so what if the Wii controllers turn out to be an annoying gimmick?

[secret friend]

These controllers are a very interesting concept, but what if they are annoying as hell?

 

[ailevation]

And what if the PS3 doesn't do what it's claimed to do? People won't like it(maybe) and won't buy it(maybe)

But you got to give it to Nintendo for bringing it out. Could be a huge hit or a huge loss.

 

[Qonfused]

It's going to be the top dog this generation or it will fail miserably. That or it'll do awesome for the first 6 months and then slowly decline to do no creative ideas.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's highly unlikely, given that preview tests and the E3 demos were all rather positive.

However, even if they are, the system still has a new non-motion gamepad and can use any old gamecube controller.

Even if it disintegrates three seconds after you open the box, you can still buy a 360 as a replacement and still end up spending less than on a PS3.

 

[X-FacToR]

It's highly unlikely, given that preview tests and the E3 demos were all rather positive.

However, even if they are, the system still has a new non-motion gamepad and can use any old gamecube controller.

Even if it disintegrates three seconds after you open the box, you can still buy a 360 as a replacement and still end up spending less than on a PS3.

The core xbox360 system sucks(wired controller, no way to save your game). With the same features they cost the same. Even if the xbox 360 is $100 cheaper, I think the ps3 will be worth in it the long haul.


Xbox 360 Pro System
1 Extra Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
Play 'N Charge Kit
Universal Media Remote
$499.96 (20gig HD version)

PS3
$499.99 (20gig HD)
PS3
$599.99(60 Gig HD version)

 

[Yuri]

If the controllers end up being a complete gimmick, then people will just rely on using the gamecube controllers, of which the Wii has 4 controller ports for.

 

[Malfunction]

Based on virtually everyone's reactions from E3, I take it Wii is no longer being recognized as an annoying gimmick, but a very nice refreshing gameplay element.

 

[Cole]

If they suck then you can pull out your gamecube controllers.
so please take off your pants and run naked down the street. Thank you come agian!

 

[smwScott]

If they suck then you can pull out your gamecube controllers.
so please take off your pants and run naked down the street. Thank you come agian!

Doesn't that kind of elminate the whole point though? If you start using Gamecube controllers then really all you have is slightly beefed up Gamecube. Which is shit seeing as they're releasing it as a next-gen console.

But that's besides the point, they clearly don't suck outright. However, I think people will find that they're actually worse for many types of games than normal controllers. I think they're only going to be a significant improvement for very few games, just an alternative way of controlling most, and worse for some. In other words I wish they hadn't bet the entire console on the one hand.

 

[IchI]

Well, judging from the sheer amount of people I have seen saying they will be buying a Wii over a Playstation 3. I believe Nintendo have done another thing right. The first was the DS. Which pritty much owns the PSP for games and gameplay. Not only that but the sales on the DS have been amazing, people just don't seem to realise it (Edge have had a lot about it recently)

Nintendo are about to change the way games and consoles will be made. I believe this will be an amazing step for the games industry.

 

[Venmoch]

Doesn't that kind of elminate the whole point though? If you start using Gamecube controllers then really all you have is slightly beefed up Gamecube. Which is shit seeing as they're releasing it as a next-gen console.

Well, its not as if the PS3 is going to win awards in the controller design stakes.

 

[MultiVaC]

I'm sort of worried about it. Sure people say it's great after playing it for a little while, but the first time I tried Eye-Toy I thought that was great, but after a week I realized it was the gimmick of the century and was simply not a good way of controlling games.

 

[hungryduck]

These controllers are a very interesting concept, but what if they are annoying as hell?

I don't care, I still want to do it so I can wave my arms around like a mad man

 

[smwScott]

Well, its not as if the PS3 is going to win awards in the controller design stakes.

No, but it's an evolution of a proven design. The Dual Shock is my favorite controller, I'm very at home with it. The added tilt sensor isn't going to completely change the way you play games but it is definitely an interesting feature.

See ... it just seems more practical to me. I'm not really too excited about the prospect of flailing my arms around like a douchebag trying to play some game. I think it'll work great as a mouse substitute (will probably be the best controller for FPS games), but not so great for everything else.

And as far as the DS/PSP thing. I'm sorry but I can't stand DS games, they're borderline retarded. I'm not a big fan of extremely simple games like that, I find them gimmicky and tire of them quickly. I have tetris on my cell phone, that's all I'll ever need in that type of game.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I'm sort of worried about it. Sure people say it's great after playing it for a little while, but the first time I tried Eye-Toy I thought that was great, but after a week I realized it was the gimmick of the century and was simply not a good way of controlling games.

Eye Toy was not designed to play mainstream games. Therein lies the problem.

I'm not really too excited about the prospect of flailing my arms around like a douchebag trying to play some game.

I think you should take the time to form your own opinion about that rather than some asshat trying to be funny.
Nobody in the demos I saw were "flailing their arms around like a douchebag".
And if it's in the privacy of your own, who ****ing cares what you do?

The Wii controller and system are not a "Next Gen" Gamecube. They are an entirely new innovation and Nintendo is trying to show the world they have more to offer us than just a huge graphics upgrade.

The Wii will be able to pump out more than adequate visuals. The controller has already opened up new paths of creativity. Hell, the thing accepts DVDs. That alone is +10 to Gamecube.

The only thing I would worry about is whether third parties will ditch Nintendo out of their major franchises (again) because it might not be able to display 100sextillion polys every millisecond.

 

[Warbie]

I wouldn't be suprised if the wii is lacking in 3rd party support. First party games will almost certainly be excellent, though, and worth the asking price alone.

Then again, many predicted that touch screen on the DS would turn out to be a gimmick. Since then it's sold by the truck load and has turned out to be one of the most enjoyable consoles around. Anything but a gimmick, then, with loads of 3rd party support.

 

[Sainku]

The core xbox360 system sucks(wired controller, no way to save your game). With the same features they cost the same. Even if the xbox 360 is $100 cheaper, I think the ps3 will be worth in it the long haul.


Xbox 360 Pro System
1 Extra Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
Play 'N Charge Kit
Universal Media Remote
$499.96 (20gig HD version)

PS3
$499.99 (20gig HD)
PS3
$599.99(60 Gig HD version)

But the pro system only costs $400, not $500. The core systems are rare and not many people buy them anyway.

So Wii+Core 360 = Core PS3
Wii+Pro 360 = Pro PS3

 

[Bad^Hat]

Then you'll touch yourself at night in retrospect.




Or something...

 

[DEATH eVADER]

These controllers are a very interesting concept, but what if they are annoying as hell?

I don't think the Wii won awards for nothing

 

[Llyranor]

See ... it just seems more practical to me. I'm not really too excited about the prospect of flailing my arms around like a douchebag trying to play some game.

Well, it's not as if seeing someone holding a regular controller makes them the epitome of cool.

Let's say I give you a lightsaber. Just hold it in your hand and have fun. Zoink. Would you rather play it that way, or play it with a regular controller but with 10 times the polygons? Would it be gimmicky, annoying, or fun?

Let's say I give you a gun. Aim and shoot. Let's say I put another gun in your other hand. Aim and shoot. How would you compare this to dual-wielding in Halo2?

Let's say that, instead of giving you a second gun, I give you a sword. Hi Red Steel! The difference here is that Red Steel could have been made for any other console. It's not a new concept or anything. Now, holding a gun and sword AT THE SAME TIME, try doing that on the ps3 or 360 without having to make the game easier just to accommodate the controls. Having a sword duel with some boss dude while you're also shooting his cronies around you.

THIS is what (hopefully) what the Wii will be about. FREEING your hands. We're already seeing glimpses of that with some of the games they've shown. In Mario Galaxy, for example, your hands operate semi-independantly, while you move Mario around but can use the Wiimote to interact with the environment (spider boss, for example) independantly. The Wii allows MULTITASKING beyond what a normal controller would. Sure, other controllers can try, but you know it'll be awkward. Your hands AREN'T free from *each other*, and your mind won't be able to make that distinction without compromising your performance.

In *THAT* sense, the interface limits the experience. We're not even really aware of it unless we really think about it. Think about your two hands for a moment. They're not tied together. We've grown accustomed in the past 20 yrs to having them tied together, that's why it feels natural. Try splitting them apart and operating DIFFERENT tasks with each hand. Picture doing that with the controller. Picture doing that with the Wiimote.

This is, of course, all hypothetical at this point. What the Wii does is open the door to such possibilities.

If next-gen simply means more processing power or more storage, then the PC is already next-gen.

 

[DreadLord]

Here's my take on it;

It's innovative, it's interesting, it's worth a shot. I'm at the point in my life where I don't really have any interest in buying a PS3 and X360 anymore. I don't have any intention of sitting down and playing a console game when I move off to my college dorm. However, the Wii looks like it would be "fun". A concept that is lost in the blur of beastly systems and graphics that look realer than RL. I can see myself playing the Wii with some friends just for shits, however, I've used my X360 to play CoD2, and even that was boring, otherwise it sits there in the dust. And $600 for a PS3? That's expensive even for me, and I'm not frugal.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Well, it's not as if seeing someone holding a regular controller makes them the epitome of cool.

Let's say I give you a lightsaber. Just hold it in your hand and have fun. Zoink. Would you rather play it that way, or play it with a regular controller but with 10 times the polygons? Would it be gimmicky, annoying, or fun?

Let's say I give you a gun. Aim and shoot. Let's say I put another gun in your other hand. Aim and shoot. How would you compare this to dual-wielding in Halo2?

Let's say that, instead of giving you a second gun, I give you a sword. Hi Red Steel! The difference here is that Red Steel could have been made for any other console. It's not a new concept or anything. Now, holding a gun and sword AT THE SAME TIME, try doing that on the ps3 or 360 without having to make the game easier just to accommodate the controls. Having a sword duel with some boss dude while you're also shooting his cronies around you.

THIS is what (hopefully) what the Wii will be about. FREEING your hands. We're already seeing glimpses of that with some of the games they've shown. In Mario Galaxy, for example, your hands operate semi-independantly, while you move Mario around but can use the Wiimote to interact with the environment (spider boss, for example) independantly. The Wii allows MULTITASKING beyond what a normal controller would. Sure, other controllers can try, but you know it'll be awkward. Your hands AREN'T free from *each other*, and your mind won't be able to make that distinction without compromising your performance.

In *THAT* sense, the interface limits the experience. We're not even really aware of it unless we really think about it. Think about your two hands for a moment. They're not tied together. We've grown accustomed in the past 20 yrs to having them tied together, that's why it feels natural. Try splitting them apart and operating DIFFERENT tasks with each hand. Picture doing that with the controller. Picture doing that with the Wiimote.

This is, of course, all hypothetical at this point. What the Wii does is open the door to such possibilities.

If next-gen simply means more processing power or more storage, then the PC is already next-gen.

Yes.

 

[smwScott]

Let's say I give you a lightsaber. Just hold it in your hand and have fun. Zoink. Would you rather play it that way, or play it with a regular controller but with 10 times the polygons? Would it be gimmicky, annoying, or fun?

Let's say I give you a gun. Aim and shoot. Let's say I put another gun in your other hand. Aim and shoot. How would you compare this to dual-wielding in Halo2?

Let's say that, instead of giving you a second gun, I give you a sword. Hi Red Steel! The difference here is that Red Steel could have been made for any other console. It's not a new concept or anything. Now, holding a gun and sword AT THE SAME TIME, try doing that on the ps3 or 360 without having to make the game easier just to accommodate the controls. Having a sword duel with some boss dude while you're also shooting his cronies around you.

THIS is what (hopefully) what the Wii will be about. FREEING your hands. We're already seeing glimpses of that with some of the games they've shown. In Mario Galaxy, for example, your hands operate semi-independantly, while you move Mario around but can use the Wiimote to interact with the environment (spider boss, for example) independantly. The Wii allows MULTITASKING beyond what a normal controller would. Sure, other controllers can try, but you know it'll be awkward. Your hands AREN'T free from *each other*, and your mind won't be able to make that distinction without compromising your performance.

In *THAT* sense, the interface limits the experience. We're not even really aware of it unless we really think about it. Think about your two hands for a moment. They're not tied together. We've grown accustomed in the past 20 yrs to having them tied together, that's why it feels natural. Try splitting them apart and operating DIFFERENT tasks with each hand. Picture doing that with the controller. Picture doing that with the Wiimote.

This is, of course, all hypothetical at this point. What the Wii does is open the door to such possibilities.

If next-gen simply means more processing power or more storage, then the PC is already next-gen.

You make a lot of good points, and I agree on many of them. I said that the Wii will be the best controller for FPS games, and I'm sure it'll be better for other genres (like swordfighting, RTS, Spore). How it works for something like Mario is what I'd be interested to try first hand ... whether it's just different or truly superior I'd have to decide for myself.

But I will give you an example of what I'm talking about. The Zelda game was obviously designed for a normal controller. By impressions I've read it plays the same/worse on the Wii, except for the fishing thing. Now lets think about actions like fishing, or swinging a bat, or a racquet ... that will get old fast. I'm not at all worried about looking cool, but that's just annoying after awhile. When it gets to actions like that, it starts to seem a bit gimmicky.

 

[AmishSlayer]

You make a lot of good points, and I agree on many of them. I said that the Wii will be the best controller for FPS games, and I'm sure it'll be better for other genres (like swordfighting, RTS, Spore). How it works for something like Mario is what I'd be interested to try first hand ... whether it's just different or truly superior I'd have to decide for myself.

But I will give you an example of what I'm talking about. The Zelda game was obviously designed for a normal controller. By impressions I've read it plays the same/worse on the Wii, except for the fishing thing. Now lets think about actions like fishing, or swinging a bat, or a racquet ... that will get old fast. I'm not at all worried about looking cool, but that's just annoying after awhile. When it gets to actions like that, it starts to seem a bit gimmicky.

I'd think simply pressing "A" to swing/cast/etc would get old faster than actually swinging the controller yourself in the proper manner...

 

[Llyranor]

Well, let's examine Zelda. You move with the analog stick, you attack with A or B or whatever. Basically, conventional Zelda controls. What's preventing the Wii from using conventional controls? It's got an analog stick, it has a digital pad, it has buttons. Let's look at what it *adds*. Aiming arrows/hookshot with the wiimote, fishing, navigating the menu.

Would you say that it being on Wii makes it a lesser experience than it being on GC? Would using the analog stick to aim make it a better experience? Is using a pointer to aim gimmicky? Is using a pointer to navigate menus faster a step down? The pseudo-mouse capabilities of the Wii can in many way enhance conventional controls scheme. Not every game has to be driven by innovative controls, but virtually every game can benefit in some way or another - however marginal - from more control OPTIONS. MORE choices, not less.

You can't play a full-fledged swordfighting game with a PS3 or 360 at the same level as you could with the Wii. You can easily play a JRPG with the Wii. Heck, having the pointer to go through tedious menus would even be faster. How is that a bad thing?

As AmishSlayer points out, how is it more boring than pressing a button?

Now, I see your concern. If the Wii is used only to offer a different control schemes for games that are otherwise similar to what we already have, *then* it will end up gimmicky. But then, that's because the games aren't doing the Wii justice. The issue here is where *developers* use it to its full potential. Another concern is whether the hardware can live up to what it could theoretically achieve (eg. if it doesn't work too well). Those would be the two main concern of the Wii (the first one being tied into third-party support).

1) If devs see it as a gimmick, then they will treat it as a gimmick and make games using it as a gimmick. If they see it for the potential that it has, THEN they will make proper games for it. They can either do games in which the new controls DRIVE the game, or they could do more traditional games in which the new controls may or may not make it more convenient to access (if it's even necessary). There is room for both. With the other consoles, you do NOT have that choice.

2) If the hardware fails to deliver, then all this is purely hypothetical. Nevertheless, the points still stand for what the Wii *aims* to be. Hopefully it will not disappoint.

I haven't been into console gaming since the NES/SNES days. The last two gen haven't been very appealing to me. The gaming industry in some ways may NOT be ready for the Wii yet. If this is so, then people WILL make gimmicky games for it, and it will (perhaps) flop because of that. In which case, next-gen will simply be this gen but with better graphics/storage/etc. The same types of games will be made. That's fine, but it condemns the industry to STAGNANCY. The Wii may potentially fail to deliver, but it at least has the *potential* to break that mold.

EDIT: Also, let's examine Mario. Check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERHzQD9-6Os&search=mario spider
Mario controls with the analog stick and A to jump. They didn't use the controls in a gimmicky fashion that conventional controls can already do well. What they did was FREE UP your second hand to control that pointing thingie. Look at what you can do in the video. Look how you can manipulate plants in a fashion that would be IMPOSSIBLE using the normal controller. Sure, you could do it in an abstracted way, but in doing so you would sacrifice CONTROL. I want *more* control, not less. This is just one example, and it's *barely* scratching the surface of the Wiimote's potential. Again, I point to multitasking. How would the ability to multitask make conventional games inferior?

Look at 3 platformers being released on Wii. Look how Mario takes advantage of the controls. Look how Sonic does it: a platformer on rails in which you tilt to navigate. Look at Ray - you use the new controls to engage in different fighting moves. The key point here is OPTIONS.

 

[smwScott]

Your right, the game looks like it controls great. Very impressive. Like I said before I know the Wii will control better for all mouse based games, and now I see that it can work well for games like Mario as well. I'm not against the controller, I think it's very neat, but like you said it really depends on how developers use it.

Mario is the only game I've seen so far that really has me sold on it. Things like the fishing in Zelda or physically swinging an object (besides a sword I guess, thats just cool) I find to be a bit gimmicky. See, with Red Steel ... you don't actually control the sword. You move it in vague ways which translates to pre-scripted animations. This could just as easily be done with buttons ... so in that respect it's being used as a gimmick. I fear that most third party developers will take this route.

But I'll still probably pick one up after awhile, when there's a bunch of good games for it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, the bonus is that it's very cheap to buy dev kits for.
Nintendo's trying very hard to make the rev desirable to third parties.

Plus, PS3 is kinda already known as being difficult to program games for. And something like ten times more expensive.

 

[trizzm]

my opinion is that if I want to move and have an immersive experience I'll go skate or play tennis, otherwise I like the relative amazement and fun that moving my thumbs and indexes only can procure me.

 

[Parlez]

Right now I don't like the design of the Wii controller to start. So I guess anything would be better than that for me! Just my opinion. Looking through the thread it looks like basically everyone has different opinions about this.

 

[Cole]

Whats not to like? RTS games finally on a console and Being able to take your controller and point and click to use it as a gun. You are therefor able to aim and fire a lot faster than an analog. This would allow enemy AI To be a bit more realistic, they wouldn't have to take into account that you have to spend 2 seconds to move your analog stick from one side of the screen to the other end of the screen to shoot somebody. Now you can just do it within a flick of the wrist. Thats much quicker. They can make the enemy AI more accurate, quicker, and smarter because of this.

 

[Majestic XII]

One other interesting this Nintendo go going is the Virtual Console. Not only do we get to play the best games to come out, but we're also allowed to use it to develop our own indie games with all the features the Wii got (the wii-mote, the speaker and the other "secrets" nintendo got going). This opens the door to many, many indie developers willing to try something completly new and unique. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Ludah]

I'm very skeptical about the Wii. I've heard many mixed responses and the concept of the controller just doesn't sit well.

If it works, it works. That's grand. But even then, I predict I'll be spending more time on my 360.

 

[Fliko]

I'm most likely going to go with the 360.

Though, it'd be fun to invite people I hate to play my 'wii' and accidently jab them in a face a few times because I was getting 'to into the game' ;P