|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Apr 29, 2011 9:48:32 GMT -5
The GC controller sucked. It was nice to hold, but I hated the button layout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 29, 2011 12:16:13 GMT -5
It appears that I have dodged a fail-related bullet. Huzzah!
But yeah, a lot of people disliked the button layout on the GCcontroller. Not to mention the near-useless d-pad and the fact that it has only three shoulder buttons. The N64 controller wasn't that great either, but I'm not willing to call Nintendo dumb for that one, because at the time no mainstream console had tried to make significant changes to basic controller layouts yet. At the time such controller experimentation wasn't completely reckless for Nintendo, as they were still sitting pretty good with the SNES when they began designing the N64, and had reason to believe that their market dominance would be enough to push their new controller format.
After the N64's failure, and given the love of the SNES controller--and by extension the love of the PSX controller-- the Gamecube controller was pretty stupid, given that they had fewer buttons than the PSX (and upcoming PS2) controllers developers had been happily using for years. Why make a controller that adds nothing new to the gameplay experience, yet has less functionality than the controller used by a competitor who had been handily mopping the floor with them?
There's a very particular kind of stupidity then went into the Gamecube controller that isn't present in the N64, which is why I called one out and not the other.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that after complaints about their initial Xbox controller, Microsoft used the SNES/PSX standard layout for the 360. They changed up the analog stick positioning a bit, but the 360 controller is 100% a descendant of the SNES controller, and it's extremely popular as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by hidetoshidecide on Apr 29, 2011 12:23:40 GMT -5
Why make a controller that adds nothing new to the gameplay experience, yet has less functionality than the controller used by a competitor who had been handily mopping the floor with them? The answer is obvious looking at the Gamecube and the Wii, isn't it? Nintendo, rightly or wrongly, doesn't equate functionality with a button count. The Gamecube controller was their rearguard action against Lobsterclaw Syndrome. A fine enough idea, even if it didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 29, 2011 13:08:48 GMT -5
Why make a controller that adds nothing new to the gameplay experience, yet has less functionality than the controller used by a competitor who had been handily mopping the floor with them? The answer is obvious looking at the Gamecube and the Wii, isn't it? Nintendo, rightly or wrongly, doesn't equate functionality with a button count. The Gamecube controller was their rearguard action against Lobsterclaw Syndrome. A fine enough idea, even if it didn't work. But the difference is the thought process that went into both the consoles. The Gamecube was designed to be a direct competitor to the PS2. A direct competitor with a less-functional controller, and less storage space at a time when storage space was at a premium. The Gamecube was complete madness. Sony didn't even have to change their game plan to take the Gamecube into account. The PS2 changed nothing about the PSX aside from better graphics and a better storage medium. It could even play the same games! The PS2 was "PlayStation, but better." The Gamecube was, "let's catch up with Sony, but not really, and by the way we have an inferior controller and an inferior storage medium. Also even though the core gamer audience we're competing with Sony for is in high school, they'll dig our purple cube and candy-colored buttons over the PS2's sleek black look, right? Right?" Is it any wonder that the Gamecube was an N64 repeat? You could argue that the Gamecube was designed to be child-friendly, as there's probably some truth to that, but kids know what's cool, and the Gamecube was definitely not cool. With the Wii, Nintendo took a totally different approach to how it entered the market. Most importantly, they didn't try to take Sony--and now Microsoft as well--in a head-on fight again. Instead of going after the core gamers that had all but abandoned them, they decided to open up a new market, and the Wii was designed primarily around appealing to nongamers. In this case, the decision to go with a nonstandard controller worked because they were developing a controller specifically for nongamers. People for whom a normal controller may as well be the controls of an airplane for how complex they are. Nonstandard motion controls worked with that group because to them the novelty of being able to virtually swing a golf club is wicked cool. Functionality for traditional games is irrelevant to them. Nintendo didn't need to worry about HD graphics either, because the nongamers don't care so much about those. Nintendo made the Wii cheap and novel in order to attract a new audience, and it worked. Among core gamers, motion control has been relegated to "mostly annoying gimmick" for quite some time now. If Nintendo had tried to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft for the core gamer group, they likely would not have performed nearly as well as they have. Even among the nongamers, the motion control craze is cooling off now, and their attention is drifting away from Nintendo and settling on smartphones, which provide cheap casual games by the truckload, as well as functionality being simply being a gaming device. The Wii was the right product at the right time aimed at the right group of people, but I'm not sure they can pull that off a second time. The idea of buying a dedicated gaming device isn't as attractive as it used to be for the nongamer next to cool new tech toys like the iPhone or the iPad, and the huge amount of casual-oriented software on the App store (and of course, let's not forget Android phones either). Nintendo hasn't done that much o drag core gamers back into the fold... most who do own a Wii own it as a side system, not as their primary gaming device. For their upcoming system, Nintendo will need to either appeal more to core gamers, or find a way to woo back the fickle nongamer market. Nintendo was smart about how they developed and marketed the Wii, It will be interesting to see how they leverage that success into their new console, and what direction they take with it. |
|
|
|
Post by robertagilmour on Apr 29, 2011 13:25:04 GMT -5
I dont think the N64 cartridges was that bad an idea, although they did suffer for it(pricey plastic), they made game experiences they probably couldnt have made on disc at that time, I dont think there is a 64bit disc console to compare it to, so I dont know if they could have done Banjo Kazooie and Zelda 64 on disc.
It was a bit of a relief playing N64 because most games had no loading times( some did have awful loading times, but I played loads of PS1 games with horrendous loading times). Unlike most of the other Nintendo consoles, N64 provided an alternative that was attractive although not necessarily better.
I thought the N64 controller was fantastic for FPS and platform games, rubbish for fighting games.
|
|
|
|
Post by hidetoshidecide on Apr 29, 2011 14:12:22 GMT -5
But the difference is the thought process that went into both the consoles. The Gamecube was designed to be a direct competitor to the PS2. A direct competitor with a less-functional controller, and less storage space at a time when storage space was at a premium. The Gamecube was complete madness. My point was that there was a method to the madness. The GC controller was an attempt to reign in increasingly complex control schemes. It didn't work, and I agree with your assessments as to why, but it was a laudable idea. Hopefully, with their new console, Nintendo just settles on a Dualshock clone, minus the shitty d-pad. I'm not crossing my fingers, though. I doubt they will completely abandon motion control. |
|
|
|
Post by clubamerica on Apr 29, 2011 14:59:47 GMT -5
They should just have a dualshock clone or at least something that doesn't have to plug into another thing (which you need to put batteries into) to play. If they insist on going with motion control, which they will, hopefully it will be two independent controllers, or some sort of clever way of putting motion control on a normal looking controller. Just something besides what they have currently for the Wii. And make it so the online doesn't rely on wifi and you have to buy a separate adapter to hardwire to the internet. And normal user names instead of a chain of numbers and then another chain of numbers for each individual game.
Trying to play Tatsunoko vs Capcom online just isn't right they way they have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertagilmour on Apr 29, 2011 15:14:59 GMT -5
Do you think Zelda Skyward Sword will be moved to the next console?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 29, 2011 15:15:15 GMT -5
But the difference is the thought process that went into both the consoles. The Gamecube was designed to be a direct competitor to the PS2. A direct competitor with a less-functional controller, and less storage space at a time when storage space was at a premium. The Gamecube was complete madness. My point was that there was a method to the madness. The GC controller was an attempt to reign in increasingly complex control schemes. It didn't work, and I agree with your assessments as to why, but it was a laudable idea. That's true. The problem is that there was a faulty thought process underlying the whole thing. So Nintendo's belief was, "buttons don't equate to functionality," and they wanted to make controlling a game easier to understand. A laudable idea indeed! However, in the era of the Gamecube, buttons did equate to functionality. You press a button, your avatar performs an action. You can get more functionality with button combinations, or with context-sensitive abilities, but you can only do so much to avoid the issue. A certain amount of actions will require a certain amount of inputs, and there's really no way around that. By removing buttons from the GC controller, they removed functionality, and the worst part is, they didn't even simplify the controls very much. They had one fewer shoulder button, no stick buttons, and no select button. The loss of a shoulder button sucks, but how important the select button is can be debated, and the stick buttons probably weren't that big a deal. However, they still had four face buttons and two pressure-sensitive triggers, plus the tiny little z-button. The GC controller reduced functionality, but didn't reduce complexity. Now on the other hand take the Wii controller. It doesn't have all that many buttons... most games use no more than 2-5. However, the controller makes up for the loss of button input with motion input. This allows the Wii to achieve greater simplicity while maintaining functionality. You don't need a complex series of button presses to hit a golf ball... just hold the button and swing the controller like it was a club! The Gamecube sought simplicity by removing functionality, where the Wii sought simplicity by replacing the current functional method with a simpler alternative. That's what made the Wii controller a good idea and the GC controller a bad one. |
|
|
|
Post by hidetoshidecide on Apr 29, 2011 15:25:40 GMT -5
So Nintendo's belief was, "buttons don't equate to functionality," and they wanted to make controlling a game easier to understand. A laudable idea indeed! However, in the era of the Gamecube, buttons did equate to functionality. You press a button, your avatar performs an action. You can get more functionality with button combinations, or with context-sensitive abilities, but you can only skirt around the issue so much. A certain amount of actions will require a certain amount of inputs, and there's really no way around that. I think the idea was that they would force developers to rethink their designs. IOW, use less actions, thus requiring fewer inputs. There's no law stating that you must have 12 buttons on a controller. I think it would be a fine thing if we went back to having six or so main buttons. |
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 29, 2011 15:37:03 GMT -5
However, Gamecube era Nintendo didn't have the clout to force developers to rethink anything. The ball was entirely in Sony's court at the time. Furthermore, some games just plain need more functions to work. Not every game can be a simple, action-packed arcade experience. Some games need to have more complex control schemes, to allow players a wide array of actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by hidetoshidecide on Apr 29, 2011 15:45:22 GMT -5
However, Gamecube era Nintendo didn't have the clout to force developers to rethink anything. The ball was entirely in Sony's court at the time. Agreed, which is why I mostly agree with your characterizations. Sure. The question is where the median lies. There's been a drift towards complexity for some time; it wouldn't be a bad thing to reel that in. Does a game need twelve separate control inputs to not be "simple"? |
|
|
|
Post by susanismyalias on Apr 29, 2011 15:48:19 GMT -5
Do you think Zelda Skyward Sword will be moved to the next console? Probably not. TP was only on two consoles because the hardware was basically the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 29, 2011 16:18:23 GMT -5
The question is where the median lies. There's been a drift towards complexity for some time; it wouldn't be a bad thing to reel that in. Does a game need twelve separate control inputs to not be "simple"? For what it's worth, I don't think things will go much further than they already have. 12 main buttons seems to be pretty much the limit, and many games don't even make use of all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by robertagilmour on Apr 29, 2011 16:26:13 GMT -5
I thought they might do it again so they have a big launch game. I doubt they'll have either a Mario or Zelda this launch, and I think every company should know well by now you need something big for every launch.
Maybe they've got a new IP as the must-buy title, I cant recall how often that has been done.
|
|
