It might help things a bit, but is the shell simply an oversized holder for the
controller or is it going to be a full on dock with the missing buttons and analog stick of a more normal controller?
Besides that, it is just the issue of how split the Nintendo controller market is and the possible annoyance of having to constantl switch around the
Ok, I have this
controller, but I cannot control this one game I am playing. Wait, have the developers decided I need two of them? <goes to buy a second one> No, that did not do it, maybe I need that analog plug-in stick? <goes to buy that, fiddles with connecting it> Wait, do I need an additional plug-in device? <goes out to buy that, fiddles with connecting it> Or maybe I need that plug-in, but using both
controllers? <goes to buy an identical plug-in, fiddles with connecting it> Wait, wait, wait, maybe it needs the shell thingie to try an simulate an actual controller... <goes to buy this, fiddles with putting it together, have to wondery why I don't have a standard controller with the 3D motion sensing remote as a plug in>
Damn, does this still suck at controlling? Oh, right, it can use the Gamecube controller? Alright, let me go grab that... <hunts down for GC controllers he still has to keep from a previous system for some reason, fiddle with disconnecting all the junk listed above and hooking up my GC controller, seriously beginning to ponder...> Hmm...now why was there not a controller in the first place?
Yeah, that is all a bit of a worst case scenario thing, but you get the idea. On a pure design level, Nintendo is already making it clear that it actually does not have one, main specific controller for its system/games. On a purely
design/function basis, that is a failure. By having even the add-ons I alluded to above, much less any other potential ones, the big "N" is splitting the market of sorts; What will be standard? What will come with the system? How many variations will there be? How much will all this junk cost? Again, on an abstract design basis, the player really should have at least one main, constant form on control - maybe one you can add onto or expand - but one main, constant form that covers a wide range of bases. Once again, I question why there is not a more standard controller with 3D motion sensing? Falling back on something like the Gamecube controller just solidifies this from a functional perspective. "Here is our brand new design, our brand new hardware, our new direction, and now I am about to show you our revolution to gaming...but...er....hey you, yeah you, in the back...can you grab me the old
controller so I can show you the future?" Lastly, just look at Nintendo's own video. By Nintendo's own example, it is not
a precise control. It is like the FPS games on consoles; given the limited precission in input, they have to either support alternate control method(s) (mouse)or dumb down the game (decreased damage, auto-aiming, etc.) to account for it. Control 101: It has to be precise, else it adds a burden to the playing experience.
It is like the Chewbacca defense, it just makes no sense.
As ever, we will wait and see. You can make it work well to the extent of building games solely around this device or heavily working on the games to account for the limitations of the device, but I hava a lot of serious doubts with what is presented now. Control shoud, ideally, be seamless to the player; it is the one barrier (other than a television) between the game and the player. Unless this thing is amazingly precise, at which point I will eat my crow and sing its praise, the fad/gimmick is winning out over the function. If I end up using a GC controller for everything, what was the point?
Thinking a 3D sensing controller with expansion ports would be better,
Ray f3r r3@l
-----http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMardenhttp://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=ray_mardenhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/I love you, mom.
Everything is awesome!!!http://www.kindafunny.com/I love you, mom.