Ninteno Revolution controllers

plural, because there are effectively two.

more than enough information is available regarding the Revolution’s controllers exhibited at the Tokyo Games Show today, but for those who cannot be bothered trawling the various sites online, they consist of a pointing device that senses and tracks on-screen, and an analogue-stick device with shoulder buttons. the pointer takes an appearance similar to a dvd remote, and the analogue-stick controller looking much like the analogue section of the Gamecube controller minus the d-pad, mid-section and c-stick/button section. this plugs into the base of the remote via a short lead, making it optional, but realistically essential as it presents far too many good control oportunities.

of-course online there is already a plethora of responses to which i will innevitably add my voice. responses vary from excitement to disgust, curiosity and concern. one of the concerns worth noting was that fighting games may be difficult to play on the Revolution. my responses to this are that either Nintendo will make the Revolution compatible with Gamecube controllers, or will manufacture standard controllers – either of which will assist in playing fighting and third-party cross-console titles.

however, i would prefer it if fighting games didn’t appear on the Revolution at all…

or at least in the traditional sense.
while i’m not entirely sick (just yet) of playing titles in established genres, i see no reason at all why these should appear on the Revolution, given its design philosophies. i already have an Xbox, Gamecube and access to PS2s on which i can drive, shoot, run, jump and frag to my heart’s content. Sony and Microsoft have made it abundantly clear that they will be doing much the same in the next generation, but with prettier graphics – and that’s fantastic. i’m equally as enthusiastic to play FPS, driving, platform and 3rd person action games on PS3 and 360 as i am about the potential for new genres and styles that the Revolution presents. from my own gaming perspective, i see no reason why Revolution titles should compete in exactly the same (genre) markets as the other two, and to be honest, this scramble to ‘out Halo’ and ‘out GTA’ each-other in the industry has brought about one of the most mediocre periods in our gaming history.

i’m a big fan of Timesplitters. i also enjoy the Halo franchise. people online are continually attempting to compare the two and argue points to which franchise is better.
the two are completely different titles with completely different objectives.
and so they should be. what halo sets out to achieve, it does well. so too does Timesplitters. there is a place for them both, and both are brilliant franchises. i don’t examine a bicycle and compare it to a motor-car, stating that the bicycle’s existence is void because it doesn’t perform the same function. the two are entirely different pieces of hardware with different elements of motion to be enjoyed – both have capabilities that the other simply doesn’t, and that is why they are both unique, valid, and equally enjoyable.

for those of us who are fans of the DS, do you remember the hesitancy we felt when we first heard it would have a touch-screen? could we have even imagined that we’d be playing Electroplanktion, Ouendan and Nintendogs? Ouendan has sprung to the top rank of many a DS gamer’s collections – a game that is played wholely with the stylus to boot. who would have thought such simplicity could be so engaging and intuitive. of-course rhythm games aren’t everyone’s thing, nor are artistic interactive environments or virtual pets – but i don’t want GTA – DS edition, because if i want to play GTA, i’ll play it on a PS2 or PC. it has no place on the DS.

i’ve said it before – i’m totally against third-party cross-console games. of-cousre i have the conceit available to me that i am a mature-age full-time earner and that i can afford any number of varying console brands i please, but i don’t have to represent 13 year olds with no money or the parents that don’t wish to purchase for them (for any number of good reasons). i don’t believe in three pieces of hardware attempting to crowd the same corners of the market. there are limmitless possibilities for new, different and innovative games, and in my ideal world, publishers and developers would specialise in these areas rather than keep churning out boiled-down mediocre titles that try and ‘cater to the widest possible audience’.

all of the landmark titles we hail – Half-Life, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Halo, Burnout, Mario, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Killer 7, World of Warcraft, and Metroid to only name a mere handful, are all extremely different games. eventhough Burnout and Gran Turismo are driving games, as mentioned in the Timesplitters/Halo discussion above, they have wildly different objectives. has anyone noticed that with perhaps a very small number of exceptions, any other title released at the same time as these titles attempting the same thing, has either failed because of its unremarkable quality, or simply because it cannot compete against the popularity of those titles. when i think about landmark titles and their publishers/developers, at first i think Capcom, Sqaure (SquareEnix), Blizzard, Nintendo… but then you begin to encounter Bungie, Clover… the list goes on.
these game titles and companies are perfect examples of how varying and very focussed philosophies can be successful – and profitable – in the gaming industry. that we as gamers and game creators have been resistant to this for so long is perhaps one of the most shameful facets of our culture.

what am i looking forward to on Revolution? Ouendan-TV would be a start – can you imagine four people tracing musical patterns on one screen at the same time? that’s only the beginning. the Revolution will only be limited by the creativity of industry developers – because afterall, its design philosophies are based around exactly that – creativity…