Posted by BlaineBlaine (463 posts) -

Update: Don't feel like reading? Here's a handy chart!

TL:DR;YOUR OPINION:
I don't want to own current Nintendo HardwareIs fine. Not my point.
I don't like current or any Nintendo HardwareIs fine. Not my point.
I don't care if Nintendo ever makes hardware againIs what this post is about.

Jeff made a brief comment recently about how he has no attachment to Nintendo's hardware.

While I don't think anyone will argue that Nintendo is currently doing much other than churning out gimmicks at the moment, it's really narrow-minded to say you don't care if they make hardware anymore.

Focusing on ideas that were iterated immediately, you can actually put forth a case for Nintendo being the vanguard of video game technology. I'm not going to go "Famicom had a microphone in one of the controllers, so Nintendo invented voice control". The Gameboy Camera has no relation to the Kinect. I don't like motion controls, I'm not going to even get into that stuff. If anyone thinks I'm stretching, let me know.

the bad old days

To start, while it's fallen out of favor for dual-analog sticks, Nintendo is primarily responsible for what we know as 'joypad' controls. Prior to the Game And Watch controls, home consoles would just try to mimic the microswitch joystick of arcades. However they'd usually use cheap pressure contacts. It's like saying "A Car is a box with 4 shapes for wheels... We'll use squares cause circles cost too much". Players in the UK will attest that a shitty joystick is one of the worst things you can try to use. Quality, and expensive, joysticks work great! Go grab an Atari 2600 stick and call me in a hour. It's a nightmare knowing what we now know.

Speaking of analog sticks, the Nintendo 64 was a return of technology you had in the Bally's Astrocade, but applying it to 3D gaming was really monumental. In some regards the Nintendo 64 having two control inputs (granted usually the Analog and the C - Buttons) was the fore-runner for what is now the universal way of controlling modern games. Move with one, camera with the other.

I don't think anyone here would need to be reminded that the Playstation did not ship with analog controls. Only after the Nintendo 64 did Sony release the Dualshock, the structure of which is still used to this day on the PS4. And the 4 button face with shoulder buttons? That's Nintendo.

Sticking with the Nintendo 64, what about the Rumble Pak? Personally I can take or leave force feedback...I don't think it's very important, but it was rapidly and readily emulated.

There was a period of time where the defacto standard was two players for a console. You had multi-taps, sure, and again the Bally's Astrocade was there first, but from the Nintendo 64 until the wireless revolution, your video game console was probably going to have 4 controller ports.

Speaking of wireless, the first wireless controller that was worth a god damned was the Wavebird on the Gamecube. In no uncertain terms.

These are all, good and in many ways now the standard, ideas for game hardware.

Nintendo is FAR from perfect. Failing miserably at 3D once and then foundering the second time. Taking a not-really-useful two screen touch screen from the handheld to the console.

And dragging their feet into optical media and online gaming.

However, Nintendo innovates hardware in a meaningful way that is adapted by the industry. Perhaps more than anyone else.

#1 Edited by Mendelson9 (402 posts) -

Yeah Nintendo really had some good quality hardware. All my old Nintendo consoles still work.

How is the quality of the Wii U Pro Controller? That's kind the first "standard" controller Nintendo has put out.

#2 Posted by hollitz (1500 posts) -

Just because Nintendo did something first doesn't mean that someone else wasn't going to do it.

I'd argue that analog sticks and wireless controllers were the logical outcome of 3d gaming and technology trends.

I am a fan of rumble/force feedback, and I think it is a genuine, kind of whimsical, innovation. If Nintendo didn't do it, I'm not sure anyone else would have.

And I think if pressed, Jeff would also say that he has no attachment to Xbox or Playstation hardware. As long as the games are good, who cares what machine is running it?

#3 Posted by dudeglove (7740 posts) -

That was then, but this is now. Nintendo isn't the Jesus of hardware anymore, but pumping out another Fisher-Price looking toy isn't even their biggest problem currently. I fail to see after so many years of XBLA and PSN ups and downs why Nintendo is so reticent to get their online services house in order. Are they literally allergic to the Internet or something? I don't want a new console or a controller, and I certainly don't want a 16-digit hexadecimal "friend code" either.

@hollitz said:

I'd argue that analog sticks and wireless controllers were the logical outcome of 3d gaming and technology trends.

True. The extra creditz bunch argue that it has slightly more to do with various developers trying to figure out a functional way to play FPSes on consoles over the years. Goldeneye may have kicked it off, but it was the lucrative market of dew-swillin' contard bros that have finally got us somewhere halfway decent in terms of controllers.

#4 Posted by Veektarius (4769 posts) -

Has a Nintendo hardware innovation caught on with other manufacturers since the N64 era? Obviously the Move was a Wii clone, but it didn't stick.

#5 Posted by Marcsman (3177 posts) -

Gamecube will be my last Nintendo system period.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@hollitz said:

I'd argue that analog sticks and wireless controllers were the logical outcome of 3d gaming and technology trends.

Only because we're on the other side of it. I doubt this was less certain back in the day, when the other two competitors didn't use analog sticks until after Nintendo did (Sega for NiGHTS, Sony with DualShock).

Wireless controllers don't sound like a game-changing event, or at least not as big as analog control.

#7 Posted by Shortbreadtom (749 posts) -

Nintendo was once at the forefront of gaming, and as a result has made some of the best consoles of all time and their impact will be felt for as long as people play games.

They aren't doing that anymore. I want them to stop wasting time trying to save floundering home consoles, and start making amazing games for other consoles. Nintendo currently has to look at every game they release as a potential system seller, meaning that older brands that may not make a boatload of money to children but are held in high regard can't be made. I truly believe that looking at the way they run their company now, you'll never see another 2D Metroid, F-Zero or anything like that on the Wii-U which is a real shame. I don't know why selling failing hardware is something Nintendo has to do, when they could instead save their business by becoming a third party developer. You know how much money Sony or Microsoft would pay to get Nintendo franchises? I think it's somewhere in the realm of a metric shit ton of money.

#8 Posted by Demoskinos (14755 posts) -

I'm with Jeff actually I have no attachment to the hardware its simply the games they make that are good. Honestly, I see it more of a hassle than anything that I have to go and purchase hardware to play their games. If I could buy Mario Kart 8 on my PS4 I'd fucking do that shit in a second.

#9 Posted by BlaineBlaine (463 posts) -

@hollitz said:

Just because Nintendo did something first doesn't mean that someone else wasn't going to do it.

I never said that and I hope it wasn't implied. But there's markedly more value in first, than eventually.

Let's say analog, which people seem to think was inevitable. If Nintendo had NOT done it when they did...then when would Sony (and to a much lesser extent Sega) do it?

Two years? Three years? WIth the PS2? Possibly, but unlikely, never. Sony was backing 3D gaming. Laughably, so was Nintendo. And again, it's old technology. One saw the value. The other, initially, did not. I feel that's one of the best examples, albeit 17 years ago now.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so dismissive of motion controls, people do find value in it. It's just not for me. Perhaps someone who LIKES the current Nintendo console would do better.

At least Nintendo is trying new things. I do like that. From a game perspective compare their, again... not well executed, new implementation for this console generation to Sony and Microsoft.

Sony (full disclosure, PS4 fanboy) has just iterated. There's nothing dramatic. And it's still my favorite. Remote play? That's been in the air for awhile.

Microsoft actually didn't innovate on a gameplay side. The whole "Input One" initiative has nothing to do with gaming. And even their original failed vision would only really change how we 'consume' games. Not the games themselves. Iterated Kinect.

Nintendo did something stupid and made a big tablet controller. Has it worked? Hell no. Could it have? Yeah, probably! But it would allow for new ways of playing games. Their push was not DRM or social hooks or media centric. It was making a new way to play.

I'd MUCH rather have Nintendo around, trying something different and maybe making it stick or fail. To me that's a no brainer. Do I give a shit about an E-Card Reader? No. Am I glad they tried it? I sure am.

#10 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

I'm not particularly excited about the idea of caring about current hardware because other, future could potentially be exciting and influential.

#11 Posted by VaddixBell (244 posts) -

I read your blog and while you make some good points but while Nintendo may be exceptional in creating some amazing hardware innovations, they need to do the other part and have a great operating system with a lot of features.

Some of the things MS did in making the console really connected and seeing your friends are online, what they're playing, being able to chat and see how they're doing is just as meaningful as a new way of play. Nintendo needs to get that sorted if I were to consider buying any of their newer hardware. I don't own a 3DS (might get one in the near future) or Wii U but listening to the podcast, it appears to be a real mess with how digital purchases work and I can't get on board if they can't get that stuff in order.

Nintendo make fantastic games and I'd love to play them but I'm not that attached to Nintendo hardware.

#12 Posted by TheHBK (5472 posts) -

@blaineblaine: He was talking about emotional attachment. I grew up on Nintendo. For me, the NES and SNES were video games as a kid. But Jeff grew up playing on the PC, Commodore 64, Atari, Nintendo is just another console manufacturer to him. But yes they have made great innovations but they haven't done much except like you said put out gimmicks. From a business standpoint they are shooting themseleves in the foot by having hardware that just cannot have the same titles as the PS4 and Xbox One. It is a driving force in whether someone will buy the system or not. But that is besides the point. These other console manufactures have been doing more for innovation too. Triggers on a controller pioneered by Sega and perfected by MS. Sony put out dual joystick controllers.

#13 Posted by falserelic (5412 posts) -

@marcsman said:

Gamecube will be my last Nintendo system period.

I felt like you've read my mind with that comment, I agree.

I'm done with Nintendo. The Hardware won't matter if there's no games that interests me. To me most of their games are kiddy, and on top of that not alot of devs wants to make games for the Wii U.

#14 Posted by believer258 (11785 posts) -

What you say may be true, but all of the "new" ways they've come up with controlling games since the analog stick have been gimmicky and not really fun to use. At least for me, I mean, if you think waggling a Wii-mote is as revolutionary as an analog stick then more power to you, but I don't think it's something that is fundamental to gaming. And that's the thing, Nintendo invented control inputs that became basic, necessary things for home consoles. They filled a need, and they did it a few times in a row. These days, there isn't really a need for a new input method. Touch screens and motion controls clearly aren't the next step in video game controllers. They've been used in some weird ways, but nothing really significant has been done with them.

These days, Nintendo's hardware has fallen behind in some other basics, especially internet features.

Online
#15 Posted by mason20 (157 posts) -

Sure the Nintendo64 may have a joystick first in their controllers but that still isn't much considering how wretched that trident controller was. I'd argue the Saturn or PSX had better controllers. The Saturn laying down some groundwork for more modern controllers and being iterated better with the Dreamcast and being the template for the xbox controller. The PSX for getting a great style down on essentially their first console and slowly iterating and making it better.

The rumble pak was a lot like what you could find on racing wheels on the PC, the wireless controller was bound to come regardless of some third party making it. The Multi-tap was first used for the Turbo-Grafix 16.

I personally think you are stretching on what Nintendo has done and they have done some great things but with all the competition between Sega, Atari, SNK, and Sony, this all would have happened anyway. In fact some of the things listed were being worked on by other companies at the same time.

#16 Posted by BlaineBlaine (463 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

I'm not particularly excited about the idea of caring about current hardware because other, future could potentially be exciting and influential.

I have no issue with discarding a failed idea. I actually said a few times I don't like the motion controls.

What I would like, and what I feel like is in our best interest, is for them to keep trying. That's all. I'm not saying "You should care about The Wii U". I am saying "You should care that Nintendo will try to make potentially exciting and influential hardware".

That's my point really. I want them to continue to at least try and innovate. A new Nintendo console that was, essentially, a well powered PC doesn't interest me. We got two of dem already.

I don't feel like everything that can be invented has been invented. Furthermore I feel like Microsoft and Sony will continue to play it safe (Which is good! I don't want three lunatics destroying the game industry). I'm very excited about Sony's Morpheus. Can't help but feel they were spurred forward by an external source. Don't you?

Nintendo is really good at stirring the pot. Would the Vitality Sensor have sucked? I wouldn't bet against it. But... what if it didn't? Like... how god damned rad would that have been?

#17 Posted by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

I'm with Jeff actually I have no attachment to the hardware its simply the games they make that are good. Honestly, I see it more of a hassle than anything that I have to go and purchase hardware to play their games. If I could buy Mario Kart 8 on my PS4 I'd fucking do that shit in a second.

Agreed. Add a open world Pokemon game to PS4 also and I'd be in there. Everything else from Nintendo can sod off though.

#18 Posted by Demoskinos (14755 posts) -

@awesomeusername: Whoa whoa whoa son. You can't be hating on that Metroid! Sure, Other M was a bummer but pretty much every other metroid game has been stellar.

#19 Edited by RonGalaxy (3100 posts) -

Wait, I should want nintendo hardware because they used to be great at making consoles and used to be great at innovating? I guess that means people should use myspace instead of facebook, black berries instead of smartphones, and mtv instead of... I dont know, youtube?

The 2nd and 3rd to last sentences are the most important part of your comment. They used to be something, and now they aren't and haven't been for a long time. No one owes them sympathy. If you like what they are making, buy it, support it. If you don't, don't buy it and don't care. They are a multi billion dollar corporation, putting that much nostalgic stock into them isn't going to net you anything, and it probably won't make them change. They are ignorant to where this industry is going and what people want; they're going to either effectively adapt or wither away. It's up to them, not us.

#20 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Nintendo is making its own bed.

#21 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Touch screens and motion controls clearly aren't the next step in video game controllers.

Don't two out of three of the newest consoles use touch screen controls? (I mean, once you ignore the fact that one of them is Nintendo?)

#22 Posted by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

@demoskinos: I've never played a Metroid game and don't plan on ever playing one!

#23 Posted by cthomer5000 (764 posts) -

Nintendo, like this blog post, have spent too much time reading the press clippings from their golden age. It's a capitalist world. What have you done for me lately?

#24 Edited by freakin9 (1113 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Touch screens and motion controls clearly aren't the next step in video game controllers.

That's a ridiculous statement. Ipads, Iphones, there's plenty of demand for touch interfaces outside of one video game console that failed. Just sweeping generalizations. I think Nintendo's failure was a simple one, their tablet wasn't innovative in any meaningful way, in fact it was really poor quality compared to the ipad. Also, people were just sick of the last generation of consoles. Not doling out next gen hardware was boneheaded.

Hell, you can even make a strong argument for motion controls being in demand. You have heard of VR right? It's been in the news a tad. The Wii was a hit also, and Kinect seems to be popular. People want new ways to play games, the Wii U just didn't deliver a new way that anyone gave a crap about.

I think Nintendo hoped they would be able to tap into the tablet crowd. Quite frankly, I think Nintendo spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to compete with Apple's handhelds. In the Wii U's case, to their detriment.

#25 Posted by crithon (3121 posts) -

I'm surprised you didn't show off Warioware sequences where they show off old consoles. Like the "Ultra Machine" the small pitching device.

#26 Posted by Demoskinos (14755 posts) -

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

#27 Edited by Wired_Abyss (38 posts) -

@mendelson9: The WiiU pro controller is probably one of my favorite controllers, and one of the few that fit my giant hands comfortably. I just wish I could connect it to my PC so I could play some games with it.

#28 Posted by Rebel_Scum (682 posts) -

I'm not emotionally attached to Nintendo hardware but I'd be disappointed if they stopped making hardware. Being in control of the hardware means they have full control over how we interact with their software. You think you're gonna see Microsoft or Sony create something new with regards to that? I doubt it.

Also that Atari controller in the top left of OP's picture post was pretty good for its time.

#29 Posted by FrankNelson (47 posts) -

@mendelson9: The WiiU pro controller is probably one of my favorite controllers, and one of the few that fit my giant hands comfortably. I just wish I could connect it to my PC so I could play some games with it.

http://gbatemp.net/threads/wii-u-pro-controller-to-pc-program-release.343159/

#30 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2679 posts) -

The only attachment I have to hardware is aesthetically. The first PlayStation looked great, gray with a hint of purple was well matched to the simple shapes of system and buttons. The Dreamcast was very nice looking too, and I appreciated that they did try for some connections of ideas that were interesting. Slotting in a screen memory card or a ruble pack to the Dreamcast controller was a very interesting idea that could have gone places if other modules were possible. I would even say the best looking system of last generation was Wii. Small, white, and sort of tilted back in its stand, that was a nice design I have to admit.

#31 Posted by MormonWarrior (2569 posts) -

Yeah Nintendo really had some good quality hardware. All my old Nintendo consoles still work.

How is the quality of the Wii U Pro Controller? That's kind the first "standard" controller Nintendo has put out.

I love the Wii U Pro Controller. Wish there were good drivers for PC use like the DualShock 4. It really feels good. The GBAtemp project isn't quite right...it treats the analog sticks as directional buttons rather than proper sticks.

I've really enjoyed the 3DS and Wii U so far, which is really refreshing because from about 2005-2012 I was really getting pretty bummed out by Nintendo's direction. Apart from Super Mario Galaxy (and 2) they just weren't making anything that I liked and their refusal to make an HD console, their strained third-party relations and their disconnect with the online age made me choose a 360 as my platform of choice, while the GameCube was easily my favorite of the previous generation. Nintendo's controllers and hardware design have historically been meaningful and innovative. Hopefully they stick around for a long time.

#32 Posted by afabs515 (1019 posts) -

It's great that you feel so passionately about Nintendo, and it's true that they have come up with plenty of outside-the-box ideas. However, that isn't necessarily a good thing. I owned every Nintendo system from the GBC through the Wii. While I definitely feel that Nintendo provides the greatest portable gaming experience, in recent years, I feel they have abandoned their hardcore fans in pursuit of the casual market. Both the Wii and Wii U were not made with hardcore gamers in mind. Nintendo's marketing of the Wii was very clear: it was a console that was meant to be enjoyed by the entire family, including kids, parents, and grandparents alike. When it was released, it was by far the weakest of the three consoles, and was unable to output an HD signal. But Nintendo was in the exact right place at the exact right time, and the Wii sold incredible numbers. Most of the games which came out on that system after the first year of launch, however, were super "casual," which was great for business, but bad for their image, at least in my eyes. It was when I realized Nintendo wasn't marketing to me, and so I sold my Wii one year after I got it for Christmas and bought an Xbox 360. Best gaming decision I ever made.

When the Wii U came out, I feel like Nintendo was trying to capture lightning in a bottle for the second time, which is why they stuck with the Wii brand. But, the casual market didn't bite a second time. Thanks to poor advertising, most of them didn't even realize the Wii U was a separate console, the hardware is again clearly underpowered, and the control scheme is nowhere near as innovative as people seem to want to believe. It's a tablet, which functions much like the second screen of a DS. I've never wanted that kind of experience on consoles. In fact, whenever a developer announces that a PS4 or XBOne game has tablet support, I roll my eyes and immediately become less excited about the game, but I digress. By adding a second screen and releasing underpowered hardware for the second console generation in a row, the Wii U fell into this unhappy middleground, at least as far as most of the people I've spoken to about it are concerned: the more casual gamers I've spoken to, if they were even aware of the console's existence, essentially said that it is too hardcore for them; the more hardcore said the console is too weak and lacks the third party support necessary to capture their interest, and some of them said that they wouldn't be fooled again like they were with the Wii, which they largely stopped playing less than 6 months after launch. Thus, Nintendo has so far failed to capture both the casual and hardcore markets with the Wii U. Maybe this can change with the upcoming releases of Mario Kart and Smash Bros, but I highly doubt Nintendo will make up the 7 million sales they failed to get as of March.

Sorry this post is so long, I'll wrap it up here though: the reason I don't want the Wii U or any similar Nintendo hardware is that Nintendo has become a company which markets gimmicks. The Wii controller, though successful, was a gimmick, as is the 3D on the 3DS, as is the tablet controller on the Wii U. People praise Nintendo for taking risks, and they are right to do so, but it simply didn't pay off this time in my eyes. I will most likely never get a Wii U, and wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo releases a new console halfway into this generation. I hope they do well, because only having MS and Sony in the market would be disappointing.

#33 Edited by Tom_omb (385 posts) -

@falserelic said:

@marcsman said:

Gamecube will be my last Nintendo system period.

I felt like you've read my mind with that comment, I agree.

I'm done with Nintendo. The Hardware won't matter if there's no games that interests me. To me most of their games are kiddy, and on top of that not alot of devs wants to make games for the Wii U.

Similar words were said to me by my 11 year old friend in 1996 when I got my N64 and Super Mario 64. History has proven this game is one of the greatest ever made. I can't stand when people use the word "kiddy" dismissively. An expressive cartoony art style does not make a patronizing experience for babies. Too many games are targeted at angsty teenagers who only want brooding murder simulators. Nintendo is a much needed breath of fresh air.

Many people here are saying Nintendo's time of innovation is over. The Wii U is a great piece of hardware. There's more to play on it then Microsoft and Sony's new machines. I really want a PS4, but Between my Wii U, 3DS, and PC I'm having trouble finding an excuse to get one.

True, Nintendo isn't perfect, they need to play catch up when it comes to providing a better online service. They could learn from Sony by having more cross functionality with the 3DS. And they could do a better job and leveraging their deep catalog of games on the virtual console.

Nintendo remains among the most creative and innovative game developers and that extends to their hardware. A future where Nintendo no longer develops hardware is not good for the industry as a whole. I hope recent financial failures will be a humbling kick in the pants they need. They can benefit from taking a few notes from the competition.

#34 Edited by believer258 (11785 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

@demoskinos: I've never played a Metroid game and don't plan on ever playing one!

You are certifiably bonkers.

@video_game_king said:

@believer258 said:

Touch screens and motion controls clearly aren't the next step in video game controllers.

Don't two out of three of the newest consoles use touch screen controls? (I mean, once you ignore the fact that one of them is Nintendo?)

@freakin9 said:

@believer258 said:

Touch screens and motion controls clearly aren't the next step in video game controllers.

That's a ridiculous statement. Ipads, Iphones, there's plenty of demand for touch interfaces outside of one video game console that failed. Just sweeping generalizations. I think Nintendo's failure was a simple one, their tablet wasn't innovative in any meaningful way, in fact it was really poor quality compared to the ipad. Also, people were just sick of the last generation of consoles. Not doling out next gen hardware was boneheaded.

Hell, you can even make a strong argument for motion controls being in demand. You have heard of VR right? It's been in the news a tad. The Wii was a hit also, and Kinect seems to be popular. People want new ways to play games, the Wii U just didn't deliver a new way that anyone gave a crap about.

I think Nintendo hoped they would be able to tap into the tablet crowd. Quite frankly, I think Nintendo spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to compete with Apple's handhelds. In the Wii U's case, to their detriment.

Neither of them have been as important or as revolutionary as a gamepad or, especially, an analog stick. Modern games couldn't exist as they are now without those innovations. Touch screens and motion controls were not those kinds of innovations.

I realize that touch-screen phone and tablet games are very important to the casual crowd, but they don't really get invested in games. Most of those games are just distractions. And I realize that some tablet games have honestly had people really interested, but again, those are few and far between. Touch screens are too limited to really be "the next revolutionary input method". They're not going to become a necessary and integral part of gaming. Simulating buttons with them has proven to be nothing better than "clunky", and moving a character around a 3D space never feels right. Players have no tactile feedback whatsoever. And so the only things left are swipes and taps that let you cut fruit, shoot a bird, or play Peggle. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those kinds of games - I've played Angry Birds and Peggle has a permanent residence on my phone - but games that work well and only work well on phones and tablets aren't going to be memorable or brilliant. (As an aside, Angry Birds, Peggle, and Fruit Ninja can all be played with traditional control schemes).

I've never seen or played a motion controlled game that was both very well-made and impossible to do without motion controls. The only thing that really comes to mind is Pandora's Tower, but even that seems like something that could be just as well done with quick time events instead of pulls from or jabs toward the screen. You could maybe make a case for shooting star bits (or whatever they're called) in Super Mario Galaxy. That particular mechanic should not be the best case for motion controls. You would think that 8 years after the Wii and 11 after the Eyetoy, someone would have thought of a way to make a game with motion controls that can't be done with anything else if they were really that important.

I'm not saying that either of these things aren't welcome innovations and I'm not saying that they can't be used in interesting ways, but touch screens and motion controls are not going to become as ubiquitous as the gamepad and analog stick, as much as Nintendo would like to see that happen. That's what I'm trying to get at. They're not basic, fundamental parts of game design as we know it today.

All of that said, I do welcome change and experimentation and innovation and building on what we already know, I just don't think it's going to happen with touch screens and motion controls. Neither input exists to accommodate a need like the gamepad or the analog stick. Even the DS and 3DS touch screens aren't used all that often.

Online
#35 Edited by Tom_omb (385 posts) -

For gaming I'll take the accuracy of a stylus based touch screen over multi-touch devices any day. Phantom Hourglass is the greatest example of touch screen gaming I can think of, you can't do that with a finger. Sure, I've had fun with Cut the Rope and Drop 7, but I'd much rather play games on a device designed for games rather then a phone. I know not everyone enjoys drawing, but it means a lot to me that I can draw on my 3DS and Wii U.

#36 Posted by ripelivejam (3791 posts) -

is this the thread where broken records are played?

#37 Posted by Slag (4242 posts) -

I've always liked their hardware. Usually easy to use and work wells and certainly my life was easier when I felt Nintendo was a one stop shop for me.

I missed the Genesis for a few games, but in general never really felt the need for two consoles until Playstation took the Final Fantasy series.

I do think the gaming is better off with a healthy Nintendo I'd much rather lose Sony or Microsoft than them, which means having relevant hardware from Nintendo. That's always been part and parcel to what they do. Not everything Nintendo puts out is a hit but they almost always have a unique spin on what they do.

#38 Posted by Brendan (7753 posts) -

I don't "wish" for anything but quality games. If enough of those come out on Nintendo hardware then I'll buy Nintendo hardware. If not, then I'll buy games for their competitors machines.

#39 Posted by Quarters (1676 posts) -

I haven't enjoyed a Nintendo system since the SNES. So no.

#40 Posted by Wired_Abyss (38 posts) -

@wired_abyss said:

@mendelson9: The WiiU pro controller is probably one of my favorite controllers, and one of the few that fit my giant hands comfortably. I just wish I could connect it to my PC so I could play some games with it.

http://gbatemp.net/threads/wii-u-pro-controller-to-pc-program-release.343159/

Well, I know what I'm going to be doing.

Thanks for the info!

#41 Posted by cthomer5000 (764 posts) -

Also that Atari controller in the top left of OP's picture post was pretty good for its time.

Agreed. I love the Player One Podcast because they smack down this retro-hater bullshit at every turn. Yes, everything sucks with 30 years hindsight... it doesn't mean it wasn't great at the time. When I was playing Combat, Night Driver, and Circus Atari as a kid, it was literally inconceivable that there might have been a better way to control those games - because it had not been invented yet. To pretend like it sucked at the time is absolutely ridiculous and should be punishable by death.

#42 Edited by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

@believer258: You just found that out?

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

I can live with myself knowing this. From what I've seen of Metroid, it doesn't look interesting to me. Although I do remember like a decade (or longer?) ago, I looked at a copy of some Metroid game for Gamecube at Toys R' Us and put it back down. Who knows what my opinion of the series would be now had I got it.

#43 Edited by believer258 (11785 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

@believer258: You just found that out?

@demoskinos said:

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

I can live with myself knowing this. From what I've seen of Metroid, it doesn't look interesting to me. Although I do remember like a decade (or longer?) ago, I looked at a copy of some Metroid game for Gamecube at Toys R' Us and put it back down. Who knows what my opinion of the series would be now had I got it.

Super Metroid is one of the best games of all time. And I know you're just writing that off as some twerp on the internet shouting out his favorite game (as it is), but it's not just my favorite. It is, very widely, considered one of the best games of all time. Have you ever thought that it might be worth your time and energy to find out why? Perhaps there is something worth taking away from this game that has been praised by everyone who has played it since its release 20 years ago? The number of games that have held up over time as well as Super Metroid probably doesn't extend into the triple digits. That is no exaggeration.

Of course, it's your call, your time, and (if you choose to play it in a legal fashion) your money. But you really ought to reconsider giving the series a shot.

Online
#44 Posted by ripelivejam (3791 posts) -

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

this along with maybe secret of mana

#45 Edited by BlaineBlaine (463 posts) -

@cthomer5000 said:

@rebel_scum said:

Also that Atari controller in the top left of OP's picture post was pretty good for its time.

Agreed. I love the Player One Podcast because they smack down this retro-hater bullshit at every turn. Yes, everything sucks with 30 years hindsight... it doesn't mean it wasn't great at the time. When I was playing Combat, Night Driver, and Circus Atari as a kid, it was literally inconceivable that there might have been a better way to control those games - because it had not been invented yet. To pretend like it sucked at the time is absolutely ridiculous and should be punishable by death.

I too played Atari as a kid. I loved Cosmic Ark. And you're right!

This is a quote from my post. Let me know what part you appear to disagree with:

It's a nightmare knowing what we now know.

If I'm condemning them for anything it's for NOT inventing a better option. And I'm not condemning them. I'm lauding Nintendo for doing it.

There's nothing that would have prevented Atari from inventing the joypad design that they to would eventually embrace. They just didn't. Neither good nor bad. Just is.

#46 Posted by Demoskinos (14755 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

@believer258: You just found that out?

@demoskinos said:

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

I can live with myself knowing this. From what I've seen of Metroid, it doesn't look interesting to me. Although I do remember like a decade (or longer?) ago, I looked at a copy of some Metroid game for Gamecube at Toys R' Us and put it back down. Who knows what my opinion of the series would be now had I got it.

Super Metroid is one of the best games of all time. And I know you're just writing that off as some twerp on the internet shouting out his favorite game (as it is), but it's not just my favorite. It is, very widely, considered one of the best games of all time. Have you ever thought that it might be worth your time and energy to find out why? Perhaps there is something worth taking away from this game that has been praised by everyone who has played it since its release 20 years ago? The number of games that have held up over time as well as Super Metroid probably doesn't extend into the triple digits. That is no exaggeration.

Of course, it's your call, your time, and (if you choose to play it in a legal fashion) your money. But you really ought to reconsider giving the series a shot.

Indeed there is a reason along with SotN that they together basically created a sub-genre of games that are still widely emulated by games today. Still, your time is your time but honestly man Super Metroid and even Metroid Prime are two of the most well crafted games Nintendo has ever produced.

#47 Posted by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@awesomeusername said:

@believer258: You just found that out?

@demoskinos said:

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

I can live with myself knowing this. From what I've seen of Metroid, it doesn't look interesting to me. Although I do remember like a decade (or longer?) ago, I looked at a copy of some Metroid game for Gamecube at Toys R' Us and put it back down. Who knows what my opinion of the series would be now had I got it.

Super Metroid is one of the best games of all time. And I know you're just writing that off as some twerp on the internet shouting out his favorite game (as it is), but it's not just my favorite. It is, very widely, considered one of the best games of all time. Have you ever thought that it might be worth your time and energy to find out why? Perhaps there is something worth taking away from this game that has been praised by everyone who has played it since its release 20 years ago? The number of games that have held up over time as well as Super Metroid probably doesn't extend into the triple digits. That is no exaggeration.

Of course, it's your call, your time, and (if you choose to play it in a legal fashion) your money. But you really ought to reconsider giving the series a shot.

Indeed there is a reason along with SotN that they together basically created a sub-genre of games that are still widely emulated by games today. Still, your time is your time but honestly man Super Metroid and even Metroid Prime are two of the most well crafted games Nintendo has ever produced.

Is the game available on the Wii or 3DS marketplace? I'd be willing to try it if it's on there. There's no way I'd pay $30+ for a copy of the Snes version.

#48 Posted by believer258 (11785 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

@believer258 said:

@awesomeusername said:

@believer258: You just found that out?

@demoskinos said:

@awesomeusername: Man, you're missing out Super Metroid still one of the best games ever.

I can live with myself knowing this. From what I've seen of Metroid, it doesn't look interesting to me. Although I do remember like a decade (or longer?) ago, I looked at a copy of some Metroid game for Gamecube at Toys R' Us and put it back down. Who knows what my opinion of the series would be now had I got it.

Super Metroid is one of the best games of all time. And I know you're just writing that off as some twerp on the internet shouting out his favorite game (as it is), but it's not just my favorite. It is, very widely, considered one of the best games of all time. Have you ever thought that it might be worth your time and energy to find out why? Perhaps there is something worth taking away from this game that has been praised by everyone who has played it since its release 20 years ago? The number of games that have held up over time as well as Super Metroid probably doesn't extend into the triple digits. That is no exaggeration.

Of course, it's your call, your time, and (if you choose to play it in a legal fashion) your money. But you really ought to reconsider giving the series a shot.

Indeed there is a reason along with SotN that they together basically created a sub-genre of games that are still widely emulated by games today. Still, your time is your time but honestly man Super Metroid and even Metroid Prime are two of the most well crafted games Nintendo has ever produced.

Is the game available on the Wii or 3DS marketplace? I'd be willing to try it if it's on there. There's no way I'd pay $30+ for a copy of the Snes version.

It is on the Wii Virtual Console.

Online
#49 Posted by Generic_username (600 posts) -

I like Nintendo. I like my 3DS. I hope they keep making stuff. They make good things.