X. A majority of what they play are old NES, SNES and Game Boy games when we are not playing a lego game. I don’t purchase much online but if Nintendo can keep the controllers to 30-49 dollars and give the ability to download a game on the new console and have it able to be streamed to each controller housing their own game session of the same game or different games OMG!!! I can only imagine having the freedom to walk around the house independently playing a lego game with my kids without the screen sharing. Gone would be the worry of if they break this DS or 3DS I have to go foot another 120-250 for a new handheld or hey game X has come out I have to go buy two copies of it or deal with the fighting. I’d buy that console day one and be comfortable with the purchase of any future software or even the re-perches of old NES, SNES and Game Boy games. Then just thinking of all the cheap games developers could come up with that could incorporate co-op gaming to multiple device with their on POV, off a home network and one piece of hardware. I feel like my kids on XMAS and Nintendo hasn’t had me this excited in years.
 
May 20, 2007
6,312
0
0
LDN
JoshuaJSlone said:
Right. Having to look away from the screen to see the HUD would be no more helpful than, say, making the HUD appear on the TV screen only when the game is paused.

For singleplayer true, but it would be useful for multiplayer (if every controller has a screen).
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
Cerebral Assassin said:
For singleplayer true, but it would be useful for multiplayer (if every controller has a screen).

The important part about multiplayer isn't that the HUD would be moved to the screen, it's that each controller could have a unique perspective (which would include the HUD, but also everything else as well). In esssence, it would remove the splitscreen prospect and replace it with a more personalized, more immediate perspective on what you're doing in the game. You'd also be able to go to the bathroom and continue playing with your friends. ;)
 

Fourth Storm

Member
Feb 17, 2006
6,713
1
1,040
Vinci said:
Which is why I think the insistence by some members of this thread of moving the HUD to the controller is confusing. It's easily the least useful and functional suggestion one could make based on the proposition of the screen on the controller.

Yeah, it wouldn't really be a HUD anymore. It'd be a HDD (hmmm, that needs a different acronym).

I think it's a good idea for certain games though, where the setting is not one of high technology. Like in King Kong, getting rid of the HUD was a cool immersive idea. Or like in RE5, where the action continues even as you choose an item, putting all that info on the controller would help keep the suspense but make it slightly more realistic/easier on the player. But in a game like Metroid or a racing game, having the HUD stay on the big screen is elementary.
 
May 20, 2007
6,312
0
0
LDN
Vinci said:
The important part about multiplayer isn't that the HUD would be moved to the screen, it's that each controller could have a unique perspective (which would include the HUD, but also everything else as well). In esssence, it would remove the splitscreen prospect and replace it with a more personalized, more immediate perspective on what you're doing in the game. You'd also be able to go to the bathroom and continue playing with your friends. ;)

See, I don't think this will actually happen. Only IGN(I think) has reported that full games can be streamed, & have no faith that they are accurate, I think at best we will be able to play VC games on it. To be honest if it wasn't a Nintendo machine I would assume it would be used for voice/video chat in multiplayer(listening to Iwata's GDC keynote it seemed logical).
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
Fourth Storm said:
Yeah, it wouldn't really be a HUD anymore. It'd be a HDD (hmmm, that needs a different acronym).

I think it's a good idea for certain games though, where the setting is not one of high technology. Like in King Kong, getting rid of the HUD was a cool immersive idea. Or like in RE5, where the action continues even as you choose an item, putting all that info on the controller would help keep the suspense but make it slightly more realistic/easier on the player. But in a game like Metroid or a racing game, having the HUD stay on the big screen is elementary.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing about moving the HUD - and it alone - to the touchscreen that is particularly compelling. It's not a change that is going to drastically improve anything. In fact, I think most people - even those supporting it in this thread - would find it bothersome upon actually trying it. I mean, even in slow-moving games, as in the previous post that showed swapping powers in WoW, what's fundamentally improved by doing that? I mean, why move the powers to the face buttons at all? Why not just tap the power you want to use and off it goes? But even in that isolated bit of usefulness, it wouldn't apply to the vast majority of titles or genres.

Cerebral Assassin said:
See, I don't think this will actually happen. Only IGN(I think) has reported that full games can be streamed, & have no faith that they are accurate, I think at best we will be able to play VC games on it. To be honest if it wasn't a Nintendo machine I would assume it would be used for voice/video chat in multiplayer(listening to Iwata's GDC keynote it seemed logical).

If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. Hell, we're all just speculating at this stage anyway. All I know is that the HUD is a rather useless thing to stream to the controller, outside of a very small number of games. And VC? I wouldn't buy this system for the ability to play VC games on my controller. That's an expense that I feel would just be unwarranted in that case.

If that's all it is... then Nintendo has really run out of compelling ideas.
 

Fourth Storm

Member
Feb 17, 2006
6,713
1
1,040
Cerebral Assassin said:
See, I don't think this will actually happen. Only IGN(I think) has reported that full games can be streamed, & have no faith that they are accurate, I think at best we will be able to play VC games on it. To be honest if it wasn't a Nintendo machine I would assume it would be used for voice/video chat in multiplayer(listening to Iwata's GDC keynote it seemed logical).

I've been saying this from the start, and am still sticking to it. Video chat is an obvious use for the controller and "front facing camera." I've been informed that Pokemon B/W does, indeed, include the feature, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, especially if Nintendo are focusing on improving the online experience. They tend to do things their own way (such as with Wii Speak). I can't picture them being satisfied with requiring users to wear a geeky headset.
 
May 20, 2007
6,312
0
0
LDN
Fourth Storm said:
I've been saying this from the start, and am still sticking to it. Video chat is an obvious use for the controller and "front facing camera." I've been informed that Pokemon B/W does, indeed, include the feature, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, especially if Nintendo are focusing on improving the online experience. The tend to do things their own way (such as with Wii Speak). I can't picture them being satisfied with requiring users to wear a geeky headset.

It makes the most sense as ,I think Iwata was saying that online gaming is currently faceless & Nintendo are about face to face gaming(paraphrasing heavily obviously) & it would be a good hook to entice the "hardcore COD" crowd, but its Nintendo. They won't even let us send friend requests, so something doesn't add up.
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
Which is why I think the insistence by some members of this thread of moving the HUD to the controller is confusing. It's easily the least useful and functional suggestion one could make based on the proposition of the screen on the controller.
Depends on what kind of HUD it is. Take Crackdown for example. You really don't need all that info in your face at all times. They could put at least half the stuff on the controller screen instead.
 

JGS

Banned
Dec 5, 2008
15,807
0
0
Lexington, KY
Sammy Samusu said:
A playing card game for Cafe would be nice!
I was thinking this too until I realized you would need a few controllers for a small game

Spades, Poker, & UNO would be awesome though if you could afford it.
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
Depends on what kind of HUD it is. Take Crackdown for example. You really don't need all that info in your face at all times. They could put at least half the stuff on the controller screen instead.

No offense, but that's about as marginal an improvement as can be imagined. "This information isn't particularly important, so we're going to tuck it away in a place that not only takes it out of sight but makes it less convenient to see even when you need to." That's helpful in what regard? I mean, if you can give me an example in which this is actually helpful and not just some 'bu-bu-but immersion' nonsense, please do so.
 

Retro

Member
Dec 7, 2008
16,340
1
935
bidaum said:
A couple of counterpoints:

You can't read subtitles on one screen and watch the cinematic on another.
I could argue that when you're sitting reading on-screen subtitles, you're not watching the cinematic either, but there is a difference between glancing at the bottom of the screen and glancing at your hands. I tend to turn subtitles on so if the game's dialogue isn't clear or I didn't hear something correctly, I can check it.

But yes, some people say that subtitles are intrusive. Putting them on a separate screen does make the main screen more cinematic, which is the title under which this particular bullet point fell.

Most FPSs you aren't going to want to look away from the main screen.

1. The point you are discussing is listed as specific to privacy during split-screen gameplay, a situation where you don't want other players to see specific details. If you've got a mini-map in the corner of your part of the screen, the other player can use that to find you.

2. I think the difference between an on-screen HUD and a personal screen is negligible. This sounds like the complaint people made about the DS when it was first shown too. You can look at two things fairly quickly anyways.

3. Do you look at your radar in the middle of a firefight anyways? Have you ever been taken by surprise while glancing at your on-screen radar? Most people would answer yes.

4. I have a deep dislike of Peter Molyeneux, but I have to agree with his personal philosophy on minimaps; "Mini-maps are shit. They're shit because you make these multimillion-dollar games, and people play them staring at these little dots.". By putting the radar on a personal screen, you're taking away or diminishing the ability to 'play by the radar', navigating by the information on the tiny map instead of what's happening on the screen. I would argue this is a more immersive experience.

I guarantee you no one is going to look away from a fight to check their meter, even for an instant. For that matter, knowing the other guy's meter is often a big part of strategy.

You are aware that people have peripheral vision, yes? I don't need to glance directly at something to garner info from it. A quick glance down at a gauge on my personal screen can tell me if my gauge is half full, almost full, etc.

Additionally, I think that knowing when the other guy has the capacity to unleash a devastating super move at any moment plays a huge part of strategy. You may be much more cautious to get near them if you know they can unleash some kind of crazy attack.

And again, this was under the "Split screen privacy" section, which was all about creating experiences that cannot be achieved with all information being on-screen.

What if there was a fighting game where you couldn't see how much life the other guy had? You'd have to judge based on their character's visible damage. Not sure what this has to do with the controller screen

Again; personal privacy section. If you select your characters in secret, it prevents your opponent from picking counter-characters. If you pick a fast character, your opponent won't know and simply pick a fast character to match you. It would lead to less formulaic matches, I feel.

- Dice rolls in an RPG. No reason this needs to be on a separate screen.
It does if you're rolling dice in secret, like the Liar's Dice game in Red Dead Redemption, or even in a sort of Dungeons and Dragons game where one player is in charge of the monsters and traps and the other players are playing heroes.

Try not to think of traditional console games, but what a console could do if there was a way to deliver information via a personal, private interface.

- Hide and go seek. Come on...
Seriously. I shouldn't even need to explain this one, but based on your next quote, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time explaining these things anyways.

In a game where one player hides from another (say, every multiplayer stealth game ever made?), being able to see where the other player is hiding is the root of the entire game. If you're sharing a screen, there's nothing to stop the seeker from finding the hider, whether their glances are unintentional or not ("The bottom screen is red, therefore he is in a room with red lights"). The only way around that is to have individual screens.

bidaum said:
You wrote a bunch and I got tired

Words in my post: 903
Words in The Cat in the Hat: 1629

Maybe you should go have a nap if reading is such a chore.
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
No offense, but that's about as marginal an improvement as can be imagined. "This information isn't particularly important, so we're going to tuck it away in a place that not only takes it out of sight but makes it less convenient to see even when you need to." That's helpful in what regard? I mean, if you can give me an example in which this is actually helpful and not just some 'bu-bu-but immersion' nonsense, please do so.
It's not so much about immersion as it's about being able to see the actual game. I hate most HUDs because they are too far into the screen and too big. Twilight Princess for example has an horrendous HUD that takes up way too much space and it's ridiculous how far into the screen it is. I hate that shit. I don't need to be spoon fed info every single second I play the game.

If I want to check that extra info, I can do a quick glance down at the controller while running, driving or watching a cutscene. It takes like 2 seconds at most and it won't interrupt the actual gameplay.
 
Sep 2, 2007
17,992
3
0
bidaum said:
You wrote a bunch and I got tired, but so far (we'll see what Nintendo has planned) I haven't seen any argument strong enough to warrant the touchscreen. <--excluding the selling point of not needing the tv.

You know thats bannable, no?


Retro said:
Words in my post: 903
Words in The Cat in the Hat: 1629

Maybe you should go have a nap if reading is such a chore.

And that was an epic response for it :lol
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
It's not so much about immersion as it's about being able to see the actual game. I hate most HUDs because they are too far into the screen and too big. Twilight Princess for example has an horrendous HUD that takes up way too much space and it's ridiculous how far into the screen it is. I hate that shit. I don't need to be spoon fed info every single second I play the game.

Then EAD 3 needs to get its shit together and stop making stupidly large HUDs. Developers having a poor design sense should not necessitate shifting information into a less conveniently accessed location. Hell, I'd say EAD 3 needs to be taken to task for a lot of stuff - HUD design being but one. [I mean, really, you're going to make people play through an extensive tutorial period that is boring as all hell and then thrust this huge-ass HUD onto the game anyway?]

If I want to check that extra info, I can do a quick glance down at the controller while running, driving or watching a cutscene. It takes like 2 seconds at most and it won't interrupt the actual gameplay.

You know what? Honestly, if that's what it is and it improves your gameplay experience, I'll legitimately be happy for you... but I cannot imagine a less useful, beneficial thing than this suggestion for anyone outside of you and a few others. So I will unfortunately have to pass on the system with an $80 controller that allows me to have awkward access to information that might sporadically be useful to know.
 

Retro

Member
Dec 7, 2008
16,340
1
935
VisanidethDM said:
I appreciate the idea of a console as a multimedia box, but I think the gaming experience should stay secluded. I'm sure there's genres for which stuff like custom soundtracks work and voice chat is essential, but I want to be sure that there's the freedom for the game designer to rule those things out.

Right, my GTA Soundtrack example is the best case I could think of, but there really are lots of exceptions to the rule and lots of ways to use outside media to benefit a gaming experience... I just happen to believe that the game designers should have some control over that. Your Dark Souls example is an excellent case of where certain features would just break the feel of the game.

VisanidethDM said:
My main example would be World of Warcraft. I tab out of it a lot, and I love being able to tab out. I hardly feel the need to "tab out" when playing a good, immersive game, and it's a boon than I can't no matter what on consoles.

Without trying to start a World of Warcraft argument, MMOs aren't exactly immersive, thrilling experiences. WoW is very repetitive; most of the gameplay is moving around, pressing tab to target and spamming the same 3 or 4 buttons. Obviously there is more to raiding and PVP, but if you're leveling, questing or doing dailies (which is like 80% of the game), that's pretty much it.

VisanidethDM said:
I don't want to be constantly hooked to the system. Once again, it's the kind of argument you can dismiss with a "durr nobody forces you to be online/tab out/listen to other stuff" (cough comfy couch cough), but I think modern gaming could really benefit from dropping some "multimediality" and user-friendlyness in the name of some more focus on the actual gaming.

I think there should always be separate PC and Console gaming circles with appropriate overlap when needed, and all of these all-in-one-box plans blur that line, to the detriment of the console experience.

Sometimes I want to play something that only a PC can deliver, and that's good. PCs can do some things better than consoles. But I think the argument has to go both ways; there are certain things that consoles can do better than PCs, and one of those is just player immersion.

Sometimes, I'd rather lean back and relax on the couch in a well-lit room and play on a big ass TV with comfortable, ergonomic controller than sit hunched over my desk for hours tapping at a keyboard by the light of a desk lamp.

Most people spend 8 hours a day parked at a PC, the option should exist to game a different way, and there shouldn't be any argument about that.

JGS said:
I was thinking this too until I realized you would need a few controllers for a small game

Spades, Poker, & UNO would be awesome though if you could afford it.

Or have one controller that you pass between multiple players for each one's turn. It's not as ideal as having multiple controllers, but it would work. The point is that each player's hand is hidden from the others because that info isn't up on the big screen for everyone to see.

SpacePirate Ridley said:
And that was an epic response for it :lol

Heh, thanks. Comes from years of seething at people who reply to anything more than a paragraph with "TL;DR". Out of all the shit to come out of the internet, I think that's easily the most annoying, the whole trend towards "your entire statement is invalid because I can't be bothered to read it" is just insulting.

manueldelalas said:
Retro: Your mega posts are awesome.

It's nice to be appreciated. Most of the time I get the feeling people see my avatar and go "HOLYSHIT!-scrollscrollscroll-Whew... almost had to read there."
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
You know what? Honestly, if that's what it is and it improves your gameplay experience, I'll legitimately be happy for you... but I cannot imagine a less useful, beneficial thing than this suggestion for anyone outside of you and a few others. So I will unfortunately have to pass on the system with an $80 controller that allows me to have awkward access to information that might sporadically be useful to know.
No one is saying that it will actually happen. I'm mainly just venting about shitty HUDs. The best thing would be if devs could learn how to make a minimalistic HUD that only shows the few things that are necessary; health, ammo count and perhaps a map you can turn on and off with a simple button press. I can't see anyone needing more than that on the screen at all times.

The Gears of War games have a nice HUD, most of the time. It has nice customization as well and you can turn off most of the stuff. Also, having extra info on the Left Bumper is a nice addition.

The main thing I want to do with the controller screen is to do some extra cool stuff you can't really do with a regular controller. Draw and write things at any time for example is something I've wanted in games for a long time. And if the 3DS is anything to go by, I'd think that they will add some kind of notebook app that you can open at any time and use during gameplay. It's nice to have something like that right in your hands at all times.

I really hope we get at least the same kind of multitasking as the 3DS has.
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
No one is saying that it will actually happen. I'm mainly just venting about shitty HUDs. The best thing would be if devs could learn how to make a minimalistic HUD that only shows the few things that are necessary; health, ammo count and perhaps a map you can turn on and off with a simple button press. I can't see anyone needing more than that on the screen at all times.

The Gears of War games have a nice HUD, most of the time. It has nice customization as well and you can turn off most of the stuff. Also, having extra info on the Left Bumper is a nice addition.

No, I'm actually a big critic on huge-ass HUDs as well. I'm just saying that shifting it to the controller isn't improving the situation - it's just making bad HUD designers worse.
 
Oct 11, 2007
32,824
587
1,290
I think the idea is to produce software that uses the capabilities of the controller/console to great advantage, not shoehorn games designs that already seem non functional. I trust nintendo and some other companies will do just that, but a ton of them will probably practice some horrible design philosophies with it as well.

..such as making a very standard FPS with the HUD only viewable on the controller.
 

VisanidethDM

Banned
Feb 17, 2011
1,200
0
0
Retro said:
Sometimes, I'd rather lean back and relax on the couch in a well-lit room and play on a big ass TV with comfortable, ergonomic controller than sit hunched over my desk for hours tapping at a keyboard by the light of a desk lamp.


I think someone soon will answer you something like "I got my pc hooked to a 52" plasma screen and other 3 screen + keyboard setups from kitchen to bedroom, a huge couch with integrated electronic massage and 4 wireless pad connected, 17 1 terabit harddrives full of games and movies and TWO full dolby surround systems to pretend I'm playing in the grand canyon" and they would be, in the end, substantially correct.

If you're willing to invest, there's nothing (except, well, a number of games) PCs can't do and consoles can.

My - fairly extreme, I'll admit - point is that that's half the problem. Consoles have stricter rule sets. They're more powerful tools for game developers because they're less powerful tools for gamers; in perspective, it's a macroscopic evolution of the old save point vs save anywhere arguments. On one hand you have PC gamers enjoying having another options. On the other, you have frustrated game designers saying "No, I'm making the game and I think I know better than you when I feel you should be able to feel safe".

Sometimes the devil is in the details. RE1 wouldn't have been half the game it was without the Ink Ribbon mechanic. Imagine a "save anywhere" RE1.
And it translates to many things, and I think a game creator can really feel more at home designing a game in an environment (like a console) where there's a very strict set of rules and you can predict (and somewhat control) the pacing of the player's experience. While you have no control over a PC user playing your game with a strategy guide on a monitor, a youtube channel with korean pop on a different tab, a couple forums 2 clicks away and a movie streaming on another monitor, Teamspeak open and a 5 people chat going on.

I'm not arguing empowering the players is bad, but as RE1 proved, sometimes tiny details can make or break a gaming experience, and when you're taking such a big bet as creating a videogame is, I can totally imagine the perspective of having more control on the final experience as massively appealing to game devs.
 

KevinCow

Banned
Oct 6, 2007
23,356
0
0
33
As far as HUD elements on the controller screen go, it really just depends on the game and which HUD elements we're talking about.

Health? That's pretty important. Keep that on the screen in most games.

Ammo, magic, or other depletable resources that you use a lot? Sure, that's important too.

Pretty much every other hud element of modern games? No. You do not need that shit immediately in your face at all times.

Someone mentioned Crackdown, which is a pretty good example. I don't need to know my leveling progress in all areas at all times, I don't need to know what every faction in the game thinks of me at all times, I don't need the HUD to tell me which gun I have equipped and what my alternate is at all times because I can see that on my character.

But it would be nice if I could look down and check all that out in just a quick second, as opposed to having to pause the game and look through menus like I'd have to if they weren't on the HUD.

And as far as the mini-map goes, it would be nice to have a much bigger and more detailed one in my hands instead of the tiny, obtrusive little circle on the main screen.
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
No, I'm actually a big critic on huge-ass HUDs as well. I'm just saying that shifting it to the controller isn't improving the situation - it's just making bad HUD designers worse.
I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be on the controller screen, but some HUDs just have too much info. Like in Crackdown where they show your stats on the screen at all times. Some people probably appreciate it, but once you're fully leveled up I don't see the point of having it there anymore.

Anyway, like I said in my edit, I would prefer to use the screen for actual gameplay purposes and multitasking. Putting HUD elements on there would mostly be a waste probably in the end.
 

StevieP

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
12,045
0
0
Not the PCs don't work on a comfy couch argument again :(



My PC looks like that. It has a beefy new quad core i5 CPU with a motherboard that auto-overclocked it to 4.5ghz, 4TB of space, 8GB of DDR3, 2 ATI 5850s in Crossfire with 1GB of DDR5 each, and has the following controlleres hooked up to it:

- wireless keyboard+mouse
- 2 x360-style wireless pads with dual-analog and rumble
- 2 wiimote+nunchucks via bluetooth (in addition to the 4 I have for the Wii) with an extended-range wireless sensor bar

And it's hooked up with the following on the back
- 1 network cable (wireless is just as easy)
- 1 power cable
- 1 HDMI cable

And it's connected to a:
- 120" projection screen via a Sanyo PLV-Z3000 1080P 120hz projector
- 7.2 surround system (yes, .2)

What's my point? I don't really have one aside from the fact that I enjoy both console and PC gaming from the comforts of my comfy couch, despite the 8 hours a day I spend sitting in front of a computer screen. Sorry for the thread derail:

What's my *actual* point? I still say that having a distraction like streaming games to a small screen on a controller will not make me a happy camper with my setup. Not just for the fact that my room is pitch black when I game (due to the nature of a projector) and it would impede my vision to have a small bright screen directly in front of me. But also for the fact that it's a dual-analog controller rather than a split one, which I vastly prefer for comfort and functionality.

I think someone soon will answer you something like "I got my pc hooked to a 52" plasma screen and other 3 screen + keyboard setups from kitchen to bedroom, a huge couch with integrated electronic massage and 4 wireless pad connected, 17 1 terabit harddrives full of games and movies and TWO full dolby surround systems to pretend I'm playing in the grand canyon" and they would be, in the end, substantially correct.

I'm going to have to start calling you Nostradamus. Or maybe your tag should say that :)
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be on the controller screen, but some HUDs just have too much info. Like in Crackdown where they show your stats on the screen at all times. Some people probably appreciate it, but once you're fully leveled up I don't see the point of having it there anymore.

Anyway, like I said in my edit, I would prefer to use the screen for actual gameplay purposes and multitasking. Putting HUD elements on there would mostly be a waste probably in the end.

It's certainly not worth paying an exorbitant price of a controller, no. Developers just need to stop making ridiculous HUDs. I don't care if I have to pause to see less important information - it's not significantly hurting my enjoyment of the game, and it's certainly not something that demands custom hardware to fix.

So yeah, I doubt that's Nintendo's intention. People looking at the DS or 3DS for inspiration regarding how this controller will work aren't making sense, IMO. Nintendo clearly understands that these two market segments are distinct. What works in one may not work as well in the other.

And the whole HUD on the bottom screen DS design is not very compelling in a console environment.
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
It's certainly not worth paying an exorbitant price of a controller, no. Developers just need to stop making ridiculous HUDs. I don't care if I have to pause to see less important information - it's not significantly hurting my enjoyment of the game, and it's certainly not something that demands custom hardware to fix.

So yeah, I doubt that's Nintendo's intention. People looking at the DS or 3DS for inspiration regarding how this controller will work aren't making sense, IMO. Nintendo clearly understands that these two market segments are distinct. What works in one may not work as well in the other.

And the whole HUD on the bottom screen DS design is not very compelling in a console environment.
It would also be a waste of money if their main intention is to stream games to the controller. While streaming a game to the controller you wouldn't be able to use the screen for extra gameplay stuff other than touching the screen, which would mean that devs wouldn't bother using the touchscreen for anything. With only touch on the same screen the game is on I expect 99% gimmicks (see pointless waggle on Wii).
 

Fourth Storm

Member
Feb 17, 2006
6,713
1
1,040
Just for the hell of it, here's what I'd like to see out of the specs:

CPU: Tricore PPC. OoOE. 4 Ghz. Large L2 cache.
GPU: Revamped R700 with power approximating the 4870. 24 MB eDRAM.
RAM: 2 GB GDDR5
Media: Nintendo Optical Disc with blue laser technology
Storage: 16 GB internal flash. Expandable via SD card and detachable external HDD.
Ports: USB, Ethernet, optical out, HDMI.
Sensor Bar: Rechargeable wireless with included USB cable.
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
It would also be a waste of money if their main intention is to stream games to the controller. While streaming a game to the controller you wouldn't be able to use the screen for extra gameplay stuff other than touching the screen, which would mean that devs wouldn't bother using the touchscreen for anything. With only touch on the same screen the game is on I expect 99% gimmicks (see pointless waggle on Wii).

No, being able to stream games to the controllers could have some very interesting effects on how games are played, particularly local multiplayer (which is a huge focus for Nintendo). It also means that if devs wanted to, they could utilize the controller in virtually any way that they want. So I disagree with that.
 

bidaum

Member
Mar 12, 2010
276
0
0
Retro said:
Words in my post: 903
Words in The Cat in the Hat: 1629

Maybe you should go have a nap if reading is such a chore.
Sorry maybe I should have been more specific. I read your whole post, but didn't see any reason to try and counter each idea because I think it boils down to personal preference ...in the same way I wouldn't want to critique The Cat in the Hat line by line.

I think the benefits you went through are marginal, while the real value Nintendo is likely to place in the extra screen is gaming without the tv. Though someone else mentioned the chat/social aspect, and that seems potentially plausible as well. Neither of those things are major selling points for me personally.
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
Vinci said:
No, being able to stream games to the controllers could have some very interesting effects on how games are played, particularly local multiplayer (which is a huge focus for Nintendo). It also means that if devs wanted to, they could utilize the controller in virtually any way that they want. So I disagree with that.
Sure, it would be nice for local multiplayer, but if you want to play a single player game, or an online multiplayer game, there really wouldn't be any point in streaming to the controller instead of sitting in front of the TV.

I'll be buying the console either way just for Nintendo's own games, but it would be quite disappointing if the only selling point is to stream games to the controller. I rarely play local multiplayer games nowadays, so I wouldn't be too excited about that alone; even if I would love a new Four Swords game.
 

Vinci

Danish
Oct 12, 2007
22,075
0
0
United States
AndyMoogle said:
Sure, it would be nice for local multiplayer, but if you want to play a single player game, or an online multiplayer game, there really wouldn't be any point in streaming to the controller instead of sitting in front of the TV.

We'll see. Personally, I think there are a large number of possible applications even with single-player games and especially with online multi ones.

I'll be buying the console either way just for Nintendo's own games, but it would be quite disappointing if the only selling point is to stream games to the controller. I rarely play local multiplayer games nowadays, so I wouldn't be too excited about that alone; even if I would love a new Four Swords game.

I look at its ability to stream games to the controllers as indicative of what it's able to handle lag-wise. If it's able to do that, it's able to do a LOT more.
 

Retro

Member
Dec 7, 2008
16,340
1
935
VisanidethDM said:
My - fairly extreme, I'll admit - point is that that's half the problem. Consoles have stricter rule sets.

I think the fact that a console is a closed system, where the developer knows exactly what hardware and input devices the player will have, is an important part in the distinction between PC and Console. I dunno if my PC will run a game as the designers intended because my specs may be different, even if they're over the suggested requirements. The software I've installed may have conflicts with the game in some subtle way.

Again, I'm not trying to start the old PC/Console argument (because let's face it, this thread is already huge and quick-moving as it is), I just think that both platforms have their pros and cons and the all-in-one media-center PC-like approach to console design has a negative impact on some of the pros that consoles have.(shortened your quote to save space, not being dismissive)

bidaum said:
I think the benefits you went through are marginal, while the real value Nintendo is likely to place in the extra screen is gaming without the tv. Though someone else mentioned the chat/social aspect, and that seems potentially plausible as well. Neither of those things are major selling points for me personally.

Well, the discussion had turned to "What can developers do with a personal touch-screen controller that they can't do without?" and I tossed out a fairly random list of things.

Are they all great ideas? Not really. But they're possible and are only the spontaneous ramblings of a forum poster, not a professional game developer with actual system specs and development kits. What actual developers may be coming up with for this thing could be insanely awesome.

I was trying to provide some examples of what the controller-with-a-screen can do other than inventory screens, maps and HUDs.
 

bidaum

Member
Mar 12, 2010
276
0
0
wrowa said:
Why would the screen display be more of an issue than the second screen of the DS?
Because of the location. The DS screens are stacked and you don't have to change your head's position etc to look at one or the other. Even if you think the screen in the controller thing won't be a hassle to glance at, it is different.
 

ksamedi

Member
Sep 7, 2006
5,854
0
1,290
Rotterdam
I think I agree with Vinci here. Having a HUD on the controller will not add much, however, having a HUD with touchscreen interaction could lead to a lot of interesting applications. Atleast stuff like Etrian Oddysey will be possible on this controller or touch controller maps. On the other hand, I think huds are probably going to be the least interesting application.
 

agrajag

Banned
Apr 3, 2008
17,715
0
925
I think an interactive inventory hud would be really useful in a game like Zelda. Instead of pausing the game and going through a bunch of menus just to change Link's boots, you could do it in a split second on the touch screen.
 

jacksrb

Member
Jul 9, 2009
671
0
840
Nashville, TN - USA
Can someone more tech savy address the weird screen resolution (reported)?

Any ideas on streaming a 'whole game' from the console with the switching from a 16x9 to 16x10 aspect ratio?

Would they do a 4x3 ratio with some bar of navigation buttons?
 

AndyMoogle

Member
Dec 26, 2006
6,361
0
0
Sweden
jacksrb said:
Can someone more tech savy address the weird screen resolution (reported)?

Any ideas on streaming a 'whole game' from the console with the switching from a 16x9 to 16x10 aspect ratio?

Would they do a 4x3 ratio with some bar of navigation buttons?
Someone speculated earlier that the game would still be in 16:9 and the rest of the screen would be for a notification bar like the one you see on smart phones.
 

cuevas. PhD.

Member
Dec 24, 2009
15,135
0
825
agrajag said:
I think an interactive inventory hud would be really useful in a game like Zelda. Instead of pausing the game and going through a bunch of menus just to change Link's boots, you could do it in a split second on the touch screen.

And die while you are not paying attention the screen.
 

manueldelalas

Time Traveler
Mar 18, 2007
6,031
3
1,245
jacksrb said:
Can someone more tech savy address the weird screen resolution (reported)?

Any ideas on streaming a 'whole game' from the console with the switching from a 16x9 to 16x10 aspect ratio?

Would they do a 4x3 ratio with some bar of navigation buttons?
Nobody knows. Rumor says around 800x500; 6'' 800x480 are typical touchscreens for many chinese GPSs, so that could be it, if they use that, they could run games at a resolution of 800x450 for 16/9 ratio and have 30 extra pixels for some buttons... in the end, it'll depend on the game.
 

cuevas. PhD.

Member
Dec 24, 2009
15,135
0
825
agrajag said:
Well, you would have to be really terrible at games to do that.

Who do you think is buying Wii's?

Thinking about it, it would be a pointless feature. Looking away from the screen is the same thing as pausing it. Unless it's like WoW where you just auto-run then look at your minimap. Even then though, you would just want your minimap on your screen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.