• "What Are You Even Doing Nintendo?" : More Photos of Nintendo NX Controller Prototype Leaked
    200 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rahu X;49992729]To play a sort of devil's advocate, it seems some games being made in UE4 are going to be releasing on the NX. The next Dragon Quest games being an example. So, it could just be an NX running a UE4 tech demo for testing purposes. Probably still fake, but I figured I'd have fun stretching out any minute possibilities.[/QUOTE] Probably? There's a picture of E.T. hidden in the glare. [img]https://i.imgur.com/T4nVEIM.png[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/xiBLPIX.png[/img]
I respect that Nintendo is always doing it's own thing, but they really could use a fucking normal console.
The Wii U gamepad is honestly fine. It fits well in my hands, doesn't suck to hold, and while it is a little gimmicky; it's a pretty cool niche. I really hope they keep the design and just try to improve on it.
I never thought that that controller design would be an actual thing. I actually thought all those pictures I've seen of it floating around were just mockups.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49992867]I respect that Nintendo is always doing it's own thing, but they really could use a fucking normal console.[/QUOTE] The problem with making a normal console is that then the PS5 and the Xbtwo will most likely overshadow then because "nintendo's for babies" and with no kind of gimmick or casual pull people that aren't fans probably won't be as inclined to buy it anymore. Thats just my prediction though.
[QUOTE=Omilinon;49992879]The Wii U gamepad is honestly fine. It fits well in my hands, doesn't suck to hold, and while it is a little gimmicky; it's a pretty cool niche. I really hope they keep the design and just try to improve on it.[/QUOTE] It honestly feels like a less cramped N64 controller with all buttons available. A bit heavy, but I'll take it if it means I can play Smash Bros wirelessly without a TV.
[QUOTE=Furnost;49992620]how can i not be pessimistic if just want a normal console, and not gimmicky shit like this... just bring back something like the gamecube or N64, geez[/QUOTE] *twitch* Ten years now. [i]Ten years now I've had to repeat myself.[/i] [b]THERE'D. BE. NO. POINT.[/b] You wanna know why the PS2 was the "main" console for Gen6? Why of the PS3 and 360, the PS3 was usually an afterthought? Why now the PS4 is mopping the floor with the Xbone? I'll tell you. Because in each of those cases, the consoles were [i]identical.[/i] Redundant. Literally only one of them [b]needed to exist.[/b] It's why there is actually an unspoken agreement that everyone - developers, publishers, gamers, media outlets - just picks the one among them that gets popular first for the sake of a standard: "that has the network my friends are on", "that's where the sales are", "that's what our readers own". Sure, the other console can still live a healthy life, but there is very clearly a "main" console among each set. And yet people are always telling Nintendo to step in line or go third-party, neither of the other two brands. Do you people [i]want[/i] three identical consoles? Where there actually [i]is[/i] no reason for a game to be exclusive for one or the other, when a company has no reason to even continue creating its own hardware other than to maintain its own market share and survive? An element of a system that becomes dedicated entirely to its own survival is a useless element, and it becomes [i]not[/i] a healthy competitive market but just a fractured standard. It was justifiable back in the old days, when even the internals weren't standardized yet and the architectures were massively different between the SNES and Genesis, or even between a powerful N64 with cartridges or a weaker PS1 with discs. Nowadays? The PS4 and Xbone are x86 machines with practically off-the-shelf graphics cards, using clones of the very same controller layout we've had since the original DualShock. They are literally [i]weaker desktop computers.[/i] And you people want [i]another one?[/i] Why? Is this seriously all about just playing the next Mario or Zelda with a DualShock clone for the rest of your life? Because if that's all that matters... hell, Nintendo ain't the only one that should just up and make games for PC in that case. But I don't want them to, because they are the only ones trying anything [i]different[/i] hardware-wise. Not just new, but different as well. Yes, PlayStation is bringing VR. News flash: so is every other goddamn tech company. Xbone had an improved Kinect. Oh, no one wanted that and Microsoft pulled it while slinking off with their tail between their legs. Whatever potential Ouya had was crushed by it being an utter disaster behind the scenes. Vita was smothered by Sony's own stupidity with price and proprietary tech and all of its games are being ported onto PS4. But who's actually tried [i]actual[/i] motion tech since the Wiimote? Sony had the PS Move they didn't really care about, Sixense's efforts on the PC petered out after years of leading us by the nose, Wii U [i]started[/i] by continuing Wiimote support in most games before even that faded because Nintendo were idiots and didn't include one with the system and therefore couldn't rely on everyone having one. And optical sensors? They never even took off. Then we have smart devices, with beautiful multi-touch screens but their ecosystems are just a complete cesspool. It's been nothing but a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo that we had back in 2005. I don't want that. I don't see how anyone could. I want systems that have a [i]very good reason[/i] for their games to be exclusive: namely that those games can rely on that unique tech as a [i]standard[/i] rather than a mere peripheral like as has been the case for every single thing released midway through any console's life or [i]any[/i] PC peripheral. So that those games can then push gaming's boundaries in ways other than friggin' horsepower or having a damn screen strapped to your face. The Wii and DS weren't successes [i]despite[/i] their gimmicks. They were successes [i]because[/i] of their gimmicks. Even 3DS when Nintendo finally got their asses in gear managed to capture some of that mainstream success because - hey - stereoscopy with no stupid glasses (at least until they caved and made the 2DS, ruining the whole "standard feature" thing.) Wii U failed because they didn't even try with the mainstream until it was way too late and the gamers weren't going to touch it because it wasn't a third PS4. And now you want the NX to attempt that instead? Are you [i]nuts?[/i] ... Losing the fight for the Wii U hurt. I wanted another console with aux-screen controllers since the Dreamcast. And like MotionPlus or keeping 3D as a standard, that potential went down the drain. These were things I had wanted anyway, whether or not they were Nintendo. And now [b]no one else is ever going to try them again.[/b] Because gamers know what gamers want and gamers what what they always want: more of what they already have.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;49993003]*twitch* Ten years now. [i]Ten years now I've had to repeat myself.[/i] [b]THERE'D. BE. NO. POINT.[/b] You wanna know why the PS2 was the "main" console for Gen6? Why of the PS3 and 360, the PS3 was usually an afterthought? Why now the PS4 is mopping the floor with the Xbone? I'll tell you. Because in each of those cases, the consoles were [i]identical.[/i] Redundant. Literally only one of them [b]needed to exist.[/b] It's why there is actually an unspoken agreement that everyone - developers, publishers, gamers, media outlets - just picks the one among them that gets popular first for the sake of a standard: "that has the network my friends are on", "that's where the sales are", "that's what our readers own". Sure, the other console can still live a healthy life, but there is very clearly a "main" console among each set. And yet people are always telling Nintendo to step in line or go third-party, neither of the other two brands. Do you people [i]want[/i] three identical consoles? Where there actually [i]is[/i] no reason for a game to be exclusive for one or the other, when a company has no reason to even continue creating its own hardware other than to maintain its own market share and survive? An element of a system that becomes dedicated entirely to its own survival is a useless element, and it becomes [i]not[/i] a healthy competitive market but just a fractured standard. It was justifiable back in the old days, when even the internals weren't standardized yet and the architectures were massively different between the SNES and Genesis, or even between a powerful N64 with cartridges or a weaker PS1 with discs. Nowadays? The PS4 and Xbone are x86 machines with practically off-the-shelf graphics cards, using clones of the very same controller layout we've had since the original DualShock. They are literally [i]weaker desktop computers.[/i] And you people want [i]another one?[/i] Why? Is this seriously all about just playing the next Mario or Zelda with a DualShock clone for the rest of your life? Because if that's all that matters... hell, Nintendo ain't the only one that should just up and make games for PC in that case. But I don't want them to, because they are the only ones trying anything [i]different[/i] hardware-wise. Not just new, but different as well. Yes, PlayStation is bringing VR. News flash: so is every other goddamn tech company. Xbone had an improved Kinect. Oh, no one wanted that and Microsoft pulled it while slinking off with their tail between their legs. Whatever potential Ouya had was crushed by it being an utter disaster behind the scenes. Vita was smothered by Sony's own stupidity with price and proprietary tech and all of its games are being ported onto PS4. But who's actually tried [i]actual[/i] motion tech since the Wiimote? Sony had the PS Move they didn't really care about, Sixense's efforts on the PC petered out after years of leading us by the nose, Wii U [i]started[/i] by continuing Wiimote support in most games before even that faded because Nintendo were idiots and didn't include one with the system and therefore couldn't rely on everyone having one. And optical sensors? They never even took off. Then we have smart devices, with beautiful multi-touch screens but their ecosystems are just a complete cesspool. It's been nothing but a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo that we had back in 2005. I don't want that. I don't see how anyone could. I want systems that have a [i]very good reason[/i] for their games to be exclusive: namely that those games can rely on that unique tech as a [i]standard[/i] rather than a mere peripheral like as has been the case for every single thing released midway through any console's life or [i]any[/i] PC peripheral. So that those games can then push gaming's boundaries in ways other than friggin' horsepower or having a damn screen strapped to your face. The Wii and DS weren't successes [i]despite[/i] their gimmicks. They were successes [i]because[/i] of their gimmicks. Even 3DS when Nintendo finally got their asses in gear managed to capture some of that mainstream success because - hey - stereoscopy with no stupid glasses (at least until they caved and made the 2DS, ruining the whole "standard feature" thing.) Wii U failed because they didn't even try with the mainstream until it was way too late and the gamers weren't going to touch it because it wasn't a third PS4. And now you want the NX to attempt that instead? Are you [i]nuts?[/i] ... Losing the fight for the Wii U hurt. I wanted another console with aux-screen controllers since the Dreamcast. And like MotionPlus or keeping 3D as a standard, that potential went down the drain. These were things I had wanted anyway, whether or not they were Nintendo. And no [b]no one else is ever going to try them again.[/b] Because gamers know what gamers want and gamers what what they always want: more of what they already have.[/QUOTE] It's really weird seeing you excited for pushing boundaries and even 3D games yet discount VR as "a damn screen strapped to your face" with the ridiculous claim that "every" tech company is doing it, when it's actually getting in consumer hands for only the first time ever in one week, ontop of having only one gaming console planning to support it at this time (PS4).
Because it's [i]one[/i] concept. [i]One[/i] idea that people have treated like the second coming since the Oculus Kickstarter back in 2012. But everything else is "just a gimmick". Could Oculus have its niche like all the others? Sure. But I'm sick of it being the [i]only[/i] thing people are excited about hardware-wise. I don't hate it, but I'll admit I definitely resent it for being basically the only deviation most gamers are willing to accept from "DualShock and flatpanel." It's the same thing I resent (but not actually hate) the PS4 for: capturing mindshare to the point of [i]exclusion[/i] of what I'm rooting for. I have no direct beef with the VR (well okay, I do actually dislike VR but that's because any step towards The Matrix terrifies me) or PS4. What I do have is frustration beyond belief that no one outside Nintendo or its fans gave Wii U a chance and before that, have written motion controls - something I really am fond of - off as a gimmick with no legitimate use for a [i]decade[/i] now. I want [i]my[/i] niche to flourish too. Not my niche [i]alone[/i], but my niche [i]as well.[/i] But no one considers that niche besides Nintendo, and they're made the villain for it.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49992422]gamecube controller is literal shit once the nostalgia goggles come off.[/QUOTE] I dunno man smashing on that thing felt natural as fuck
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49992486]It looks like a smartphone with one of those gamepad addons built into it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/sgsULSX.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] hahaha these are actually a thing?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49992408]You gotta be willing to enjoy things. The pessimism around anything weird with Nintendo is really lame.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to enjoy something that looks like it's designed specifically to give you RSI Like, the PS and XBox controllers follow a formula because they keep the hands in a position where they don't have to grip very hard, and pronation/supination of the elbow is eliminated. This thing is less ergonomic than Apple's computer peripherals - form over function is never a good thing when it comes to regularly used hand tools.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993188]hahaha these are actually a thing?[/QUOTE] They can be pretty nice, actually. Touch screen controls are shit.
[QUOTE=NiandraLades;49992828]It's been years since I followed Nintendo but are a majority of their audience still children/families? If so then I think a touch based controller is the way to go - since most young people have grown up with smart phones and ipads etc[/QUOTE] The thing is I think that if this concept were real it would be a terrible central design choice for Nintendo as they're trying to appeal to a market that already has these smart phones and ipads for their gaming. Trying to appeal to them is a lost cause. The casual market that were big into the wii they're trying to appeal to with a touch based controller has moved on to mobile gaming and none of them are going to want to shell out ~300+ dollars for a separate console that does, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as their smartphones if it uses this touch screen approach. Then they'd have alienated the other sizable portion of gamers in not including physical buttons that are an absolute necessity for most, anyone thats used on screen controls can agree that they're slightly a cut above non-functional. This console, if the leaks are real, would appeal to literally no one.
I think touchscreens have a purpose for gaming so long as - like motion controls - they're used in [i]conjunction[/i] with traditional buttons. I've said this before, but even a single button to denote exactly when a user does or does not intend to make a touch/motion gesture goes a long way in usability. I think the Wiimote - when you factor in the Nunchuk - [i]nailed[/i] the button layout.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;49993158]Because it's [i]one[/i] concept. [i]One[/i] idea that people have treated like the second coming since the Oculus Kickstarter back in 2012. But everything else is "just a gimmick". Could Oculus have its niche like all the others? Sure. But I'm sick of it being the [i]only[/i] thing people are excited about hardware-wise. I don't hate it, but I'll admit I definitely resent it for being basically the only deviation most gamers are willing to accept from "DualShock and flatpanel." It's the same thing I resent (but not actually hate) the PS4 for: capturing mindshare to the point of [i]exclusion[/i] of what I'm rooting for. I have no direct beef with the VR (well okay, I do actually dislike VR but that's because any step towards The Matrix terrifies me) or PS4. What I do have is frustration beyond belief that no one outside Nintendo or its fans gave Wii U a chance and before that, have written motion controls - something I really am fond of - off as a gimmick with no legitimate use for a [i]decade[/i] now. I want [i]my[/i] niche to flourish too. Not my niche [i]alone[/i], but my niche [i]as well.[/i] But no one considers that niche besides Nintendo, and they're made the villain for it.[/QUOTE] People like VR because it takes several niche ideas towards their natural conclusion. 3D, motion controls, and even the ability to walk around, with the bonus of physical scale. You can dislike it for weird arbitrary reasons all you want, but resenting products, especially ones that seem to align with precisely all the things you're asking that consumers appreciate, for being... popular? That's just childish.
Nintendo is smart; they know they can't just butt-in with graphics and a normal controller. XBOX and PS already have that shit on lockdown. They are going to make bank off handhelds and try out new things. I mean the Wii U is okay; but the fact is, most people I know who have it just have it for Smash/Mario/Zelda.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49993243]They can be pretty nice, actually. Touch screen controls are shit.[/QUOTE] Thats why this concept is so worrying to me, it's nice that they have physical sticks (more like nubs I guess? oh well) but physical buttons are an absolute necessity too, onscreen touch stuff just is such a horrible experience in general that there's no way I would even give this thing a try
[QUOTE=bitches;49993270]People like VR because it takes several niche ideas towards their natural conclusion. 3D, motion controls, and even the ability to walk around, with the bonus of physical scale. You can dislike it for weird arbitrary reasons all you want, but resenting products, especially ones that seem to align with precisely all the things you're asking that consumers appreciate, for being... popular? That's just childish.[/QUOTE] I would disagree, because VR lacks physicality and integration with the real world, with any attempts to rectify it being incredibly slapdash. If we're truly looking towards something that's more of an apex of all those concepts put together, I'd say AR is a much better candidate. Even so, that's putting things in black-and-white. I wouldn't consider [i]either[/i] AR or VR any sort of "natural conclusion." The perception of VR that I think you and a lot of other gamers have is "all of those worthless, half-measure gimmicks finally culminated in a form that actually [i]is[/i] worth something." That's not how it works. Bringing many of those concepts together to such a conclusion isn't just adding things towards an ultimate sum; each of those niches by themselves is a blending of the two ends, a blending with its own merits that are lost in VR - namely control abstraction for these niche methods. And control abstraction is why I wouldn't want people to give up traditional controllers even if I want to see what I like being more represented. Sometimes you don't want complete 1-to-1 movement between yourself and a virtual avatar. The lack of abstraction with VR means it has a very specific usage case: act and sense like your actual body was in the virtual world. And that's really the only thing it's good at, because completely shutting off your senses from reality pretty much makes any remotely traditional controller too clunky to work. What VR loses is the merits of something like a motion controller [i]outside[/i] of that scenario: games that can benefit from a motion-controlled vector but otherwise are better suited to something closer to the traditional end of the traditional-VR scale. AR fares a little better by trying to compromise on the sensing part and bring the virtual parts into [i]our[/i] world. But this is why when I see the Oculus Touch being the Rift's motion controller, I just think, "No, no, you're missing the [i]point.[/i]" Look how many traditional controls it does [i]away[/i] with. The Wiimote got it right because it blended both. Oculus Touch is only gonna be any good for VR. And to be honest: my reason for disliking VR isn't weird or arbitrary. What it [i]is[/i] is a whole other issue, going into philosophy. But let's get back to the point: PS4 [i]doesn't[/i] do what I want consumers to appreciate about the Wii U. And that's what pisses me off, because people are [i]only[/i] noticing the PS4.
Yeah I'm gonna call bullshit on this, absolutely no way that would get through anyone's R&D department. Worse case scenario it's an early, early prototype, kinda like the PS3 boomerang.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;49993003]*twitch* Ten years now. [i]Ten years now I've had to repeat myself.[/i] [b]THERE'D. BE. NO. POINT.[/b] [/QUOTE] I agree with you, but I still think there's something else to the "Nintendo should just make a normal console" arguement. I think what people really want is for ninty to be competitive again. If the Wii U had been as powerful as the PS4 or Xbox One (and the gamepad triggers were analogue) there [I]probably [/I]wouldn't have been this drought of third party support, and sales would [I]probably [/I]have been significantly higher. Because, I mean, If I could have played Metal Gear Solid V, Fallout 4, or Call of Duty: Whatever Warfare on a machine with a second screen gimmick vs a console that doesn't, I would probably have played it on the one with a neat gimmick.
I think peoples problem with Nintendo's gimmicks is that they compromise hardware power and cause them to fall behind their competitors on that front. This is why the whole Nintendo going third party thing has been so enticing to people for such a long time, lots of people are only into Nintendo for their IP's and would kill to see them in a stronger system that isn't held back by innovations that lots of people dont even particularly enjoy or find intuitive.
And another thing about the third-party thing: you guys [i]saw[/i] what happened to SEGA and Atari, right? Do we [i]really[/i] wanna chance "oh, those times were just two flukes in a row despite also being the two biggest examples"?
[QUOTE=ThePanther;49992571]Ahem... Still the best Nintendo controller ever: [t]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91qahZOIs6L._SX425_.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Nah: [IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/315VCP3ATSL.jpg[/IMG] It may have been made by someone seeing the world through a kaleidoscope, but that's fucking awesome.
GameCube controller directly evolved out of the N64 controller anyway, by using Hori's officially-sanctioned alternate N64 controller as an intermediary step. [t]https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7187/6886099379_9d43900dc3.jpg[/t]
vin: nintendo is great because they try weird, unusual things! why dont people like weird, unusual things? i want weird, unusual things again! thread: hey theres this weird unusual thing coming out soon called vr and it's immensely popular unlike nintendo's weird unusual things that nobody likes vin: thats the wrong sort of weird unusual thing thats a bad weird unusual thing i dont like it
[QUOTE=redBadger;49992422]gamecube controller is literal shit once the nostalgia goggles come off.[/QUOTE] not really, the only thing that's even remotely weird about it is the c stick just a reminder that the gamecube was developed at a time that dual stick functionality was not really "standard" yet, I mean the gamecube was released after the ps2 but before the xbox, and nintendo and sony had pretty different design styles at the time. the gamecube controller in many ways feels like an adapted n64 controller to me. and in fact I actually really quite like the gamecube controller because of how well it sits in the hands. I frankly find interaction with the gamecube's A/B/X/Y buttons fare more natural feeling than resting my thumbs on the sticks of a ps2 controller and then needing to move my thumb to hit buttons. on the gamecube you'd just rest your thumb on the a button and only need to move it a few millimeters to hit more face buttons which made the gamecube controller feel relaxing and low energy to use imo
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49993907]vin: nintendo is great because they try weird, unusual things! why dont people like weird, unusual things? i want weird, unusual things again! thread: hey theres this weird unusual thing coming out soon called vr and it's immensely popular unlike nintendo's weird unusual things that nobody likes vin: thats the wrong sort of weird unusual thing thats a bad weird unusual thing i dont like it[/QUOTE] Strawmanning and appeal to majority, huh? Is that how you wanna play? I gave my reasoning and did so pretty damn well I would say, so either make an actual rebuttal or muzzle it, champ.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49992422]gamecube controller is literal shit once the nostalgia goggles come off.[/QUOTE] You obviously haven't used the Nintendo 64 controller now that was a terrible controller the Wave bird was actually pretty good. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=VinLAURiA;49993543]GameCube controller directly evolved out of the N64 controller anyway, by using Hori's officially-sanctioned alternate N64 controller as an intermediary step. [t]https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7187/6886099379_9d43900dc3.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] This is what the n64 controller should have been.
[QUOTE=usaokay;49992495]Nintendo always seem to try crazy ideas that would usually pay off (other than the Virtual Boy). The 3DS, second screen console, and motion controls all innovated the tech industry. Now we have 3D TVs (ugh), second screen games for other platforms, and motion controls for everything nowadays. Don't know where they're going with this since it seems more like the same of the Wii U except overly simplified. Plus, I'm not a fan of touch screen games.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what are you on about? 3D TVs are fucking dead most companies have discontinued or reduced their 3D TV production, practically no games have second screen applications and the ones that do use you phone or tablet for some worthless gimmick that can be fully ignored, and motion controls are completely dead outside of VR with the PS motion controllers and the Kinect being relegated to peripherals that have absolutely tiny catalogues. Nintendo have been trying gimmicks to keep themselves afloat. They got lucky with the Wii (as it was advertised to hell on mainstream TV as some new toy), and it bit them in the ass really fucking hard with the WiiU and to a lesser extent the Gamecube.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.